Justice Department court exhibits show Taylor Taranto, left, in a photo he posted to Facebook while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Right: Justice Department provided footage from inside the Capitol, Taranto is circled in yellow in exhibit.
A Jan. 6 defendant who allegedly threatened lawmakers and showed up to the Washington, D.C., home of Barack Obama toting guns and supplies for an explosive device was convicted Tuesday after a weeklong bench trial.
The evidence? His own 90-minute livestream, where he describes making a detonator and prepping a van for destruction.
U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Donald Trump appointee, said it was ultimately the video that swayed him to find Taylor Taranto, 39, guilty on all counts as he viewed it as “evidence of an unbalanced narrator willing to follow through on outlandish claims,” according to local CBS affiliate WUSA.
Prosecutors accused Taranto of livestreaming on his public YouTube channel before his arrest, where he made “concerning” statements regarding various “entrance points” he had “control” of around the Obama residence.
In the 90-minute video, Taranto can be seen walking through a restricted area monitored by the U.S. Secret Service as he streams and talks about looking for the “entrance points” and “tunnels underneath their houses.” He repeatedly states that he is trying to get a “shot” and that he wants to get a “good angle on a shot,” according to court documents.
“He has a weird sense of humor,” Taranto’s lawyer, Carmen Hernandez, claimed Tuesday, according to WUSA.
“He’s a little bit quirky,” Hernandez said.
Taranto, 39, of Washington state, was arrested on a fugitive from justice warrant on June 29, 2023, after he was allegedly found near Obama’s home in the Kalorama neighborhood in northwest Washington, D.C. He reportedly took off running toward the residence but was promptly chased off by the Secret Service before being apprehended hours later while lurking in the woods near a busy thoroughfare.
Prosecutors said that in a van parked near the Obama’s home, Taranto stashed weapons — including firearms and ammunition — as well as materials that could be fashioned into a Molotov cocktail-like device. The U.S. Navy veteran and Seattle native had been lingering in Washington, D.C., for months before the incident and was threatening U.S. lawmakers. He was charged with unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, described by authorities as a Scorpion CS short-barreled rifle; unlawful possession of ammunition; carrying a pistol without a license, specifically, a Scorpion CZ pistol; and making false information and hoaxes.
The false hoax charge was tied to a bogus threat Taranto allegedly made about setting off an explosive at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland before he was arrested.
For his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 attack, Taranto was hit with several charges tied to his conduct at the Capitol including knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and parading and demonstrating. The DOJ dismissed those charges after Trump took office.
Hernandez and Taranto’s other attorney, Pleasant Brodnax III, tried getting his firearms and threat charges tossed out as well, but were unsuccessful. They argued during his bench trial that Taranto’s livestreams were protected by the First Amendment and that his “dark sense of humor” stems from “his time in service” and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
“I think it helped him survive Iraq,” Hernandez claimed. She also compared her client’s livestreams to Orson Welles’ infamous radio broadcast of “The War of the Worlds,” which was said to have inadvertently set off a panic among listeners who thought the alien invasion story was a real news report.
Describing his alarming statements, Brodnax reportedly told Nichols there was no actual detonator involved and “no bomb materials.” He and Hernandez dismissed Taranto’s comments as being a “rambling dissertation of thoughts” and not an actual murder plot.
Nichols said he felt any reasonable person who watched one of Taranto’s streams would think he wasn’t joking. He reportedly told the court it appeared Taranto was genuinely preparing a vehicle for a bomb attack, even going so far as to talk about installing self-driving “firmware” to have the van drive itself, which prosecutors propped up as one of their key pieces of evidence.
“Orson Welles was talking about an invasion by interplanetary forces,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Samuel White on Tuesday before Nichols’ verdict was handed down.
“Martians invading parts of the United States. Improbable even at the time Orson Welles said it,” White blasted. “Far more probable in 2023 is a vehicle being converted into a bomb and driven into a federal building,” he said.
Nichols wound up delaying Taranto’s sentencing date after his lawyers said they would be filing a motion seeking his release, as he’s already been locked up for nearly two years. He faces up to five more, WUSA reports.
“I recognize Mr. Taranto has been detained on coming up on 23 months now,” Nichols said. “He doesn’t have a criminal history. I would like you to get that motion in and I will act on it very quickly.”
Nichols’ legal team filed the motion Wednesday and argued that Taranto had already served 22 months and 22 days in prison. If the court were to factor in the 54 days annual good-time credit he would receive, the total goes up to nearly 27 months imprisonment.
“Even assuming a worst-case scenario were the court apply a specific offense characteristic and reject the downward adjustments noted above, Mr. Taranto is still not facing any additional recommended term of imprisonment,” the motion says. “Moreover, this is Mr. Taranto’s first criminal conviction. He stands convicted of nonviolent offenses. He did not engage in any violent conduct and did not destroy any property. He has been married for more than 15 years to a wonderful woman, who has stood by him during all the current difficulties and stands ready to continue her loving support. He is a loving and engaged father. His two children need their father.”
