William Pope “is authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from January 19, 2025, through January 21, 2025, for the Presidential Inauguration,” U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras said in a one-page order.

Pope, under a 2021 order, had been barred from traveling to Washington except for court hearings, although he had previously received exceptions to view video footage from Jan. 6 that was made available by Congress for in-person viewing, and for an evidentiary tour of the U.S. Capitol.

Pope is facing charges including disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

In a recent motion for permission to attend Trump’s inauguration, Pope—who is representing himself—said he had been invited to attend the event on Jan. 20 and that he would be “entirely peaceful” if he were allowed to go.

Federal prosecutors in response said that Pope “presents a danger to the D.C. community, including the very law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and continue to serve the citizens of the District.”

They added later: “Allowing William Pope to return to Washington, D.C., specifically the Capitol building, could put him face to face with the officers that he resisted four years ago and place him in the same circumstance in which he already demonstrated a disregard for the law.”

Pope in a reply to the response noted that he was not charged with assault and that in his two visits to Washington since being charged, he had “nothing but positive interactions with Capitol Police.”

Contreras in his order said that he was granting Pope’s motion in part because Pope had not been charged with assault or vandalism-related charges.

At least one other defendant has been granted permission to attend Trump’s swearing-in. U.S. District Judge previously approved a request from defendant Eric Lee Peterson.

Nicholas Roske flew across the country from California to Virginia on June 7, 2022, landing just before midnight.

He got into a taxi and instructed the driver to take him to a house in Maryland where Kavanaugh and his family resided.

Roske, who had allegedly brought weapons with him, was close to Kavanaugh’s home on June 8, 2022, but received a call from his sister, whom he had texted, “I love you.”

“I told her what I was doing, I was up to, and she told me that that wasn’t the way to go about trying to make the world a better place and, you know, that she didn’t want to, you know, she wanted to have me as a sibling for the rest of her life and not, you know, with that ending,” Roske said in the interview room inside a Montgomery County Police Department station.

Roske told police officers that he planned to break into the house, shoot Kavanaugh, and then shoot himself, according to a newly filed transcript.

He chose to call 911 instead of going through with his plan.

“I need psychiatric help,” he told the dispatcher, in a call that was previously made public.

Officers rushed to the scene and arrested Roske. He is scheduled to go on trial later this year and faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Roske’s lawyers filed the interrogation transcript, along with other documents, as part of motions seeking to suppress statements he made to law enforcement, as well as any mention of the items officers allegedly found in his suitcase and bag.

Officers illegally searched Roske’s belongings and failed to properly obtain a waiver of his rights before interviewing him, the lawyers said.

Federal agents who questioned Roske did obtain his signature on a form waiving his rights, but that waiver “was not made voluntarily and intelligently,” the lawyers wrote in one of the motions.

“At the time, Mr. Roske was acutely suicidal, visibly exhausted, and had repeatedly expressed his need for psychiatric care,” the motion states. “Because these latter statements were not preceded by valid Miranda waivers, they too must be suppressed.”

Prosecutors have not yet responded to the motions.

Motivation

Elsewhere in the newly released interview transcript, Roske detailed his motivation for allegedly plotting to murder Kavanaugh, including the publication of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade, giving states the ability to more closely regulate abortion.

“I’ve been suicidal for a long time, and when I saw that the leaked draft, it made me upset and then it made me want to, I don’t know,” Roske said. “I was under the delusion that I could make the world a better place by killing him.”

Roske said another motivating factor was that he heard the Supreme Court was going to loosen gun restrictions, which would make it easier for people to acquire guns.

Roske agreed that it was ironic he was able to obtain a gun before he traveled to the Washington area.

He had several psychiatric holds placed on him in the past. However, since more than five years had passed since the last one, this did not prevent him from buying a firearm.

Twitter in 2021 banned Project Veritas for sharing private information without consent after the group posted a video showing the residence of a Facebook official. Ana Cabrera, a CNN employee, shared the development on Twitter. A CNN article written by Brian Fung also detailed what had transpired.

Four days later, on a CNN program, Cabrera said that “We’re starting to see companies cracking down to try to stop the spread of misinformation and to hold some people who are spreading it accountable.” She noted the ban on Project Veritas before saying “this is part of a much broader crackdown, as we mentioned, by social media giants that are promoting misinformation.”

A U.S. district judge in 2022 turned away a suit brought by Project Veritas over the comments and CNN’s failure to retract them. He said the remarks were substantially true because their effect on the audience was similar to the effect that would have come if CNN had discussed the actual reason Twitter banned Project Veritas.

The distinction between the purported and actual reasons “is not enough to make the statement at issue actionable as both violations are similarly damaging to the journalist’s reputation,” according to that ruling.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Nov. 7 that the previous decision was wrong,

“Cabrera accused Veritas of substantially different behavior than that in which Veritas engaged. Under New York law, such a statement is not substantially true,” U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth L. Branch wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel that was assigned the case. “Veritas committed one infraction; CNN accused it of a completely different one.”

Project Veritas has offered sufficient evidence to overcome CNN’s motion to dismiss the case at this stage, Branch said, when the allegations in the complaint are taken as true.

The district court did not decide whether Cabrera’s remarks were done with actual malice, a requirement for state defamation claims under court interpretations of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Cabrera’s social media post and Fung’s article show that Cabrera was aware her statements on-air were probably false, the panel said.

Judges Andrew Brasher and Ed Carnes joined in the ruling.

Carnes said in a concurring opinion that “I never thought I’d see a major news organization downplaying the importance of telling the truth in its broadcast” and noted that CNN outside the case repeatedly emphasizes its dedication to truth. Its mission statement, for instance, says that “we are truth-seekers and story tellers.”

The decision reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the case back to the court for proceedings consistent with the new decision.

A lawyer representing CNN did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.