Justice Department court exhibits show Taylor Taranto, left, in a photo he posted to Facebook while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Right: Justice Department provided footage from inside the Capitol, Taranto is circled in yellow in exhibit.
An accused Jan. 6 rioter who allegedly threatened lawmakers and showed up to Barack Obama‘s home in Washington, D.C., back in 2023 — toting guns, ammunition and supplies for an explosive device — wants his criminal charges for those incidents dropped, saying President Donald Trump‘s executive order pardoning Capitol attackers also covers “conduct related to” the 2021 insurrection, which he claims it was.
“Mr. Taranto respectfully moves this Honorable Court to dismiss all counts including those that allege conduct on June 28 and 29, 2023, on the ground that all his charges relate to the events on January 6, and are therefore covered by the President’s Executive Order,” a motion to dismiss reads from rioter Taylor Taranto’s lawyer, Carmen D. Hernandez, which was filed last week.
“From the start and throughout the pendency of this prosecution, the government and this Court have treated the allegations set out in all the counts as related to the events of January 6,” the motion says. “Indeed, by including all the charges in a single indictment the government necessarily determined that all the charges are sufficiently related.”
Trump’s Justice Department responded Tuesday with an opposition motion, saying it “respectfully opposes” Taranto’s attempt to dismiss. The judge overseeing the case has yet to make a ruling.
“Taranto’s actions in June 2023 in Washington, D.C., were not offenses occurring at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6,” the motion says. “Taranto’s possession of guns, large-capacity magazines, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, alarming statements about a detonator’ in his car, and purportedly driving to a federal facility, all occurring in June 2023, and not at the United States Capitol, are wholly unrelated to the pardon for and dismissal of charges related to January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. They are not subject to dismissal by motion of the defendant or by order of the Court on this basis.”
Taranto, 39, of Washington state, was arrested on a fugitive for justice warrant on June 29, 2023, after he was allegedly found near Obama’s home in the elite Kalorama neighborhood in northwest Washington, D.C. He reportedly took off running toward the residence but was promptly chased off by the Secret Service before being apprehended hours later while lurking in woods near a busy thoroughfare.
Prosecutors said that in a van parked near the Obama’s home, Taranto stashed weapons — including firearms and ammunition — as well as materials that could be fashioned into a Molotov cocktail-like device. The U.S. Navy veteran had been lingering in Washington, D.C., for months before the incident and was threatening U.S. lawmakers, prosecutors said.
The Seattle native was charged with unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, described by authorities as a Scorpion CS short-barreled rifle; unlawful possession of ammunition; carrying a pistol without a license, specifically, a Scorpion CZ pistol; and making false information and hoaxes.
The false hoax charge was tied to a bogus threat Taranto allegedly made about setting off an explosive at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland before he was arrested.
For his alleged involvement on Jan. 6, Taranto was hit with several charges tied to his conduct at the Capitol including knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and parading and demonstrating. The DOJ dismissed those charges after Trump took office.
His motion to dismiss the remaining charges against him claims that the threat and other comments he made toward lawmakers were political satire and he was acting as a journalist at the time.
“Taranto, who considers himself a satirical reporter with an almost Jon Stewart or South Park-esque dry humor (that he would openly admit often did not land), often attempted to make jokes or double entendre references in an effort to discuss and explore certain conspiracy theories and lines of thinking adjacent to January 6 and related events,” his motion says. “This Is why Mr. Taranto so frequently cites to the First Amendment and the protection of free speech in his endeavors and postings.”
Hernandez claims Taranto’s case falls within the last clause quoted in Trump’s executive order, which says: “I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Hernandez insists that Taranto’s indictment involves “conduct related to” the events on Jan. 6. “As a pardon ceases all litigation, Mr. Taranto moves this Court to dismiss his entire case,” the motion says. He argues that prosecutors cannot argue their case without bringing up evidence related to Jan. 6.
“It is clear that at any trial of this case, the government would seek to introduce evidence of the J6 conduct as related to the June 2023 offenses because they are related,” Taranto’s motion says. “The government should therefore not be heard to argue that the June 2023 offenses are not related when considering whether the President’s pardon applies to Mr. Taranto.”
In their opposition motion, DOJ prosecutors attempt to poke holes in multiple allegations being floated by Taranto, including the claim that because the charges are alleged in the same document they must be related.
“Charges maybe related enough for the purposes of joinder and judicial economy without requiring an expansive interpretation of the word ‘related’ in the pardon context,” prosecutors argue. “Taranto cites three instances where the government dismissed non-January 6 conduct. Those cases are inapposite to the facts here.”
In addition to the criminal charges, Taranto is also facing a wrongful-death lawsuit for attacking a Capitol Police officer who shot and killed himself after suffering from “severe depression” and a “brain injury” caused by a concussion he allegedly sustained at their hands, the suit says.
More from Law&Crime: ‘Risk to these agents is horrendous’: Trump administration won’t release names of FBI personnel who worked Jan. 6 attack cases — for now
Erin Smith, the widow of Jeffrey Smith — who died by suicide on Jan. 15, just nine days after he was allegedly attacked during the Capitol riot by Taranto and David Walls-Kaufman —
describes the attack on her husband as a violent crime of opportunity, with Jeffrey being “in a particularly vulnerable situation because his face shield was up, leaving his face and eyes exposed, her suit says.
Taranto was caught on surveillance video clashing with Capitol police alongside Walls-Kaufman, who was sentenced in June 2023 to two months in prison after pleading guilty and admitting that he “scuffled” with officers.
