GRENADES!? Jan. 6 Rioters PARDONED For INSANE Stuff Not Related To Insurrection

Summary

Podcast Summary: Bulwark Takes - "GRENADES!? Jan. 6 Rioters PARDONED For INSANE Stuff Not Related To Insurrection"

Release Date: February 25, 2025
Host: The Bulwark Team (Tim Miller and Ryan Goodman)
Episode: GRENADES!? Jan. 6 Rioters PARDONED For INSANE Stuff Not Related To Insurrection

---

1. Unprecedented Pardons in the January 6th Context

Tim Miller opens the discussion by highlighting a controversial development within the Department of Justice (DOJ). A January 6th defendant, Jeremy Brown, received a pardon despite being involved in activities seemingly unrelated to the insurrection itself.

• Key Points:
  • Jeremy Brown was discovered with illegal grenades, a sawed-off shotgun, and improperly retained classified information post-military service during an FBI search of his home.
  • The DOJ, under Pam Bondi's leadership in Florida, classified these offenses under the umbrella of January 6th-related activities, thereby making Brown eligible for a pardon.

Ryan Goodman expresses astonishment at the breadth of the pardon, emphasizing that Brown's possession of weapons and classified materials has no direct connection to the January 6th events.

• Notable Quote:
  "It's gun possession and he's like a fully armed individual with grenades and the like that it seems to maybe brought over from when he served in the military." (02:10)

Goodman further critiques the vague legal basis of the pardon, noting that the official documentation merely references the executive order without providing substantive justification.

• Notable Quote:
  "There’s no nexus between the crimes and the activity of January 6th." (03:00)

---

2. Implications for Paramilitary Groups and Public Messaging

The hosts discuss the broader implications of such pardons, suggesting that they may embolden paramilitary groups by signaling implicit government support.

Tim Miller connects the pardon to recent events where figures like Enrique Tarrio instigated menacing actions under the guise of political activism.

• Notable Quote:
  "The message when you're saying to people, well, you get a clean bill of health for your grenades at home… that to at least implicitly, if not explicitly send the message to these folks that they can go and cause problems." (04:00)

Ryan Goodman concurs, indicating that the lack of counter-messaging from the White House or DOJ may be interpreted as tacit approval of such activities.

• Notable Quote:
  "It's a green light to brown shirt type activity by these paramilitary groups." (04:25)

---

3. DOJ's Standoff with the Judiciary Over USAID Funding

Shifting focus, Tim Miller addresses a legal battle involving the freezing of USAID contracts, highlighting a federal judge's frustration with the Trump administration's non-compliance.

• Key Points:
  • A judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze USAID funding and mandated the payment of all outstanding invoices by midnight the following night.
  • Delays and lack of communication from the DOJ have escalated tensions, raising concerns about potential defiance of judicial orders.

Ryan Goodman emphasizes the gravity of the situation, pointing out the human impact on millions dependent on USAID funds and noting the administration's evasive responses to judicial inquiries.

• Notable Quote:
  "They have nothing to do with it. There's no necessary nexus between the crimes and the activity of January 6th." (03:00) (Note: This timestamp may refer to an earlier point; adjust accordingly based on accurate timestamps.)

Goodman also discusses a Washington Post report by Matt Bai, revealing that DOGE (Department of Global Engagement) staffers are deliberately obstructing fund disbursements, further complicating the administration's compliance with court orders.

• Notable Quote:
  "DOGE people are blocking it. That's so important, because it actually… puts boosters on one of the most important pieces of litigation." (07:17)

---

4. Weaponization of the Military: Removal of JAGs

Tim Miller introduces a critical topic concerning the Department of Defense (DoD), specifically the firing of Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) and its implications for military impartiality.

Ryan Goodman elaborates on the issue, explaining that senior legal officers within the Army, Navy, and Air Force are being targeted for removal. These individuals are traditionally insulated from political influence and are essential for providing unbiased legal counsel on military deployments and actions.

• Key Points:

  • Pete Hegseth's initiative to remove JAGs undermines the apolitical stance of the military.
  • The dismissals appear to be motivated by a desire to eliminate legal obstacles to President Trump's agenda, particularly concerning domestic military deployments.
  • Goodman raises concerns about the potential erosion of constitutional safeguards, specifically referencing the Appointments Clause.

• Notable Quote:
  "That's the politicization of the military. That's one of the deepest concerns for Americans." (12:00)

Goodman also highlights reports indicating that the Trump transition team vetted Pentagon applicants based on their support for Trump's election claims and January 6th perspectives, further indicating a push to align military leadership with partisan agendas.

• Notable Quote:
  "They had the deep sense that there was a right answer and the right answer was the MAGA answer." (15:14)

---

5. Legal Remedies and Future Implications

In response to the removal of JAGs, Ryan Goodman discusses potential legal avenues available to the affected lawyers, including lawsuits citing statutory protections against interference with legal advice.

• Notable Quote:
  "They could sue on that basis too, in part because they're… these three JAGs are still in place. They haven't actually been fired yet." (14:02)

The conversation underscores the broader threat to democratic institutions posed by the administration's actions, highlighting a trend of institutional weaponization to suppress legal and constitutional checks.

---

Conclusion

The episode of Bulwark Takes delves into alarming developments within the DOJ's pardon practices, judicial conflicts over federal funding, and the politicization of the military's legal framework. Through incisive analysis and expert commentary, Tim Miller and Ryan Goodman illuminate the potential ramifications of these actions on American democracy and the rule of law.

Final Notable Quote:
“That’s exactly who I would imagine Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump would want to fill the ranks with, which are people that have satisfied some kind of loyalty test like that alarming stuff.” (15:40)

---

For more in-depth analysis and ongoing coverage of these critical issues, listeners are encouraged to visit Just Security and follow The Bulwark team.

Transcript

[Ryan]

Hello, it is Ryan. And I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacasino.com I looked over the person sitting next to me and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere. So sign up [e-mail] to claim your free welcome bonus. That's chumbacasino.com and live the Chumbalaya sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Unknown]

No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions apply.

[Tim Miller]

Hey guys, it's Tim Miller from the Bulwark. The legal news is coming fast and furious thanks to the lawless Donald Trump second administration and their activities. And so I already taped with Ben Wittes on a bunch of stuff this morning, but I wanted to bring back in Ryan Goodman, who is co editor over at Just Security, also a law professor at nyu, to talk about a couple breaking stories and something that they've been reporting on as well. How you doing, Ryan?

[Ryan Goodman]

Doing well. Thanks.

[Tim Miller]

Thanks for coming back. The two stories that have broken since I last talked about crazy legal stories related to Donald Trump. One was the DOJ issued a, I guess I don't know what you call this. A certificate regarding the pardon of one Jeremy Brown. Jeremy Brown was a January 6th defendant. When the FBI searched his home, they discovered illegal grenades, a sawed off shotgun, and classified information he had retained inappropriately after leaving the Army. Somehow the Bondi DOJ decided that these charges fell under the Rubric of the January 6 pardon. And he and Jeremy Brown gets a clean bill of health on that. And it's pretty just astounding how for pardons that were broad based to begin with, that were like shockingly broad based, they seem to even be expanding, expanding the remit.

[Ryan Goodman]

That's right. And it's extraordinary in the sense that Mr. Brown is an alleged member of the Oath Keepers. And when they conduct the search on his property, it's not as though these like collateral crimes are like marijuana drug use or something like that. It's gun possession and he's like a fully armed individual with grenades and the like that it seems to maybe brought over from when he served in the military. And so it's, it's, you know, it's the strange oddity of the green light that comes with these pardons that it's not just pardoning Oathkeepers, not just pardoning people that assaulted law enforcement officers. But lo and behold, it's like, here are your grenades back. Really unbelievable situation. And just to be precise about the law on the matter, when they enter their certificate, which I've read, it's just a page and a bit, it says nothing. It basically just quotes the executive order on the pardons, which basically are about pardoning people for activities related to January 6th. You know, being in position, I mean.

[Tim Miller]

How could possibly being in possession of classified documents from the army have to do with the January 6th?

[Ryan Goodman]

I mean, they have nothing to do with it. The only, you know, stretch of imagination is, oh, because they were investigating January 6th, they found that he committed these crimes. But there's no connection between the. There's no nexus between the crimes and the activity of January 6th. So it's really pretty bold what they're doing. And it also, as you mentioned, it, this is in Florida, it's not in D.C. so it's not necessarily the interim U.S. attorney in D.C. it's Pam Bondi's Justice Department. They say it's the Justice Department's leadership that has decided that the pardons apply.

[Tim Miller]

Wow. And the message is loud and clear. We've been talking about this, but Michael Fanone talked about this over at the principal's first event over the weekend where Enrique Tarrio shows up and menaces people. There's a bomb threat. We don't know the provenance of that. But the message when you're saying to people, well, you get a clean bill of health for your grenades at home and we're not going, going to, you know, we're going to pardon you if you're, if you're doing these actions on behalf of the president is, you know, that to at least implicitly, if not explicitly send the message to these folks that they can go and cause problems. And we saw that over the weekend at the principal's first conference.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, I think it's a green light to brown shirt type activity by these paramilitary groups at Smurry Worrisome. There's no counter messaging coming out of the White House or the Justice Department. It's only this particular message, and I think they're hearing it.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, well, woof. That's not great in better, I guess, legal news, at least for the short term. A federal judge who had previously ordered the unfreezing of USAID contract spending was frustrated that the spending had not been unfrozen. And so just about an hour ago now, he granted the motion to enforce his restraining order against the state. And USAID spending freeze. And he's ordered the Trump administration to pay all invoices and letter of credit requests for work done prior to February 13th by midnight tomorrow night. So, I mean, I guess we'll, we'll see if that happens. And they've been slow walking this. But I wonder what your take is on kind of this ongoing fracas between the administration and the courts over the spending.

[Ryan Goodman]

So a couple thoughts at the outset are one, the stakes couldn't be higher. To me, the suspension of USAID contracts to people around the world and the millions who depend on that for their lives is deeply concerning. And when you now have a judge repeatedly issuing restraining orders in order to them to get the USAID to unfreeze the funds and they're not doing it raises the other issue, which is like, are we, how close are we to that bullseye where the Trump administration is going to defy court orders. Now they're in court in a certain sense trying to say that they are complying or trying to comply. But it's beyond imagination at a certain point where we are. And the frustration by the judge is not just the lack of compliance, but according to Kyle Cheney's like, social media thread, the judge is also asking the attorney before them, can you tell me that you have unfrozen the funds since, like we last met? And the attorney's response back is, quote, I'm not in a position to answer that, end quote, which is just extraordinary. They can't even certify that they're complying. So I think he's this particular judge is kind of losing patience and then in fact has accepted the emergency motion that was submitted yesterday from the plaintiffs, partly that comes with affidavits about all of these grantees that are saying within the week, like we're having to fold up shop and the like. So stakes couldn't be higher. And we really are approaching that point of non compliance with judicial orders.

[Tim Miller]

Part of the reason the lawyer might not be able to answer the question about whether they've paid is there's the Washington Post story this morning by Matt Bai. I don't know if you saw this where like Rubio in the White House was saying to issue some of these parents, not that, not all these USAID parents underneath this judge's order, but, but there were select payments that, you know, in Pepfar and Ukraine aid, emergency aid that they wanted them to unfreeze and like random Doge staffers were blocking it. So, you know, they might not even because they've taken control of the payment Systems.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yep, it's a really important piece. I hope people read it. And in fact, that's like language. He says that it's tightly controlled by these DOGE folks, and they, in fact, shut everybody out of the system, which is consistent with the emergency order yesterday, because part of the emergency order says that people have been shut out of the system. There's only one person that they've designated to even make the payments. And the other piece of this that's really important, I think, for folks to understand is the Met by reporting on this. What he's found is also consistent with the idea that DOGE is controlling usaid. That, in fact, as you just said, the Secretary of State, right, by decree, according to Met, by, has ordered the disbursement of the funds. Then they got approval from the leadership of USAID to disperse the funds, and the DOGE people are blocking it. That's so important, because it actually, I do think, puts booster rockets on one of the most important pieces of litigation, which is to say Doge and Musk are exercising a form of control over these agencies that is totally unconstitutional. And to me, that's one of the most important cases to watch, which is that they should be bounced out completely because they're in violation of the Appointments Clause. That's the.

[Tim Miller]

Is that possible? I mean, I guess I'd have to go to the Supreme Court, but I.

[Ryan Goodman]

Think it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. But so far, there are three judges that are strongly intimating that they're in favor of that kind of an approach. So Judge Chutkan bounced out would mean what?

[Tim Miller]

Kind of approach bounced out would mean what?

[Ryan Goodman]

Oh, okay. It means that they do not have authority to exist, that he is exercising authority as the head of an agency. That should be an advice and confirmed position. And the test is significant government authority. And you kind of have to show that they're making the decision. So that's why the Met by piece is, for example, important. But Judge Chanya Chutkan recently rejected a tro. But in the rejection, she has this bulky paragraph that basically says she is leaning in favor of the plaintiff's argument that this is a violation of the Appointments Clause. Yesterday there was a case and that there was a hearing before a judge on Doge's access to the Treasury Department. It wasn't centrally a question before the judge, but the judge said this looks like a violation of the Appointments Law. Like, how do you have this kind of access to the Treasury Department? So that's another reason why the Met by piece about the idea that these DOGE actors can actually override. The Secretary of State might say that, you know, the whole thing is in violation. And the, you know, question for us lawyers in a certain sense is if they were to actually bounce DOGE and musk out by saying that they're not exercising constitutional power, the remedy is the actual big question because the remedy might mean that you have to actually reverse their decisions because the decisions that they've made all along the way have been an exercise of unconstitutional authority.

[Tim Miller]

One more question back to the USAID case, just in the process, you know, for those of us non lawyers. So like, how does this work? Like let's say the payments don't go out tomorrow night by midnight. The grantees are what, filing affidavits to the court. Do they have a lawyer? They have lawyers representing them. Like how is, what's the process right now?

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, so they have lawyers representing them. And each time the lawyers present the argument that they about the irreparable harm that their clients will suffer and the fact that their clients are not seeing the funds come through, they have affidavits. So it's all very well supported, ordered, and that's what's being presented to the judge. It's also another piece of this that I think is important for folks to understand. It's not just about does the judge issue that order, but the judges in these cases are also forcing the government to have to answer certain kinds of questions. So for example, part of the order from today is that the judge said to the government, you have to also show me tomorrow all of the internal directives you give from now till tomorrow showing how you're directing your employees to comply with my order. Trying to, just trying to get around whatever the heck is going on inside the agency that's stopping the, the order from going through. So I think that's another. That's another piece of it, yeah.

[Tim Miller]

One other topic I wanted to get to with you because we haven't covered it to the level that it merits is the firings over at the Department of Defense, you at Just Security. Your colleague wrote under the headline, how the Pentagon Personnel Firings threaten our Apolitical Military. Front of mind concern is the removal of the JAGs and their legal advice on the domestic deployment of US military. And it's a lengthy piece goes into this stuff in detail. So I'm wondering what the big takeaways are for you.

[Ryan Goodman]

The biggest takeaways for me are that the senior lawyers in the Army, Navy and U.S. air Force that Pete Hecseth is saying that he's going to remove. Those are individuals that are supposed to be politically insulated. They're supposed to serve three year terms and not be kicked out by any stretch of the imagination beforehand. So for Pete Hegseth and to go into Sunday News on Fox and say, you know, we want an apolitical military, this is the politicization of the military. That's number one. Number two, Hegseth is now being approached both by that journalist and then also by other journalists yesterday in, in which he has said part of the reason he wants to remove these people is because he does want them to be roadblocks, which is like roadblocks to what? You know, to President Trump's agenda. But these are people who are supposed to abide by just their legal analysis. And I think what's deeply concerning is that why would he want to remove the top lawyers? Best idea I have is, and concern is about, as you just mentioned, it's about the domestic use of the military. So maybe against protests or the like, because these are the people who would be the bulwark against the abuse of power. So that's the deep concern. And another one is I'd like a journalist to follow up and say to him, so you say that these, these are the wrong people for the job. Tell me why, like, what's a legal order that they have ever analyzed that you think was wrong? And I think the point is that what he wants in there instead are loyalists. You know, another thing that he also said on Fox News Sunday, Sunday, Fox News is he said that he wants to change the way in which these people are promoted in the future. That's dictated by statute. And the only way I can think of him wanting to change it is for him to get involved and he's the political appointee. So to very much politicize the promotion of these kinds of individuals, which are supposed to happen through a promotion board of their peers, that's another concern. So it really is this deepening concern of not just like the weaponization that we've been discussing in the Justice Department, but lo and behold, the weaponization of the military. And if we're thinking about the backsliding from democracy, that's gotta be one of the deepest concerns for Americans.

[Tim Miller]

Do the jags themselves have legal remedy? Do we think?

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, they, they can very well. They might be able to sue. There's also statutory rules that say that there should be no interference from any Department of Defense official with the legal advice of the jags. And I think they could sue on that basis too, in part because they're. These three Jags are still in place. They haven't actually been fired yet, but he has said he's looking for their replacements. So I think that there's a lot for them to hold on to in.

[Tim Miller]

That regard, and that's a healthy work environment. The direct Secretary of Defense calling you a jag off, telling you you're about to get fired, you're standing in the way of everything. And meanwhile, you got to, I guess, clock in.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. And I'll just mention one other thing that comes to mind for me in thinking about what just happened in the last like 72 hours and the Defense Department in December of 2024, the New York Times had a really good report, and in it they said that the Trump transition team, in vetting people for senior positions in the Pentagon, were asking the applicants, do you think Trump won the 2020 election and what are your views on January 6th?

[Tim Miller]

Wow.

[Ryan Goodman]

And the applicants that failed to answer in the MAGA way didn't get the job, and they had the deep sense that there was a right answer and the right answer was the MAGA answer. That's what I worry most about. Like, that's exactly who I would imagine Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump would want to fill the ranks with, which are people that have satisfied some kind of loyalty test like that alarming stuff.

[Tim Miller]

Thanks for popping on Ryan and getting us up to speed and we will be talking to you again soon. Everybody go check out just security for for deeper dives on this and much more.

[Ryan Goodman]

Ch. Ch.

[Unknown]

Chumba looking for excitement. Chumba Casino is here. Play anytime. Play anywhere. Play on the train. Play at the store. Play at home. Play when you're bored. Play today for your chance to win and get daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for? Don't delay. Chumba Casino is free to play. Experience social gameplay like never before. Go to Chumba Casino right now to play hundreds of games including online slots, bingo, Slingo and more. Live the Chumba life at chumbacasino. Com. No purchase necessary. VGW group void where prohibited by law 21 + terms and conditions apply.