Military veteran gets a life sentence for plotting an FBI attack after his Jan. 6 arrest
Edward Kelley was one of the first rioters to breach the Capitol. Nearly two years later, Kelley made plans with another man to attack the FBI office in Knoxville, Tennessee, using improvised explosive devices attached to vehicles and drones, according to prosecutors.
Last November, a jury convicted Kelley of conspiring to murder federal employees, solicitation to commit a crime of violence and influencing federal officials by threat.
Kelley received a pardon from President Donald Trump for his Jan. 6 convictions, but a judge agreed with prosecutors that Trump's action did not extend to Kelley's Tennessee case. That makes Kelley, who is from Maryvale, Tennessee, one of only a few Capitol riot defendants remaining in prison after the Republican president's sweeping act of clemency.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan handed down Kelley's life sentence during a hearing in Knoxville, according to court records. The judge denied a request for Kelley to be released pending the outcome of an appeal.
Prosecutors had recommended a life sentence for Kelley, saying he was remorseless and incapable of rehabilitation.
'On the contrary, Kelley not only believes the actions for which he was convicted were justified but that his duty as a self-styled 'patriot' compelled him to target East Tennessee law enforcement for assassination,' they wrote.
Kelley served in the Marine Corps for eight years. He was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan before his 2015 discharge from the military.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Kelley was captured on video helping two other rioters throw a Capitol Police officer onto the ground and using a piece of wood to damage a window, according to the FBI. He was the fourth person to enter the Capitol through a broken window, the FBI said.
After a trial without a jury, a federal judge in Washington convicted Kelley last November of 11 counts stemming from the riot. Before Kelley could be sentenced, Trump pardoned him and hundreds of other convicted Capitol rioters.
Kelley argued that his pardon was broad enough to cover his conduct in the Tennessee case, but the judge disagreed. Varlan said Kelley's crimes in the Tennessee case were separated from Kelley's conduct on Jan. 6 'by years and miles.' Prosecutors reached the same conclusion.
In other Jan. 6 cases, however, Trump's Justice Department has argued that the pardons apply to separate convictions. For instance, prosecutors concluded that a Kentucky man's pardon for storming the Capitol also covered his conviction for illegally possessing guns when FBI agents searched his home for the Jan. 6 investigation.
Kelley has been jailed since December 2022. His lawyer, Mark Brown, said Kelley did not hurt anybody or directly threaten anybody with violence. Brown urged the judge to reject prosecutors' request to apply a 'terrorism enhancement' in calculating his client's sentence.
'Kelley does not deserve the same sentence as an actual 'terrorist' who injured or killed hundreds or thousands of America citizens,' Brown wrote.
Kelley's co-defendant, Austin Carter, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in January 2024. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 4.
Kelley created a list of 36 law-enforcement officers to target for assassination and shared it with Carter, calling it their first 'mission,' according to prosecutors. All the officers were involved in Kelley's May 2022 arrest on Capitol riot charges and the FBI's search of his home.
'The proof at trial established that Kelley targeted law enforcement because of their anticipated role in the civil war that Kelley hoped to initiate and because of his animus towards those who participated in his May 2022 arrest and search of his home,' prosecutors wrote.
Kelley, Carter and a third man used an encrypted messaging platform to discuss plans, prosecutors said. Carter testified that he met with Kelley to conduct military-style training in November 2022.
'Carter's testimony was unequivocal — he had no doubts that, had he and Kelley not been arrested, the law enforcement personnel included on Kelley's list would have been murdered,' prosecutors wrote.
Kelley's attorney said the case involved 'little to no planning.'
'Discussions did not lead to action,' Brown wrote. 'And while people may not like what Mr. Kelley had to say, he stands behind his position that he has a First Amendment right to free speech.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
35 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
HANSON: The decline and fall of our so-called degreed experts
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump is reflected in the bullet proof glass as he finishes speaking at a campaign rally in Lititz, Pa., Nov. 3, 2024. Photo by Matt Rourke / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The first six months of the Trump administration have not been kind to the experts and the degree-holding classes. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Almost daily during the tariff hysterias of March, we were told by university economists and most of the PhDs employed in investment and finance that the U.S. was headed toward a downward, if not recessionary, spiral. Most economists lectured that trade deficits did not really matter. Or they insisted that the cures to reduce them were worse than the $1.1-trillion deficit itself. They reminded us that free, rather than fair, trade alone ensured prosperity. So, the result of Donald Trump's foolhardy tariff talk would be an impending recession. America would soon suffer rising joblessness, inflation — or rather a return to stagflation — and likely little, if any, increase in tariff revenue as trade volume declined. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Instead, recent data show increases in tariff revenue. Personal real income and savings were up. Job creation exceeded prognoses. There was no surge in inflation. The supposedly 'crashed' stock market reached historic highs. Common-sense Americans might not have been surprised. The prior stock market frenzy was predicated on what was, in theory, supposed to have happened rather than what was likely to occur. After all, if tariffs were so toxic and surpluses irrelevant, why did our affluent European and Asian trading rivals insist on both surpluses and protective tariffs? Most Americans recalled that the mere threat of tariffs and Trump's jawboning had led to several trillion dollars in promised foreign investment and at least some plans to relocate manufacturing and assembly back to the United States. Would that change in direction not lead to business optimism and eventually more jobs? Would countries purposely running up huge surpluses through asymmetrical trade practices not have far more to lose in negotiations than those suffering gargantuan deficits? Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Were Trump's art-of-the-deal threats of prohibitive tariffs not mere starting points in negotiations that would eventually lead to likely agreements more favorable to the U.S. than in the past and moderate rather than punitive tariffs? Would not the value of the huge American consumer market mean that our trade partners, who were racking up substantial surpluses, would agree they could afford modest tariffs and trim their substantial profit margins rather than suicidally price themselves out of a lucrative market entirely? U.S. Border Patrol and protesters clash after a raid was conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement near a Home Depot store in Paramount, Calif., Saturday, June 7, 2025. Photo by Apu Gomes / Getty Images GOT IT WRONG Economists and bureaucrats were equally wrong on the border. We were told for four years that only 'comprehensive immigration reform' would stop illegal immigration. In fact, most Americans differed. They knew firsthand that we had more than enough immigration laws, but had elected as President Joe Biden, who deliberately destroyed borders and had no intention of enforcing existing laws. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. When Trump promised that he would ensure that, instead of 10,000 foreign nationals entering illegally each day, within a month, no one would, our experts scoffed. But if the border patrol went from ignoring or even aiding illegal immigrants to stopping them right at the border, why would such a prediction be wrong? Those favoring a reduction in illegal immigration and deportations also argued that crime would fall, and citizen job opportunities would increase, given an estimated 500,000 aliens with criminal records had entered illegally during the Biden administration, while millions of other illegal aliens were working off the books, for cash, and often at reduced wages. Indeed, once the border was closed tightly, hundreds of thousands were returned to their country, and employers began turning to U.S. citizens. Job opportunities did increase. Crime did go down. Legal-only immigration regained its preferred status over illegal entry. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump talked of trying voluntary deportation — again to wide ridicule from immigration 'experts.' But why would not a million illegal aliens wish to return home 'voluntarily' — if they were given free flights, a $1,000 bonus, and, most importantly, a chance later to reapply for legal entry once they arrived home? Many of our national security experts warned that taking out Iran's nuclear sites was a fool's errand. It would supposedly unleash a Middle East tsunami of instability. It would cause a wave of terrorism. It would send oil prices skyrocketing. It would not work, ensuring Iran would soon reply with nuclear weapons. OIL PRICES DECREASED In fact, oil prices decreased after the American bombing. A 25-minute entrance into Iranian airspace and bombing led to a ceasefire, not a conflagration. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. As for a big power standoff, World War III, and 30,000 dead, common sense asked why China would wish the Strait of Hormuz to close, given that it imports half of all Middle Eastern oil produced? Why would Russia — bogged down in Ukraine and suffering nearly a million casualties — wish to mix it up in Iran, after ignominiously fleeing Syria and the fall of its Assad clients? Russia usually thinks of Russia, period. It does not lament when tensions elsewhere are expected to spike oil prices. Why would Russia resupply Iran's destroyed Russian-made anti-aircraft systems, when it was desperate to ward off Ukrainian air attacks on its homeland, and Iran would likely again lose any imported replacements? As for waves of terror, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis have suffered enormous losses from Israel. Their leadership has been decapitated; their streams of Iranian money have been mostly truncated. Why would they rush to Iran's side to war with Israel, when Iran did not come to their aid when they were battling and losing to the Israelis? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Has a theater-wide war really ever started when one side entered and left enemy territory in 25 minutes, suffering no casualties and likely killing few of the enemy? As far as the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, why should we believe our expert pundit class? Prior to the American and Israeli bombing, many of them warned that Iran was not on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and therefore, there was little need for any such preemptive action. Then, post facto, the same experts flipped. Now they claimed, after the bombing that severely damaged most Iranian nuclear sites, that there was an increased threat, given that some enriched uranium (which they had previously discounted) surely had survived and thus marked a new existential danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Was Trump really going to 'blow up,' 'destroy' or 'cripple' NATO, as our diplomatic experts insisted, when his first-term jawboning led from six to twenty-three nations meeting their two per cent of GDP defence spending promises? Given two ongoing theater-wide wars, given Trump's past correct predictions about the dangers of the Nord Stream II pipeline, given the vulnerability of an anemic NATO to Russian expansionism, and given that Russian leader Vladimir Putin did not invade during Trump's first term, unlike the three presidencies before and after his own, why wouldn't NATO agree to rearm to five per cent, and appreciate Trump's efforts both to bolster the capability of the alliance and the need to end the Ukraine war? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Why were our 'scientific' pollsters so wrong in the last three presidential elections, and so at odds with the clearly discernible electoral shifts in the general electorate? Where were crackpot ideas like defund the police, transgender males competing in women's sports, and open borders first born and nurtured? Answer: the university, and higher education in general. The list of wrongheaded, groupthink, and degreed expertise could be vastly expanded. We remember the '51 intelligence authorities' who swore the Hunter Biden laptop was 'likely' cooked up by the Russians. Our best and brightest economists signed letters insisting that Biden's multitrillion-dollar wasteful spending would not result in inflation spikes. Our global warming professors' past predictions should have ensured that Americans were now boiling, with tidal waves destroying beachfront communities, including Barack Obama's two beachfront multimillion-dollar estates. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Our legal eagles, after learning nothing from the bogus Mueller investigation and adolescent Steele dossier, but with impressive Ivy League degrees, pontificated for years that, by now, Trump would be in jail for life, given 91 'walls are closing in' and 'bombshell' indictments. WHY DO THEY NEVER LEARN? So why are the degreed classes so wrong and yet so arrogantly never learn anything from their past flawed predictions? One, our experts usually receive degrees from our supposedly marquee universities. But as we are now learning from long overdue autopsies of institutionalized campus racial bias, neo-racial segregation, 50-percent-plus price-gauging surcharges on federal grants, and rabid antisemitism, higher education in America has become anti-Enlightenment. Universities now wage war against free-thinkers, free speech, free expression, and anything that freely questions the deductive groupthink of the diversity/equity/inclusion commissariat, and global warming orthodoxies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The degreed expert classes emerge from universities whose faculties are 90-95 percent left-wing and whose administrations are overstaffed and terrified of their radical students. The wonder is not that the experts are incompetent and biased, but that there are a brave few who are not. Two, Trump drove the degreed class insane to the degree it could no longer, even if it were willing and able (and it was not), offer empirical assessments of his policies. From his crude speech to his orange skin to his Queens accent to his MAGA base to his remarkable counterintuitive successes and to his disdain for the bicoastal elite, our embarrassing experts would rather be dead wrong and anti-Trump than correct in their assessments — if they in any small way helped Trump. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Three, universities are not just biased, but increasingly mediocre and ever more isolated from working Americans and their commonsense approaches to problem solving. PhD programs in general are not as rigorous as they were even two decades ago. Grading, assessments, and evaluations in professional schools must increasingly weigh non-meritocratic criteria, given their admissions and hiring protocols are not based on disinterested evaluation of past work and expertise. Read More The vast endowments of elite campuses, the huge profit-making foreign enrollments, and the assured, steady stream of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid created a sense of fiscal unreality, moral smugness, unearned superiority, and ultimately, blindness to just how isolated and disliked the professoriate had become. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But the public has caught on that too many Ivy-League presidents were increasingly a mediocre, if not incompetent, bunch. Most university economists could not run a small business. The military academies did not always turn out the best generals and admirals. The most engaging biographers were not professors. And plumbers and electricians were usually more skilled in their trades than most journalist graduates were in their reporting. Add it all up, and the reputation of our predictors, prognosticators, and experts has been radically devalued to the point of utter worthlessness. – Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of 'The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won,' from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@ RECOMMENDED VIDEO Crime Other Sports Editorials Canada World
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
US completes deportation of 8 men to South Sudan after weeks of legal wrangling
WASHINGTON (AP) — Eight men deported from the United States in May and held under guard for weeks at an American military base in the African nation of Djibouti while their legal challenges played out in court have now reached the Trump administration's intended destination, war-torn South Sudan, a country the State Department advises against travel to due to 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' The immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan arrived in South Sudan on Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate them in a case that had gone to the Supreme Court, which had permitted their removal from the U.S. Administration officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S. 'This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people,' said Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival in South Sudan, a chaotic country in danger once more of collapsing into civil war. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the transfer of the men who had been put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan. That meant that the South Sudan transfer could be completed after the flight was detoured to a base in Djibouti, where they men were held in a converted shipping container. The flight was detoured after a federal judge found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow the men a chance to challenge the removal. The court's conservative majority had ruled in June that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. A flurry of court hearings on Independence Day resulted a temporary hold on the deportations while a judge evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the men's before the judge decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was a Boston judge whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration's effort to begin deportations to South Sudan. By Friday evening, that judge had issued a brief ruling concluding the Supreme Court had tied his hands. The men had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
OPEC+ to boost oil production by 548,000 barrels per day in August
NEW YORK (AP) — Eight members of the OPEC+ alliance of oil exporting countries say they will boost production by 548,000 barrels per day in August in a move that could further reduce gas prices this year. The group that includes Saudi Arabia and Russia made the decision at a virtual meeting Saturday. They cited a 'steady global economic outlook' and low oil inventories. Oil prices spiked sharply last month during the bloody, 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran but then tumbled back down as the U.S. helped broker a peace deal after dropping bombs on three of Iran's key nuclear sites. Saudi Arabia holds significant influence in OPEC+ as the dominant member of the OPEC producers' cartel, and Russia is the leading non-OPEC member in the 22-country alliance. Along with Saudi Arabia and Russia, the group that met Saturday is made up of Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman. A statement said the new measures were in accordance with a December decision to put off increasing production at that time, but gradually increase it by 2.2 million barrels per day over an 18-month period starting in April and ending in fall 2026. The delayed ramp up reflected weaker-than-expected demand and competing production from non-allied countries.
