Pardon Me, but Who Was Just Pardoned?

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order granting pardons and commuting the sentences for Americans charged with crimes concerning their actions on Jan. 6, 2021, to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

These pardons are all inclusive of the defendants’ criminal convictions, including previous sexual assault and domestic violence charges. Since the pardons were announced, several public-facing platforms (e.g. the Department of Justice, USA Today) removed their defendant tracking pages, making it harder to fully grasp the context of and charges against defendants.

Who are these nearly 1,600 criminals that President Trump has pardoned and how violent were their actions on and during the days surrounding the Capitol riot?

The Prosecution Project (tPP) is an open-sourced intelligence research project that tracks cases of political violence involving a felony charge in the U.S. since 1990. “Political violence” includes terrorism, extremism, bias-motivated crimes, hate crimes and ideological-based attacks on political views, religion, race, gender and citizenship. Alongside my fellow researchers (Michael Loadenthal, Ph.D.; Bella Tuffias-Moore, Carter Langham, Sarah Spurrier, Samantha Fagone and Hallie Filson), we analyzed how authorities used crowd-sourced policing (CSP) to identify and prosecute the defendants who participated in the riot with a random sample of 521 Jan. 6 defendants. 

The raw data to our analysis is linked below and our full analysis is likely to be published by the Terrorism and Social Media Conference Special issue journal this year. All statistics noted below come from our data analysis.

One area of our study focused on the “brazenness” of the defendant’s actions, considering the connection between the method of identification, the defendant’s actions and their level of concern for detection. We define brazenness as the lack of concern for the illegality of one’s actions and the belief that one is acting justly, thus absolving oneself of crimes. To rate a candidate’s brazenness, we looked for patterns in a defendant’s efforts to destroy evidence, how they were identified, the distance they traveled to the Capitol, their affiliation with a group and their self-disclosure to authorities. 

Crowd-sourced policing’s use spans the primitivity of a rumor to the complexity of tracking and identifying the 2014 Boston Marathon bombers or protesters at the 2024 Gaza Strip protests. CSP occurs when authorities ask the public for help in identifying defendants. With Jan. 6 CSP, the FBI would release a picture of an unidentified Capitol rioter and a “Be on the Lookout for” (“BOLO”) request for the public to help identify the suspect. Our study looked at both the use of official CSP and self-initiated assistance from the public to bring authorities’ attention to suspects without the formal issue of a BOLO.

The majority of riot attendees were not proactively forthcoming with authorities or through traditional media, creating a reliance on investigative efforts and public input over voluntary cooperation. Authorities thus turned to technology and social media to heavily aid their identification of the Jan. 6 defendants. Many who participated in the Capitol riot documented their actions through photos and videos, subsequently shared on social media. Much of this data was immediately archived by online acquaintances to preserve for future evidence, taking screenshots of messages, Facebook live videos and posts on several platforms. The public then sent this evidence to the FBI as evidence and in some instances first introduced the FBI to these defendants. 

In our analysis, 63% of Jan. 6 defendants were identified, to some extent by social media, most often from self-posting or live-streaming on a Meta platform like Facebook or Instagram. Many of the defendants were seemingly not concerned that posting about their Capitol activity would broadcast their criminal actions and increase their likelihood of facing prosecution. The defendants’ brazenness is witnessed in how they posted evidence of their crimes or otherwise discussed their role in the riot on social media. leaving their digital footprint as evidence.

A small portion of the Jan. 6 defendants (18%) were identified by official CSP, which is smaller than we predicted. One could theorize that because the number of defendants identified by the public was so large, the FBI did not need to issue a formal BOLO request; a coworker, cousin, or neighbor likely called in a tip to authorities before the FBI had time to submit a formal request for identification help. 

How “just” is our justice system if people who overtly break the law, harm and even kill police officers and work to thwart our democracy are forgiven with the wave of an executive order’s wand?

Our study found that the public had a role in identifying 59% of defendants. While our study did not analyze the public’s reasoning in turning in their fellow family, friends, coworkers and acquaintances to authorities, here’s a theory: The public knew that the actions of their fellow countrymen opposed the best interests of our democratic electoral processes. They witnessed the brazenness of their rioting acquaintances bragging about their actions at the Capitol and felt they should do something. These soon-to-be tipsters felt a civic duty to ensure justice was served to those breaking the laws meant to keep our democracy afloat.

So, did the rioters feel guilty enough about their actions to turn themselves in and admit culpability? Overall, a small but not insignificant portion of defendants admitted their crimes to authorities of their own volition. Nearly 30% of defendants self-disclosed their presence at the Capitol at some point in the investigation (e.g., submitting to an FBI interview, news interview, or contacting police themselves). This statistic could demonstrate the brazenness of defendants who willingly identified themselves, thinking they did nothing wrong and had nothing to hide. 

Contrastingly, it could also mean defendants feared legal repercussions and thought they could potentially face lesser charges by being forthcoming with authorities. Regardless of the reasoning, police could not rely on self-disclosure as a first means of identification as less than 4% of defendants were primarily identified by turning themselves in.

Defendants also displayed brazenness in their failure to destroy evidence. One-fifth of defendants identified by social media did destroy evidence of their involvement by deleting posts, messages, videos, or entire social media accounts. On the whole, most defendants (84%) did not attempt to destroy evidence. Those with a BOLO issued by the FBI destroyed evidence at similar rates to those without a BOLO, indicating that being considered noteworthy by law enforcement did not affect the likelihood of evidence destruction. Defendants displayed brazenness by wearing company uniforms or logos, not covering their faces, or wearing clothing displaying other identifiers like their YouTube screen name. In all, many defendants did not take much care in concealing their identities, making those who covered their faces the minority.

Just how violent were the defendants who stormed the Capitol? In our sample, 13% of the defendants were charged with assaulting a police officer (with or without a weapon) and/or possession of a firearm, other weapon, or explosive device. Some defendants brought weapons with them (e.g. pepper spray or a gun) or found an item at or around the Capitol (e.g. a metal pole or a riot shield). Our analysis also tracked the number of injuries and deaths each defendant caused. 7% of defendants injured at least one officer or fellow rioter and a handful of defendants maimed 8 or more officers, from a conservative count. 

While these numbers seem small, a defendant’s possession of dangerous and potentially fatal weapons could raise concerns as to how pardoning them is in the interest of justice. Many defendants were charged for merely being part of the chaos at the riot without any violent actions, but regardless, in the eyes of the law, they have all been pardoned just the same.

So what does this mean for America that these defendants have all been pardoned by the president, regardless of how violently they wanted to hang Mike Pence or kill Nancy Pelosi? On Jan. 6, 14% of the defendants were already affiliated with a group such as the Proud Boys, III Percenters, or Oath Keepers. Members of these far-right, anti-government militia groups meant to stir up domestic trouble and had been planning a riot at the Capitol for weeks. This block of defendants was prepared to invade the Capitol and take it by force, if necessary. While our study was conducted purely to synthesize data on the defendants and not opine on the significance of the aftermath in our political setting, I’m writing to take our study a step further and offer my personal opinion on the significance of this pardoning.

Pardoning defendants’ brazen actions could raise some questions: How “just” is our justice system if people who overtly break the law, harm and even kill police officers and work to thwart our democracy are forgiven with the wave of an executive order’s wand? This sets a dangerous precedent by allowing future politically violent actors to believe they can storm governmental property and not serve a full punishment for their actions. These pardons, especially for violent offenders, will be seen as a blemish on our justice system and in our country’s long-term fight for criminal justice. No one should be above the law and yet these pardons imply otherwise. Pardoning the rioters is insulting to all those who feared for their safety as an angry mob approached the head of our legislative branch, including officers, Congressional members and their staff.

Several civic leaders have said that democracy is not a noun but a verb; it is an act that must be carried out consistently instead of just an idea. We must consciously and purposefully activate democracy by ensuring that our fellow Americans have access to voting in fair and free elections and respect those results. We must hold elected officials and fellow citizens accountable in instances of confirmed wrongdoing, violence, or injustice. Placing select “patriots” above the law disrupts the scales of justice that a solid democracy rests on. 

---

Cameron Tiefenthaler is a 2024 graduate of Miami University and has been a researcher with the Prosecution Project (tPP) since May 2022. To access tPP’s data on the Jan. 6 defendants, visit our webpage.