{"id":55584,"date":"2025-12-08T22:34:06","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T22:34:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/55584\/"},"modified":"2025-12-08T22:34:06","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T22:34:06","slug":"judge-to-rule-on-whether-trump-pardon-applies-to-2020-election-fraud-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/55584\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge to rule on whether Trump pardon applies to 2020 election fraud case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania\u2019s free newsletter here.<\/a><\/p>\n

A judge overseeing a criminal double-voting case in Pennsylvania appeared open to the defendant\u2019s argument that a pardon from President Donald Trump should apply to him<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The defendant, Matthew Laiss, is accused of voting for Trump twice in the 2020 election \u2014 once in person in Florida and once via mail in Pennsylvania. At a hearing Monday in federal court, he argued that Trump\u2019s Nov. 7 pardon of allies who attempted to overturn his 2020 loss<\/a> should also apply to his alleged crimes.<\/p>\n

While Trump did not directly name Laiss in the pardon, his attorneys argued it covers his case because of its broad language. The Department of Justice argues the pardon does not apply to Laiss, a view it says is shared by the U.S. pardon attorney.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe pardon lays out how people not named in the pardon might get relief,\u201d said Katrina Young, an assistant federal defender representing Laiss.<\/p>\n

The defense\u2019s argument<\/p>\n

Young pointed out that the pardon said it applied to \u201call United States citizens for \u2026 voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election.\u201d Laiss, she argued, is a U.S. citizen, and his alleged crime is voting for a slate of electors, meaning he is covered by the plain language of the pardon.<\/p>\n

Vote smart(er) with Votebeat Pennsylvania’s newsletter.<\/p>\n

Get the latest news on voting and elections in the Keystone State delivered to your inbox for free every other Thursday.<\/p>\n

Prosecutors argued in a filing late last month<\/a> that the phrase \u201cfollowing the 2020 presidential election\u201d in the pardon\u2019s preamble means it applied only to post-election conduct of the type the 77 named individuals had engaged in. But Young said the fact that the pardon specifically mentioned voting \u201cfor\u201d a slate of electors means it applied to Election Day and pre-Election Day conduct as well, since that is when voting for electors occurs. <\/p>\n

If Trump had intended only to pardon the voting his electors did when the Electoral College convened, she said, he would have just said voting \u201cof\u201d electors. <\/p>\n

In response, U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. posed a hypothetical: Would Young\u2019s argument mean, in theory, that if there had been enough fraudulent voters to change the 2020 election result, Trump\u2019s pardon would apply to all of them, even if they numbered in the millions? <\/p>\n

Young responded that it would, and that it is not uncommon for Trump to issue broad pardons, pointing to his pardon of hundreds of people<\/a> charged with crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. <\/p>\n

The prosecution\u2019s argument<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Mark Dubnoff, an assistant U.S. attorney, argued that if Laiss believed the pardon applied to him, he needed to petition the U.S. pardon attorney for relief.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat the law is clear on is that the courts have very limited authority here,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Leeson asked if that administrative step was established by some rule, law, or case law. Dubnoff conceded it was not but insisted this was the way the process worked. Leeson appeared skeptical of that argument.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re talking about an administrative process for which I don\u2019t see a legal basis, other than that \u2018It is so because I say it is so,\u2019\u201d Leeson said.<\/p>\n

Dubnoff responded that it is the president\u2019s prerogative to decide how the pardon process is handled and pointed out that page 4 of the pardon says the attorney general, through the pardon attorney, shall \u201cadminister and effectuate certificates of pardon to eligible applicants.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Young argued that language pertains only to issuing certificates of pardon, not making determinations of eligibility. She also said that the government had dropped its prosecution of individuals covered by the Jan. 6 pardon for crimes not directly related to the Capitol riot if the evidence of those crimes had been discovered as part of the investigations into their Jan. 6 cases. In those instances, the government had not required defendants to apply to the U.S. pardon attorney for relief, she said. <\/p>\n

Leeson asked Young if she had applied to the pardon attorney on Laiss\u2019 behalf. She responded she had sent the pardon attorney a copy of the filing in which she argued that the pardon applies, but the pardon attorney\u2019s website made applying directly difficult.<\/p>\n

Dubnoff said that, even if the pardon did apply because Laiss was voting for a slate of electors, it would apply only to the second count in the indictment, for double-voting, and not to the first one, for voter fraud, since that does not require actual voting to occur in order for a crime to be committed.<\/p>\n

Leeson will rule on the applicability of the pardon in time, but he did not indicate on Monday when he will make his decision. <\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a very interesting case,\u201d Leeson said. \u201cWe\u2019re going to take the matter under advisement and get a decision out.\u201d<\/p>\n

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":55585,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[119,449,30777,790,539,28,30,29,16512],"class_list":{"0":"post-55584","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-pennsylvania","8":"tag-allentown","9":"tag-court","10":"tag-federal-courthouse","11":"tag-hearing","12":"tag-pa","13":"tag-pennsylvania","14":"tag-pennsylvania-headlines","15":"tag-pennsylvania-news","16":"tag-votebeat"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55584\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/55585"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}