Jill Stein ‘Would Have to Look’ at Pardoning Jan. 6 Rioters

Jill Stein has said she would have to look at the charges and sentences of January 6 rioters to determine whether she would pardon them or not.
Hundreds of MAGA supporters have been handed sentences for their part in breaching the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the President Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
There has been an ongoing debate about whether some of these sentences were fair, with Donald Trump promising to pardon the more than 1,000 people charged in connection with the day.
Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, said she would have to look at individual charges and sentences before deciding whether to pardon January 6 rioters.
Speaking on the conservative podcast Ladies Love Politics, she said: “I would have to look more carefully at their actual charges. When I look at January 6—it was dangerous, people broke laws, they should be held accountable for breaking laws—whether the sentences were reasonable, I would have to dive more into the weeds than I have done.”
Stein went on: “In the big scheme, I see a lot around January 6 as being blown up for political reasons—not that it was a harmless event, it was a serious and problematic event, but I really see the two sides as extremely polarized and it’s like you’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t.”
Newsweek has contacted Stein’s team, via email, for any further comment.
The longest prison sentence issued for January 6 is 22 years, handed to Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the former leader of the right-wing group Proud Boys.
He was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, after prosecutors argued he was in control of the Proud Boys when they stormed the Capitol, even though he was arrested days earlier.
David N. Dempsey has the second-longest sentence, 20 years, after he pleaded guilty to two counts of assaulting police with dangerous or deadly weapons during the attack. His family has started an online fundraiser claiming he “is being politically silenced for his beliefs in the Constitution.”
In August, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the release of defendant Patrick Stedman, who was convicted of the felony obstruction charge and four additional misdemeanor counts, in August.
It came after the Supreme Court ruled in June that federal felony “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges are only valid if the government can prove that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity” of documents or records rather than merely obstructing an official proceeding.
Stedman will not be released until October 27 because he is still serving a mandatory 12-month sentence from his misdemeanor convictions, on which the Supreme Court ruling had no impact.