...Trump said "wrongfully" imprisoned. He didn't say he'd free everyone -- he said he'd free those "wrongfully" imprisoned, which could include 1) those still awaiting trial, 2) those still awaiting sentencing, 3) those over- and selectively prosecuted, 4) those coerced into pleas and 5) those charged with fake crimes (e.g., the fake obstruction charged used to coerce plea deals). He said nothing about a pardon, not that pardons aren't warranted in some cases.

Second, as president, Trump would control the DoJ, which is prosecuting these cases. The DoJ can change its stance on these cases -- including imprisonment -- without requiring a full pardon from a president. The new AG could simply tell his prosecutors, in the interest of fairness, to treat the J6 defendants the same way that it treated 2020 Summer of Love or 2017 Inauguration Day protestors -- or even common criminals in DC -- which by itself would lead to many of them being released.

Third, Trump can commute sentences without pardoning convicts. Many of these people obviously were selectively prosecuted and over-charged by Garland's politicized DoJ. This doesn't mean they are innocent -- i.e., in need of a pardon -- but it does mean that a commutation of part of their unfair sentences might be in order in the interest of the rule of law, which requires fairness.

Finally, you are -- as usual -- trying to have it both ways. You are demanding that we take Trump's words in a social media post literally -- which is silly, as it's obviously a summation of a more complicated policy -- while simultaneously demanding that we not take your own post literally. You demand we apply nuance to your post while demanding none can be applied to Trump's. Kind of like a two-tiered system of justice for social media posting, which I guess fits given the subject matter at hand.