‘Really happy' and unsurprised: Former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland's wife on his pardon by Trump
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — The Connecticut political world has been buzzing since hearing the news that former Gov. John Rowland was pardoned by President Donald Trump.
He was once a rising political star who suffered a huge fall from grace, and we're learning how Rowland got word of the pardon.
Former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland pardoned by President Donald Trump
Rowland served from 1995 until 2004 when he was convicted in a corruption scandal, for accepting gifts and favors from state contractors. Then, in 2014, trouble came knocking again and he was convicted of hiding political campaign work and payments.
The head of the Connecticut Republican Party told Dennis House on 'This Week In Connecticut' he's happy with the news.
'The word had been out that an application had been made to the Department of Justice and the White House and the President has been issuing pardons,' Ben Proto, chairman of the Connecticut GOP, said.
Rowland in a statement says he's humbled and appreciates the pardon. News 8 spoke with his wife Patricia Thursday, she did not want to talk on camera but told us that they were 'really happy' the pardon came through and that it wasn't a surprise.
'We got an e-mail from the White House, that's how we found out,' Patricia Rowland said.
The prosecutor who put him behind bars said on 'This Week in Connecticut' that the pardon doesn't pardon away the facts of a case.
'I don't know how John Rowland is viewed, all I know what he did and what a jury convicted him of doing,' Chris Mattei, the prosecutor, said. 'The jury convicted him of these very serious felonies.'
'Justice was finally done…we've waited a long time for justice,' Patricia said.
Rowland could run for governor again if he wanted with the new pardon. But, most people close to Rowland say he is done with politics, wanting to enjoy time with his grandchildren.
Keep in mind a pardon does not erase the conviction or the pardon, that follows the former governor forever.
Watch the full story in the player above.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prisons can't ‘blindly submit' to Trump's ‘whims' by denying gender-affirming care to trans inmates, judge says
A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump's administration from denying gender-affirming care to transgender inmates, dealing another blow to the president's executive order targeting incarcerated trans people. Ronald Reagan-appointed Judge Royce Lamberth, 81, said Trump's policy isn't based on any 'reasoned' analysis, adding that 'nothing in the thin record' from the government shows that the administration 'consciously took stock of — much less studied — the potentially debilitating effects' of stripping trans people of their healthcare. He also slapped down the government's arguments that courts should allow Trump to dictate how federal agencies are run by letting the 'democratic process' play out after the election. 'Democracy is not as simple as the defendants make it sound,' Lamberth wrote. Just as the president can issue an executive order telling agencies what to do, he must abide by the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how they operate, Lamberth said. 'If democratic self-governance means anything, it means giving effect to all duly enacted laws, including those — like the APA — that were enacted decades ago,' he wrote. 'It does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election-victor.' Tuesday's ruling is the first among several court orders surrounding Trump's approach to trans inmates that blocks prison officials from carrying out his executive order altogether. Trump's order also ordered trans women from women's detention centers. Several lawsuits were filed to reverse the move. Trans women make up only a small fraction of the federal prison population in women's facilities — approximately 16 people, according to the Department of Justice. More than 2,230 trans inmates in federal facilities are detained in facilities that match their sex at birth, according to court filings. In his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order denying 'any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex.' The policy also blocked trans inmates from buying clothing or commissary items that prison officials claimed are inconsistent with a person's sex at birth. Trump's far-reaching executive orders targeting trans people claim that an ideologically driven movement to 'deny the biological reality of sex' has a 'corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.' Plaintiffs include two trans men and a trans woman who were denied hormone therapy as well as items such as chest binders, cosmetics and underwear. All three plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by Bureau of Prisons physicians, and prescribed hormone therapy, but those treatments were suspended under Trump's policy. The loss of hormone therapy for a trans woman who has been prescribed injections since 2016 caused her to experience 'anxiety, hopelessness, panic attacks, and suicidal ideation,' according to court filings. Trans men who were denied ongoing testosterone treatments said they feared their menstrual cycles would return. Plaintiffs argue Trump's policy violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In his ruling, Lamberth said trans people receiving hormone treatments 'do not seem interested in propagating any particular 'ideology.'' Trans inmates rely on those treatments to 'lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria, a benefit on which they have relied for years' under longstanding Bureau of Prisons policy, according to the judge. He wrote that the administration did not provide 'any serious explanation' why the policy should change, and the executive order doesn't make 'any effort whatsoever' to explain how — as the president includes in the order — gender-affirming care damages 'scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, trust in government.' 'This administration's cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution,' said Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU's National Prison Project. 'No person — incarcerated or not, transgender or not — should have their rights to medically necessary care denied,' added Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, managing attorney at the Transgender Law Center.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House stands by tax bill after Musk calls it a 'disgusting abomination'
The White House defended the President Donald Trump-endorsed "big, beautiful bill" Tuesday after outgoing DOGE chief Elon Musk doubled down on his criticism, calling the legislation a "disgusting abomination." Musk, who has been openly critical of the proposed reconciliation bill, said Tuesday afternoon that he "just can't stand it anymore." "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk added in a Tuesday afternoon post on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." 'American Hero' Or 'Failure': Elon Musk's Doge Departure Divides Capitol Hill The bill passed the House in late May, ahead of Memorial Day, largely along party lines. However, two Republicans did vote against the measure, citing insufficient spending cuts and a rising national debt. GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has also signaled he likely will not vote in favor of the bill in its current form, citing a debt ceiling increase that is a red line for him. Trump has lashed out at Paul and others for opposing the bill, but he has taken a more measured approach to Musk's criticism. Read On The Fox News App "Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a Tuesday afternoon briefing when asked about Musk's most recent criticism. "It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill and he's sticking to it," she said. Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' Musk, who led the cost-cutting efforts at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), previously criticized the bill during an interview with CBS, noting he was "disappointed" in the spending bill because "it undermines" all the work his DOGE team was doing. In May, when Trump was asked about Musk's criticism of the bill on CBS, he responded, "Well, our reaction's a lot of things," before pivoting to talk about the votes needed to pass the bill. "Number one, we have to get a lot of votes, we can't be cutting – we need to get a lot of support and we have a lot of support," he said. "We had to get it through the House, the House was, we had no Democrats. You know, if it was up to the Democrats, they'll take the 65% increase." Following Musk's Tuesday afternoon criticism, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters he hopes Musk "will come to a different conclusion" about the GOP's "big, beautiful" spending bill, adding the two have a "difference of opinion" about the legislation. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' In a recent interview, Thune addressed Musk's criticism in more detail, particularly the point that the current version of the GOP's spending bill "undermines" the work he has done with DOGE. "A lot of what Elon was working on was on the discretionary side of the budget, which this doesn't touch. The reconciliation bill just deals with mandatory spending," Thune said. "But we want to incorporate a lot of the savings that he found, and there are ways to do that." Thune said he hoped, through other legislative efforts, discretionary spending Musk is concerned about will be addressed. He pointed to a proposed "rescissions bill" expected to be pushed by the White House that Thune said will try "to capture a lot of what Elon found in these various agencies and puts it in a bill that's submitted to Congress." Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this article source: White House stands by tax bill after Musk calls it a 'disgusting abomination'
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Initiative to legalize adult cannabis use in Florida in 2026 qualifies for judicial review
Morgan Hill (center) from Safe & Smart Florida led the discussion with Leon County School Board member Darryl Jones (her immediate left) and former Democratic House Rep. Sean Shaw (immediate right) in Tampa on June 13, 2024. (Photo credit: Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Smart & Safe Florida, the political committee working to get a constitutional amendment legalizing recreational marijuana use for adults before the voters next year, has collected enough petition signatures to trigger a review of its ballot language and financial impact – a significant step toward ultimately getting the amendment before voters in 2026. Smart & Safe Florida has collected more than 377,000 signatures. That's well above the number required to trigger a state Supreme Court review. Specifically, at a minimum Smart & Safe Florida needed to collect 220,016 signatures — or 25% of the 880,062 valid signatures from registered voters, with a minimum of 8% coming from voters in at least half of the state's 28 congressional districts. A similar proposal to legalize recreational cannabis in 2024 known as Amendment 3 received 56% of the vote, short of the 60% required for passage. Following that electoral loss, Smart & Safe secured approval to launch its campaign for the 2026 election. The petition drive process comes at the same time that Smart & Safe Florida and other organizations are fighting a new law passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature last month that will make it significantly more difficult for citizen-led constitutional amendments to make it on a ballot in Florida. Two weeks ago, Smart & Safe Florida and Florida Decides Healthcare, another group working to get a measure on the 2026 ballot, went before U.S. Federal District Judge Mark Walker to request that he block certain provisions of the law from taking effect – including the requirement that sponsors turn in completed petitions within 10 days after the voter signs the petition, a change from the previous deadline of 30 days. Tallahassee attorney Glenn Burhans Jr. said, prior to the new law taking effect, Smart & Safe Florida was collecting 78,000 signatures per week. Since the law took effect, he told Walker, the group was collecting between just 12,000 and 15,000 signatures per week. The next step in the process is for Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier to submit the proposed amendment's ballot language to the Florida Supreme Court so it can begin its review. The court's review is limited to whether the amendment conforms to a single subject and whether the ballot summary is clear. When then Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody transmitted her letter to the Florida Court regarding Amendment 3 two years ago, she also informed the justices that she opposed the measure. Uthmeier will likely do the same when he sends his letter to the Supreme Court. He chaired a political committee a year ago called Keep Florida Clean that was formed to oppose the weed measure.
