U.S. SENATE REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING MAJORITY LEADER JOHN THUNE, HAVE LITTLE TO SAY ABOUT PARDONS OF JANUARY 6 DEFENDANTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Ashley Murray / States Newsroom) – Barring a few exceptions, Senate Republicans on Tuesday largely deflected or altogether avoided questions about President Donald Trump’s broad clemency for over 1,500 defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — including many who beat police officers, smashed windows and trashed offices as lawmakers hid in designated safe areas.

Just hours into his second term Monday, Trump commuted the sentences of 14 felons, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

The president granted a “full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” He also dismissed any pending indictments.

The pardons did not come as a surprise. As Senate Republicans were cheering for Trump on his march to electoral victory, the former and now current president exalted the “hostages” and “patriots” who injured more than 140 law enforcement officers and caused north of $2.8 million in damage to the Capitol, according to the Department of Justice.

Oath Keepers founder and Jan. 6 ringleader Stewart Rhodes told reporters Tuesday that it was “a good day for America.” Rhodes, who was released from federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland, faced an 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy, among other crimes.

But Trump allies had earlier raised questions about releasing some defendants, including Vice President J.D. Vance, who told Fox News on Jan. 12 that “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”

As of early January the government had charged just over 1,580 people for crimes related to the riot, 608 of whom were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement. Nearly a third of those charged with assaulting officers used a dangerous or deadly weapon, according to the Justice Department.

Investigations uncovered that weapons brought onto Capitol grounds included firearms, tasers, chemical sprays; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, including broken office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping and reinforced knuckle gloves.

States Newsroom asked over 20 Republican senators if they are comfortable with Trump’s clemency orders, and followed up with some of the lawmakers who were willing to speak.

Trump ‘keeps his campaign promises’

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he wasn’t comfortable with “any that involved an assault on a police officer.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a group of journalists that she was “disappointed.”

“I do fear the message that is sent to these great men and women that stood by us,” the Alaska Republican said as she gestured toward the Capitol Police officers posted outside the Senate Republicans’ weekly luncheon.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said there’s a “distinction to be made between providing clemency for individuals who may have been caught up in the crowd that day and did not commit any violent act, versus those who assaulted police officers with their fists, with flag poles, with pepper spray, and destroyed property, broke into the Capitol by breaking windows.”

“I do not believe those individuals warrant clemency,” she said. Collins also released a written statement.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who was photographed raising his fist in solidarity with Trump supporters as he exited the Capitol on Jan. 6, said “If you’re asking me if it’s what I would have done, what I’ve said is, is that for folks who committed violence, I wouldn’t commute their sentence or pardon.”

Hawley, who can be seen on security video running for safety during the attack, said the pardons send a signal that Trump “keeps his campaign promises.”

Biden pardons

When States Newsroom asked Sen. Deb Fischer if she was comfortable with the broad pardons, the Nebraska Republican responded, “I’m looking forward to getting some great opportunities and getting good things done.”

In response to a follow-up question on whether she condoned political violence, Fischer, who was on her way into Majority Whip John Barrasso’s office, said, “Ma’am, no one would ever condone political violence.”

As Sen. Markwayne Mullin walked by an entrance to the Senate chamber he greeted and shook the hands of Capitol Police officers posted at the doors.

The Oklahoma Republican refused to talk specifically about the Jan. 6 pardons, saying he didn’t get “near this many questions” about pardons issued by former President Joe Biden in his final hours in office.

“Here’s my thing on pardons, I’m not any more comfortable with Biden releasing and pardoning his whole family too,” Mullin said. “When you all want to cover both, come talk to me.”

States Newsroom reported Monday Biden preemptively pardoned lawmakers who served on the congressional committee to investigate the Capitol attack, as well as police officers who testified before the panel.

He also preemptively pardoned former administration officials who’ve been the target of death threats, as well as five of his family members — roughly a month-and-a-half after he pardoned his son, Hunter. Major news outlets published numerous articles covering Biden’s pardons.

Mullin walked away from a follow-up question highlighting violent acts committed by those who received Trump’s clemency.

Collins similarly said the press “ought to be paying attention” to Biden’s pardons as well, especially the commutation of indigenous activist Leonard Peltier.

Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, the most senior member of the Senate and the body’s president pro tempore, said, “Hey, everybody’s asked me about J6. None of you guys are asking about the Biden pardons.”

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said “Congress doesn’t have a role to play in pardons” and walked away from further questions on the topic.

No response at all

Many GOP senators did not respond to clearly shouted, and many times repeated, questions from journalists Tuesday afternoon about the pardons.

They included Mike Crapo of Idaho, Barrasso of Wyoming, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, John Curtis of Utah, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Joni Ernst of Iowa.

Blackburn and Curtis specifically said they don’t speak to reporters in the hallways of Congress.

Some GOP senators said they hadn’t yet seen Trump’s Monday night order.

“I haven’t looked at it yet,” said Sen. Rick Scott of Florida.

When States Newsroom summarized the 334-word proclamation and underscored that it was highly publicized by major news outlets, Scott replied “I haven’t looked at the executive order yet.”

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said: “I don’t have anything for you.”

“You don’t have anything about people who came here with weapons and beat police officers?” States Newsroom pressed as Kennedy walked away.

Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator, Dan Sullivan, stopped to speak to reporters about the “grand slam home run” executive order from Trump that expands energy development in his state, but he would not comment on the president’s clemency for Jan. 6 defendants.

“I need to read the order first,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The South Dakota Republican briefly told reporters outside of a committee room, “We’re not looking backwards, we’re looking forward.”

States Newsroom reached out to all members of Senate and House Republican leadership for comment, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, but did not receive any response.

 

 HOMESCHOOL PARENTS PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE AS LEGISLATURE DEFERS HB1009

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – One of two bills that would create educational savings accounts, House Bill 1009, was discussed in committee on Wednesday. The other bill, House Bill 1020, will be addressed soon.

There are many nuances in what these bills could mean for students in public and private schools and what it would mean for South Dakota taxpayers, but homeschool parents and homeschool students have a unique perspective. They don’t all agree on which of the two bills to support, but ultimately they’re pushing for empowerment and freedom to educate their child the way they want.

In Wednesday’s hearing, HB1009 was ultimately deferred to January 29th in a 9-5 vote. The deferral was proposed to allow for the best possible version of the bill and the ability to provide a fiscal note so the committee knows how much it would cost to implement. Those who voted against the motion to defer said that the bill is flawed and they should vote on the bill as is.

“One thing we need to consider is what we have before us,” said House Education Committee Chair Representative Lana Greenfield. “This is the bill. We didn’t have any amendments that were enacted during this committee, so what you see is what you get.”

According to the prime sponsor of the bill, Representative Dylan Jordan, the goal of HB1009 is to fund the education of each student, regardless of school choice. School choice bills have faced pushback from education groups because many have shown concern with the potential of diverting funds from public education in an already tight budget year so that these accounts can be made. Rep. Jordan said the bill gives value to students who previously the state didn’t put a value to.

“All home school families and private school students that are not receiving federal funding, if they enrolled in a public school, the state would have to fund it anyway,” Rep. Jordan explained. “I also just would like to encourage you to look at each student that you deal with every day and say there’s 14,000 kids that are not worth the same to South Dakota as others.”

Homeschool parents are navigating the language in each bill to see how it may impact their situation. Colton native Kathleen Puttman testified in Pierre on Wednesday in favor of HB1009. She’s new to homeschooling but said that school choice matters to her more now because of her and her oldest children’s experiences in public school.

“In 1995, I feared for my life,” said Puttmann. “Skipping gym class as a 4.0 student, I had a counselor advise me that I drop out as a 4.0 student, so the system failed me. I now have three children. My oldest barely graduated because of her math grades and a bullying scenario. My middle child, a track queen, was breaking records all senior year long and a month before graduation I get a call from the principal telling me she was not going to graduate. I had to fight for an online curriculum so that she could graduate. My fifteen-year-old started in public school and he had just come home one day and said, ‘Mom, are there any other options?’”

Tambi White is also a homeschool parent of ten years, but she has been involved in public, private and alternative education.

“With the HB1009 recent committee hearing, I gained a strong sense from public school lobbyists that no matter what bill comes forward in the legislature, whether it be a voucher, property tax credit, ESA or EPA, the public school lobbyists will be vehemently against it,” expressed White. “I’m not sure what they will agree on at this point.”

White continued, “What we can all agree on is that we can’t keep pouring our money, paid through taxes, into an educational system that has a proficiency rate in math of fifty percent as we heard today in testimony. Something needs to change.”

White believes HB1020 should be killed in committee. Both she and Puttman said they believe HB1020 doesn’t provide enough of a say in their child’s curriculum.

“There’s a lot of Department of Education curriculum,” Puttmann said. “That’s all they do. 1020 only allows you to go into marketplace for Department of Education curriculum and 1009 offers a little more freedom. We just don’t want to harm what we already have. Harming us is the biggest threat and we want to provide opportunities to those who feel stuck in the system.”

“Isn’t that the very beauty of school choice?” White said. “To customize a child’s education? We can all agree that one size does not fit all.”

Puttmann and White also agree with Rep. Jordan that the state doesn’t value the students outside of the system and believes they should.

“A child is worth $11,020 to a public seat,” stated Puttmann. “As a homeschooling child, he’s got a zero value. There’s no value to him. They keep saying that this cost is high, this cost is high. No, they should be budgeting for all of those children to possibly be sitting in a public setting. This isn’t a cost. This should already be projected by the state to educate these children.”

“Whatever bill comes into play, the money needs to follow the child and every child should be able to benefit,” White explained. “It’s that simple. We have open enrollment in public schools where the money follows the child. This is no different. That money is already there through our public schools if our child decides to enroll. That money belongs to the child whatever path they choose.”

Puttmann hopes that there will be more dialogue in the implementation of whichever bill goes through. Ultimately, she wants less oversight from the system she took her kid out of.

“I want what will work best for my child,” Puttmann explained. “I don’t want somebody else choosing the curriculum. We don’t want somebody coming in our home. We don’t want somebody telling us how many hours a day is proper for us. I don’t want to say we should be able to do whatever we want, but at the same time these are our babies. If anybody has their best interest in mind it’s the moms and the dads and those that dedicate their time to their children. Having somebody tell us what that means is what we don’t want.”

As the legislative session moves forward White wants parents to be empowered through the discussions surrounding these bills and seeing the choices they have.

Thursday will be homeschool day in Pierre, so there will likely be even more dialogue on the subject at the capitol.

Both Puttman and White said they have hear the potential of a third education savings account bill being introduced in the near future, but there’s no sign of what that might look like and how it may differ from HB1009 and HB1020 yet.

 

VEHICLE THAT FELL THROUGH ICE NEAR AKASKA FOUND

SELBY, S.D. – The vehicle of two fishermen who went missing near Akaska has been found.

According to DRG News, the vehicle has been found, but searchers aren’t yet able to determine if the bodies of two fishermen from north-central South Dakota who have been missing since last week, are inside.

51-year-old Kent Kramer and 71-year-old Brad Schilling, both from Akaska, went missing on Jan. 15, 2025, when their vehicle went through the ice on the Missouri River near Akaska.

Walworth County Sheriff Josh Boll says current conditions are making the search challenging.

The search will resume when weather conditions improve. Swan Creek Recreation Area has been closed to the public because it’s being used as a base of operation for the search.

 

CHANGE IS ‘EMINENT’: PROPERTY-RIGHTS FIGHT TRANSFORMS THIS YEARS SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE

PIERRE, S.D. (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight) – When the majority leaders of South Dakota’s two legislative chambers introduced legislation last January that they described as a compromise on carbon dioxide pipelines, they predicted “a consequential year for lawmakers in Pierre.”

They didn’t think they’d be the ones suffering the consequences.

Their legislation passed in March and promptly sparked a backlash. Voters ousted 14 Republican legislators in the June primary election, including 11 who voted for the most controversial bill in the pipeline package. Pipeline opponents gathered enough petition signatures to refer that bill to voters, who rejected it in the Nov. 5 general election.

A few days after that, Republican legislators went behind closed doors and voted to replace their leadership team, mostly with members who voted against the spurned pipeline bill.

Last year’s Republican majority leaders, Rep. Will Mortenson of Fort Pierre and Sen. Casey Crabtree of Madison, are back in the Legislature after winning reelection in their districts, but have been cast out of leadership. The annual lawmaking session began earlier this month at the Capitol in Pierre and continues through March 13.

Michael Card is an associate professor emeritus of political science at the University of South Dakota. He said Mortenson and Crabtree probably did not realize they were sowing the seeds of an intra-party rebellion when they introduced their pipeline bills last January.

“I do think they were blindsided,” Card said. “They thought they’d done a really good job for landowners.”

Scott Odenbach, the new Republican House majority leader from Spearfish, put it more bluntly in a recent interview with South Dakota Public Broadcasting. He said the supporters of last year’s legislation “awakened a sleeping giant” and “fundamentally miscalculated the depth of passion amongst landowners in South Dakota” for property rights.

The spark

The $9 billion pipeline proposal at the center of the drama is from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions.

The pipeline would transport carbon dioxide captured from 57 ethanol plants in five states to an underground sequestration site in North Dakota, along a route that includes 700 miles in eastern South Dakota. Federal tax credits intended to incentivize the removal of heat-trapping carbon from the atmosphere are motivating the project.

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission rejected Summit’s first permit application in 2023, in part because of the route’s conflicts with local ordinances mandating minimum distances between pipelines and existing features. Summit reapplied late last year with what it described as “major reroutes.”

The company says it has about 80% of the land access agreements it needs in South Dakota. Landowners who’ve refused to sign easements say they’re protecting their property rights and are concerned about potential leaks that could release deadly carbon dioxide plumes. They’ve attracted supporters from across the political spectrum, including some Republican climate change deniers who view carbon capture projects as boondoggles and some Democrats concerned about the fate of family farms.

To gain access to the rest of the land, Summit may have to pursue eminent domain, a legal process in which a court determines fair compensation for landowners. The state Supreme Court ruled last year that Summit had not proven its project is eligible for eminent domain. The high court sent the matter back to a lower court, where the company is trying to prove its case.

One of the members of the new Republican legislative leadership team is Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, who was chosen to assist the House speaker as speaker pro tempore. The Summit pipeline would cross her land, and her opposition to eminent domain motivated her to run for the Legislature and win in 2022.

Lems introduced a bill in 2023 to ban carbon pipelines from using eminent domain in the state. The legislation passed the House but died in a Senate committee.

Some senators who opposed the bill said South Dakota’s corn and ethanol industries could collapse without the pipeline. The project would lower ethanol production’s carbon footprint and keep the gasoline additive eligible for sale in markets such as California, where stricter laws on carbon emissions are in place.

Lems said testimony on the bill reflected a divide in the Republican Party. She described it as “constitutional conservatives versus the corporatists.”

Crabtree disagrees with that. He said President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Interior Department, former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, is a supporter of Summit’s project.

“The Trump administration supports this project, too,” Crabtree said. “So, are they corporatists or constitutional conservatives?”

No legislation addressing pipeline opponents’ concerns passed by the end of the 2023 legislative session. The following summer, hundreds of people descended on the state Capitol for a rally, demanding lawmakers reconvene in Pierre to pass a bill prohibiting eminent domain for carbon pipelines.

Mortenson had voted for the eminent domain ban in the House, but he did not attend the summer rally. He said in a statement at the time that unless “we get agreement with the Senate on some proposals, we shouldn’t call a special session and neither should the governor. It would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and legislator time.”

“For my part, I’ll be spending the next couple months working with senators to gather consensus on protecting landowners. I hope we get the job done,” he added.

A ‘path forward’ creates division

Mortenson’s determination to find consensus with senators resulted in the three-bill package that he and Crabtree unveiled for the 2024 legislative session. Their jointly written statement promoting the legislation did not mention eminent domain. Legislation banning eminent domain had failed, so Mortenson and Crabtree were pursuing a different path.

They described it as “a path forward that benefits landowners and sets clear expectations of regulatory and procedural requirements for those who want to do business in South Dakota.”

In other words, the legislation would not ban eminent domain or stop any company from pursuing a pipeline, but would implement new protections for landowners and local governments affected by pipelines.

All three bills passed. Of the two that remain in effect today, one requires pipeline companies to provide more information to landowners when giving them notice of a land survey, forces pipeline companies to pay each landowner $500 for a survey, and empowers landowners to file court challenges against a company’s right to conduct a survey. The other law defines carbon pipeline easements, limits them to 99 years, voids them if a project isn’t commenced within five years of the easement’s signing or the issuance of a permit, and says they cannot be transferred without the consent of the property owner.

The third bill, which has since been tossed out by voters, had new protections for landowners and local governments.

Those included the right of counties to impose a surcharge on carbon pipelines, with half of the revenue going to property tax relief for affected landowners; a requirement that pipelines be buried at least 4 feet deep; an imposition of liability on pipeline companies for leaks and for damages caused to underground drain tile that farmers use to remove excess moisture from fields; a requirement for pipeline companies to file agricultural impact mitigation plans and carbon dioxide dispersal models; and a mandate that land agents acting on behalf of pipeline companies be either a resident of South Dakota or a real estate agent licensed in the state.

But all of those aspects of the third bill were ultimately tossed out by voters, largely because of another provision in the bill that pipeline opponents found most offensive. That was a requirement for local governments to demonstrate that their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than a pipeline company having to prove those regulations unreasonable. Pipeline opponents said that provision would make it easier for state regulators to override local ordinances and approve pipeline permits, thereby paving the way for pipeline companies to use eminent domain.

Mortenson said the bill had nothing to do with eminent domain, but it became a rallying cry for the activists who referred the bill to a public vote.

“There was a lot of enthusiasm stemming from the eminent domain question,” Mortenson said. “I think that enthusiasm mapped itself onto the referral effort.”

Pipeline opponents have seen how important it is to protect local siting ordinances. The conflicts between those ordinances and Summit’s original route played a major role in the Public Utilities Commission’s decision to reject Summit’s first permit application in 2023.

So pipeline opponents drew a line in the sand with Senate Bill 201, which became Referred Law 21 on the Nov. 5 ballot.

“Lawmakers either stood with property rights, or they put corporate greed first,” said Ed Fischbach, a farmer from Mellette. “Leadership sided with ethanol and the pipeline — Republican and Democrat both. Guys like me, a former Democrat, were reregistering to vote for conservatives who were willing to take a stand, because property rights is the biggest issue in this state right now.”

Mortenson said the burden-of-proof flip was not as significant as it was made out to be, because supporters and opponents would still have had to present their best evidence to the Public Utilities Commission, regardless of which side had the burden of proof regarding local ordinances.

Grassroots mobilization

After last year’s legislative session, pipeline opponents organized rallies at barns, rural community centers and county fairs.

Joy Hohn, R-Sioux Falls, took part in the effort as she ran successfully for a seat in the state Senate.

“We showed up everywhere people cared about property rights,” Hohn said.

In a few months, they submitted an estimated 28,000 petition signatures to put Senate Bill 201 on the ballot as Referred Law 21.

They also spread the word about lawmakers who voted for the bill and encouraged voters to toss them out, resulting in 11 of those lawmakers losing in the June primary.

Mortenson said a large and motivated group can have an outsized influence on a primary. Turnout in June was 17%.

“We’ve had common sense conservative governance for decades,” Mortenson said. “When people are happy with how things are going, they’re more likely to stay home. When people are really fired up, they go and vote. I don’t doubt there was an enthusiasm gap in that election.”

The movement’s momentum carried into the November general election, where Referred Law 21 was thrown out by South Dakota voters. That happened despite supporters of the bill, including ethanol companies, spending 10 times more on their campaign.

Mark Lapka is a Republican farmer from Leola and pipeline opponent who won a seat in the state Senate in November.

“When property rights were being put at risk for climate change, people just had enough,” he said. “People just wanted to be left alone.”

Eminent domain ban proposed

As the Legislature convened earlier this month for its annual lawmaking session, one bill that would ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines was already prefiled in the Senate, and a similar bill soon followed in the House.

Lems said she’s confident the legislation will pass, and Crabtree also said it could pass. Gov. Kristi Noem would then have to decide whether to sign it into law. Or the decision could fall to Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden, who will be elevated to governor if the U.S. Senate confirms Noem as President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security secretary.

The Governor’s Office did not immediately respond to a question about whether Noem or Rhoden would be willing to sign a ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines.