Savannah Chrisley Was 'Sobbing' When Trump Won 2024 Election Since Her Family 'Knew That Was Our Only Way' to Get Parents Released
The couple was joined by two of their children, Grayson and Savannah Chrisley, for the appearance on My View with Lara Trump
The reality stars were pardoned by President Donald Trump on May 27 and released from prison the following daySavannah Chrisley is opening up about a hard truth she and her family faced amid their fight for her parents Todd and Julie Chrisley's freedom.
On Saturday, June 28, Savannah and her brother Grayson Chrisley joined their parents, Todd, 57, and Julie, 52, on Fox News Channel's My View with Lara Trump. The appearance marked the longtime couple's first television interview since their release from prison one month ago.
During the interview, Savannah told host Lara Trump how President Donald Trump's win gave her hope about her parents' situation.
"Grayson and I watched the election together, and he got to vote in the election for the first time. And when we were watching it and we saw the president win, we both started sobbing," Savannah, 27, recalled. "And he just grabbed me and hugged me because we knew that was our only way out."
Todd, for his part, also reflected on the moment he learned of the 2024 election results alongside his fellow inmates. "We were all glued to the television. ... When they finally announced that he was the winner, everyone there started screaming and yelling because they knew, they felt in their spirit that if President Trump wins this election, there's hope for all of us," he said.
Savannah said she remembers being "shocked" when President Trump, 79, called her to inform her about his plans for her parents.
"He was like, 'How are you?' I was like, well, in the wise words of you fighting like hell. And I was like, I probably shouldn't have said that to the president, but it is President Trump," she shared during her family's interview with Lara. "A big thing was he asked Alice Johnson, 'Is this a commutation? Or is this a full pardon?' And she said, 'As of now, it's just a commutation.' He goes, 'Nope, Nope. We're going to give them a full pardon. These people get their lives back.' And I was just in such shock."
At one point, Lara, 42, asked Todd and Julie would "be here today" if not for daughter Savannah's efforts. "Absolutely not," Julie said as Todd noted, "How do you say 'thank you' to someone who gives you your freedom back?"
Leading up to this point, Savannah had been very outspoken amid the pair's appeal process and even delivered a speech at the 2024 Republican National Convention in support of President Trump. Due to her prison reform activism pursuits, she was even named a Senior Fellow for the Nolan Center for Criminal Justice for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
He also revealed how he found out that he would be going home, recalling, "I had a staff member that came to me and said, 'You've just been pardoned.' And I just looked at him, and he says, 'No, really, you've been pardoned. It's in the news.'"
After calling his daughter to confirm the news, he said, "I remember walking back from the phone and just feeling numb, not really knowing."
Julie also shared her emotional response to finding out about her release, revealing on My View with Lara Trump, "I called Savannah one more time, and she said, 'He did it, he signed it."
"And I just started busting out crying,' she added. 'And everyone was looking around, and then I just hung up. I was so nervous, I just hung up."
The pardons put an end to a legal saga which led to the pair being indicted on 12 counts of bank and wired fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy and later convicted and sentenced to a combined 19 years in prison in November 2022 (though that number was reduced by around two years each in September 2023).
They immediately began appealing their case, and while Todd's appeal was upheld, Julie's was initially granted due to insufficient evidence. However, a judge later ruled that her original punishment was sufficient.
They will also sit down together for an appearance on Unlocked with Savannah Chrisley before returning to the airwaves with their own podcast.
Savannah revealed that the couple will be "relaunching" their podcast, Chrisley Confessions, which is under the PodcastOne umbrella like Savannah's and went on hiatus during their incarceration.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
"I am so excited for that … and for them to have a place to share their story and be truly authentically themselves after the past two and a half years," Savannah said.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
a few seconds ago
- Bloomberg
India Says US Defense Ties Intact Despite Trump's 50% Tariffs
India 's defense ties with Washington remain on track with a US delegation set to visit New Delhi this month, even as the South Asian nation grapples with President Donald Trump's 50% tariffs. 'We are expecting a US Defense Policy Team to be in Delhi in mid-August,' Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India's External Affairs Ministry said Thursday. The 21st edition of the annual joint military exercise Yudh Abhyas is expected to take place later this month in Alaska, he added.
Los Angeles Times
2 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's deal with Nvidia puts our national security on sale to the highest bidder
One thing that can be said about Donald Trump's transactional approach to policy-making is that, as destructive as it might be to our economic health, it gives business leaders clear options to get what they want out of the White House. The latest case-in-point are the deals struck by chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to secure licenses to export their products to China. The White House named the price — 15% of their revenues from such sales — and the companies assented willingly. Never mind that the exports originally had been banned — by the Biden administration and Trump himself — because of national security concerns. Never mind that the U.S. constitution explicitly prohibits charging any tax or duty on exports. Never mind that a stack of U.S. laws, including the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which Trump signed, don't provide a pay-to-play escape clause from export restrictions. Never mind that the exports may strengthen the domestic industry and even its military of China, a country that has been the consistent target of Trump trade policies. Despite all that, Trump treated the deals as a win for the U.S. Explaining his side of the conversation when Nvidia asked for relief from the export ban, he related, 'I said, 'If I'm going to do that, I want you to pay us as a country something, because I'm giving you a release.'' Under the circumstances, it shouldn't be surprising that some trade professionals and investors see something corrupt in the arrangements. Among them is Christopher Padilla, an export control official under George W. Bush, who told the Washington Post: 'Export controls are in place to protect national security, not raise revenue for the government. This arrangement seems like bribery or blackmail, or both.'' Nvidia, as it happens, has a written anti-corruption policy stating, 'We do not tolerate bribery or corruption in our business.' The policy bars 'promising, offering, providing, or authorizing the provision of money or anything of value ... to obtain, retain, or direct regulatory approvals, contracts, business, or other benefits.' When I asked Nvidia about the deal, the company referred me to the sole comment it has made in response to questions about it: 'We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets.' AMD didn't respond to my request for comment. These deals are unprecedented; as the Financial Times observed, citing trade experts, 'no US company has ever agreed to pay a portion of their revenues to obtain export licenses.' There's no question that Nvidia lobbied ferociously for a lifting of the export ban. The company made a $1-million contribution to Trump's inaugural committee. Its CEO, Jensen Huang, met directly with Trump to discuss the ban; media reports say that Trump initially demanded a 20% fee, but Huang negotiated it down to 15%. As has been the case with other Trump-negotiated trade deals, the details of this one are murky in the extreme. The terms haven't been reduced to writing. Indeed, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that its 'legality ... is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce,' with an eye toward replicating it with other companies. Among the questions is how the fee would be paid, and how the money would be spent. Still, what's known has caused concern for export regulators, experts and legislators. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security,' tweeted Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House select committee on the Chinese Communist Party, 'and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities.' The effect of this deal on other companies also raises the hackles of economists and trade experts. 'Other American semiconductor companies like Qualcomm and Intel may say, 'If we develop this cutting-edge chip and the government decides that it has some national security interest in that chip, we might have some of our revenue taken away as well,'' says Kyle Handley, a trade economist at UC San Diego, 'so they may decide not to do the R&D investments and the innovation and hire the workers to develop those things.' The revenue payback 'will certainly have a chilling effect,' Handley told me, because the government fee 'might make the initial investment appear uneconomical.' That's especially so if the administration tries to apply the arrangement to industries such as software or pharmaceuticals. The export charge could become a particular burden on startups — Nvidia plainly has enough money to pay the fee, but many other innovative companies wouldn't. Whether or how the export tax can be stopped is an open question. For one thing, it's unclear who would have standing to bring a lawsuit to stop it. Nvidia and AMD have accepted the deal, so they presumably wouldn't file a case. Companies that fear the imposition of export fees on their own products might have to wait until they could show concrete damage to their own interests in order to bring a case in federal court. As long as manufacturers such as Nvidia are willing to bow to Trump's demands, he may have a clear field. If a legal challenge does emerge, the administration has tried to characterize the export fee as something other than a tax in order to circumvent the constitutional prohibition. Nvidia developed the H20 chip at the heart of its deal specifically to address an export ban the Biden administration imposed on the company's sales to China in 2023. The Chinese government, however, isn't enamored of the chip. Chinese regulators have been pressuring domestic companies to avoid the chips out of cybersecurity concerns, including suspicion that the chips could contain hidden code that could subject them to outside control. (Nvidia has denied that the chips contain any such back-door exposure.) The chips also are outmoded for some AI applications compared to the company's top-of-the-line Blackwell series, which are still subject to a U.S. export ban. As my colleague Queenie Wong reported, Trump seems to think that he and Nvidia's Huang had put something over on the Chinese. Trump called the H20 chip 'obsolete' and said Huang was 'selling a essentially old chip.' But others say the H20s may yet be preferable to Chinese-designed chips for Chinese firms, although Chinese products are consistently improving. 'The H20 is a potent accelerator of China's frontier AI capabilities, not an outdated AI chip,' as 20 former government trade officials told Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees trade policy, in a July 28 letter. 'If the U.S. backs off of export controls to China, we believe that China's next generation of frontier AI will be built on the backs of the H20,' the officials wrote. The chip 'will not simply power consumer products or factory logistics; they will enable autonomous weapons systems, intelligence surveillance platforms, and rapid advances in battlefield decision-making.' How the export deal may affect Nvidia's top or bottom lines is murky, though its immediate effect doesn't seem all that significant. In May, the company announced a $4.5-billion writedown of unsold H20 inventories in the first quarter ended April 27 because of the U.S. ban on H20 sales. But it still recorded $23.3 billion in operating profit for the quarter on sale of $44.1 billion. For its last full fiscal year ended Jan. 26, Nvidia reported a pre-tax profit of $84 billion profit on sales of $130.5 billion. In stock market terms, Nvidia is the world's most valuable company, with a market value of $4.4 trillion; its price-earnings multiple is a robust 58.4. With a gain in share price so far this year of nearly 35%, it's one of a handful of AI-related companies that has kept the market buoyant despite investor concerns about a developing economic slowdown due in part to Trump's trade policies. But the company is looking ahead to further incursions into the China market over the long term. 'The China market is about $50 billion a year,' Huang told Taiwan-based technology strategist Ben Thompson in May, bemoaning the need to leave behind 'the profits that go with that, the scale that goes with that, the ecosystem building that goes with that' while the export ban was in place. So it made sense to allow Nvidia to extract revenue and profits from the cross-border trade. China is sure to power ahead on AI technology with or without Nvidia's chips, Huang said — 'anybody who thought that one chess move to somehow ban China from H20s would somehow cut off their ability to do AI is deeply uninformed.'
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Cutting off the political corruption machine, once and for all
I didn't write this to get clicks. I wrote it because I'm tired. I'm tired of watching public service turn into a stepping stone for private gain. It's not just a partisan issue. It's everywhere. Corruption isn't the exception. It's the operating system. And we can't fix that with anger alone. We need actual rules. The truth is, outrage has become a commodity. Media feeds on it. Politicians use it to stall. Writers, too often, get stuck pointing fingers instead of offering something better. Somewhere along the way, solving problems stopped being the point. Keeping them alive became the strategy. Corruption isn't new, of course. But in Donald Trump's second term, it feels like the curtain has been ripped down entirely. Whether you support him or not, the self-enrichment is hard to ignore. He's backed a meme coin, charged for VIP dinners, and posted market-moving comments like they were punchlines. Since returning to office, estimates say his net worth has jumped to nearly $5 billion — up from $2.3 billion when he started. That kind of leap doesn't happen from a government salary. It comes from turning influence into income. And yes, before you say it, the Bidens should be scrutinized, too. So should Nancy Pelosi's decades of well-timed stock trades. Trump doesn't get a pass just because others played the game. That's exactly the problem. Everyone's playing. This isn't just a double standard. It's a broken standard. One that's hollowed out public trust, one ethical compromise at a time. And once that trust is gone? It's almost impossible to get back. I don't think we can completely eliminate corruption. But I do think we can make it harder to get away with. That's why I'm proposing the Elected Official Investment Fund, or EOF for short — a neutral, practical tool to prevent public servants from profiting while in power. It doesn't punish success. It just separates it from the job. Here's what the fund would do: Transfer assets at entry. Every elected official, from president to governor to senator, would move their investments into the EOF upon taking office. This includes stocks, business stakes and real estate partnerships. You keep your checking account and your house. But your portfolio goes in the fund. No tax penalty for rollover. Want to move your Tesla stock into an index fund when you join? Fine. No capital gains tax. But once you're in office, you can't buy or sell anything specific. No exceptions. Withdrawals get taxed. Need money from the fund? Sure. But it gets taxed like ordinary income. No sneaky liquidity plays. No gaming the tax code. Full public visibility. The public sees what's in the fund. Voters deserve to know if their representatives are getting richer on the job. No family workarounds. If you can't buy Nvidia the day before a hearing, neither can your spouse or your kids. Influence doesn't stop at the dinner table. No private market deals. While in office, you can't invest in private equity, hedge funds or venture capital. These are the murkiest corners of finance, and the easiest to abuse. No gifts over a symbolic threshold. A framed jersey from a school visit? Fine. A luxury trip from a donor? No. Draw the line clearly, and don't make it flexible. This isn't radical. Companies already do this. Major CEOs can't trade stock without triggering disclosure. Some can't give gifts at all. Business caught up to the ethics of influence. Politics hasn't. And the defenses are getting more absurd. Speaker Mike Johnson actually said Trump's profiteering wasn't a problem because it was 'out in the open.' As if transparency turns bad behavior into good behavior. That's like saying, 'Sure, I robbed the store, but I smiled for the security camera.' We're grading corruption now based on how shameless it is. That's not accountability. That's surrender. In the corporate world, you can be fired just for creating the appearance of impropriety. You don't have to break a rule. You just have to make people think you might. Because perception matters. Leadership is supposed to mean restraint. I care about this because I've run a business. I've seen how power warps decision-making. How proximity gets monetized. And how easy it is to justify. But more than that, I care because we're running out of time. We need to stop asking whether someone got rich from power. We need to build a system where the answer is that they can't. The Elected Official Investment Fund won't solve everything. But it's a good place to start. That's not idealism. That's baseline democracy.
