Executive Summary
- The Justice Department removed mentions of President Trump and the January 6 Capitol attack from court records in the Taylor Taranto case, subsequently sidelining two US attorneys involved.
- The original sentencing memo for Taylor Taranto, who was convicted of gun crimes after making threats related to a social media post by President Trump, detailed his reposting of President Trump’s entry and his participation in the January 6 riot.
- These actions have drawn sharp criticism from current and former career prosecutors, who described them as an “alarming whitewashing of history” and “Orwellian,” raising concerns about the integrity of judicial proceedings and potential political influence.
The Story So Far
- The Justice Department has drawn sharp criticism for removing mentions of Donald Trump and the January 6 Capitol attack from court records in the case of Taylor Taranto, a pardoned rioter convicted of gun crimes whose threats were linked to a Trump social media post. This move, which resulted in the suspension of the prosecutors who originally filed the memo, is seen by many as an “alarming whitewashing of history” and has ignited concerns within the legal community about the integrity of judicial proceedings and potential political influence within federal agencies.
Why This Matters
- The Justice Department’s decision to remove references to Trump and the January 6 Capitol attack from court records, coupled with the suspension of prosecutors, raises significant concerns about the integrity and independence of federal judicial proceedings, potentially eroding public trust in the department’s impartiality and creating a chilling effect on future prosecutions involving politically sensitive details.
Who Thinks What?
- Current and former career prosecutors, including Stacey Young and Judge Carl Nichols, criticized the Justice Department’s removal of mentions of Donald Trump and the January 6 attack from court records, along with the sidelining of prosecutors, as an “alarming whitewashing of history” and “Orwellian,” asserting that the suspended prosecutors “upheld their duty of candor” and “the highest standard.”
- The Justice Department, through US Attorney Jeanine Pirro and a spokesperson, declined to comment on the specific personnel decisions or filing changes, stating “the papers speak for themselves” and generally affirming a commitment to vigorously pursuing justice against those who commit or threaten violence.
The Justice Department has drawn sharp criticism from current and former career prosecutors after it removed mentions of Donald Trump and the January 6 Capitol attack from court records, subsequently sidelining two US attorneys involved in the sentencing of a pardoned rioter. These actions, described as an “alarming whitewashing of history,” centered on the case of Taylor Taranto, who was convicted of gun crimes after making threats related to a social media post by President Trump concerning former President Barack Obama.
Taylor Taranto was arrested in June 2023 near former President Obama’s Washington, D.C., residence, following online threats of violence toward the federal government. He had live-streamed his activities after President Trump published what was purported to be Obama’s address on a social media platform. Taranto was later found guilty in May of gun-related charges and making a false threat to use a car bomb against a federal building.
The original sentencing memo, filed on Tuesday by prosecutors Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White, detailed that Taranto had reposted President Trump’s social media entry before driving to Obama’s neighborhood. It also noted Taranto’s participation in the January 6 Capitol riot, where he was accused of entering the U.S. Capitol Building. Although charged with related crimes, Taranto was never convicted for his role in January 6 as he received a pardon from President Trump before trial.
Within 24 hours of the original memo being highlighted by a reporter, the court filing was removed from the record, and prosecutors Valdivia and White were suspended from their positions. A new, amended version of the sentencing memo was then filed, which conspicuously scrubbed all references to President Trump’s social media post and Taranto’s involvement in the January 6 events.
Reactions to the Department’s Actions
The Justice Department’s decisions have prompted widespread concern among its employees and alumni, with one source calling the sentencing memo change “Orwellian.” Stacey Young, a former Justice Department attorney and founder of Justice Connection, stated that it was “shocking that prosecutors could be put on leave for accurately stating the court record.” Young emphasized that the prosecutors “upheld their duty of candor by informing the court of clearly established facts relevant to their case.”
US Attorney Jeanine Pirro in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the suspensions and filing changes during a news conference, stating, “I think the papers speak for themselves, and what goes on in this office is not something that I’m going to comment on.” A Justice Department spokesperson also declined to comment on personnel decisions but affirmed the department’s commitment to vigorously pursuing justice against those who commit or threaten violence, without clarifying if these comments pertained to Taranto’s actions or the January 6 riot.
Taranto’s Sentencing and Judicial Commentary
At a hearing on Thursday, Judge Carl Nichols, a 2019 Trump appointee, sentenced Taranto to 21 months in prison, a term largely covered by time already served. The Department of Justice had sought a 27-month sentence, while Taranto’s defense attorney, Carmen Hernandez, requested time served, citing Taranto’s past military service and a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis.
Judge Nichols noted that Taranto “made troubling statements” online but also highlighted his lack of prior criminal history, deeming his conduct “far from egregious.” Significantly, the judge praised the two suspended prosecutors, stating that they “upheld the highest standard” and did a “commendable and exceptional job” throughout the case. Taranto, speaking briefly at the hearing, did not apologize but encouraged an open mind regarding the 2020 election results.
The Justice Department’s decision to alter court records and suspend prosecutors has ignited a debate over the integrity of judicial proceedings and the potential for political influence within federal agencies. The incident has left many within the legal community questioning the transparency and objectivity of the department’s actions, particularly in cases involving politically sensitive figures and events.
