Brian Cole Jr., the man charged with planting pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on the eve of Jan. 6, has asked a federal judge to dismiss the charges against him, arguing he falls within the scope of the pardons President Trump issued to Jan. 6 defendants.
Cole, who has pleaded not guilty, faces counts including interstate transportation of explosives and malicious attempt to use explosives. Prosecutors filed those charges late last year after the investigation into the devices, which did not detonate but were described by the FBI as viable, remained unsolved for nearly five years. Trump administration officials had said solving the case was a priority.
In a motion filed Monday, Cole’s lawyers say the criminal allegations are inextricably linked to the political events of Jan. 6 and therefore covered by the president’s broad pardons for offenses related to the Capitol events. They cite filings noting that Cole told the FBI he traveled to Washington, D.C., to attend a 2020 election-related protest, and they emphasize that although the bombs were allegedly placed on Jan. 5, they were discovered the afternoon of Jan. 6.
Cole’s attorneys argue the pardon language should be read according to its plain meaning and that the phrase related to can encompass conduct that did not occur on Jan. 6 if it was connected to the events of that day.
It is not settled whether the president’s order applies here. The pardons, issued hours after Mr. Trump returned to the White House last year, provided relief to roughly 1,500 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, wiping away convictions for most and directing the Justice Department to seek dismissals for those not yet convicted. The order covers offenses related to events that occurred at or near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and Cole’s alleged placement of the bombs on Jan. 5 leaves room for legal dispute over whether his conduct falls inside that definition.
Previous cases have already tested the limits of the pardon directive. In several prosecutions, searches of Jan. 6 defendants’ homes turned up illegal firearms, producing additional weapons charges. In some instances the government argued the pardons should extend to those related offenses, and at least one defendant received a supplementary pardon to cover gun charges. In a separate case, Edward Kelley faced charges both for entering the Capitol and for threatening FBI agents who investigated him; prosecutors contended the pardon did not cover the threats, and he was later sentenced to life in prison.
Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said it is possible Cole’s alleged conduct could be considered covered by the pardons and called the situation an unintended consequence of the broad and vague wording in the presidential order. He warned that when criminal liability is left to the literal wording of a pardon rather than the underlying law, unintended results can follow.
CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on Cole’s motion.