Congress
Trump-pardoned Jan. 6 rioter arrested for allegedly threatening to kill Jeffries
A man pardoned by President Donald Trump for storming the Capitol on Jan. 6 was arrested last week for allegedly threatening to kill House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Christopher Moynihan, who was among a small group of Jan. 6 rioters convicted for breaching the Senate floor and rifling through senators’ desks, was arrested by New York State Police after a “thorough investigation,” which authorities say began with an anonymous tip to the FBI.
Court records reflect that the FBI’s tipster told the bureau that on Oct. 17, Moynihan “made statements regarding the assassination of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries” and that he planned to carry out the attack “in a few days,” while the Democratic House leader was in New York. The person told the FBI that Moynihan described the motivation for the plot as “the future” and voiced concern that the man given clemency by Trump had been abusing drugs and expressing increasing “homicidal ideations.”
Investigators also indicated they had reason to believe Moynihan owned or had access to a firearm. Moynihan’s Oct. 19 arrest was first reported by CBS News. He faces a charge of making a terroristic threat against a member of Congress. Jeffries praised state and federal authorities for apprehending Moynihan and lamented Trump’s blanket pardon.
“Unfortunately, our brave men and women in law enforcement are being forced to spend their time keeping our communities safe from these violent individuals who should never have been pardoned,” Jeffries said in a statement.
Moynihan was part of a group of Trump supporters who entered the Capitol early Jan. 6, reaching the Senate chamber just minutes after lawmakers evacuated. Charging documents from that case say Moynihan could be seen on video reviewing papers on senators’ desks and saying, “There’s got to be something we can use against these fucking scumbags.” He then stood on the Senate dais — where then-Vice President Mike Pence had stood just minutes earlier — alongside “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley and others who formed the early vanguard of the Jan. 6 mob.
Moynihan was convicted in 2022 at a bench trial by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who later sentenced him to 21 months in prison for obstructing Congress’ proceedings on Jan. 6, 2021.
Cooper released him from prison a year into his sentence after the Supreme Court agreed to review questions about the way obstruction charges had been applied to those who attacked the Capitol. In reaching the decision,Cooper emphasized that he believed Moynihan “would not present a danger to the community” upon release.
After Trump’s inauguration, Moynihan’s case was dismissed altogether, following Trump’s grant of clemency to those who participated in the Jan. 6 riot.
Moynihan is one of a growing list of Jan. 6 defendants who have been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for other crimes since Trump ended the nationwide manhunt. One of them, Edward Kelley, was sentenced to life in prison earlier this year for attempting to carry out an assassination plot against law enforcement officials who investigated him over his role in the riot.
Others have faced burglary, possession of child pornography or firearms-related charges. But Moynihan is the first Jan. 6 defendant accused of explicitly targeting a member of Congress for violence after Trump’s pardon.
Moynihan‘s arrest is also notable because it arrives in the midst of a national debate over political violence, particularly in the wake of the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. Trump and his allies have repeatedly ascribed political violence exclusively to left-wing extremists, and the president has worked in recent weeks to push conspiracy theories that the Jan. 6 attack was instigated by the FBI or other government actors, rather than supporters who believed that the 2020 election was stolen.
Asked about the threat against Jeffries, Speaker Mike Johnson called it “terrible” but reiterated that “The violence on the left is far more than the violence on the right.”
Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting.
A Democratic trio attempted to pass an artificial intelligence bill via a unanimous consent request on Tuesday but were blocked on the Senate floor.
Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sought to pass their Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act using the procedural mechanism, which allows expedited consideration of legislation but fails if one senator opposes it.
“The whole world has recognized that we’ve got to do something,” Warner said in a speech on the floor. “We should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected to the bill, preventing any chance of passage.
“Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner,” he said on the floor, adding that it gave some in the government too much power to dictate the technology that could be permitted to be released.
As some lawmakers grow concerned over dire warnings from AI labs’ top executives about the technology’s risk to humanity, Congress’ attempts to legislate AI guardrails have largely stalled.
In the past few weeks, two other AI-related bills, the Ratepayer Protection Act and AI Emergency Button Act, were also nixed in an attempt to pass them unanimously.
Warner, Schatz and Kim’s new bill would have established a new safety board within the Commerce Department to vet models before they are deployed and set safety standards for the industry. It would also have created a reporting process for safety and security incidents.
Sen. Darline Graham sought to take up her brother’s mantle Tuesday, going after former special counsel Jack Smith for obtaining the late-Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone data.
“You should be ashamed of yourself,” the South Carolina Republican told Smith as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that the anguish the prosecutor caused her brother “makes me sick.”
Lindsey Graham, until his unexpected death in July, was among the most vocal in his outrage over revelations that Smith secretly collected electronic data from GOP lawmakers as part of the Biden-era investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The late senator was also unapologetic in his support for a provision tucked into a government funding package, which was later repealed, allowing senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if they discover their electronic records were seized without notification — language specifically designed to compensate Smith’s targets.
But Smith replied that Lindsey Graham was not a target of his investigation and was not suspected of wrongdoing — in fact, he considered Darline Graham’s brother “a patriotic public servant” who likely would have been a “witness” in his case against Trump for attempted election subversion.
“Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making,” Smith told Darline Graham. “He found them to be false.”
The federal government’s internal watchdog told Congress Tuesday that it has concluded President Donald Trump acted unlawfully in unilaterally canceling $810 million in federal funding.
In a letter to congressional leaders obtained by Blue Light News, the Government Accountability Office’s top lawyer panned Trump’s declaration Friday that he is nixing money Congress appropriated through a controversial budget maneuver called a “pocket rescission.”
“The Constitution vests in Congress the power of the purse,” GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez wrote,
adding that “Congress did not cede this important power” by enacting the 1970s impoundment law intended to stop presidents from withholding money Congress approves.
“Any withholding of appropriated funds beyond their date of expiration, regardless of size, subverts both the constitutional process for enacting federal law and Congress’s constitutional power of the purse,” Perez added. “The President may not force the expiration of budget authority Congress has already enacted and did not rescind.”
It is unclear what practical effect, if any, the letter will have on the interbranch funding fight. Outside groups sued the administration last year over a prior pocket rescission, but the Supreme Court issued a preliminary ruling that they did not have standing to challenge the matter. The Trump administration has argued that only the head of the GAO is able to sue under the 52-year-old law governing rescissions.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words