A federal defendant accused of planting pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters is asking a judge to throw out his case, arguing President Donald Trump’s sweeping Jan. 6 pardon applies to him.
The request is laid out in a new court filing that says Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 pardons for Jan. 6 defendants cover Brian J. Cole Jr. and should end the prosecution.
Join the Discussion
What Cole is charged with
Brian J. Cole Jr. is accused of planting explosive devices outside the headquarters of the RNC and DNC in Washington, D.C., on the eve of Jan. 6, 2021. The devices did not explode, and the defense says they caused no physical injury.
Surveillance footage released by the FBI shows the suspected pipe bomber walking near the DNC on Jan. 5, 2021.
Cole was also ordered to be held while awaiting trial, according to the case materials described in the source report.
The pardon at issue
Trump issued the pardons on his first day in office, Jan. 20, 2025.
In the motion, Cole’s lawyers point to language stating the pardon applies to individuals “convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The defense argues that wording covers Cole and, as they frame it, means he should be immune from prosecution.
The defense filing
The motion to dismiss was filed in U.S. District Court by defense attorneys Mario Williams and John Shoreman, who argue the government’s own narrative in the case “inextricably” tethers Cole to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
They cite Department of Justice connections between the bombs and Jan. 6, including the “timing and location,” and the allegation that Cole drove to Washington “to attend a protest concerning the outcome of the 2020 election.”
“By the government’s own telling, this is exactly the kind of case that President Trump's January 20, 2025 Presidential Pardon was invoked to reach,” the attorneys wrote.
The filing adds: “The Pardon, like it or not, applies to Mr. Cole, based on the ordinary and plain meaning of the Pardon’s language as applied to the relevant facts in this case.”
And it asks the court for a direct outcome: “Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Mr. Cole requests that this Motion be granted and the charges against him dismissed, in their entirety.”
The Dempsey comparison
To bolster their argument, Cole’s team points to the case of David Dempsey, who was sentenced to 20 years for what prosecutors described as “vicious and protracted” assaults on police officers. The defense highlights that Dempsey was labeled a “domestic terrorist” by some officials and still received a full pardon.
The defense also argues it would be a “grave injustice” to prosecute Cole, emphasizing that the devices never exploded and caused no physical injury.
What happens next
The government is expected to challenge the motion.
