Josh Duggar Makes New Request in Child Porn Case Amid Financial Strain
Originally appeared on E! Online
Josh Duggar is continuing to fight his conviction.
Three years after the 19 Kids and Counting star and eldest child of Jim Bob Duggar and Michelle Duggar's 19 kids was sentenced to 12 years in prison for charges related to receipt and possession of child pornography, he has made a new request amid his attempt to overturn his conviction.
Duggar—who shares seven children with wife Anna Duggar—wrote a letter to the judge presiding over his case May 27 requesting a court-appointed attorney, according to legal documents obtained by People. The 37-year-old—who initially pleaded not guilty to his charges amid his 2021 trial—noted in his letter that he is 'unable to afford counsel' due to his current 'financial circumstances.'
Elsewhere in the filing, Duggar noted he is seeking legal assistance to help 'evaluate' any 'constitutional violations' that occurred amid his 2021 trial. Indeed, Duggar—who was arrested in 2021 for allegedly downloading material that depicted sexual abuse of minors under 12 years old—alleged in the documents that the 'broad publicity' of his case may have affected his right to a 'full and fair post-conviction review.'
More from E! Online
Justin Bieber Reacts to Wife Hailey Bieber's $1 Billion Beauty Deal
Savannah Chrisley Reunites With Todd Chrisley in Florida After Prison Release
Eddie Murphy's Son Eric and Martin Lawrence's Daughter Jasmin Are Married
'As time has unfolded, new legal theories and strategies have emerged in public discourse that may be relevant to the Defendant's case,' the documents read. 'In light of these developments, the Defendant seeks to consult with counsel to fully evaluate the potential of these emerging strategies and how they may support a motion for relief.'
Duggar's latest filing comes after he has filed two requests for appeals of his conviction, the latest of which was rejected by the Supreme Court in June 2024. His sentence is set to end in October 2032.
Prior to his 2021 arrest, allegations that Duggar had molested multiple young girls as a teenager—including his sisters Jessa Duggar Seewald and Jill Duggar Dillard who came forward at the time as victims—circulated in 2015, leading his family's TLC reality series to be canceled.
'Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret,' Duggar said in a statement to People at the time. 'I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling.'
Following Duggar's 2021 arrest, his sister Jessa and her husband Ben Seewald made a statement saying they were 'saddened' by the news of his federal charges.
'As Christians, we stand against any form of pornography or abuse and we desire for the truth to be exposed, whatever that may be,' the couple wrote in a statement shared to their Instagram accounts. 'Our prayers are with their family as they walk through this difficult time.'
For more details on the Duggar family, keep reading. 40 Years Later...Josh Duggar (m. Anna Keller)
John David Duggar and Jana DuggarJohn David Duggar (m. Abbie-Grace Burnett)Jana Duggar (m. Stephen Wissmann)
Joseph Duggar (m. Kendra Caldwell)Joy & Austin ForsythJedidiah Duggar and Jeremiah DuggarJedidiah Duggar (m. Katey Nakatsu)Jeremiah Duggar (m. Hannah Wissmann)Jason Duggar (m. Maddie Grace)James DuggarJustin Duggar (m. Claire Spivey)
Jennifer Duggar
For free, confidential help, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673 or visit rainn.org.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Could Trump pardon Diddy and end his trial?
Sean "Diddy" Combs is being tried in a New York courtroom for racketeering and sexual trafficking. Could that daily drama vanish instantly if President Donald Trump pardoned the embattled rapper? "Yes, it could," says Brian Kalt, law professor at Michigan State University College of Law, who focuses on legal issues and the presidency. According to Kalt, Trump — who appears to be in the middle of a pardoning spree — would be within his presidential rights to extend a preemptive pardon to fellow New Yorker Combs, who has been described by witnesses so far as violent and abusive. "These are federal charges (against Combs), so that's the main limit. The matter has be federal, it has to be criminal vs. civil, and related to something that's already been done," says Kalt. "But the person doesn't have to even be charged yet, or convicted. The Supreme Court has said preemptive pardons are OK." Trump weighed in on the possibility Friday, May 30, in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." 'Nobody's asked': President Trump doesn't rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs Typically, one of the last gestures from an outgoing president is a pardon. In President Joe Biden's final days in office, he famously pardoned his son, Hunter, convicted of federal gun felonies and federal tax charges. At the end of Trump's first term, he granted clemency to political allies such as Roger Stone, found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related offenses. But pardons can take place during a president's term, says Kalt. The right was established in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which among other things gives the president "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Kalt says the power to pardon is derived from the British monarch's historic right and stems from a recognition that criminal law was often too harsh, and it was important to have a safety valve. "The president was the best person to be that safety valve because of his political accountability," he says. But that's where things get murky, he adds, noting that Republican lawmakers "don't appear willing to hold the president accountable" for granting pardons, meaning they aren't costing him in terms of political capital. In contrast, President Gerald Ford's controversial pardoning of disgraced President Richard Nixon was perceived so negatively "that it probably cost Ford re-election in 1976," Kalt says. In just over 100 days since taking office, Trump has issued pardons to a broad range of personalities. They include Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality show "Chrisley Knows Best," who were convicted in 2022 of swindling $36 million from Atlanta banks and being tax evaders, and rapper NBA YoungBoy, who in 2024 was sentenced to two years in prison for weapons possession. He also pardoned former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of wire fraud and extortion, and Jan. 6 participant and "Bob's Burgers" actor Jay Johnston. The reason many presidents issue pardons at the end of their terms is precisely to avoid political fallout, says Kalt. In that sense, Trump's brash approach suggests he has no concerns about such ramifications. "I don't agree with these pardons on their merits, but the fact that he did them when he is politically accountable as opposed to slinking out the door does add some legitimacy to them in that sense," he says. "With pardons, you don't need Congress, you wave your magic wand and it happens. You can see the appeal for a president, particularly one like Trump." One can also see the appeal for those such as Combs, whose ordeal could end instantly should Trump's pardon "wand" wave his way. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Will Trump pardon Diddy? Trial could end, experts say
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people Which states are the best and worst for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans to live and work? More and more, it's a question of partisan politics. Here's why. Show Caption Hide Caption See as rock climbers hang Transgender Pride flag in Yosemite Rock climbers unfurled a large Transgender Pride flag on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service has since removed it. As Oklahoman legislators push to restrict trans rights and overturn the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Zane Eaves says his identity as a transgender man has put a target on his back in his home state. One of 18,900 trans adults in Oklahoma, Eaves has received death threats as has his wife of 10 years and their two children. 'All the hatred and political stuff going on' are driving this Oklahoma lifer from the place he was born and raised, Eaves, 35, said. He has only crossed the state line three times in his life, but in recent weeks, he made the difficult decision to move his family to North Carolina to be closer to friends and allies. 'I am just trying to stay alive and keep my marriage,' Eaves said. Oklahoma ranks 44th in the nation on a list released Monday of the most and least welcoming states for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans. More and more, the question of where LGBTQ+ people feel safe is one of blue vs. red, according to advocacy group Out Leadership. LGBTQ+ equality fell across the board for the third straight year, according to Out Leadership's State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index shared exclusively with USA TODAY. But the sharpest declines came in Republican-led states. While progressive strongholds championed supportive policies and protections, conservative states elected a slate of leaders who openly oppose gay and trans rights and sponsored an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Out Leadership CEO and founder Todd Sears said. So-called 'Don't Say Gay' bills, religious exemptions and other legislation tanked the rankings of 19 red states in the Out Leadership index, according to Sears. Today, the divide between states that roll out the welcome mat and less hospitable parts of the country is wider than ever, he said. The least and most welcoming LGBTQ+ states Each year for the last seven, Out Leadership has released the State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index to gauge the overall climate for gay and transgender people state by state, mapping out where they will face the most and the least discrimination and hardship. Out Leadership's index measures the impact of state government policies and prevalent attitudes about the LGBTQ+ community, weighing factors such as support for young people and families, health access and safety, political and religious attitudes, work environment and employment and nondiscrimination protections. The Northeast had six of the 10 highest-ranked states, while the Southeast had six of the lowest-ranked. Massachusetts, led by the nation's first openly lesbian governor, Democrat Maura Healey and New York, which guaranteed gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ refugee protections, tied for first place in this year's index, with Connecticut and New Jersey close behind. The least LGBTQ+ friendly state was Arkansas, which ranked last for the third straight year. South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota and Alabama also received low scores. The states that had the largest gains in the index were Kentucky and Michigan, which Out Leadership attributed to 'pro-equality' leadership from governors Andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer, both Democrats. The steepest declines were in Ohio, Florida and Utah, all led by Republican governors. Where are the safest places to live? The Out Leadership index was created as a LGBTQ+ inclusion reference guide for business leaders. But gay and trans people soon began using it to figure out where they should – and should not – live and work, never more so than now as rights rollbacks from the Trump administration and red statehouses hit close to home. Opposition to transgender rights was a central plank in Trump's presidential campaign and since taking office he has signed a series of executive orders recognizing only male and female genders, keeping trans athletes out of women's sports, banning trans people from serving in the military and restricting federal funding for gender-affirming care for trans people under age 19. Even states seen as safer for LGBTQ+ people have been navigating these edicts around trans athletes. Trump threatened to cut federal funding to California if a trans girl competed in a state track and field event held Saturday. AB Hernandez, a junior from Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County, shared first place in the high jump and triple jump and second in the long jump. She shared the awards podium with her cisgender competitors under a new rule drafted by state athletics officials days before the event to mollify critics. Republican-led states have been in the vanguard of anti-trans legislation, causing greater geographic polarization and prompting fears among LGBTQ+ residents, even those who live in liberal cities. Jordan McGuire, a 27-year-old gay man in North Dakota, said the years he spent living in the Deep South taught him about the repressive discrimination routinely faced by gay and genderqueer people. At the same time, socially progressive cities in conservative states like Fargo and Grand Forks are no longer the safe havens they once were, he said. Now that his fiancee is transitioning to female, the couple is exploring a move to a 'sanctuary' state that will be safer for them. 'It feels like five or 10 years ago, trans people were not under the same microscope they are now and that has definitely influenced our move,' McGuire said. 'Yeah, people were prejudiced but it wasn't a witch hunt. They weren't looking for people in bathrooms and schools. But now things are so polarized.' That rising anxiety was captured in a post-election survey from UCLA's Williams Institute which found that nearly half of transgender people had already fled unsupportive communities and nearly 1 in 4 were considering uprooting their lives. The most frequently cited reasons for wanting to move were concerns about LGBTQ+ rights – 76% – the sociopolitical climate – 71% – anti-trans rhetoric and climate – 60% – and anti-trans laws and policies – 47%. LGBTQ+ Americans on the move Interest in relocating to friendlier states is even higher today than it was after Trump's reelection, say nonprofit workers who aid trans and gender-diverse people relocate to more liberal states with broader protections. So far in 2025, Rainbow Railroad in Canada has received more than 3,000 requests from LGBTQ+ people living in the United States, up more than 1,000% from the same time last year, according to communications director Timothy Chan. Nearly all requested international relocation support. For now, Rainbow Railroad can't aid Americans with resettlement services because of immigration restrictions, Chan said. TRACTION has heard from a record number of people from states as far away as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas with many of them reporting being threatened or feeling unsafe in their homes and neighborhoods, said Michael Woodward, the executive director of the trans-led organization in Washington state. Trans and gender-diverse people historically face financial hardship due to systemic oppression and discrimination, and need assistance finding jobs and housing as well as with interstate moving expenses that can run tens of thousands, Woodward said. TRACTION used to get a few applications a week until Trump won a second term. In the two weeks following the election, 'we received as many requests for assistance as we'd received in the entire life of the project thus far,' he said. After the inauguration, TRACTION started getting three to five applications every day. With one employee and a handful of volunteers, his organization is struggling to keep up with demand, Woodward said.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
President Donald Trump on Sunday said if the courts rule against the administration's sweeping tariffs, it would mean the "economic ruination" of the country. The post comes after the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled unanimously on Wednesday to block the use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. Members of the three-judge panel, who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, said Trump has overstepped and does not have "unbounded authority" to impose the tariffs. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders "If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us," Trump wrote on Truth Social Sunday afternoon. "This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!" Trump administration lawyers have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response. Read On The Fox Business App Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Following the court decision, a federal appeals court on Thursday ruled in favor of the Trump administration, delaying a lower court's ruling blocking the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact a 10% baseline tariff and "reciprocal tariffs." The reciprocal taxes, announced by the White House on April 2, were being used by the Trump administration as a negotiating tactic with other countries prior to the court battles. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave the plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response, and the Trump administration until June 9. Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this article source: Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
