New Trump Pardons Widen Reach to Riot-Related Cases
US Capitol Police officers stand near security fencing at the US Capitol in Washington on Friday. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
President Trump has granted pardons to two individuals convicted of crimes connected to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, including one who had already received a presidential reprieve and another who threatened FBI agents, the administration announced Saturday. Ed Martin, a Justice Department pardon attorney and supporter of the Jan. 6 rioters, shared the news online. The move extends Trump’s previous clemency efforts for those prosecuted in connection with the riot, according to the New York Times.
The newly pardoned include:
-
Daniel Edwin Wilson: The Kentucky militiaman previously received a pardon for his actions during the Capitol attack. However, he was later convicted on separate weapons charges after federal authorities discovered illegal firearms and ammunition at his home during a riot-related investigation. Wilson’s attorneys argued that the original pardon should cover these charges, but a federal judge ruled in March that the earlier clemency applied only to offenses directly tied to the Capitol events. Wilson, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to impede or injure officers, became a prominent figure among supporters of Jan. 6 defendants. He was sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison for conspiracy and illegal firearms possession.
-
Suzanne Kaye: The Florida woman served 18 months in prison for threatening FBI agents who contacted her about potential involvement in the Capitol riot. Court documents indicate that although Kaye denied being at the Capitol, she posted videos online threatening agents ahead of an interview she had agreed to. Prosecutors described her threats as “part of the ubiquity of violent political rhetoric that causes serious harm to our communities,” according to the AP. A White House official noted that Kaye suffers from “stress-induced seizures” and experienced one when the jury read its verdict, describing the case as “clearly a case of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted with an excessive sentence.”
About Post Author
