Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is weighing the possibility of bringing state charges against those pardoned by President Donald Trump for involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol unrest.

Krasner aims to explore state-level prosecutions as a means to effectively reverse the Jan. 6 clemency, but experts have expressed skepticism about the legal viability of that strategy, given potential constitutional obstacles, as the Washington Examiner reports.

A Democrat and self-described progressive prosecutor, Krasner has become a focal point of this legal strategy due to his intention to explore state-level offenses potentially committed by individuals who received federal pardons from Trump.

While presidential pardons shield individuals from federal crimes, they do not extend to state offenses, providing a narrow legal pathway for further action.

Krasner Investigates State Offenses

On Tuesday, Krasner shared his interest in examining possible state violations that could apply to these cases. He specifically noted that actions like assaults on law enforcement or conspiracies tied to extremist entities such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys might qualify for prosecution under state statutes.

Despite this ambition, Krasner faces steep hurdles. Among these is the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which has derailed previous attempts to prosecute Trump affiliates in state courts.

Notably, efforts to bring charges against Trump ally Paul Manafort in state jurisdictions were thwarted due to these legal safeguards.

Zach Rehl, a former Philadelphia Proud Boys leader, could emerge as a central figure in this effort. Rehl, who was sentenced to 15 years for his role in the Jan. 6 events, saw his sentence reduced through clemency granted by Trump, leading to his release earlier this week.

Legal Experts Question Success Chances

David Gelman, an experienced former federal prosecutor, expressed doubt regarding the feasibility of Krasner's strategy. Gelman explained that the absence of viable state actions presents formidable challenges, casting uncertainty on the potential outcomes.

He further criticized Krasner's focus on these cases, pointing to rising crime rates in Philadelphia as more pressing issues demanding the D.A.'s attention.

Krasner, however, maintains a focus on the principles of law and justice. He asserted that prosecutors who truly adhere to the rule of law are committed to upholding the nation's foundational values and legal standards. Krasner underscored the importance of investigating whether specific acts potentially breached state laws.

Although Gelman remains skeptical, he acknowledges the complexities underlying Krasner's evaluations. As Krasner delves deeper into his investigations, he aims to clarify whether the federal charges these individuals faced entirely capture the scope of their actions.

Controversies Surround Krasner’s Approach

Critics continue to debate Krasner's priorities, arguing that his concentration on Jan. 6 cases diverts essential focus away from combating critical issues like violent crime. Gelman contended that Krasner appears disconnected from the urgent needs of Pennsylvania's residents, further highlighting the rift between local expectations and the D.A.'s initiatives.

Krasner has experienced controversy throughout his tenure, with his policies frequently at odds with those of Pennsylvania’s Democratic leadership. This isolation within his party may amplify the challenges he encounters as he progresses with prospective state-level prosecutions against pardoned individuals.

Should Krasner proceed with charges against Rehl or others, the implications could be wide-ranging. The D.A.'s approach would need to confront a landscape shaped not only by legal intricacies but also by a polarized public opinion around the events of Jan. 6 and their aftermath.

Legal Viability in Question

Recent developments have seen Krasner explore the viability of leveraging state conspiracy laws or election statutes as instruments for indictment. These investigations, currently in their preliminary stages, may illuminate potential avenues for action in cases deemed legally sustainable.

In delving into these complex legal domains, Krasner seeks to discern the extent to which state laws may uphold his prosecutorial objectives. As these proceedings unfold, the contrasting perspectives of legal experts and the potential ramifications of Krasner's decisions remain prominent discussions for both the legal community and the public at large.

As the situation develops, both supporters and detractors of Krasner will closely monitor the D.A.'s trajectory, assessing the balance he strikes between legal scrutiny and broader societal responsibilities. Whatever the outcome, the debate surrounding prosecutorial discretion, legal boundaries, and the pursuit of justice continues to resonate well beyond Philadelphia.