Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is drawing fierce criticism for his consideration of state-level charges against individuals involved in the January 6 protests—despite their having received presidential pardons from Donald Trump. To many supporters of the January 6 defendants, Krasner’s move smacks of political retribution and disregard for constitutional principles like double jeopardy and federal authority.
Trump, in a sweeping exercise of his presidential pardon power, granted clemency to over 1,500 individuals connected to the January 6 events. This act of mercy was hailed by his supporters as a bold stand against what they view as politically motivated prosecutions. Yet Krasner, a progressive Democrat with a track record of pushing controversial legal strategies, is reportedly undeterred. His office is exploring state-level charges for Pennsylvania residents who were involved in the protests—a decision that critics say undermines the spirit of presidential pardons.
CNN’s Marshall Cohen broke the story of Krasner’s intentions, revealing the potential for significant legal challenges to his approach. Krasner appears to be banking on a legal argument that state charges can proceed if the conduct in question wasn’t fully addressed by federal charges. However, critics argue this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the president’s constitutional pardon authority.
This tactic is not new among progressive prosecutors. In 2019, Manhattan DA Cy Vance pursued state charges against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, after Manafort had already faced federal prosecution. Although the Southern District of New York (SDNY) crafted legal arguments to bypass double jeopardy laws, Manafort’s legal team successfully had the state charges dismissed, citing their overlap with the federal case.
Krasner’s efforts to replicate this strategy are seen by many as equally dubious. The principle of double jeopardy, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime. Attempting to work around this constitutional safeguard raises serious concerns about prosecutorial overreach and the erosion of legal protections.
For those who support the January 6 defendants, Krasner’s actions are viewed as yet another attempt by progressive prosecutors to weaponize the legal system against political opponents. Many argue that the individuals involved in the protests have already been excessively targeted by the justice system, with disproportionate sentences and relentless media vilification.
Krasner’s consideration of state charges is seen as part of a broader effort by Democrats to keep the January 6 narrative alive and further punish those who stood against what they perceive as an overreaching federal government. Critics also contend that this move sets a dangerous precedent, where state prosecutors can nullify the intent of presidential pardons, effectively undermining one of the Constitution’s most significant checks on federal power.
“This isn’t about justice; it’s about vengeance,” one conservative commentator remarked. “Krasner and his allies are trying to send a message: If you oppose their agenda, they’ll come after you—even if the president himself says otherwise.”
Presidential pardons are intended to serve as an act of clemency, offering closure and a path forward for individuals who have paid their debt to society—or, in cases like January 6, who many believe were unfairly prosecuted to begin with. By pursuing state charges, Krasner risks nullifying this foundational principle and opening the door to a politicized justice system where pardons hold little weight.
The implications extend beyond the January 6 defendants. If Krasner succeeds, it could embolden other state prosecutors to target federally pardoned individuals, creating a patchwork system of justice that undermines national unity and respect for federal authority.
On the other side of the aisle, some progressives view Krasner’s efforts as necessary to hold individuals accountable, particularly if they believe federal charges did not fully address the alleged misconduct. However, even among Krasner’s supporters, there are questions about the legal viability of his approach and whether it risks further politicizing an already fraught legal landscape.
As Krasner considers moving forward, the case will undoubtedly test the limits of state and federal authority. Legal experts predict that any attempt to prosecute pardoned individuals will face immediate and intense legal challenges, with double jeopardy laws likely serving as the first line of defense.
This brewing legal battle comes at a time when trust in the justice system is already deeply polarized. For Trump supporters, the January 6 pardons were a symbolic victory against what they see as a two-tiered system of justice. Krasner’s actions threaten to reignite tensions and deepen divisions, particularly if his strategy is seen as overtly political.
Krasner’s pursuit of state charges could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the January 6 defendants but for the broader balance of power between state and federal jurisdictions. By challenging the finality of presidential pardons, Krasner risks setting a precedent that could destabilize the justice system and erode trust in its impartiality.
For many Americans, this case will serve as a litmus test for the direction of the country’s legal and political systems. Will the courts uphold the sanctity of presidential pardons, or will they allow state prosecutors to chip away at this constitutional authority?
In the end, Krasner’s actions may backfire, galvanizing support for the January 6 defendants and fueling calls for greater oversight of progressive prosecutors. As this legal drama unfolds, one thing is clear: the fight over January 6 is far from over.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login