Attorneys for Householder, Borges ‘hopeful' following pardon for Cincinnati politician
Larry Householder, left, and Matt Borges, right. (Photos by WEWS/WCPO.)
The attorneys for former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and former Republican leader Matt Borges are feeling 'hopeful' after a Cincinnati politician convicted of bribery got a pardon from President Donald Trump.
Once convicted of accepting $20,000 in bribes, former Cincinnati City Councilmember PG Sittenfeld's slate has been wiped clean.
President Donald Trump pardoned the Democrat, who was sentenced to more than a year in prison in 2023.
And with this pardon comes interest from other influential Ohio politicos.
We asked Householder's attorney Scott Pullins if that gives him hope for Householder.
'Yeah, I can't comment, obviously, on what we're doing right now, what I'm working on, our legal team's working on,' Pullins replied. 'But it certainly gives us a lot of hope.'
Thursday, Borges's appeals attorney, Dennis Belli, said in a phone interview that the Sittenfeld pardon also gives him hope.
In March 2023, a jury found Householder and Borges guilty of felony racketeering in the largest public corruption and bribery scandal in state history.
And earlier this month, a panel of federal court judges upheld the convictions of Householder and Borges.
We asked Gov. Mike DeWine if he believes Householder and Borges should be pardoned.
'Look, I don't have any comment about the pardons,' he responded. 'These are decisions that are made by the president of the United States. I have authority in regard to state pardons, and I always will tell you about why I made a decision.'
Pullins has been telling us for months now that the former speaker is seeking clemency, arguing the FBI was politically motivated in arresting the former speaker.
'They singled out Larry, him alone,' he said. 'No one else has been charged, no other politician — period.'
Legal expert Steve Gooden, partner at Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, said this could be a sympathetic argument for a pardon.
'It obviously strikes very close to home for Donald Trump who has been the subject of these kinds of inquiries and cases in the past,' Gooden said.
In an interview in February, Attorney General Dave Yost refuted this allegation.
'He was indicted by President Trump's United States Attorney, David DeVillers, who, I believe, is the same political party,' Yost said. 'I don't think that dog hunts.'
And Yost said he was against Householder getting out. Householder is also facing Ohio charges. He has pleaded not guilty to 10 felony counts in Cuyahoga County.
'I oppose,' Yost said in February. Asked why, he said, 'Because I've seen the evidence and he committed multiple crimes. Even if his appeal is successful in the federal case, there is additional evidence of criminal acts that are included in the state's indictment.'
If convicted on state charges and appeals fail, it would take an act of the governor to clear him of that.
Previously, Pullins told us in an interview that the team is hoping to leverage Householder's close relationship with Trump to get him out.
Asked about the appearance that Householder could be using his connections in order to get out of prison, Pullins responded, 'Well, yeah. He is. Hopefully, he has some friends left that can help.'
After our exclusive, in-depth interview in 2023, we've kept in touch with the head juror, Jerrod Haines, who convicted Householder in federal court.
He said that Householder was, once again, using power to get what he wanted.
'I definitely feel like he is using his connections to skip his sentence,' he said. 'I would feel that the justice system failed if he would be pardoned. I would feel that my time as a juror was wasted, even though I think it was a very valuable experience for me, my life was interrupted for seven weeks.'
Haines told us in 2023 that he was left disillusioned with state government, hoping political leaders would finally learn not to undercut their citizens in exchange for power and money.
Paula Christian from WCPO contributed to this story.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Joni Ernst doubles down on bleak ‘We are all going to die' comments in sarcastic non-apology
Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst doubled down on her bleak comments in response to potential Republican Medicaid cuts by posting a sarcastic apology video on social media. The senator went viral after she said, 'We all are going to die,' when responding to a question about the proposed cuts in President Donald Trump's tax legislation during a town hall in Parkersburg on Friday. As Ernst began to answer the question, a person in the audience shouted, 'People will die!' "People are not — well, we all are going to die. For heaven's sakes, folks,' she said in response. The comment received national media attention and was widely criticized by Democrats who have slammed the possible ramifications of the proposed cuts to Medicaid. Ernst shared a video on her Instagram story on Saturday where she spoke directly to the camera, seemingly from a cemetery. "Hello everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall," said before going on to describe what happened. "I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth," she added. "So I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well.' "But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ," said Ernst. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican tax bill will cut Medicaid spending by $723 billion over the next 10 years. The number of uninsured people could rise by as much as 7.6 million. During the town hall event in Parkersburg, Ernst argued that the goal of the legislation is to ensure that those not eligible for Medicaid don't get the benefits. "What you don't want to do is listen to me when I say that we are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable," she said. "Those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, we will protect. We will protect them. Medicaid is extremely important here in the state of Iowa. If you don't want to listen, that's fine." She subsequently went on to blame the "hysteria that's out there coming from the left" for the criticism of her initial statement. Former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger responded to Ernst's Instagram story on X, writing: 'Whelp. No sense of goodness left in her now.' 'I'm sorry… is she walking through a cemetery as she makes this?' Democratic strategist Tim Hogan added.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Vogue' Editor Who Trump Has Raged at Spotted at White House
A fashion icon was spotted at the White House this week—putting ICE Barbie Kristi Noem to shame. Anna Wintour, the world-famous Vogue editor, rolled up to the South Lawn sporting her perfectly sleek bob and equipped with a mission: to discuss the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs on the fashion industry. She was not, however, there to end the feud between her and First Lady Melania Trump and finally give her a spot on the cover. Wintour was flanked by two other industry legends: Steven Kolb, CEO of the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), and Stephen Lamar, president and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). The Trumps opened their home for the party, even though Wintour has famously snubbed the pair on more than one occasion. Melania and Wintour share a host of similarities: both are foreign-born, cold and commanding figures who have an affection for Italian designers. For a while, the two seemed to get along fine: before his presidential run, Trump and his wife were routinely invited to the Met Gala and other Vogue events. Melania even graced the cover of Vogue in 2005 wearing her wedding dress. But things changed once Trump was elected. In October 2017, Wintour vowed she would 'never' invite Trump back to the Met Gala. And unlike former First Ladies Jill Biden and Michelle Obama, Wintour pointedly chose not to put Melania on the cover of Vogue. Wintour arrived in Washington, D.C. to meet with Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff, in the hopes of finding relief for the heavily tariffed, $500 billion fashion industry. The industry, which supports 10 million jobs nationwide, has borne a large brunt of Trump's attacks. Right now, the average tax on fashion items is nearly 13 percent. And even though the products only make up approximately 5 percent of what the U.S. imports, they are responsible for over a quarter of the total tariffs collected. Since the fashion industry is already so heavily taxed, the three industry leaders told Wiles the extra tariffs would only put the fashion industry at a disproportionate disadvantage. Wintour, a proud Democrat, was there to say her piece—and butter up to the Trump administration—despite the ongoing feud with Melania. According to Wintour's biographer, Amy Odell, Vogue twice tried to photograph Melania during Trump's first term. She declined both times when she learned it would not guarantee her a cover feature. Immediately after Melania posed for her first White House official portrait, wearing a black Dolce & Gabbana business suit, Vogue published a scathing article saying that the outfit made Melania appear 'more like a freelance magician than a public servant.' 'Trump looked more like she was guest-starring on an episode of The Apprentice than assuming the role of First Lady of the United States,' wrote Vogue's Hannah Jackson. Republicans fell in line to support Melania. Melania's friend, Bill White, wrote on X: 'We cherish and support [Melania]. We've decided to cancel all our subscriptions to Condé NASTY. I urge everyone who loves America to join us in this action.' Melania's former confidante, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, wrote a book that shone a light on the depth of the rivalry: 'I don't give a f--- about Vogue or any other magazine," Melania allegedly said. 'They would never put me on the cover. All these people are so mad.' The drama extends to the president, too. According to Odell, when Wintour came to visit Trump in New York in 2016, after he won the election, he reportedly felt 'offended' that nobody told him ahead of time. He was so upset he 'didn't even say hello.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme court allows White House to revoke temporary protected status of many migrants
The US supreme court on Friday announced it would allow the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US district judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration humanitarian 'parole' protections granted to 532,000 people by Donald Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal from the country, while the detailed case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's emergency orders – after rapid appeals brought the case to their bench – the decision issued on Friday was unsigned and gave no reasoning. However two of the court's three liberal-leaning justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court 'botched' its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. Related: Trump administration sets quota to arrest 3,000 people a day in anti-immigration agenda The outcome, Jackson wrote, 'undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending'. Jackson also said that 'it is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage.' She added that those living under parole protections in this case now face 'two unbearable options'. One option is to 'elect to leave the United States and thereby, confront 'dangers in their native countries,' experience destructive 'family separation' and possibly 'forfeit any opportunity to obtain a remedy based on their … claims', Jackson wrote. The other option is that they could remain in the US after parole termination and 'risk imminent removal at the hands of government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences'. To Jackson, 'either choice creates significant problems for respondents that far exceed any harm to the government … At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgement regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to the kind of practical impact.' Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit', allowing recipients to live and work in the US. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to handling migrants entering at the US-Mexico border. Such a status does not offer immigrants a long-term path towards citizenship but it can typically be renewed multiple times. A report from the American Immigration Council found that halting the program would, apart from the humanitarian effect, be a blow to the US economy, as households in the US where the breadwinners have temporary protected status (TPS) collectively earned more than $10bn in total income in 2021 while paying nearly $1.3bn in federal taxes. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on 20 January, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal'. The case is one of many that the Trump administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding the president's sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The supreme court on 19 May also let Trump end TPS that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 additional Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent then, while House Democrats condemned the supreme court's decision. In a bid to reduce unauthorized border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 offering limited extra pathways to come to the US legally, allowing Venezuelans who entered the US by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Biden expanded that eligibility process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those countries. The plaintiffs in this case, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming they violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold and the government appealed. Related: US immigration authorities collecting DNA information of children in criminal database The justice department told the supreme court that Talwani's order had upended 'critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry', effectively 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election' that returned Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the supreme court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death'. Speaking at the White House on Friday afternoon, Trump praised the decision, saying 'a couple of hours ago we had a great decision from the supreme court that's very important'. Reuters contributed reporting
