Randros 
In a escalating backlash against the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi, members of the Proud Boys convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot are publicly calling for her resignation.
The demands stem from the DOJ’s recent motion to dismiss a high-stakes civil lawsuit seeking over $100 million in damages for alleged abuses during their prosecutions and imprisonments.
The controversy highlights ongoing tensions within conservative circles over the handling of Jan. 6 cases, even after President Trump’s second-term inauguration pardons freed hundreds of defendants.
As more former inmates pursue legal restitution, the DOJ’s stance has drawn sharp criticism from supporters who view it as a continuation of previous administration policies.
The civil suit, filed in federal court in Florida by prominent Proud Boys figures including Enrique Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Domenic Pezzola, and others, accuses the federal government of systemic misconduct.
The plaintiffs claim they endured “a parade of horribles: egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.”
Specific allegations include evidence tampering, witness intimidation, violations of attorney-client privilege, and the placement of spies to monitor trial strategies.
The lawsuit further asserts malicious prosecution and breaches of Fourth Amendment protections, painting a picture of a politically motivated vendetta that led to their convictions and incarcerations.
The men were among those imprisoned for their roles in the Capitol riot but were later pardoned by President Trump on his inauguration day.
Their complaint also details harsh jail conditions and invokes language from Trump’s pardon order, which described the prosecutions as “a grave national injustice” and part of a “process of national reconciliation.”
DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss Sparks Outrage
On August 25, the Justice Department filed a 17-page motion urging a judge to throw out the lawsuit.
The filing argues that the plaintiffs have not exhausted administrative remedies prior to suing and invokes sovereign immunity, shielding the U.S. government from such claims.
While the response rebuts allegations of malicious intent and constitutional violations, it notably avoids addressing the validity of the original jury convictions.
An attorney representing the Jan. 6 defendants provided a statement emphasizing that motions to dismiss are routine: “Motions to dismiss are a common reaction to a civil complaint, and we anticipated that the attorney the government assigned to the case would make such a motion.
We are confident that the Court will see that the Federal government’s outrageous treatment of my clients justifies allowing the suit to continue.”
The DOJ has not commented on the recent wave of criticism from defendants and their allies.
Online Backlash and Calls for Resignation
The motion ignited fury during a social media “X spaces” gathering last month, where pardoned Jan. 6 defendants and supporters vented their frustrations in a publicly posted video.
Isaac Thomas, a Michigan defendant freed by pardon, lambasted the DOJ’s position: “Unfortunately, Pam Bondi’s DOJ seems to be advocating for the same things that the Biden regime was advocating for.
A long time ago, I joined the call of Trump supporters saying that Pam Bondi needs to step down.”
Thomas added that the defendants feel “dumped out” by the current administration.
Attorney Mark McCloskey, who is advocating for financial payments to Capitol riot defendants, expressed deep disappointment in the DOJ’s challenge.
“It’s going to make our lives very difficult,” he said, predicting a surge in similar legal actions.
With over 1,500 individuals charged in Jan. 6-related cases, McCloskey referenced “hundreds” potentially affected by future restitution claims.
The fallout extended to social media, where the DOJ attorney who authored the dismissal motion faced personal attacks, including being labeled a “swamp rat.”
A weekend post from a media outlet aligned with Trump supporter Mike Lindell—known for his unsubstantiated 2020 election claims—amplified criticism of the department, triggering a broader online backlash.
Broader Implications for Jan. 6 Restitution Efforts
This case could set a precedent as more pardoned defendants explore avenues for compensation.
Supporters argue that the pardons acknowledge wrongful treatment, fueling demands for accountability.
However, the DOJ’s firm opposition underscores the legal hurdles ahead, including procedural requirements and immunity defenses.
An attorney who filed the Proud Boys’ suit did not respond to requests for comment.
As the court weighs the motion, the calls for Bondi’s resignation highlight fractures in the post-pardon landscape, where expectations of sweeping reforms clash with institutional realities.
This developing story underscores the unfinished business of Jan. 6, with financial and reputational stakes mounting for all involved parties.
Also Read: ICE is Now Recruiting Teens and Seniors in ‘Desperate Attempt’
For customer support or to report typos and corrections please get in contact via media@franknez.com.
About The Author
News Desk 
They were convicted by a jury of their peers and should still be sitting in prison.