Todd Chrisley Reveals Why He Has No Remorse After Tax Fraud Conviction
Todd Chrisley is standing by his and Julie Chrisley's innocence.
After the Growing Up Chrisley patriarch and his wife were pardoned by President Donald Trump, he vehemently denied committing tax evasion and wire fraud.
'I would have remorse if it was something that I did,' Todd—who, along with his wife, was convicted at trial in 2022 after pleading not guilty—explained during a May 30 press conference. 'The corruption that went on in our case is going to continue to unfold.'
While he didn't provide further details about their future legal plans, he did address Julie's September 2024 apology from her resentencing hearing, in which the judge ultimately upheld her seven-year prison sentence. (Todd and Julie were set to be released in 2032 and 2028, respectively.)
'You're placed in a position as a defendant to bow down and kiss the ass of the Department of Justice,' Todd told reporters, 'and accept responsibility for things that you did not do in order to avoid a stronger sentence.'
E! News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment and has not yet heard back.
More from E! Online
How Julie Chrisley Feels About Ditching Her Blonde Hair After Prison
Taylor Swift Officially Buys Album Masters After Years-Long Music Battle
TikToker Emilie Kiser's Lawyer Speaks Out on "Worst Nightmare" After Son's Drowning Death
After being incarcerated for over two years, the reality star praised their daughter Savannah Chrisley—who took legal guardianship of her younger siblings Grayson, 18, and Chloe, 11, after their arrest—for advocating on their behalf.
"She has fought a long fight, and for any parent to see their child fight this hard, it's a double-edged sword,' he reflected. 'It's a blessing, and then your heart breaks because your child has been placed in that position to fight for you, when, as a parent, you're supposed to fight for your children."
It was a sentiment that the White House Pardon Czar Alice Marie Johnson, who helped facilitate their release, echoed.
'The celebrity part really didn't play a role in this,' she explained on NewsNation Live. 'I'm going to say that if they did not have a daughter like Savannah who was out there fighting for them, they would not have been pardoned.'
'This woman has worked relentlessly for her parents,' Alice—whose sentence was commuted by Trump in 2018 after Kim Kardashian's criminal justice reform campaign—said. 'I know that everyone in prison wishes they had an advocate like Savannah Chrisley.'
For Savannah's part, she emphasized that she had 'done everything' in her 'power to fight' for Julie and Todd—who are also parents to son Chase Chrisley, 28, as well as Todd and ex-wife Teresa Terry's kids Lindsie Chrisley, 35, and Kyle Chrisley, 33—to come home.
'This moment is the answer to countless prayers, and I am beyond grateful to President Trump for seeing the truth and restoring my family,' she continued in her statement to E! News. 'Today is a victory for our family, but the fight against wrongful convictions and injustice within our prison system is far from over. I will continue to use my voice and platform to advocate for those who do not have one.'
For a closer look at Todd and Julie's legal battle, keep reading and tune into E! on June 1 from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. to catch up on Chrisley Knows Best.
Indicted on Tax Evasion and Other ChargesTodd and Julie Found GuiltySentenced to Multiple Years in PrisonStarting Their SentencesNo ContactTodd Details Filthy Prison ConditionsSavannah Chrisley Speaks OutJulie's Prison Sentence OverturnedA Tearful ApologyPresident Donald Trump Pardons the Chrisleys
For the latest breaking news updates, click here to download the E! News App
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Todd & Julie Chrisley's Relationship Timeline: From Reality TV to Prison
The world got to know Todd and Julie Chrisley when they welcomed viewers into their life and home on their hit reality show Chrisley Knows Best. The series showcased their eccentric family and day-to-day life, and for years, viewers were entertained by the antics that took place in their household. However, things took a turn for this reality television duo when in 2022, both Todd and Julie were sentenced to 12 and 7 years, respectively, in prison for fraud. While the world assumed it would be quite some time until the Chrisleys saw freedom, the duo got the shock of a lifetime when they learned they had been pardoned by President Trump. Reunited after years apart, the duo shared that seeing each other after all that time, it was as if no time had passed. Here, a look at the relationship and marriage of Todd and Julie Chrisley. How Todd and Julie Chrisley met It was in 1996 that the Chrisley couple tied the knot, but before that, Todd was actually married to his high school sweetheart. Todd was first captivated by Julie when he saw her at a friend's house. 'The moment she walked in the room, it's the only time before and since that anything had ever taken my breath, other than when I walked past a mirror,' the television personality joked to Us Weekly back in 2022. Tying the knot in 1996, it wasn't long before they expanded their family, Todd already having two children, Lindsie and Kyle, from his previous marriage. Inside the Chrisley family tree After getting married, Todd and Julie welcomed three children: Chase, Savannah and Grayson. Additionally, they've adopted their granddaughter, Chloe, after her dad Kyle's struggle with substance abuse. After Todd and Julie began their sentences, it was ultimately their daughter Savannah who most significantly contributed to their release. During the time in which they were incarcerated, the 27-year-old influencer advocated for her parents to politicians and the public, and in the end, it was what led to their pardon. Life after prison: Todd and Julie reunited On June 28 and 29, Todd and Julie, accompanied by their children Savannah and Grayson, gave their first interviews since their release, detailing their plans for the future, what their experiences behind bars were like, and what it was like reuniting after so much time apart. 'I was never away from her because she was in my spirit the entire time,' Todd shared on My View With Lara Trump. 'I thought of her every second of my day. So, when I hugged her the first time, it was like I was home. It was not like I had been missing. I knew I was coming home to the same woman that I left. Now, when I say the same, I'm talking about in my heart spiritually.' As for the couple's future, Todd revealed on an ABC News Studio Special that they have plans of relocating to South Carolina in the hopes of acquiring a mansion and converting it to a hotel. Additionally, the family was confirmed to be at the center of a new reality show. Looking for more entertainment stories? Click through below! 'Y&R' Star Christel Khalil Dishes on Cane's Dumas Reveal and the End of Lily's 'Dry Spell' (Exclusive) Meet All 6 of Bob Dylan's Children and See Where They Are Now—Including Grammy-Winning Jakob Dylan Check In With the Cast of 'Elementary': What the Stars Are Up To Today—Jonny Lee Miller to Lucy Liu
Android Authority
44 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Elon Musk is about to ruin Vine just like he's ruined everything else
Short-form video is everywhere in 2025. From TikTok to Instagram, YouTube to Snapchat, you've got no shortage of options to turn to when you're looking to scratch this particular itch. But the landscape wasn't always this vast, and not all the early pioneers of short-form content made it through that evolution unscathed. While Snapchat was arguably the first snowball to get rolling here, it wasn't long before it was followed by Vine. And before Vine even had a chance to release its mobile apps, it found itself acquired by Twitter. That early Twitter interest really helped drive the platform's success, and the limitation of its six-second clips encouraged creativity from a new generation of creators, with many now-prominent names first finding success on Vine. A few years later, though, everybody was basically doing their own take on Vine, with many social platforms introducing native support for short-form video. And right as Twitter started deprioritizing Vine, blocking new uploads ahead of shuttering the service entirely, TikTok emerged to essentially steal Vine's crown. That's basically been the world we've lived in for the past eight years, with Vine relegated to our memories of short-form-video nostalgia. But 2025 is a messy, weird year, and anyone with an iota of power can quickly find themselves getting away with just the worst ideas they're able to think up. So of course that includes Elon Musk. Yesterday, on nuTwitter, Musk ominously posted his intention to bring Vine back 'in AI form.' That phrasing alone should be sufficient to send a small chill down your spine. Bringing things back that already ran their course can be a fraught enough proposition on its own, but when that effort immediately seeks to also transmute that nostalgia into something new… this is practically shoving a red flag down our throat. Pogs didn't save ALF, and AI won't save Vine. Easily the biggest question here is what 'Vine but AI' would even look like. At a high level, it's not hard to think about what Musk and his fellow AI advocates might picture a tool like this offering when there's no other limiting factors in play: a system that takes user input (or better yet, just knows what they want based on past analytics) and endlessly churns out generative short-form video content in response. To a certain mind, that probably sounds perfect — no creators to worry about, no trends to chase, just users saying what they want and the service making it appear. Of course, while that's currently not so far-fetched an idea that we don't even have to talk about it, it's also nowhere near anything approaching economically viable. Pogs didn't save ALF, and AI won't save Vine. Tools like Google's Veo 3 might make it feel like an AI-powered bottomless video spigot is out there waiting for us to open, but right now such solutions are far too slow and power-hungry to be practical on any kind of scale like we'd need for a public video app. OK, so what else could AI-Vine be? Well, the next best (worst?) version would probably be a hybrid between what we just described and the Vine of the past, only using AI to generate boatloads of videos across all manner of popular subjects in advance, and then serving them up to users later. This has the benefit of at least sounding remotely practical. Why is there a basket directly above the middle of the court? Just like this Veo 3 clip, don't expect anything you see in AI-Vine world to make any sense. Would creators be involved at all? So far we've been talking about systems where Musk's AI would be responsible for basically all the content being served up, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the direction a project like this would go. Maybe 'Vine in AI form' would be pretty much the same as OG Vine, but now explicitly embracing creators who lean heavily on AI, as we've started seeing YouTube do. On our sliding scale of likelihood, this one sounds maybe the most practical yet, but also a bit underwhelming — less 'AI form' and more 'just like every other video platform in 2025.' Which would also have us wondering what's the point of even doing this at all. Maybe that's the most frustrating component of this discussion. We've been splitting hairs over exactly what an AI-ified Vine would look like, but the anxiety we're feeling that drives this is less about Vine in particular and more about the depressingly widespread appeal of AI content. Perhaps it's just that Vine was from an era where creators were constantly hustling to make a name for themselves in that then-nascent space. Those attempts didn't always work; just like now there was plenty of low-effort, cringe content out there. But others were discovering what really played, building up audiences of fans and bringing us back to Vine again and again. Those creators have all moved on, though, and if Vine were to reappear today, maybe the only way to avoid a massive content vacuum really would be tapping in to AI tools to build up a new video library. Discerning viewers aren't likely to find a Vine like that particularly appealing. But if Musk's disastrous influence on Twitter has taught us anything, it's that even services that are deeply unappealing to users with taste don't have to worry when they have the vast depths of the internet to tap into. There are absolutely legions of people out there who would love nothing more than spending their days watching one AI-generated six-second video after another. And I hope they never get what they want.
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
Stefanik, Issa Reintroduce Bill to Ban Handgun Roster Restrictions in States
The restrictions make it challenging for firearm manufacturers to introduce new models, the lawmakers said. Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have reintroduced the 'Modern Firearm Safety Act,' which aims to prevent states such as California and New York from restricting gun access to citizens, Stefanik's office said in a July 24 statement If passed, states and agencies would be banned from imposing regulations that require a handgun to incorporate a design feature, functionality, safety mechanism, or performance standard not mandated by federal statute, the bill states When state or local governments impose requirements that a handgun model incorporate features not present on the model, it can artificially inflate prices, according to the bill. Story continues below advertisement Such measures 'present safety concerns by altering the intended design and function of the affected models; violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and pose an unacceptable restraint on interstate commerce,' the bill states. According to the July 24 statement, the bill will prohibit states from 'enacting unconstitutional 'handgun rosters' that prevent law-abiding citizens from accessing modern, safer handgun models and require firearm manufacturers to adopt costly and unnecessary features, making it nearly impossible to sell new handguns.' A handgun roster refers to a list of handguns that have been approved for sale within a specific jurisdiction based on meeting safety and restrictive requirements. For instance, a handgun roster in California requires that a gun model in the state must pass certain tests and be certified for sale by the state's Department of Justice before it can be sold. At present, New York, Maryland, California, and the District of Columbia have enacted 'restrictive handgun rosters,' with other states considering similar measures, according to the statement. Story continues below advertisement Due to these stringent standards, firearms sold to people include 'costly and unnecessary features' such as magazine disconnect mechanisms, loaded chamber indicators, and microstamping technology, and these requirements are making it nearly impossible for gun manufacturers to introduce new handgun models to the market, according to the statement. Microstamping technology causes a firearm's firing pin to imprint microscopic characters onto ammunition cartridge cases when a gun is fired, according to a July 18 statement from the California Attorney General's office. These characters represent the weapon's make, model , and serial number. As such, when law enforcement finds cartridge cases at crime scenes, they can check the imprinted code and identify the firearm. The Modern Firearm Safety Act would prohibit states from mandating loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect mechanisms, and microstamping for handguns, a move that will restore the Second Amendment in states with such restrictive gun regulations, according to the lawmakers. Story continues below advertisement A visitor picks up a revolver at the Charter Arms booth at the 2025 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits held in the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Ga., on April 25, 2025.'For decades, the clear Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners have been targeted for elimination, and handgun rosters are only one of the cynical schemes used to undermine the Second Amendment through the pretense of firearm safety,' Issa, who first introduced the bill last year, said. 'These rosters impose excessive and unnecessary requirements that actually restrict access to firearms equipped with the most up-to-date safety features, and that's why I'm proud to partner with my friend Rep. Stefanik to defend sacred rights and end these unjust restrictions.' Protecting Gun Rights The Modern Firearm Safety Act also coincides with a ruling from a federal district court, which judged California's handgun roster requirements to be unconstitutional, according to the July 24 statement. In March 2023, District Judge Cormac Carney issued a ruling in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and four individuals who had challenged the constitutionality of California's Unsafe Handgun Act. Story continues below advertisement Enacted in 1990, the legislation required new handguns to have three specific features: loaded chamber indicators to show whether the gun is loaded, magazine disconnect mechanisms to prevent the gun from being fired if the magazine is not fully inserted, and microstamping capability. The reintroduction of the Modern Firearm Safety Act comes amid the Trump administration's efforts to protect Second Amendment rights in the country. On Feb. 7, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for a review of orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other government actions related to the Second Amendment between January 2021 and January 2025, the period of the Biden administration. In late March, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an interim final rule taking over from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives the responsibility of deciding whether to restore gun ownership rights to individuals whose Second Amendment rights were revoked by a court. The DOJ recently proposed a rule to restore Second Amendment rights to individuals convicted of certain crimes who are not likely to act in a way that poses a danger to public safety. 'For too long, countless Americans with criminal histories have been permanently disenfranchised from exercising the right to keep and bear arms—a right every bit as constitutionally enshrined as the right to vote, the right to free speech, and the right to free exercise of religion—irrespective of whether they actually pose a threat,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a July 18 statement.
