The problem has to do with vague language; one judge is asking just what crimes are included in the pardons?
From Politico: “At the heart of the controversy is the vague language of Trump’s mass pardons for Jan. 6 rioters. He granted clemency to anyone “convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Jan. 6 defendants have repeatedly argued that the language is so broad it covers other crimes that have nothing to do with Jan. 6 but were discovered during the vast criminal probe stemming from the Capitol attack.”
Here are some examples of the problem:
“. . . the Justice Department had moved in recent days to drop a slew of other cases against Jan. 6 defendants who were on the hook for other federal felonies. They included Jeremy Brown, who was serving a seven-year sentence in Florida for possessing grenades and classified information; Elias Costianes, who was serving a two-year sentence for possessing illegal guns and drugs; and Daniel Ball, a repeat offender facing firearms charges in Florida.
The common thread, Assistant US Attorney Blackwell when questioned told Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump-appointee, was that those convictions were the result of FBI searches conducted as part of the Jan. 6 investigation. That makes them “related to” the Capitol riot, under the terms of Trump’s pardon, and those crimes would not have been discovered were it not for the Jan. 6 probe, the prosecutor said.
Judge Friedrich, in this questioning, was demanding information from the Trump administration about the scope of Trump’s vaguely worded pardons. The Judge was alerted by the pardon of Dan Wilson and the DOJ’s changing position on what exactly he was being pardoned for.
Per Politico: Three weeks ago, the Justice Department was emphatic: Donald Trump may have pardoned Kentuckian Dan Wilson for crimes he committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, but that pardon did not extend to his unrelated conviction for illegally storing firearms at his home.
Then, on Tuesday, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington reversed course, saying it had “received further clarity” about Trump’s true intent, which included pardoning Wilson for the gun case. Prosecutors did not explain how they arrived at this new “clarity.”
“Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell said the department’s understanding of Trump’s pardon had evolved in recent weeks — but she did not say how or why. She said this shift was the reason the Justice Department had moved in recent days to drop a slew of other cases against Jan. 6 defendants who were on the hook for other federal felonies. ” (Politico)
Judge Freidrich noted “It can’t be the case that a pardon can be issued in vague terms and months later, the president can make a determination of what it means,” Friedrich said. “It’s not my job to craft the pardon language.”