Judge Praises Removed Prosecutors Who Described Jan. 6 ‘Rioters’

A Trump-appointed Washington federal judge praised two prosecutors for their “commendable” work and professionalism, one day after they were put on leave after filing a since-withdrawn brief that described Jan. 6 participants as a “mob of rioters.”

US District Judge Carl Nichols of the District of Columbia, appointed in 2019, said at a Thursday sentencing hearing that assistant US attorneys Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia were among the best prosecutors who’d argued in his court and who upheld the “highest levels of professionalism.”

“My view is that they did a commendable and excellent job in this case,” Nichols said toward the beginning of a sentencing hearing for a Washington state man facing weapons possession charges, after noting that the two prosecutors weren’t present at counsel’s table.

Valdivia and White, who represented the government during the bench trial earlier this year, filed a sentencing memo Tuesday that described earlier conduct by the defendant, Taylor Taranto, on Jan. 6, 2021, at the US Capitol during certification of the presidential election.

The memo described Jan. 6 participants who raided the building during the certification as “a mob of rioters” and said Taranto later “promoted conspiracy theories” about the events that day.

Valdivia and White were placed on leave Wednesday, according to a person familiar with the situation who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

The government also withdrew their sentencing memo from the court docket and filed a new one Wednesday, signed by different prosecutors, that omitted those references to Taranto’s alleged participation in the riot.

Taranto was previously charged for his conduct at the riot in the same case, but those counts were dismissed following President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons of Capitol rioters.

US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia declined to comment through a spokesperson on personnel decisions, but said in a statement Thursday that “we want to make very clear that we take violence and threats of violence against law enforcement, current or former government officials extremely seriously.”

“We have and will continue to vigorously pursue justice against those who commit or threaten violence without regard to the political party of the offender or the target,” Pirro said.

Nichols told the government lawyers it was “not entirely clear” to him how the first memo was sealed, and he told them he intended to unseal the document unless the lawyers ask otherwise in writing. Travis Wolf, representing the government at Thursday’s hearing, indicated he plans to request that.

Valdivia and White have each worked at the Washington US attorney’s office for nearly six years, according to their LinkedIn profiles. They also both attended Thursday’s sentencing hearing.

Nichols ultimately sentenced Taranto to 21 months in prison, the lower end of the sentencing guidelines and six months short of the federal government’s request, along with three years of supervised release. It amounted to time-served in prison, as Taranto spent 22 months in pretrial custody, the judge said.

Nichols said while Taranto’s conduct was “severe,” he acknowledged he never acted violently.

Taranto was found guilty following a bench trial of illegally carrying a gun without a license and possessing ammunition, as well as of violating a law against spreading false information and hoaxes.

According to prosecutors, Taranto broadcast video in June 2023, while driving through the Washington region, claiming he intended to detonate his vehicle at a government building.

The next day, he broadcast himself driving and walking through a neighborhood in northwest Washington in a stated effort to access former President Barack Obama’s residence and “get the shot,” prosecutors said. After he was arrested, officers found guns and ammunition in his van.

Government lawyers, asking for a 27-month sentence, cast his actions in court filings as “part of a broader campaign of intimidation against the federal government and public officials.”

His defense lawyer, Carmen Hernandez, emphasized that Taranto didn’t directly threaten any individual and that he believed he was expressing himself under the First Amendment.

The case is USA v. Taranto, D.D.C., No. 1:23-cr-00229, 10/30/25.