(WASHINGTON) — The suspect accused of placing two pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic National Committees the night before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, made his initial appearance in court Friday.

Brian Cole Jr. of Virginia was arrested by federal authorities Thursday following a massive probe that had stymied investigators for almost five years.

Members of his family seated in the gallery audibly gasped and broke down in tears as Cole entered the courtroom and sat down next to his attorney, John Shoreman.

Cole’s legs and arms were shaking throughout the duration of the hearing as he listened to the judge read him his rights and detail the two charges Cole currently faces, which carry a maximum sentence of up to 30 years if he is convicted.

Cole did not enter a plea in court.

During the hearing, government attorneys said that Cole sat for an interview with the FBI for four hours Thursday after his arrest, and that they plan to provide a transcript of the interview to Cole’s attorneys over the weekend. 

Law enforcement sources tell ABC News that Cole admitted to investigators that he planted the bombs, but investigators have not yet officially identified a motive.

According to sources, investigators who interviewed Cole feel initial indications are that Cole believed there was fraud in the 2020 election.

Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas on Friday that Cole told investigators he was “disappointed in various aspects of the election.”

Counsel for the government told the court that they will seek Cole’s continued detention through trial, based on the seriousness of the offenses he now faces. The judge set a detention hearing for Dec. 15.

As Cole departed the courtroom members of his family stood up and shouted, “We love you Brian!” Another shouted, “We’re here for you, baby!”

Family members and Cole’s attorney declined to comment to reporters outside of court after the hearing concluded. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The man who is accused of placing two pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican National Committee offices on Jan. 5, 2021, told investigators he was “disappointed” in the results of the 2020 election, according to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.

Brian Cole Jr. also said that that he got rid of the unusual shoes that investigators were looking for, according Pirro.

“He told us that he had those sneakers and that he got rid of them after he placed the pipe bombs,” Pirro told ABC News in an exclusive interview Friday.

When asked if she would go further in saying that Cole offered a full confession, Pirro would go no further, saying, “I don’t want to get ahead of this, but what I can tell you is that the combination of video evidence, forensic evidence, as well as the items, the receipts and — it makes it very clear that we can prove this case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Authorities arrested Cole, 30, on Thursday after identifying him as the suspect in the case following a yearslong investigation.

He made his first court appearance Friday and did not enter a plea.

The distinctive Nike Air Max Turf sneakers seen in CCTV images had long been a focus of investigators who were hoping they would lead to the suspect.

Pirro said that based on the evidence, it is “unmistakable” that Cole is the suspect, after having gone through 3 million pieces of data.

“In my mind, they were on the right path when it was clear that the cell phone was pinging in the exact locations where we had the video of the suspect walking along the area,” Pirro said. “Everywhere he walked, his cell phone was pinging at the cell tower. So it is unmistakable that he was the guy who was walking along and placing those items,” she said.

Pirro confirmed ABC News’ reporting that Cole is talking to authorities and that they say he expressed concern about the 2020 election.

“He was disappointed in various aspects of the election,” Pirro said.

She said “it really isn’t clear” if Cole is a supporter of either President Donald Trump or former President Joe Biden.

“This guy was an equal opportunity bomber,” Pirro said. “He put a bomb outside the Republican National Committee and the Democrat National Committee. He was disappointed to a great deal in the system, both sides of the system, and for me as a prosecutor, my job is to prove what his intent was in placing those pipe bombs, and what he intended to do, and what we can prove, and we can prove that.”

She said they won’t stop investigating this case and will continue to execute search warrants and find information.

Pirro was adamant that the public will see the facts of this case, regardless of politics.

“Look at me,” she said. “You will see the facts. You will see the evidence. You will see the truth as we go forward with this case. The law requires it, it demands it, and it is what we will deliver.” 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A judge ruled on Tuesday that a judgement could not be entered against blogger Milagro Cooper for the defamation count in a lawsuit filed by hip-hop star Megan Thee Stallion in October 2024.

Cooper was found liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction by a Miami jury on Monday.

However, Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga ruled that a media defendant “precludes judgement for Plaintiff on the defamation per se claim because it is uncontested that Plaintiff did not provide Defendant pre-suit notice,” according to the court’s final judgment obtained by ABC News on Tuesday.

In Florida, a media defendant must be served by the plaintiff with a legal notice at least five days before filing a defamation suit, according to court documents obtained by ABC News on Tuesday.

Megan Thee Stallion, whose legal name is Megan Pete, testified during the trial in November that Cooper, who is known on social media as blogger Milagro Gramz, participated in a targeted and coordinated social media campaign to harass, intimidate and defame her.

Pete alleged Cooper was a “paid surrogate” for rapper Tory Lanez and spread lies on his behalf. Lanez was convicted of shooting and injuring Pete in a July 2020 incident.

(LOS ANGELES) — The judge decreased the damages Cooper owes Pete from $75,000 to $59,000, according to legal documents. Altonaga upheld the other two counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction.

“Cooper ultimately prevailed on Ms. Pete’s leading accusation, defamation, and the jury awarded a nominal amount of damages compared to millions of dollars Ms. Pete demanded from Ms. Cooper throughout the course of the litigation,” Cooper’s attorney said in a statement on Wednesday obtained by ABC News.

Pete’s attorneys said in a statement obtained by ABC News after the jury’s verdict on Monday that Cooper is also required to cover costs for the rapper’s legal bills.

“Request for costs and fees shall not be submitted until after any post-trial motions are decided or an appeal is concluded, whichever occurs later,” the judge stated in her final judgment.

ABC News has reached out to Pete’s attorneys, but requests for comments were not immediately returned.

The lawsuit alleges that Cooper spread lies about Pete to punish her and attempt to discredit her after she publicly named Lanez as her shooter.

“She’s created a space for a lot of people to come speak negatively about me,” Pete said in trial testimony last month of Cooper, referencing social media posts where the blogger attacked Pete’s character, casting her as a liar and mentally unstable.

Cooper, who took the stand earlier in November, testified that as a blogger, she discussed the shooting on her social media accounts without the influence of Tory Lanez, whose legal name is Daystar Peterson.

But Cooper did acknowledge that she spoke with Peterson and was hoping to have him as a guest on her channel. She also testified that she received payments from Peterson’s father, Sonstar Peterson, but claimed they were for “personal” reasons like her children’s birthdays and “promotional” work.

The jury was shown social media posts in which Cooper claimed that Pete was not shot.

When asked if she believed that Pete was shot, Cooper said, “I can’t say she lied about that because I wasn’t there,” but then Cooper said that she believed that Pete was not shot and had stepped on glass — a claim that Pete made in her initial statement to police.

Peterson is not named as a defendant in Pete’s defamation lawsuit but was asked to give a deposition ahead of the trial. ABC News has reached out to his attorneys, but requests for comment were not immediately returned.

Peterson, who chose not to take the witness stand during the 2022 trial, pleaded not guilty and his defense attorneys argued during the trial that he was not the shooter.

Peterson was sentenced to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole on Aug. 8, 2023, after he was convicted in December 2022 of felony assault for shooting and injuring Pete in both of her feet in an incident that occurred in the Hollywood Hills on July 12, 2020.

His legal team appealed his conviction, but it was upheld on Nov. 12 by a federal court in Los Angeles.

Editor’s Note: A prior version of this story said the judge dismissed the defamation charge. Under Florida law, a media defendant must be served by the plaintiff with a legal notice at least five days before filing a defamation suit so, in this case, that judgement could not be entered.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(FLORIDA) — A federal judge in Florida has granted the Trump administration’s motion to unseal grand jury transcripts from the initial federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in the mid-2000s. The order also grants the government’s request to modify any protective orders in place that would inhibit public disclosure.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith – a Trump appointee – determined that the language of the recently-enacted Epstein Transparency Act  “overrides” federal rules prohibiting the public disclosure of grand jury materials.

“The Act applies to unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,” Smith wrote in an order Friday. “Consequently, the later-enacted and specific language of the Act trumps Rule 6’s prohibition on disclosure. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that United States’ Expedited Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts and Modify Protective Order…is GRANTED.”

Smith is one of three federal judges asked by the DOJ to unseal grand jury materials in cases involving Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. Smith is the first to rule. Two judges in New York are expected to issue their decisions next week.

This is the second time the DOJ has gone to those courts asking for the grand jury materials to be unsealed. Those earlier attempts – before the Epstein Transparency Act was passed, requiring the disclosure of materials related to Epstein’s cases within 30 days with certain exceptions — were rejected by each court.

Smith’s order does not address redactions to the records to protect the privacy interests of Epstein’s victims.  It will be up to the DOJ to make those redactions, as administration officials have promised to do before disclosing records to the public.

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida used two separate grand juries during their initial probes in the mid-2000s of Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking of minors.  Neither grand jury was asked to indict Epstein, and there was never a federal criminal prosecution of Epstein in Florida.  Instead, Epstein and federal prosecutors negotiated a non-prosecution agreement which resulted in Epstein’s guilty pleas in state court.

Witnesses express concerns about privacy in New York cases

In the New York cases, the courts have received input and objections from witnesses, victims and others expressing concerns about personal privacy, redaction of victim information and the potential impacts the court’s rulings could have on public disclosure of the Epstein files.

Annie Farmer – a witness who testified against Maxwell at her criminal trial in 2021 – urged the judges to make “abundantly clear” that any decision they make about the DOJ’s motions “does not affect the Department of Justice’s ability to release documents subject to the [Epstein] Transparency Act,” including materials contained in the 300 gigabytes of data the government has said it has in its possession.

“While Ms. Farmer remains hopeful that the instant motions reflect a bona fide desire by the Government to provide greater transparency into Epstein’s crimes, she is wary of the possibility that any denial of the motions may be used by others as a pretext or excuse for continuing to withhold crucial information concerning Epstein’s crimes,” wrote Sigrid McCawley, counsel for Farmer and other Epstein and Maxwell accusers.

The Epstein Transparency Act contains a number of exceptions that could allow the DOJ to withhold or redact certain records, including records that could result in victim identification or a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” There is also an exception for records related to any “active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.”

The DOJ faces a Dec. 19 deadline to comply with the law’s provisions.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer – who will decide the DOJ’s motion on the Maxwell docket – also received letters from attorneys for two men; one a potential witness at the Maxwell trial who wasn’t called and another whose name had been contained in court files in civil litigation against Maxwell but who had successfully argued for his name to be redacted when those records were unsealed.

“I submit that all personally identifiable information regarding my client is within the ambit of the Act’s permitted withholdings and that this information must be redacted pursuant to the Act, because that disclosure without redaction would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of my client’s personal privacy,” wrote Avrom Robin, an attorney for the witness who wasn’t called.

The attorneys for both men argued that the language of the Epstein Transparency Act contains no specific mention of grand jury materials and that the government’s motion to unseal those records should be denied. Absent such a ruling, they argue that the names of their clients should be redacted or remain under seal.

The Department of Justice has been ordered by the courts to respond to the concerns raised in the letters by Monday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.