Alleged D.C. Pipe Bomber
Denied Pre-Trial Release
Accused Washington, D.C. pipe bomber Brian Cole Jr. will remain in jail after a federal judge ruled he created too much danger for pre-trial release.
He faces two felonies after being charged in the attempted 2021 bombings outside the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic National Committees.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh’s ruling last week said "the government carried its ultimate burden to demonstrate that there are no conditions of release the Court could impose to reasonably assure the safety of the community."
Cole’s attorneys argued that his autism spectrum diagnosis and obsessive-compulsive disorder should demonstrate that a better alternative is pre-trial release on bond or home detention.
Prosecutors said the seriousness of the federal explosives charges show Cole is an ongoing danger to society. He is charged with transporting an explosive device in interstate commerce and attempted malicious destruction by means of fire and explosive materials. He faces a likelihood of decades in prison if he is convicted.
The prosecution’s court filing gave new information about the alleged motives behind Cole’s bombing attempt and details of how he planned to do it. Neither of the bombs detonated.
After he was arrested, Cole initially denied setting the bombs. He said he was in Washington to attend a political rally.
He confessed after an hours-long interrogation.
He reportedly told investigators he was trying to “speak up” for people who believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen through voter fraud, the court filing said.
“I didn’t agree with what people were doing, like just telling half the country that they — that their — that they just need to ignore it. I didn’t think that was a good idea, so I went to the protest,” the legal filing quotes him as saying.
He targeted the Democratic and Republican national headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021 because they were “in charge” of political policy, according to the Justice Department. He reportedly said he did not like either party.
Cole was arrested earlier this month at his home in the Washington suburb of Woodbridge, Virginia.
Investigators said he told them he had set timers on each of the bombs to make them detonate one hour after he put them in front of the downtown buildings. The FBI described them as “disrupted devices” that failed to detonate.
After Cole set the bombs, he reportedly went to a restaurant before returning home. He allegedly said he later felt relieved they did not explode. He said he set the bombs at night to avoid injuring anyone, the Justice Department reported.
Cole was apprehended after a meticulous five-year investigation based on surveillance and digital forensic techniques. It included cell-site data placing his phone near the locations where the bombs were planted.
He had tried unsuccessfully to hide his actions by wiping all communications on his cellphone clean about 900 times before he was arrested on Dec. 4, according to the Justice Department.
Investigators found bomb-making material in his car and home.
“The defendant’s choice of targets risked the lives not only of innocent pedestrians and office workers but also of law enforcement, first responders, and national political leaders who were inside of the respective party headquarters or drove by them on January 6, 2021, including the Vice President-elect and Speaker of the House,” government attorneys wrote in their court filing.
The Justice Department has given no details on why the bombs failed to explode. Their court filing said the failure to detonate was due to luck, “not lack of effort.”
It said that “the FBI assessed that the two devices were both [Improvised Explosive Devices] which contained a main explosive charge, a fuzing system, and a container. The FBI also assessed that the IEDs used a hard metal container (metal pipe nipples and end caps), which showed that weapon characteristics were present.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Performers Pull Out of Kennedy Center
After Trump’s Name Was Added to It
A jazz ensemble last week canceled its New Year’s Eve performance at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in an apparent protest of the center’s renaming that added President Donald Trump’s name.
The Cookers did not mention Trump in their published explanation but left little doubt about their reasoning.
“Jazz was born from struggle and from a relentless insistence on freedom: freedom of thought, of expression, and of the full human voice,” their statement said.
About the same time, the New York-based Doug Varone and Dancers group canceled their performance scheduled for April.
Although the dance group expects to lose $40,000 from the cancellation, its leader said in a statement that the decision was “financially devastating but morally exhilarating.”
The two groups were part of a wave of cancellations that started earlier this year. The dispute has now progressed into a lawsuit and threats of more litigation.
Trump appointed himself as chairman of the center in February. Board members who he appointed voted on Dec. 18 to rename the center the Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, or the Trump-Kennedy Center.
The renaming has set off another dispute over the extent of the president’s authority under the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The original building was administered by the Smithsonian Institution under authority of the National Cultural Center Act. Congress established the name of the center as the "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts," which lawmakers intended to mean Congress retains control and is the only government body that could change the name.
The Kennedy Center’s directors adopted new bylaws in May that limited voting to presidentially appointed trustees. Board members appointed or approved by Congress were barred from voting.
The new bylaws preceded the unanimous decision by board members appointed by Trump to rename the center after him.
A week later, U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center.
"[I]n scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic – the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump," the lawsuit says.
The two show cancellations last week were preceded by other performers who pulled out of their contracts at the Kennedy Center.
Days earlier, musician Chuck Redd broke off his engagement for a Christmas Eve jazz concert. The Kennedy Center’s president responded by threatening to sue him for $1 million.
Folk singer Kristy Lee announced she would not do her concert scheduled for mid-January.
“I won’t lie to you, canceling shows hurts,” Lee explained on her social media account. “This is how I keep the lights on. But losing my integrity would cost me more than any paycheck.”
Doug Varone made a similar statement to explain why he canceled his New Year’s Eve dance performance.
“We can no longer permit ourselves nor ask our audiences to step inside this once great institution,” he said.
Since announcing the cancellation, the Doug Varone and Dancers group said on their website that they have been “overwhelmed with an outpouring of support” for the decision. In addition, “Many people have asked how they can donate to the company to help offset our financial loss.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the renaming reflected “the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
U.S. Senate Tries Again to Sunset
Liability Immunity of Social Media
A new bill pending in the Senate would end a nearly 30-year-old provision of federal law that helped shape the modern internet.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields online platforms from liability for most content posted by their users, while also granting companies broad latitude to moderate material they consider objectionable.
The tech industry says social media, search engines and online marketplaces could not exist in their current form without Section 230.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act last month month say internet companies have abused the law by using the rights it grants them to censor conservative political material and allowing information on their platforms that is dangerous to children.
Their bipartisan bill would allow persons aggrieved by internet content to sue the platforms.
The companies say that if the law passes, it could be the end of access to much of the free information and interactive programs available on the internet.
“For nearly 30 years, Section 230 has provided Big Tech cover as they turn a blind eye to heinous crimes committed on its platforms,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
When Congress approved Section 230, social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram were fledgling internet entities. Now they are some of the world’s most powerful companies, propelled partly by the legal protections offered by Section 230.
Previous legislative attempts to modify Section 230 have largely failed.
Tech companies and their political supporters warned that U.S. domination of the internet – along with the jobs and billions of dollars in annual revenue they create – could be severely impaired.
Senate sponsors of the Sunset Section 230 Act say the warnings about financial collapse are exaggerated to hide the companies’ real motive of a rush to profits.
“Giant social media platforms are unregulated, immune from lawsuits and are making billions of dollars in advertising revenue off some of the most unsavory content and criminal activity imaginable,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
The bill also has Democratic sponsors, such as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
“Sunsetting Section 230 will force Big Tech to come to the table and take ownership over the harms it has wrought,” Durbin said. “And if Big Tech doesn’t, this bill will open the courtroom to victims of its platforms. Parents have been begging Congress to step in, and it’s time we do so.”
Opposition to the kinds of new internet controls advocated by the Sunset Section 230 act is led by the trade group NetChoice, which represents social media and other online companies.
NetChoice argues that bills imposing “counterproductive strings” on Section 230 could limit platforms’ ability to address harmful speech effectively by placing too many restrictions on their discretion.
They argue the restrictions would be a violation of First Amendment free speech rights. They also say the companies would be forced to defend themselves against lawsuits based on posts by millions of third party users whose behavior they cannot control.
So far, court judgments in lawsuits against social media companies have been mixed.
The Supreme Court in October decided to let stand a lower court’s decision in favor of Facebook parent company Meta. The father of one of nine church members killed by white supremacist Dylann Roof in Charleston, S.C., in 2015 said Meta’s algorithms that directed him to extremist propaganda radicalized him, eventually leading to the mass shooting.
A federal judge and an appellate court dismissed the lawsuit, citing the immunities from liability for social media companies under Section 230.
In a different case, a federal judge in California ruled in September that a lawsuit against Meta by internet users who were defrauded of their money could go forward. They argued that Meta violated its own “Community Standards” by failing to remove harmful content posted by fraudsters.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
U.S. Attorney Pirro Uses Murder Case
To Argue for Tough Juvenile Prosecutions
A 16-year-old accused murderer is due in D.C. Superior Court next week for a preliminary hearing in a case that the U.S. attorney is using to justify her crackdown on juvenile crime.
Keyonte Johnson is charged as an adult with premeditated murder while armed after allegedly shooting and killing 20-year-old Washington, D.C., resident Roy Bennett, Jr., on the evening of December 5, 2025.
Johnson is being held without bond after a first appearance last month.
“This is yet another example of the out-of-control underage crime plaguing the district,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
She added that “it is time to put an end to this predictable violence and time to lower the age of accountability so that I can start prosecuting these young criminals before they commit murder.”
Prosecutors said in a court filing that the victim was in a Union Market apartment that was being used for a recording studio.
Johnson was one of several other people present, the court filing says. He was seated on a sofa behind the victim.
As the victim was standing at a microphone, Johnson allegedly shot him seven times. Two bullets struck him in the head and two in the chest.
Johnson allegedly tried to intimidate a potential witness with a death threat as he fled the scene, according to prosecutors. He was arrested at a Maryland home shortly afterward. Police said they found a gun, ammunition and the clothing Johnson was reportedly wearing during the shooting.
Pirro has made public calls for tougher enforcement of laws against juveniles in Washington.
She has suggested prosecuting violent crimes by 14- to 17-year-olds in adult court rather than in family or juvenile court.
Her tough policies have led to criticisms by some members of the D.C. Council members who prefer more community-based solutions to juvenile crime.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Prince William County Lawyers Up
To Protect Huge Data Center Project
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors is spending another $400,000 on litigation expenses intended to overcome opposition to the controversial PW Digital Gateway rezoning.
If it’s built, the Gateway would become the world’s largest data center corridor. It’s part of the county and Virginia’s bid to capitalize on the explosive growth of artificial intelligence.
First the project must withstand two lawsuits by local residents who are concerned about traffic, noise, higher rents and disruption of their lifestyles that they say will accompany construction and operation of 37 data centers.
The lawsuits, Katy Burke et al v. Board of County Supervisors, and Oak Valley Homeowners Association, Inc, et al v. Prince William County Board of Supervisors, are scheduled to be heard jointly before the Virginia Court of Appeals the week of Feb. 23. The plaintiffs argue that the lack of notice and public input before the projects won legislative approval violate state laws on due process.
They won preliminary success in their lawsuits.
The Board of County Supervisors approved the project in December 2023 but a judge ordered it halted. She said the county failed to adequately advertise a public hearing to elicit community input before the vote of approval.
In addition, 17 circuit court cases challenge real estate assessments of the land that would be rezoned for the project.
The PW Digital Gateway would include more than 22 million square feet of data centers across 2,100 acres in western Prince William County. The principal developers are Compass Datacenters and QTS.
Additional money for the county’s litigation is being transferred from the real estate assessment reserve to the county attorney’s office. The county is spending about $800,000 on outside counsel, much of it going to the Fredericksburg-based firm Sands Anderson PC.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.