As we await today’s potential Jan 6 pardons, we can expect the President’s actions to further erode not only the democratic norms for the rule of law but also the norms of restraint in the use of violence for political purposes – even if he pardons those who are not Oath Keepers or Proud Boys.
I am a professor at the University of Chicago where I study American political violence. For several years, my research teams and I at the Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST) have closely investigated every person charged with offenses related to the January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol, gathering demographic and biographic data as well as the publicly stated motives relying on a rigorous review of the over 100,000 pages of court documents and available social media posts for the entire group of defendants, over 1500 people in all.
This morning, we released two new analyses with new and urgent findings that put the potential Jan 6 pardons in a broader political context, beyond legalistic discussions as important as those are.
Undoubtedly, the January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol involved thousands of people who overwhelmed police and led to the suspension of the Congressional certification of a duly elected president of the United States. This was the first time in US history that a domestic uprising interfered with the peaceful transfer of Presidential power.
However, a myth is emerging that January 6 was not principally a violent effort to overturn an election, with the implication that most of the people convicted for offenses on January 6 were not involved in the violence and mass riot. Aside from a few violent actors already prone to violence, so the reinvention of January 6 goes, the vast majority were instead tourists and grandmothers engaged in a mostly peaceful protest on a “day of love”
This myth has two main claims. The first is that serious violence such as assaulting police was carried out almost exclusively by people already prone to violence – especially members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and other militant groups — while “ordinary” Americans, not members of these militant groups, did not engage in fighting. The second claim is that many people convicted of “non-violent” offenses were merely attending the rally and walking peacefully into the Capitol, with no involvement or close association with the violence that day.
Our two new CPOST analyses investigate – and provide powerful evidence challenging – each of these two claims.
Violent “Ordinary” Trump Supporters
The first analysis examines “ordinary” Americans convicted of assaulting police and other violent crimes on J6 who were not members of militant groups. Remarkably, nearly nine in ten – 279 of 332, or 84% — of those convicted of violent offenses during the Capitol assault fit this description and were ordinary Americans by virtually any definition. They are doctors, lawyers, business owners, corporate executives and people with good jobs, families and living in nice suburbs, with seemingly much to lose. None of these 279 had affiliations with militant groups.
A close examination of 36 of these “ordinary” violent Jan 6 offenders provides strong photographic evidence and statements in their own words that “ordinary” Americans were physically engaged in violent action to include assaults on police officers in order to stop the Constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of Presidential power.
Consider:
Daniel Dean Egtvedt, age 57, a healthcare sales executive, with a BA from Michigan State University, photographed with Lara Trump and Mike Pence at the 2018 White House Christmas Party, from Oakland, Maryland. Egtvedt forcibly entered the Capitol through the Senate Wing Doors, pushing through a line of USCP officers. Once inside, he accused police officers of being “traitors” and screamed “shoot me,” when resisting the five officers it took to remove him.
Vincent Gillespie, age 61, the son of renowned American artist Gregory Gillespie, with an engineering degree, living off an inheritance, and the author of multiple history books still available on Amazon, from Athol, Massachusetts. Gillespie fought with federal law enforcement officers, forcing his way into the Capitol by ramming police using a stolen police riot shield. His stated purpose, “I would hope they [the Trump supporters] would flood in so there’s nothing they [Congress] can do. That’s what I would hope they would do. Take it over. Take it over. Own it for a few days. I’m not an anarchist, but you can’t let stand what happened in this election.”
Frederico Klein, age 42, then serving as Special Assistant in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State, with a top-secret clearance, a BA from George Mason University, and US Marine veteran. Klein was part of the hours long battle by rioters against police officers to breach the Lower West Terrance Tunnel entrance to the Capitol. He forcibly struggled against officers, using a stolen police riot shield. His stated purpose: “Vice-President Pence [is not going] to certify the election.”
Cleveland Grover Meredith, age 53, a small business owner from Hayesville, North Carolina, with a BA in Economics from the University of the South, recognized as one of the south’s elite liberal arts colleges. Armed with an assault rifle and 1000 rounds of armor piecing ammunition, Meredith arrived at the Capitol just as the riot ended but stayed in a near-by hotel for another day, texting multiple specific threats, including: “Thinking about heading over to Pelosi [expletive]’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV.”
Dr. Jacquelyn Starer, age 68, a practicing Boston Area Gynecologist, stayed at the luxurious Kimpton George Hotel near the Capitol. On January 6, Starer told others that she “was prepared” with “a mesh knife-proof shirt and bottles of pepper spray.” In the Rotunda, she punched an officer in the head with her clinched fist (caught on body camera footage) as officers sought to form a line to prevent her and others from entering areas occupied by Congressional members and staff. Starer then moved away from the officers and stepped towards them again, moving her hands toward the police, yelling, “F— b—!”
The So-Called “Non-Violent”
The second analysis examines 22 people convicted of only misdemeanors for their actions on J6, providing detailed photographic evidence that even the lowest level of prosecuted offenders was deeply involved in the riot and refuting the narrative that they were just “tourists” and “grandmothers” whose only action was attending the rally and walking peacefully into the Capitol that day.
To examine the lowest category of offenses, we drew a random set of 22 of the 475 offenders convicted of one and only one misdemeanor (eg, “parading, demonstrating”; “entering and remaining”; or “disorderly conduct” in the Capitol). These cases were chosen by the first letter of their last name, which would have a random relationship to the photographic evidence of their behavior. None of the 22 are members of militant groups.
However, even these “least bad” individuals knowingly and willingly participated in the Capital riot. Photographic evidence – sequences of images and videos in the court documents — shows that these people were closely involved in the violence, generally side-by-side with rioters engaged in violent breaches of the Capitol and in hand-to-hand violence against police. As becomes clear, without the participation of this vast group, the siege would likely have never happened or been quickly ended by the police.
Consider:
Lawrence Ambrose, age 54, a car driver for a hotel chain in San Diego, California. Ambrose entered the Capitol through the Senate Wing door minutes after rioters broke through the door, stepping over the glass on the ground at the entrance. He joined the large mob fighting police to break through the doors of the Speaker’s Lobby of the House of Representatives and was present when Ashli Babbitt attempted to climb into the House of Representatives and was shot.
Jennifer Buteau, age 44, a bartender from Ocala, Florida. She can be seen on videos amid the large mob that burst through the perimeter defenses of the Capitol grounds, entering the building, and using a trashcan and a chair to prevent the police from closing rolling doors. In a text message Buteau sent to a friend, she said: “OK we were a little violent breaking down windows and doors to break in Capitol. Then the Capitol police were pricks so we charged after them a few times.”
Elliot Bishai, age 19, cadet in a civil air patrol unit, from Fort Mill, South Carolina. Walking with his girlfriend towards the Capitol through the overturned barricades and broken fences, and smelling tear gas and seeing the police scuffling with rioters, he told his girlfriend that the crowd was dangerous and suggested that she not to go any further, advice she followed. She was not charged. Bishai and other friends advanced towards the Capitol, yelling “keep pushing” and “let’s go, civil war two,” to other rioters who were scaling the Capitol. Bishai then entered the Capitol through a broken window. One friend used a metal pole to assault a police officer, Bishai later told the FBI.
Chadwick Gordon Clifton, age 47, a construction contractor from Summerville, South Carolina. After watching others fought through police to enter the Capitol, Chadwick went in the building amid the alarms and broken glass, saying: “We’ve broken past the barrier… the policemen have been overwhelmed!” In the Capitol, he witnessed police and rioters scuffle, recording those interactions while smoking marijuana joint saying, “I don’t give a [expletive]. We in Washington D.C. burning it in the Capitol.”
Jenny Cudd, age 36, owner Becky’s Flowers, ran for mayor, Midland, Texas, stayed at the luxurious Willard Hotel near the White House. Wearing a bullet proof sweatshirt, she walked into the Capitol through the Upper West Terrace Door and walked through Statuary Hall, before moving towards the House Chamber. She noted that she heard loud banging and smelled tear gas, and witnessed violence against law enforcement: “There were some guys trying to break in.” Afterwards, Cudd posted: “Fxxx yes I’m proud of my actions. I fxxking charged the Capitol with patriots today. Hell yes I’m proud of my actions.”
Why Pardoning the Violent and Non-Violent J6ers Matters
Nothing has done more to normalize political violence in America than the January 6, 2021 assault on the greatest symbol and reality of US democracy, the Capitol during the Constitutionally-mandated process of officially transferring presidential power. For years, our CPOST surveys of Americans has shown that some 10 percent – nearly 30 million people – consistently believe that those who stormed the Capitol are “patriots.” We also consistently find disturbing levels of support for violence as a solution to a range of political grievances on both the right and the left. This public support matters because it can nudge volatile people to take violent action for those causes in the belief that they are acting in the name of social justice.
In the years since the Capitol assault, we have seen a spate of high-profile acts of political violence, unlike anything since the chaotic 1960s. In 2022, we saw the assassination attempt against then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In 2023, an armed assailant tried to break into former President Barack Obama’s home in Washington, DC. In 2024, there were two assassination attempts against then former President Donald Trump as he ran for re-election. Today, now President Trump is celebrating his inauguration indoors, in part due to security concerns.
Pardoning those prosecuted for the Jan 6 assault on the US Capitol is likely to only make matters worse. As these two new analyses show, there is strong reason to believe that essentially all of those prosecuted for Jan 6 were closely involved in and responsible for the violence on that day. Indeed, without these large pools of actors, police are unlikely to have been overwhelmed and Congress would not likely have been threatened to the point that suspension of the certification of the presidential election would have been necessary.
Thus, pardoning these individuals will send the strong message that such violent actions to stop the transfer of presidential power are acceptable in American politics – not just for the fraction of Americans who support them now, but for future Americans who may harbor their own doubts about the legitimacy of even duly elected presidents of the United States.
Before the pardons, the question has been: Was January 6 acceptable?
After the pardons, the question will be: If January 6 is legitimate, what other levels of political violence will become acceptable in the future?
In effect, the pardons create a precedent setting a new floor for acceptable political violence in America. The pardons thus significantly contribute to the erosion of democratic norms of restraint in the use of force for political purposes, damaging core foundations of civil society.
Robert A. Pape
Professor of Political Science
Director of Chicago Project on Security and Threats
University of Chicago
