President Donald Trump issued a “full and unconditional pardon” to Ross Ulbricht, the creator of the Silk Road dark web black market, Tuesday.
“I just called the mother of Ross William Ulbricht to let her know that in honor of her and the Libertarian Movement, which supported me so strongly, it was my pleasure to have just signed a full and unconditional pardon of her son, Ross,” announced Trump in a statement. “The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me. He was given two life sentences, plus 40 years. Ridiculous!”
Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 after being charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics, and conspiring to commit money laundering, among other crimes.
Between 2011 and his arrest in 2013, Ulbricht had operated the dark web black market known as Silk Road, which allowed anonymous users to purchase goods without a trail, including illegal items such as drugs.
While Ulbricht did not sell drugs himself, his website facilitated their sale and purchase and allowed users to sort through listings based on drug type, with categories such as “Opioids,” “Stimulants,” and “Prescription.”
“Make no mistake: Ulbricht was a drug dealer and criminal profiteer who exploited people’s addictions and contributed to the deaths of at least six young people,” said then-New York Southern District U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara at the time of Ulbricht’s sentencing. “Ulbricht went from hiding his cybercrime identity to becoming the face of cybercrime and as today’s sentence proves, no one is above the law.”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) – a vocal defender of Ulbricht – celebrated the pardon on Tuesday.
“Ross Ulbricht has been freed by President Trump with a full pardon!” he wrote
. “Thank you for keeping your word to me and others who have been advocating for Ross’ freedom, Mr. President! #freeRoss.”
Trump promised
to free Ulbricht during a speech at the Libertarian National Convention last year.
“If you vote for me on day one, I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht to a sentence of time served,” he vowed. “He’s already served 11 years. We’re gonna get him home. We’re gonna get him home.”
MSNBC’s Ari Melber criticized Elon Musk for using taxpayer money to promote the “Department of Government Efficiency” – and a cryptocurrency.
On Monday, President Donald Trumpsigned
an executive order creating the aforementioned advisory group, which is led by Musk. Created by Musk, the acronym is a nod to Dogecoin, a nearly worthless cryptocurrency that the billionaire said he owns
. The ostensible purpose of the commission is to cut waste from the government and make it more efficient, but the effort has been met with widespread skepticism – particularly after Musk claimed he could easily slash $2 trillion from the federal budget. He has since walked back that claim
.
The DOGE commission has its own government website, though so far the site has nothing beyond an introductory page
with no links.
“Department of Government Efficiency,” it reads. “The people voted for major reform.” On the page is an image of a dog, similar to the Dogecoin logo.
On Tuesday’s edition of The Beat, on MSNBC, Melber took Musk to task:
We recently reported on government adviser Elon Musk exploiting his role to promote the crypto he owns… He named his government group currency coin, which is named after a dog… which is really no different than trying to rename a government department after Coke or Tesla. I mention that because now, Musk’s taxpayer-funded .gov website for his Trump policy group promotes the same crypto coin. Again, you see a different version of that dog.
So, day one, Donald Trump’s chosen advisor, Elon Musk, is taking your taxpayer dollars and promoting his crypto businesses, stuff that he owns. He owns some of that. And the product, which is a crypto coin with this dog here, has nothing to do with cutting government spending or anything related. He’s not even pretending. It’s just a blatant grift.
Melber then pivoted to Trump and criticized the president for launching a meme coin just days before his inauguration.
On Friday, Trump announced the rollout of $Trump, a cryptocurrency meme coin that has netted
Trump more than $50 billion on paper since trading began. His coin holdings account for nearly 90% of his net worth. Over the weekend, First Lady Melania Trumpalso launched a coin
– $Melania – which is now also worth tens of billions.
Photo by: WILL OLIVER/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
The television ratings for President Donald Trump’s second inauguration are in, and they dropped 27% from President Joe Biden’s in 2021 and were nearly 20% lower than Trump’s first swearing-in in 2017.
Unsurprisingly, Fox News dominated the ratings for the festivities in the nation’s capital, beating out both their broadcast and cable competitors, and drawing in the second-highest ratings for Inauguration Day coverage in the network’s history, according to a Fox News press release. An average of 10.3 million viewers tuned into Fox News from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm ET Monday, including 2 million in the advertiser-coveted demographic of ages 25-54.
CNN averaged 1.7 million viewers during that same time period, MSNBC 848,000 viewers (the network has traditionally come in third for Inauguration Day coverage), ABC 4.7 million viewers, CBS 4.1 million viewers, and NBC 4.4 million viewers, according to early viewing numbers from Nielsen reported
by The Wrap’s Loree Seitz.
Altogether, Trump’s triumphant return to the White House drew an average total viewership for the day (tracking from 10:30 am to 7:00 pm ET) of 24.59 million viewers, reported The Wrap. That figure is based on combining viewer numbers from fifteen networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, Merit Street Media, Telemundo, Univision, CNBC, CNN, CNNe, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, MSNBC, Newsmax, NewsNation, and PBS.
That number of 24.59 million viewers was 27% lower than Biden’s 2021 inauguration (33.76 million viewers tracked from 17 channels) was 19.75% lower than Trump’s first inauguration in 2021 (30.64 million viewers across 12 networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Univision, Telemundo, CNBC, Fox Business Network, Galavision, and HLN).
The Wrap also analyzed the demographic breakdown of the viewers. Monday’s audience drew 1.43 million viewers ages 18-34, 4.67 million viewers ages 35-54, and 17.4 million viewers over 55, while the audience from 2021 was 2.85 million viewers ages 18-34, 8.21 million viewers ages 35-54, and 21 million viewers over 55.
Additional data from the early Nielsen numbers provided to Mediaite:
11:30 AM – 1 PM/ET
FNC: 10.3 million P2+; 2 million A25-54
CNN: 1.7 million P2+; 534,000 A25-54
MSNBC: 848,000 P2+; 104,000 A25-54
FBN: 282,000 P2+ ; 16,000 A25-54
ABC: 4.7 million P2+; 1.1 million A25-54
CBS: 4.1 million P2+; 907,000 A25-54
NBC: 4.4 million P2+; 1.2 million A25-54
A reporter asked President Donald Trump on Tuesday whether he would continue to sell his meme cryptocurrency after making “several billion dollars” on the coins in just the last few days.
During a press conference on Trump’s first full day in the White House, a reporter brought up Trump’s controversial cryptocurrency and asked, “Do you intend to continue selling products that benefit yourself personally while you’re president?”
“Well, I don’t know if it benefited. I don’t know where it is,” Trump replied. “I don’t know much about it other than I launched it. I heard it was very successful. I haven’t checked it, where is it today?”
The reporter informed him, “You made a lot of money sir.”
“How much?” Trump asked.
“Several billion dollars it seems like in the last several days,” the reporter answered.
Trump shrugged off the huge amount of money, concluding, “Several billion? That’s peanuts for these guys.”
Trump received backlash
from allies and enemies alike this week after he launched a controversial cryptocurrency meme coin in the hours leading up to his inauguration.
The president reportedly made
more than $50 billion in just 48 hours. However, critics compared
the stunt to a Ponzi scheme and expressed concern
about corruption.
“What the fuck are we doing people, are we really doing a $15 billion scamcoin to lure suckers into crypto casino roulette the week we start to run the government?” reacted
former Trump State Department official Mike Benz. “Will cash from the wallet now holding 80% of the coins be using the funds to advance US interests? Or money & run?”
A sworn affidavit sent to senators by Danielle Hegseth, Pete Hegseth’s former sister-in-law, contains a slew of shocking allegations, including more details about the Defense Secretary’s alleged alcohol problems and “emotional abuse” of a former wife that was the reason she “feared for her personal safety.”
Hegseth has denied any wrongdoing and his mother walked back the email while staunchly defending her son. Nonetheless, Hegseth’s critics have still raised concerns over the allegations and argued that his résumé is far thinner than past nominees for a job that entails exercising command and control over our all military service branches, overseeing a nearly $900 billion budget
, and supervising
millions of people.
At his Senate confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth was grilled by multiple Democrats regarding the variousallegations
against him, his past controversialcomments
, and his lack of experience
.
NBC News broke the report earlier Tuesday that Danielle Hegseth had been interviewed by the FBI back in December and then submitted this sworn affidavit
to senators in response to a Jan. 18 letter from the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), who expressed frustration that neither he nor the GOP chair of the committee had been informed of her past interview or accusations.
The initial report on this affidavit noted that Danielle Hegseth accused Pete Hegseth of exhibiting “erratic and aggressive behavior over many years” that led Samantha Hegseth to fear for her safety.
Later in the day Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal published an article
containing a link to the affidavit, with only minor redactions, and reported additional details about the allegations therein, that he “regularly abused alcohol to the point that he passed out at family gatherings, and once needed to be dragged out of a strip club while in uniform.”
The affidavit (embedded below) begins with Danielle Hegseth stating that “it is my personal opinion that Hegseth is unfit for the position of Secretary of Defense,” and she is “providing this statement as a proffer of the testimony that I would have provided to the Senate had I been called as a witness during Hegseth’s confirmation hearings,” with the contents of the affidavit reflecting what she previously told the FBI.
In the affidavit, Danielle Hegseth says she believes Pete Hegseth “has an alcohol abuse problem and was abusive to his ex-wife Samantha, as I understand those terms as a lay person,” and makes multiple allegations against him, that she observed herself or heard from Samantha Hegseth or other sources and believed because what she was told “is consistent with what I personally observed of Hegseth’s erratic and aggressive behavior over many years.”
Among the allegations, Danielle Hegseth describes how Samantha Hegseth “told me that she once hid in her closet from Hegseth because she feared for her personal safety,” at some point between 2014 and 2016, and that she was “aware that Samantha had a plan to deploy if she felt she reeded to get away from Hegseth,” which she told to Danielle Hegseth and “another person close to her.” This plan involved Samantha Hegseth “texting me a safe word/code word” that would signal Danielle Hegseth to call this other confidante, who would then “fly out to Minnesota to help her.”
“Samantha did text me this code word sometime in 2015-2016, and I did call the other person to let that person know Samantha needed help,” the affidavit continues, with Danielle Hegseth emphasizing that she believes that “Samantha feared for her safety and that she did have this plan, not only because I was part of its deployment one time in 2015-2016 but also because it is consistent with what I personally observed of Hegseth’s erratic and aggressive behavior over many years.”
Danielle Hegseth further describes how she herself was “a victim of emotional abuse by Hegseth” during an incident in which she says “[h]e drunkenly yelled in my face one night in 2009” because he was angry that she “walked out of the room while he was telling a story” that had a “racial slant that bothered me.”
“He followed me out of the room and yelled at me that I was disrespecting him by walking away and that I disrespected his family,” Danielle Hegseth states, describing Hegseth as “very aggressive, in my face, dressed in his military uniform” and “very intimidating” as he towered over her with his six-foot stature towering over her five feet, six inch height. This yelling “went on long enough,” Danielle Hegseth adds, that a person whose name is redacted “had to come over and pull him away.”
“I have also heard Hegseth say that women should not have the right to vote and that they should not work,” the affidavit continues, and states that a person whose name is redacted “also once heard him say that Christians needed to have more children so they can overtake the Muslim population.”
The affidavit contains detailed allegations of Hegseth “abusing alcohol numerous times over the years,” with Danielle Hegseth telling how she and her ex-husband would frequently go to his house for holidays or to watch football games.
“At many of these events Hegseth would drink to the point of passing out in the room with the rest of the family as we carried on with the evening,” she says. “One Christmas, in 2008 or 2009, at his parent’s house, he drank so much he threw up and then passed out.”
Additional allegations about Hegseth and alcohol:
As I told the FBI, Hegseth acted this in way in public establishments, too. For example, on a night in 2013, at another family event, Hegseth, [REDACTED], and I went out to a bar later in the evening called the Wild Onion. [REDACTED] Hegseth got very drunk at this bar, and ultimately ended up dancing with gin and tonics in each hand and dropping several glasses on the dance floor, making a mess. When [REDACTED] finally dragged him out of the bar and as we walked back to my apartment, Hegseth repeatedly shouted “No means yes!” I took this to mean that, in his opinion, nonconsensual sex (rape) is ok. (¶ 16)
As I told the FBI, on another night in approximately 2013 Hegseth, [REDACTED], and I were out at a bar in downtown Minneapolis called Prohibition. Hegseth drank so much that night he passed out in the bar bathroom. Yet another night at Burch restaurant in Minneapolis, Hegseth drank so much at dinner the Uber driver had to pull over on the side of Interstate 94 so he could throw up. (¶ 17)
As I told the FBI, an instance I did not personally witness but that [REDACTED] told me about the next morning, was a night in 2009 when [REDACTED] and Hegseth were out in told downtown Minneapolis. Hegseth was in town for drill with the National Guard. They were at a bar and [REDACTED] noticed Hegseth had left. [REDACTED]found him at a nearby strip club called
Seville, drunk, in his military uniform, getting lap dances. [REDACTED] had to drag him out of the strip club. When [REDACTED] told me the story, he told me that Hegseth should not have done this and that it was a violation of military rules.” (¶ 18)
“I believe [Pete] Hegseth to be an erratic, volatile person with an alcohol abuse problem,” Danielle Hegseth’s affidavit concludes. “I do not believe he is trustworthy or of good character. It is my opinion he is unfit to serve as Secretary of Defense.”
Samantha Hegseth did not reply to the WSJ’s request for comment and issued the following reply to NBC News:
In an email response Monday, Samantha Hegseth said: “First and foremost, I have not and will not comment on my marriage to Pete Hegseth. I do not have representatives speaking on my behalf, nor have I ever asked anyone to share or speak about the details of my marriage on my behalf, whether it be a reporter, a committee member, a transition team member, etc.”
She added, “I do not believe your information to be accurate, and I have cc’d my lawyer.”
Asked what information was not accurate and for comment on the affidavit, she replied on Tuesday: “There was no physical abuse in my marriage. This is the only further statement I will make to you, I have let you know that I am not speaking and will not speak on my marriage to Pete. Please respect this decision.”
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) reportedly suffered from an incident of mistaken identity during President Donald Trump’s inaugural festivities over the weekend.
The Spectator’s Cockburn gossip column, known for both its acerbic bite and reliable reporting, offered insight into the goings-on at various pre-inauguration events and balls.
While at the “super-exclusive Crypto Ball at the Mellon Auditorium on Friday,” for example, Cockburn noted
:
George Santos posed for selfies as Scott Presler floated around. Cockburn caught up with Joy Villa — now also into crypto, of course — who had modified her trademark “Trump gown” by Andre Soriano to make it “a bit more dark MAGA to celebrate his second term.”
Up on stage, Snoop Dogg was DJ’ing — in something of an about-turn for the rapper who was so critical of Trump in 2017 and of Kanye West when he backed the president in his first term. Cockburn filled up on crab cakes before stepping outside. Out front, he saw Vivek Ramaswamy, now no longer of “DoGE,” heading toward a car with a mob of security. “Good luck for governor!” a crypto bro yelled at Vivek, ahead of his soon-to-be announced entry into the Ohio gubernatorial race. Vivek gave a thumbs-up and thanked him as he kept moving.
Among the celebrity sightings and comical interactions Cockburn documented was Boebert, the scandal-plagued Colorado Republican and MAGA star. The columnist dubbed Boebert the “Socialite of the weekend” and wrote:
Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who spent a decent chunk of Saturday’s America First Policy Institute ball trying to ingratiate herself with Susie Wiles. One small problem: she wasn’t talking to Wiles, just a woman from the Midwest who looks slightly like her.
“Boebert was also spotted attempting to big-time her way into VIP with her sculpted himbo companion. On Sunday she found herself in a spirited discussion with staff in VIP at the Turning Point USA ball, as well as cutting a rug with Kid Rock,” added Cockburn.
The anecdote about Boebert mistaking Trump’s
Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for someone else was quickly shared online and went viral on X.
President Donald Trump dodged a question about why he pardoned a violent criminal who assaulted a Capitol Police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot.
On Tuesday, Trump held a press conference about AI infrastructure and took questions. The day before, he pardoned
some 1,500 people who were convicted or charged in connection with the Capitol riot – including those who assaulted law enforcement officials. At the presser, Peter Alexander of NBC News asked about D.J. Rodriguez, who was sentenced
to 12 and half years for assaulting Officer Michael Fanone.
“You would agree that it’s never acceptable to assault a police officer?” Alexander began.
“Sure,” Trump replied.
“So, then if I can, among those you pardoned, D.J. Rodriguez, he drove a stun gun into the neck of a D.C. police officer who was abducted by the mob that day,” the reporter noted. “He later confessed on video to the FBI and pleaded guilty for his crimes. Why does he deserve a pardon?”
“Well, I don’t know,” Trump replied. “Was it a pardon? Because we’re looking at commutes and we’re looking at pardons.”
Alexander clarified that Trump hadn’t commuted Rodriguez’s sentence, but pardoned him outright. Trump responded by saying, “We’ll take a look at everything.” However, someone who is pardoned cannot be un-pardoned. The president went on to falsely claim that murderers in large cities are not charged. He also falsely claimed “nobody” went to jail over the riots of 2020 during his first term:
We’ll take a look at everything. But I can say this, murderers today are not even charged. You have murders that aren’t charged, all over. You take a look at what’s gone on in Philadelphia, take a look at what’s gone off in L.A., where people murder people and don’t get charged. These people have already served years in prison, and they’ve served them viciously. It’s a disgusting prison. It’s been horrible, it’s inhumane, it’s been a terrible, terrible thing.
I also say this. You go to Portland, where they wrapped police officers, shot police officers. Nothing happened to anybody. You go to Seattle where they took over a big chunk of the city and people died. Portland, a lot of people died… And you go also, take a look at Minneapolis because I was there and I watched it. If I didn’t bring in the National Guard, that city wouldn’t even exist today. People were killed and nobody went to jail.
So, these people have always served a long period of time and I made a decision to give a pardon. Joe Biden gave a pardon yesterday to a lot of criminals. These are criminals that he gave a pardon to. And you should be asking that question. Why did he give a pardon to all of these people that committed crimes? Why did he give a pardon to the J6 unselect committee when they burned and destroyed all documents, which showed that they did what was wrong, not me?… Why did they get a pardon to all of his relatives? His brother, who made millions of dollars. All these different people. He gave pardons. That’s the question you should be answering.
Every news anchor and reporter who launders President Donald Trump’s blanket pardons by citing now-former President Joe Biden’s pardons needs to kick rocks. Pound sand. Bow their head in shame and repent.
The media spent most of Monday covering every moment of Trump’s inauguration
to a second term, but one event overshadowed nearly everything else that came before and after it — Trump’s pardons and commutations
for the January 6 defendants, including those who committed violence against police.
The move drew widespread
and bipartisan condemnation, although many equated Trump’s move with Biden’s preemptive pardons
even as they acknowledged they were in response to threats from Trump.
Now, I don’t want to pick on any one anchor or reporter — I want to pick on all of them. Since Trump issued those pardons, there has not been a panel discussion that hasn’t included someone advancing the premise that Biden’s pardons give Trump at least some sort of “cover” or set some kind of related “precedent” or otherwise laundered Trump’s despicable action in the detergent of — well, it’s hard to think of a word for it, because it’s not “false equivalency.”
That’s the go-to accusation when anyone tries to excuse something Trump did, and it’s usually at least somewhat accurate. You know, like Biden falling off his bike and Trump constantly telling everyone who’ll listen that the Nazis were good, actually. Okay, bad example.
But this isn’t a case of false equivalence. Some Trump critics — and again, I don’t want to pick on one but you know who you are — try to argue that Biden’s pardons are terrible but Trump’s are much worse and Biden’s terrible pardons are no excuse. That’s a false equivalence argument. And it is wrong.
What’s frustrating about that argument is that some of the people making it — not all — will even say that they know why Biden did it but he still shouldn’t have and he violated some sacred principle. It’s a “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument.
But the truth is, whatever outrage you feel over Biden’s pardons is not Biden’s doing — it is Trump’s.
In pardoning figures involved in the January 6 investigation, Biden wrote:
Our nation relies on dedicated, selfless public servants every day. They are the lifeblood of our democracy.
Yet alarmingly, public servants have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties.
In certain cases, some have even been threatened with criminal prosecutions, including General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, and the members and staff of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. These public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.
As it happens, the pardons Biden issued cover the same date range as the events that Trump and Republicans tried to concoct into a scandal that, I repeat once again, never went anywhere.
So why is it that these facts are either not mentioned or are treated as a barely-relevant footnote? Newspeople who complain about these pardons are like people watching Die Hard and wondering why that rude man from New York is trying to ruin Christmas for those nice European gentlemen.
Biden’s pardons are Trump’s pardons — they were made necessary by his constant and, yes, unprecedented threats of political retribution. The only principle being violated is being violated by Trump.
John Bolton said on Tuesday he was “disappointed but not surprised” that his Secret Service protection has been canceled by President Donald Trump.
Bolton wrote on X that protection was reinstated to him by former President Joe Biden in 2021. The Department of Justice charged
a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) over a plot to assassinate Bolton in 2022 and he has faced other threats since. Trump himself has faced threats from Iran as well over the killing of Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qasem Soleimani.
Bolton served as the ambassador to the United Nations from 2005-2006 and he briefly served in Trump’s first administration as national security advisor. Trump dismissed Bolton in 2019, saying they “disagreed strongly” on foreign policy issues. Bolton has since been a fierce critic of Trump, describing his former boss as amoral and deeply unprepared
for the job of president.
“I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has decided to terminate the protection previously provided by the United States Secret Service,” Bolton wrote on X.
He asked his followers to decide if the president made the “right call.”
I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has decided to terminate the protection previously provided by the United States Secret Service. Notwithstanding my criticisms of President Biden’s national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to extend…
“Notwithstanding my criticisms of President Biden’s national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to extend that protection to me in 2021. The Justice Department filed criminal charges against an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official in 2022 for attempting to hire a hit man to target me,” he wrote. “That threat remains today, as also demonstrated by the recent arrest of someone trying to arrange for President Trump’s own assassination. The American people can judge for themselves which President made the right call.”
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) criticized President Donald Trump over his pardons of criminals convicted of assaulting police officers during the Capitol riot.
Upon being sworn into office on Monday, Trump issued
pardons for over 1,500 defendants and prisoners stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 riot. He also commuted the sentences of eight others. Some of those individuals were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers.
Malliotakis appeared on Tuesday’s CNN News Central, where Boris Sanchez asked the lawmaker for her reaction.
“About four years ago, after being moved to a secure location by Capitol Police, you tweeted in part, quote, ‘Everyone who is responsible for this violence and lawlessness must stop. This is absolutely unacceptable and un-American,’” he said, reading her four-year-old tweet. “Do you think President Trump did the right thing by pardoning rioters who assaulted police officers?”
“Well, I do have an issue with those who assaulted police officers,” she responded. “And I think that those do need to serve the time. That is unacceptable. I’ve always sided with our police officers in saying that any assault or cop killers… should never be released. In fact, I very much disagree with what President Biden has done with actually commuting the sentences of multiple cop killers and people who killed FBI agents and service members as well.”
Malliotakis said that she believed some of the defendants had been treated unfairly, “But the people who assaulted our police officers do need to pay the consequence for that.”
“I do wonder what your message would be to those Capitol Hill police officers who were injured and assaulted defending fellow Republicans who now are defending these pardons?” Sanchez followed up.
“Well, look, I can only speak for myself,” she replied. “And certainly I stand with our Capitol Police and all our law enforcement. I’m very proud to be one of the few individuals here in Congress that actually in the past has received the endorsement of the Capitol Police union, and we have to support our law enforcement. We need to hold those who injure them and kill them accountable.”
