DOJ Now Targeting Peaceful January 6 Protesters

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is shifting its focus in prosecuting America First citizens who support President Donald Trump following the events of January 6, 2021, now targeting not only those who engaged in violent acts or entered the Capitol but also thousands who were merely found in restricted areas around the building.

Last week, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves announced this change in strategy, emphasizing that anyone who knowingly entered a restricted area will now be considered guilty of committing a federal crime.

To date, over 1,200 individuals have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol protests, with around 730 pleading guilty and an additional 170 convicted at trial. This includes a range of charges from misdemeanors like trespassing to more serious offenses like assaulting law enforcement officers and seditious conspiracy.

In a recent political campaign speech, Joe Biden bragged about the number of prosecutions and convictions his DOJ has achieved against January 6 defendants. His reelection campaign appears now to be solely focused on criticizing President Trump and at least half of the nation as “dangers to democracy” instead of discussing his own administration’s pathetic track record in office.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has recently described the January 6 defendants as “hostages.” While offering sharp criticism for the political nature of the prosecutions, he vowed clemency for many of the defendants when he returns to the White House.

This expansion of the DOJ’s scope aligns with a recent federal appeals court ruling. A ruling handed down last week found that January 6 defendants could be found culpable of “disorderly” or “disruptive” conduct inside the Capitol, even if they were not personally violent or destructive.

The ruling found the circumstances of each case must be taken into account when judging the guilt or innocence of individual defendants. The panel of judges found that even nonviolent, passive conduct can be deemed “disorderly” in some circumstances, drawing a distinction between actions that might be benign in one setting but “disruptive” in another.