Brian Cole Jr., the FBI’s suspect in the Jan. 5 to 6, 2021, pipe-bomb case, appeared before a federal judge on April 22 and pleaded not guilty to the two additional felony charges filed against him in a second superseding indictment.
Federal authorities arrested Cole in December, accusing him of planting two pipe bombs, one outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters and one outside the Republican National Committee headquarters, in the hours leading up to the Jan 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol. The bombs did not detonate.
A ‘real mic-drop’ moment.
A second superseding indictment, filed Apr. 14, included the original charges of interstate transportation of explosives and a malicious attempt to use explosives. It also added two additional charges: an attempt to use weapons of mass destruction and an act of terrorism while armed. If found guilty of these new charges, Cole could face a sentence of life in prison.
The status hearing last week included an arraignment for the additional charges, to which Cole pleaded not guilty.
Cole’s defense team requested early in the hearing to discuss setting a trial date, suggesting early December, according to the hearing’s transcript obtained by Blaze News.
Prosecutors proposed holding another status hearing before setting a trial date, explaining that they were not yet prepared to estimate how long the trial would take, particularly with the additional charges.
Cara Castronuova, a reporter with LindellTV, called the defense’s request a “real mic-drop” moment.
“I think that really surprised the prosecution. Their mouths sort of fell open. A lot of the FBI agents and the DOJ that were sitting there watching sort of looked at each other in disbelief,” Castronuova stated.
RELATED: Brian Cole Jr.’s physical presence, posture, mannerisms are no match to FBI’s hoodie-clad pipe-bomb suspect
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images
“I don’t think that they expected that. I think that they added all of these new charges sort of hoping that this young man, Brian Cole Jr. … would be scared and plea out.”
The attorneys for both sides provided the judge with an update on the discovery process.
Prosecutors stated that they had obtained “over a terabyte of data” and that they were still gathering additional information, including witness interview materials.
Cole’s attorney, Alex Little with Litson PLLC, said the defense intended to subpoena Congress for Jan. 6 committee records. Little explained to the judge that they had plans to review lawmakers’ investigation into the pipe bomber, stating that he believes that they may “have materials that we think would be useful.”
The defense also shared potential plans to present “a third-party perpetrator defense” and indicated that they want to “rebut potential alibis of that third party.”
During the hearing, the attorneys and judge also discussed the controversy surrounding a recent motion filed by the defense team.
Cole’s legal team previously filed a motion on Apr. 1 claiming that former Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff was “named as a person of interest in the January 5–6, 2021 pipe bomb investigation.” The court filing claimed Kerkhoff was subjected to an FBI polygraph examination and that she “failed” after she was asked, “Did you place those pipe bombs?” and “Did you place those pipe bombs that evening?” Cole’s attorneys further noted that the polygraph examiner called Kerkhoff’s responses “seemingly rehearsed.”
Kerkhoff has been officially cleared by the FBI and is no longer a suspect in the case.
Federal prosecutors argued that the motion violated the case’s protective order, which set guidelines for handling confidential and sensitive discovery materials, including identifying information. Prosecutors requested that the judge hold Cole’s attorneys in contempt for the public filing.
RELATED: Former Capitol Police Officer Shauni Kerkhoff files lawsuit against Blaze Media
Andrew Leyden/Getty Images
Cole’s defense team asserted that the motion did not violate the protective order in the case, stating that they “were surprised” the government believed it did.
“Your Honor, they immediately jumped to ask to hold me in contempt,” Little stated.
“I find it important to make this record for the court. There was nothing in that protective order that we believed are satisfied by the things we put in that motion. We wouldn’t have filed them. That’s not the way we do things.”
He expressed regret and referred to as a “mistake” that the motion contained an individual’s home address. He noted that the address should have been removed.
Cole’s attorney stated that other than that one instance, prosecutors did not specify any other personally identifiable information in the motion. He claimed that prosecutors were unnecessarily labeling discovery materials as sensitive, including “photographs of shoes that you can get on the web.”
“I think the difficulty is when we have now two terabytes, three terabytes of discovery, do I need to show the government a draft of each of my motions to decide whether the information” could be submitted in a public court filing, Little stated, adding that prosecutors had made “half” of the discovery material “sensitive.”
Prosecutors argued that the defense’s “gambit worked,” stating that the public motion “went everywhere” and was “covered by the media.”
“The damage was done,” a federal attorney told the judge.
Little stated that they “immediately” moved to get the motion “under seal” after being notified by prosecutors that the address was in the public motion.
The defense withdrew the motion, which removed it from the public docket, and filed it under seal. Cole’s team then requested that the motion be unsealed with redactions.
The judge ordered counsel to confer and come back to the court with “a proposed redacted version” of the defense’s motion.
Castronuova highlighted a moment when the judge reportedly “just started yelling” at the defense attorneys.
“He went from zero to 10 out of nowhere on the defense,” she continued. “No one really understood why. He just got angry at something they said and just started reprimanding them, embarrassing them, and yelling at them in court.”
At multiple points throughout the hearing, the judge told the defense to “stop talking,” according to the transcript.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) reacted to updates from the status hearing last week, suggesting that the defense “put the plainclothes Capitol Police officers who ‘found’ the second bomb on the stand.”
Massie urged them to ask, “Why didn’t you immediately begin looking for a third bomb?” “Who told you to go to that area and look for it?” and “Why was the bomb not immediately dealt with?”
“And a new question: why did you look so intently under the empty bush where the pipe bomber dwelled for so long the night before?” Massie continued.
“This trial could get interesting.”
Cole’s defense team declined to comment. He is scheduled to appear back in court on May 29 for another status hearing.
On Friday, Cole’s defense team submitted a motion further arguing for the dismissal of the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. His attorneys previously contended that President Donald Trump’s broad pardons related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, which applied to “individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol,” should also cover Cole’s case.
The government rejected the argument, stating that Cole had no pending indictment at the time the presidential proclamation was issued on Jan. 20, 2025. Prosecutors also asserted that the pipe bombs were placed on Jan. 5, 2021, and therefore were not related to the protest on Jan. 6.
Cole’s lawyers responded to the government’s arguments by stating that “a strict time limit does not exist in the text of” the president’s pardon and, therefore, should not be inferred from it. They claimed it was “an on-going directive.” They also reasoned that the timing and proximity of the pipe-bomb incident to the Jan. 6 protest indicate a connection.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Read the full article here
