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?”
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.
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.”
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.”
Over the course of President Donald Trump’s time in politics, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has at different times been a sharp critic and a compliant ally. On Tuesday, he was once again in the former category, issuing a pointed condemnation of Trump’s sweeping pardons of the January 6 rioters.
Within hours of taking the oath of office, Trump had signed off on pardoning
approximately 1,500 people, commuting the sentences of eight more, and directing the Department of Justice to dismiss with prejudice (meaning the cases cannot legally be re-filed) any remaining indictments for the rioters. Those to be set free
by Trump’s actions include those convicted of violently assaulting police officers, and the ringleaders of the attack on the Capitol who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, such as far-right leaders like Enrique Tarrio
of the Proud Boys and Stewart Rhodes
of the Oath Keepers.
Multiple Republican elected officials have come out and criticized pardons being given to those who committed acts of violence against law enforcement officers, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who called it a “bad idea
,” and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who said she hadn’t yet reviewed the pardons but disagreed with pardons being given to those who “assaulted police officers” or “damaged property, who rummaged through desks, who broke windows in the Capitol.”
Sen. Susan Collins said she hadn’t yet reviewed the J6 pardons. “I don’t know whether there were pardons given to individuals who assaulted police officers,” she said, “or whether there were pardons given to people who damaged property, who rummaged through desks, who broke…
Semafor congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett caught up with McConnell Tuesday to get the former GOP Senate Leader’s take.
The Kentuckian cited comments Vice President JD Vance made on Fox News Sunday earlier this month to articulate his position. When questioned about the possibility of pardons for the January 6 rioters, Vance described the issue as a “very simple” question, arguing that those who “protested peacefully” deserved a pardon, but “if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”
“Well, I think I agree with the vice president,” McConnell said to Everett
. “No one should excuse violence. And particularly violence against police officers.”
Fox & Friends host Ainsley Earhardt congratulated Karoline Leavitt — President Donald Trump’s new White House press secretary — on achieving a historic first for her position on Tuesday.
Prior to Leavitt, the youngest person to hold the chief spokesperson’s job was Ron Ziegler — who was press secretary for former President Richard Nixon. Ziegler was 29 years old when he took the job.
On Tuesday’s edition
of Fox & Friends
, Earhardt and her co-hosts scored Leavitt’s first interview after assuming the job, and asked her about things like “controversy” over Trump’s pardons
, his play for “unity,” and her “personal reflection” on seeing Trump behind the desk in the Oval Office again.
And Earhardt made sure to congratulate Leavitt for becoming the youngest press secretary at 27:
EARHARDT: So Karoline, a lot of people — we — we’ve known you. We’ve known you for a while. We’re so proud of you. But a lot of the American public doesn’t, and they’re going to be watching you every day, basically. You’re twenty-sev- — 27 years old, the youngest press secretary ever. Congratulations on that.
I know you served as the assistant press secretary and a presidential speech writer. You were under Kayleigh McEnany when she was there. Then communications director for Elise Stefanik. What is different about Trump going forward versus when you worked for him four years ago?
LEAVITT: The — it’s just very surreal to be back here. I’m so proud of President Trump, proud to work for him and our team here in the White House.
President Trump has faced more adversity than any political candidate who has ever run for office in this great country. He survived two assassination attempts. And watching him swear in yesterday in the Capitol Rotunda was a very surreal moment for myself and my colleagues who worked so hard alongside President Trump over the past couple of years on the campaign trail. And it’s just a great day for our country. The Golden Age of America has begun, and I’m blessed to be here.
KILMEADE: Hey, Karoline, just real quick, president of the United States back in the Oval Office. You’ve known him for a while. What’s your personal reflection on seeing him behind the desk for the first time in four years just hours ago?
LEAVITT: It was an amazing sight to watch, to see him go back into the Oval Office for the first time. All of his decor is there once again. It’s the same. You see those family photos behind him at the Resolute Desk, and President Trump has been here before. So we got right to work, and as he said in his more-than-60-minute press conference, I may add, last night in the Oval Office, the most transparent president in history. He talked about how he has arguably more experience than anyone who has sat behind that desk. He is ready to get to work, no doubt.
KILMEADE: And also, we’re going to look forward to that infrastructure comment, the infrastructure announcement…
EARHARDT: What — what time is that?
KILMEADE: … that you have this afternoon. Yeah, what time will that be?
LEAVITT: Four P.M. this afternoon. You won’t want to miss it.
EARHARDT: OK.
JONES: All right.
DOOCY: All right.
EARHARDT: Well, Jacqui and Peter Doocy — he’s — they’re going to be asking you a lot of questions over the next four years. They’re happy that they’ll be called on.
DOOCY: He’s (inaudible) — no kidding.
LEAVITT: And I — I look forward to taking those questions.
KILMEADE: Do you think the president’s doing this…
Following President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardon of almost 1,600 January 6th rioters, past statements from Trump and Vice President JD Vance are resurfacing in the media.
Trump’s Monday night pardon caught many by surprise as the president had suggested during the campaign he would focus on “nonviolent” offenders. Instead, though, he pardoned everyone tried and convicted of committing crimes during the Capitol riot, including those who assaulted police officers and the leaders who planned for wider violence and were convicted of seditious conspiracy against the United States.
Speaking with Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday in the middle of January, Vance was asked what the criteria for pardons would be.
“I think it’s very simple,” Vance replied to Bream. “If you protested peacefully on January the 6th and you’ve had [Attorney General] Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”
The Dispatch’s John McCormickshared
some of Trump’s past statements on the topic as well to highlight evolution. He noted that on January 7, 2021, Trump said, “The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay.”
NPR’s Tom Dreisbachreported
on some of the immediate impacts of the pardons, including sentencings that have been canceled.
“Just spoke to former Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who was repeatedly assaulted on Jan. 6. He was set to attend the sentencing for a man convicted of assaulting him with PVC pipe. Now canceled. He’s getting notifications all day about other violent rioters getting out,” Dreisbach reported.
While most GOP members of Congress have shrugged off questions related to the pardons, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have condemned
pardoning anyone who attacked cops. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), on the other hand, told
CBS News, “Two wrongs can at least get us to a fresh start…the deck is cleared.”
