Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who was tapped to lead the Department of State under the second Trump administration, was repeatedly interrupted by protesters during his Senate hearing on Wednesday. 

One female protester was heard shouting at Rubio in Spanish, while at least two men, including one wearing pink, were seen being pulled out of the hearing by Capitol Police after shouting. 

"I get bilingual protesters," Rubio quipped after a protester yelled at him in Spanish, earning laughter from the crowd.

Ahead of the hearing kicking off on Wednesday morning, Fox News Digital spotted Code Pink protesters wearing bright pink with shirts reading, "hands of Iran," and "stop killing the children of Gaza." They also sported anti-Rubio stickers on their headbands and hats.

HEGSETH INTERRUPTED BY MULTIPLE PROTESTERS DURING SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING

Protesters were warned by the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ahead of the hearing kicking off to not disrupt proceedings, saying they will be removed from the hearing and won't be permitted back to a public hearing for at least a year. 

TOP 5 MOMENTS FROM PETE HEGSETH'S SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING

PROTESTS ERUPT IN CHRIS WRIGHT'S CONFIRMATION HEARING

"Distractions will include not only noise, not only standing up, not only holding up painted hands, painted signs. None of that will be allowed. If you do that, I'm going to pause the committee. I'm going to ask our friends, first of all, my, my faithful, Sergeant at Arms here -- who's, perhaps, tougher than the Capitol Police. But also the Capitol Police to assist. And, we will pause briefly … If you are removed, you'll not be permitted back into one of these public hearings for at least 12 months. And, that's the purpose of this is, as I've stated, and it's important work," Republican Idaho Sen. James Risch, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in opening remarks. 

A handful of President-elect Donald Trump's picks for his cabinet are facing Senate hearings this week ahead of his inauguration on Monday. 

Department of Energy nominee Chris Wright's confirmation hearing was also interrupted by protesters on Wednesday, who shouted if his policies will "put out the fires in LA."

Protesters also interrupted Pete Hegseth's senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, when he joined the Senate Armed Services Committee, when he was grilled by lawmakers ahead of a committee vote and final confirmation vote on his nomination as secretary of Defense. 

JD VANCE SPELLS OUT WHAT TRUMP'S PROCESS TO 'RECTIFY' 'UNFAIR' JAN 6 PROSECUTIONS COULD LOOK LIKE

"Veterans are committing suicide and are homeless, but we send money to bomb children in Gaza," one female protester wearing fatigues shouted as she was escorted from the hearing, Fox News Digital video shows. 

An elderly man who was handcuffed with zipties was also seen being escorted out of the hearing. Another man, also appearing to wear fatigues, was seen being carried out by Capitol Police. 

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked Hegseth about the protesters during his hearing, including regarding the war in Israel that has been ongoing since 2023. 

"Another protester, and I think this one was a member of Code Pink, which, by the way, is a Chinese communist front group these days, said that you support Israel's war in Gaza. I support Israel's existential war in Gaza. I assume, like me and President Trump, you support that war as well," Cotton said. 

"I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas," Hegseth responded. 

"Lone actors" pose the greatest threat to safety during the upcoming presidential inauguration events, according to U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger. 

He referenced two incidents last week on Capitol Hill where people sought to "disrupt" congressional proceedings with potentially violent tactics. 

An estimated 250,000 ticketed guests will attend the formal inauguration on Jan. 20, according to law enforcement.

That will be supplemented by another 25,000, who law enforcement expect will attend various demonstrations going on around the Capitol on Inauguration Day. The inauguration and its accompanying events have been designated a "National Special Security Event," the highest federal protective status an event can receive, authorities said. 

"The biggest threat, I think, for all of us remains the lone actor," Manger said Monday. "Just in the past week, while President Carter was lying in state, we had two lone actors show up at the Capitol: one trying to bring in knives and a machete; another one who was trying – what I believe – to disrupt the proceedings by setting their car on fire down in the peace circle area." 

"Capitol Police were able to interdict these folks before they had a chance to do any harm. But that threat of the lone actor remains the biggest justification for us being at this heightened state of alert throughout the next week." 

TRAVEL TIPS FOR ATTENDING PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION AS EXPERTS WEIGH IN

Manger's remarks came during a Monday press conference with federal and local law enforcement officials, including leaders from the Metropolitan Police Department, the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police, during which they discussed their preparation for the inauguration. 

Representing the FBI was the assistant director in charge of the agency's Washington field office, David Sundberg, who said the FBI was "not currently tracking any specific or credible threats to the inaugural ceremony or to the Capitol complex."

The upcoming week of events will be secured similarly to the two high-profile National Special Security Events from last week, the presidential election certification and the late President Jimmy Carter's funeral, authorities indicated. However, the inauguration will get a little extra support from roughly 4,000 local law enforcement officers who have volunteered to help and an estimated 7,800 National Guard soldiers who will deploy to the nation's capital. In total, according to the Secret Service's special agent in charge of the agency's Washington field office, Matt McCool, a total of about 25,000 law enforcement officers will be on duty.

ABBOTT ORDERS FLAGS AT FULL-STAFF FOR TRUMP'S INAUGURATION DESPITE ONE MONTH ORDER TO HONOR CARTER

The inauguration will get extra concrete barriers and more than 30 miles of anti-scale fencing, which is more than has been used for any National Special Security Event in the past. 

Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela A. Smith said that the district is expecting to see 12 different First Amendment demonstrations during the inauguration. Smith said that while the "MPD will ensure your right to peacefully protest," they "will not tolerate any violence."  

"I want to reiterate – as I always have – that violence, destruction and unlawful behavior will not be tolerated," Smith said Monday. "Offenders will face swift and decisive consequences."

When asked by a reporter what the biggest difference was between this inauguration and the last in 2021, McCool said there is a "slightly more robust security plan."

"We've learned," McCool said. "This is our fifth NSSE this year in the Washington field office. We've done 83 NSSEs, each one we take a look at, and if there's areas where we need to improve, we do it. But what I can tell you is that we are 100% confident in the plan that we have put in place for this inauguration that the public and our protectees will be safe." 

President-elect Trump blasted special counsel Jack Smith as a "disgrace" to himself and the country following Smith's resignation from the Justice Department.

Smith's resignation was announced in a court filing Saturday.

"The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10," a footnote in the filing said.

Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday to criticize Smith for his investigations into the incoming president.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH RESIGNS AFTER 2-YEAR STINT AT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

"Deranged Jack Smith was fired today by the DOJ. He is a disgrace to himself, his family, and his Country. After spending over $100,000,000 on the Witch Hunt against TRUMP, he left town empty handed!" Trump wrote.

Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and his mishandling of classified documents.

Smith previously served as acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee in 2017 during Trump's first administration.

The resignation comes ahead of the release of Smith's report on the case related to Trump's role in the attack on the Capitol. A recent court filing revealed that Garland plans to release the report soon, possibly before Trump takes office next week.

"As I have made clear regarding every Special Counsel who has served since I took office, I am committed to making as much of the Special Counsel's report public as possible, consistent with legal requirements and Department policy," Garland wrote in a recent letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and ranking member Jamie Raskin, D-Md.

A judge from a federal appeals court ruled on Friday against blocking the release of Smith's report.

After Trump's presidential election victory in November, Smith filed motions to bring his cases against the president-elect to a close.

Smith asked a judge in late November to drop the charges against Trump in the case related to the Capitol riot. Prior to that request, Smith filed a motion to vacate all deadlines in that case, which was anticipated after Trump's electoral win.

TRUMP PRESSES GOP TO SWIFTLY SEND ‘ONE POWERFUL BILL’ FOR HIS SIGNATURE ASAP

Trump said after the cases were dropped that they "should never have been brought."

"These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Fox News' Andrea Margolis contributed to this report.

Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar is facing blowback from both X users and the platform itself over her post about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot in which she claimed police officers were "injured and killed."

"Four years ago, the electoral vote certification was interrupted by a violent mob. Police officers were injured and killed," Klobuchar posted on X on Tuesday. "Our democracy hung in the balance. I knew we had to do our duty and complete the count – and in the early hours of January 7th, we did."

That post was soon slapped with a "Community Note" by X that said, "No officers were killed."

"The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later."

DOJ CONSIDERS CHARGING 200 MORE PEOPLE 4 YEARS AFTER JAN 6 CAPITOL ATTACK

"No police officers were killed," conservative commentator Dana Loesch posted on X. 

"Zero police officers were killed," Red State writer Bonchie posted on X. "The time to stop lying about this was a long time ago."

"Can someone explain to me why it's okay for politicians to continually lie about this?" Bonchie added. "Let's say you think J6 is the worst thing ever. Fine, but how does that make it acceptable to say officers were killed? It's four years later and the fact-checkers still won't touch this."

DOJ IG REVEALS 26 FBI INFORMANTS WERE PRESENT ON JAN 6

"It is so sick to see people lie about who was killed," Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway posted on X. "A Trump supporter was shot and killed, but no police officers were killed. Someone of your stature should not be lying brazenly about this. Just sick."

"She should be censured for this lie," Right Turn Strategies President Chris Barron posted on X.

"Not a single officer was killed on Jan 6," Federalist Election Correspondent Brianna Lyman posted on X. "Sicknick died of natural causes on Jan. 7 Two officers died by su*cide in the weeks following while two other officers who were not present at the time of the protest later died by su*cide that could not directly be tied to J6."

"No police officers were killed," conservative writer Ben Kew posted on X. "The only person who was murdered was Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter."

Fox News Digital reached out to Klobuchar’s office for comment but did not receive a response. 

U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after he confronted rioters on Jan. 6, according to Washington's top medical examiner. 

"The USCP accepts the findings from the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner that Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes," the Capitol Police said in a 2021 press release. "This does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol."

Law enforcement officials testified in 2021 that about 140 police officers were injured in the riot. 

The Justice Department is considering charging up to 200 more people for their alleged involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, a report says. 

The new figures released Monday on the 4-year anniversary of the incident include 60 people suspected of assaulting or impeding police officers, according to Politico.  

President-elect Trump is set to be sworn in as the country’s next president in just two weeks. In December, Trump told NBC that he wanted to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters on the first day of his administration and said people on the Jan. 6 committee in Congress belonged in jail. 

"I’m going to look at everything. We’ll look at individual cases," Trump said at the time. "But I’m going to be acting very quickly." 

BIDEN TAKES DEPARTING JAB AT TRUMP, SAYS HE WAS A ‘GENUINE THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ 

Around 1,600 people so far have faced federal charges relating to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 600 who allegedly assaulted or resisted police, Politico reported.  

Nearly 200 of the defendants were charged with carrying a dangerous weapon on Capitol grounds and 153 were accused of destruction of government property – but the new figures released Monday are the first time the Justice Department has estimated how many cases are yet to be prosecuted, Politico added. 

DOJ SEEKS TO BLOCK JAN. 6 DEFENDANTS FROM ATTENDING TRUMP INAUGURATION 

The news outlet also reported that around 1,100 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted and reached sentencing, but 300 of the already charged cases have not entered the trial stage yet. 

"Over the past four years, our prosecutors, FBI agents, investigators, and analysts have conducted one of the most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations in the Justice Department’s history," U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Monday.

"They have analyzed massive amounts of physical and digital data, identified and arrested hundreds of people who took part in unlawful conduct that day, and initiated prosecutions and secured convictions across a wide range of criminal conduct. We have now charged more than 1,500 individuals for crimes that occurred on January 6, as well as in the days and weeks leading up to the attack," he continued.

"The public servants of the Justice Department have sought to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy with unrelenting integrity. They have conducted themselves in a manner that adheres to the rule of law and honors our obligation to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of everyone in this country," Garland added.

President Biden on Sunday was asked by reporters if he still thought Trump was a threat to democracy. 

"We've got to get back to establishing basic democratic norms," Biden told reporters in the White House East Room. "I think what he did was a genuine threat to democracy. I'm hopeful that we are beyond that." 

Fox News’ Sarah Rumpf-Whitten and Hanna Panreck contributed to this report. 

EXCLUSIVE: Senate Republicans are demanding answers on whether confidential human sources from Justice Department agencies beyond the FBI were used on Jan. 6, 2021, while also questioning whether Inspector General Michael Horowitz thoroughly reviewed classified and unclassified communications between handlers and their sources, warning that without that review, there may be a "major blind spot" in his findings. 

Horowitz last week released his highly anticipated report that there were more than two dozen FBI confidential human sources in the crowd outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but only three were assigned by the bureau to be present for the event. Horowitz said none of the sources were authorized or directed by the FBI to "break the law" or "encourage others to commit illegal acts." 

But now, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are demanding further information from Horowitz, writing to him in a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital that it is "unclear" if his office reviewed the use of confidential human sources by other DOJ components during the Capitol riot. 

DOJ IG REVEALS 26 FBI INFORMANTS WERE PRESENT ON JAN. 6

"This IG report was a step in the right direction, but Senator Johnson and I still have questions the Justice Department needs to account for," Grassley told Fox News Digital. "The American people deserve a full picture of whether Justice Department sources from its component agencies, in addition to the FBI, were present on January 6, what their role was, and whether DOJ had knowledge of their attendance." 

Grassley told Fox News Digital that Horowitz and his team "must redouble its efforts to make sure it has reviewed all relevant information and provide a sufficient response to our inquiry." 

Johnson told Fox News Digital he believes the report made public last week "may have only provided a fraction of the story regarding the presence and activities of confidential human sources or undercover federal agents in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021." 

"I urge the Inspector General’s office to be fully transparent about their work to ensure that Congress and the public have an accurate and complete understanding about what it actually reviewed," Johnson said.

DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL DOES NOT DENY FBI INFORMANTS WERE AMONG JAN 6 CROWD

In their letter to Horowitz, Grassley and Johnson noted that the inspector general’s office received more than 500,000 documents from the Justice Department and its components as part of its investigation. 

"According to the report, your office obtained: CHS reporting, thousands of tips provided to the FBI, investigative and intelligence records from the FBI case management system, emails, instant messages, and phone records; contemporaneous notes of meetings and telephone calls; chronologies concerning the lead-up of events to January 6; after-action assessments; training materials and policy guides; and preparatory materials for press conferences or congressional testimony as well as talking points," they wrote. 

Grassley and Johnson told Horowitz "it is vital" that his office "more precisely explain what records it sought and received from all DOJ component agencies." 

Grassley and Johnson are demanding answers on whether Horowitz obtained evidence on whether other DOJ component agencies had tasked or untasked undercover confidential human sources in the Washington, D.C., area or at the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. 

TRUMP SAYS WRAY RESIGNATION 'GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA,' TOUTS KASH PATEL AS 'MOST QUALIFIED' TO LEAD FBI

They are also asking if all communications were obtained between DOJ component agency handlers and confidential human sources or undercover agents present in the D.C. area, and whether he has received classified and unclassified non-email communication platforms used by the FBI. 

Grassley and Johnson are also demanding Horowitz share all FD-1023 forms, or confidential human source reporting documents, used in the investigation with them. 

As for his initial report, Horowitz "determined that none of these FBI CHSs was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6." 

The report revealed that the FBI had a minor supporting role in responding on Jan. 6, 2021 – largely because the event was not deemed at the highest security level by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Horowitz, though, said the FBI took significant and appropriate steps to prepare for that role. 

According to the report, there were a total of 26 confidential human sources in the crowd that day, but only three of them were assigned by the bureau to be there. 

One of the three confidential human sources tasked by the FBI to attend the rally entered the Capitol building, while the other two entered the restricted area around the Capitol. 

If a confidential human source is directed to be at a certain event, they are paid by the FBI for their time.

Attorneys at the Department of Justice are urging federal judges to reject petitions from at least two Jan. 6 defendants who are asking that they be allowed to return to the nation's capital for President-elect Trump's inauguration.

Cindy Young, convicted of four misdemeanors for her involvement in the riot at the Capitol, and Russell Taylor, who pleaded guilty to a felony conspiracy charge, both petitioned the courts to allow them to return to Washington, D.C., despite provisions of their sentences requiring them to stay away. 

"Contrary to Young’s self designation that she ‘poses no threat of danger to the community,’ Young presents a danger to the D.C. community, including the very law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, 2021," U.S. attorneys said in response to Young's petition. The federal attorneys cited calls from Young "for retribution against those involved in January 6 prosecutions" and argued that she has failed "to recognize the seriousness of her actions."

FBI SHOULD PROBE ‘POTENTIAL’ LIZ CHENEY ‘WITNESS TAMPERING’ IN JAN 6 MATTER, HOUSE REPUBLICANS SAY

A request from Taylor, who was invited to attend the inauguration by members of Utah's congressional delegation, is also being challenged by attorneys at the Department of Justice who argue that the serious nature of his crimes should preclude him from being able to "return to the scene of the crime."

"He is asking for the Court to bless his desire to return to the scene of the crime, and the Court should not look past his criminal conduct the last time he was on Capitol grounds," the U.S. attorneys wrote in a filing to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. The attorneys added in their court filing that, while they had granted previous travel requests to other defendants involved in the Capitol siege, those approvals were to support people's continued employment, and the requests did not involve travel to the nation's capital. 

TRUMP INAUGURATION: DC POLICE CHIEF EXPECTING ‘4,000 POLICE OFFICERS TO ASSIST US’

However, another Jan. 6 defendant, Eric Peterson, who was convicted of a misdemeanor in November for his involvement in the Capitol riot but has yet to be sentenced, was given approval by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to travel to the District for Trump's swearing-in ceremony, according to Peterson's criminal case docket. Notably, the docket did not include any responses from the Department of Justice urging Chutkan to deny Peterson's request. 

There remains uncertainty around whether Trump will pardon any, some or all of those defendants who were convicted of crimes as a result of their involvement in the U.S. Capitol siege that occurred in 2021. 

Trump has said at times that pardons will be reserved for those who remained peaceful on that fateful day; however, at other points he has suggested a blanket pardon for all those who were convicted. One thing that he has been steadfast on is that the pardons will come quickly following his inauguration on Jan. 20.

The Department of Justice declined to comment for this story.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney is facing calls from GOP legislators that the FBI investigate her for "potential criminal witness tampering" related to her former role on the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, a report released Tuesday by the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight chairman, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., details.

"Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge," the report, which was provided to Fox Digital, found. 

The Jan. 6 committee was founded in July 2021 to investigate the breach of the U.S. Capitol earlier that year by supporters of Trump ahead of President Biden officially taking office on Jan. 20. The Jan. 6 committee’s investigation was carried out when Democrats held control of the House. 

The committee concluded its 18-month investigation last year, when Republicans regained control of the House and sent referrals to the Justice Department recommending Trump be criminally prosecuted for his involvement in the lead-up to supporters breaching the Capitol. The committee was composed of seven Democrats and two Republican lawmakers, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both of whom are no longer in office. 

Loudermilk's subcommittee was tapped to investigate the J6 committee and its findings in January 2023. 

'RIDICULOUS': CHENEY RESPONDS TO TRUMP FLOATING JAIL TIME FOR J6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The House Republicans' report Tuesday specifically took issue with Cheney’s alleged "direct intervention" with Hutchinson, who was considered the star witness of the investigation, including allegedly encouraging Hutchinson to hire "Select Committee-friendly attorneys to represent her," as opposed to keeping her original legal representation. 

Hutchinson, who worked as an aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, had claimed before the select committee that on Jan. 6, 2021, she was told Trump allegedly became "irate" and attempted to join supporters at the Capitol ahead of them breaching the government building. The incident reportedly unfolded after Trump delivered a speech at the Ellipse, which is a park just south of the White House fence. 

Hutchinson alleged she was told Trump attempted to grab the steering wheel of a Secret Service SUV before the driver reportedly told Trump to remove his hand and that they were headed to the White House, not the Capitol. Hutchinson’s account was directly refuted by Anthony Ornato, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations under Trump after decades in the Secret Service. 

Less than two weeks after firing her original attorney, and hiring "the attorneys Representative Cheney suggested – Hutchinson sat for her fourth transcribed interview with the Select Committee under unusual circumstances," the report found. 

REP LOUDERMILK BLASTS JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE FOR TARGETING HIM: 'THERE IS A WAR ON THE TRUTH IN THIS COUNTRY'

"Prior to this interview, nearly every interview the Select Committee conducted included approximately a dozen people – including committee staff members, committee counsel, often a Member of the Select Committee, the interviewee, and the interviewee’s legal representation. Most of the interviews were done in large conference rooms or over zoom, allowing space for all participants. Hutchinson’s fourth transcribed interview, however, was vastly different. It consisted of only four people: Representative Cheney, one attorney from the Select Committee, Hutchinson, and Hutchinson’s new counsel. Additionally, instead of the Select Committee conducting the interview in a conference room or virtually, Representative Cheney used her private hideaway inside of the United States Capitol Building," the report states. 

The House Republican report continued that Hutchinson’s testimony to the Jan. 6 committee was crucial, arguing "it is unlikely the Select Committee could make its assertions about President Trump’s mood, attitude, and alleged culpability in the events of January 6" without her comments. 

"Hutchinson is mentioned by name in the Select Committee’s Final Report no fewer than 185 times. Inexplicably, the Select Committee discredited the multitude of legitimate witnesses who, under oath, repeatedly refuted Hutchinson’s testimony. These legitimate witnesses include senior government officials and federal agents."

DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE'LL PARDON JAN. 6 RIOTERS ON DAY ONE: 'ACTING VERY QUICKLY'

Cheney, in comments provided to Fox News Digital on Tuesday afternoon, defended her former committee's investigation, while arguing Loudermilk's report "intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence."

"January 6th showed Donald Trump for who [he] really is – a cruel and vindictive man who allowed violent attacks to continue against our Capitol and law enforcement officers while he watched television and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave," Cheney said to Fox News Digital. 

"The January 6th Committee’s hearings and report featured scores of Republican witnesses, including many of the most senior officials from Trump’s own White House, campaign and Administration. All of this testimony was painstakingly set out in thousands of pages of transcripts, made public along with a highly detailed and meticulously sourced 800 page report. Now, Chairman Loudermilk’s 'Interim Report' intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did. Their allegations do not reflect a review of the actual evidence, and are a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth. No reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously."

The Democratic former chair of the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, also slammed Loudermilk's report in a comment to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. 

HOUSE GOP REPORT ALLEGES JAN 6 COMMITTEE 'DELETED RECORDS AND HID EVIDENCE'

"Representative Loudermilk has failed to discredit the work of the January 6th Select Committee. His so-called 'report' is filled with baseless, conclusory allegations rather than facts. That’s because there’s no escaping the reality that Donald Trump bears the responsibility for the deadly January 6th attack no matter how much Mr. Loudermilk would love to rewrite history for his political purposes," he said. 

The president-elect railed in an interview on NBC earlier this month that Cheney, Thompson and others on the J6 committee "deleted and destroyed" evidence related to the investigation and "should go to jail." 

"Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps," he said in the interview. "They deleted and destroyed all evidence."

"And Cheney was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee," he continued. "For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail." 

Trump's claims of the committee allegedly "deleting" evidence was supported by a previous report released by Loudermilk earlier this year claiming the select committee "deleted" records and hired "Hollywood producers" to promote a political narrative while investigating Jan. 6. 

The report released Tuesday found that the Jan. 6 committee failed to archive "as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts," despite a process for committee chairs to properly archive data, including interviews. 

"As part of its investigation, the Subcommittee learned that the Select Committee failed to archive or provide the Subcommittee with any of its video recordings of witness interviews, as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts, more than one terabyte of digital data. Concerningly, of the documents that were archived, the Select Committee delivered more than 100 encrypted, password protected documents and never provided the passwords. It is unclear why the Select Committee chose only those documents to be shielded by password," the report found. 

BIDEN TEAM REPORTEDLY CONSIDERING PREEMPTIVE PARDONS FOR FAUCI, SCHIFF, OTHER TRUMP 'TARGETS'

The Jan. 6 committee, the report found, failed to archive more than "one terabyte of digital data" after Thompson reported archiving more than four terabytes of data in a July 2022 letter. The subcommittee ultimately received less than three terabytes of digital data. 

"One terabyte of data is equivalent to 6.5 million document pages such as PDFs or office files, 500 hours of high definition video, or 250,000 photos," the report noted. 

Thompson previously denied the claims of deleting evidence in a July 2023 letter to Loudermilk, detailing that the committee had called on the federal government regarding the "proper archiving of such sensitive material to protect witnesses’ safety, national security, and to safeguard law enforcement operations."

Thompson provided three "facts" in response to the report Tuesday in comment to Fox Digital.

"Here are the facts: (1) The Select Committee was properly constituted, as every court that heard challenges found. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro would not have gone to prison for contempt of Congress had there been a legitimate issue. Not even the Republican-controlled Supreme Court stayed their sentences, despite Mr. Loudermilk’s entreaties. (2) The Select Committee followed all House Rules, and it did not withhold or destroy any record that was required to be archived. Moreover, every record the Select Committee had was turned over to the Department of Justice, which was in turn provided to the former President’s defense team through the discovery process during his criminal proceedings. Most of those records are publicly available through the Government Publishing Office’s online repository," he said. 

"(3) The Members of the Select Committee and the witnesses who came before us – who were mainly Republicans from the Trump administration – acted honorably and out of patriotic duty to the Constitution. The Select Committee’s Final Report was not based on any single witness’s testimony, and it painted a damning picture of the former President’s dereliction of duty. That work stands on its own."

JAN 6 COMMITTEE ALLEGEDLY SUPPRESSED TESTIMONY SHOWING TRUMP ADMIN PUSHED FOR NATIONAL GUARD PRESENCE: REPORT

Thompson added that Loudermilk failed to "to find a single valid problem with the Select Committee’s work," that reflects what he said is an "inescapable conclusion."

"Donald Trump orchestrated a multi-part conspiracy that attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential election by summoning a mob to Washington to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history," he said.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tapped Loudermilk to investigate both the Jan. 6 incident itself and the Jan. 6 House Select Committee’s report on the Capitol breach in January 2023.

"Over the past twenty-four months of this investigation, my subcommittee staff have faced incredible obstacles in pursuit of the truth; missing and deleted documents, hidden evidence, unaccounted for video footage, and uncooperative bureaucrats. At one point, the work of the subcommittee was completely halted due to the removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker, and subsequently faced internal efforts to derail the investigation. However, our team persevered through the delays; and, when Mike Johnson took the gavel as Speaker of the House, he allocated even more resources to our investigation and committed to more transparency for the American people," Loudermilk wrote in a letter to colleagues accompanying the report.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said there were more than two dozen confidential human sources (CHSs) in the crowd outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but only three were assigned by the FBI to be present for the event, while stressing that none of the sources was authorized or directed by the bureau to "break the law" or "encourage others to commit illegal acts," Fox News has learned. 

Horowitz on Thursday released his highly anticipated report on the FBI’s Handling of its Confidential Human Sources and Intelligence Collection Efforts in the Lead Up to the Jan. 6, 2021 Electoral Certification. 

DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL DOES NOT DENY FBI INFORMANTS WERE AMONG JAN 6 CROWD

"Today’s report also details our findings regarding FBI CHSs who were in Washington, D.C., on January 6," the report states. "Our review determined that none of these FBI CHSs was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6." 

The report revealed that the FBI had a minor supporting role in responding on Jan. 6, 2021 — largely because the event was not deemed at the highest security level by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Horowitz, though, said the FBI took significant and appropriate steps to prepare for that role. 

According to the report, there were a total of 26 confidential human sources in the crowd that day, but only three of them were assigned by the bureau to be there. 

One of the three confidential human sources tasked by the FBI to attend the rally entered the Capitol building, while the other two entered the restricted area around the Capitol. 

If a confidential human source is directed to be at a certain event, they are paid by the FBI for their time.

"One FBI field office tasked a CHS to travel to DC to report on the activities of a predicated domestic terrorism subject who was separately planning to travel to DC for the January 6 Electoral Certification; a second FBI field office tasked a CHS to travel to DC to potentially report on two domestic terrorism (DT) subjects from another FBI field office who were planning to travel to DC for the events of January 6; and a third CHS, who had informed their handling agent that they intended to travel to DC on their own initiative for the events of January 6, was similarly tasked by their field office to potentially report on two DT subjects from other FBI field offices who were planning to travel to DC for the events of January 6," the report states.

SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF JAN. 6 CAPITOL RIOT PARTICIPANT WHO CHALLENGED OBSTRUCTION CONVICTION

Horowitz stressed that no sources were encouraged or authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or any restricted area and stressed that they were not encouraged or authorized to commit any illegal acts. 

Twenty-three of the confidential human sources present on Jan. 6 came to Washington, D.C., to the Capitol on their own. Of that group, three entered the Capitol during the riot, and an additional 11 sources entered the restricted area around the Capitol. 

But Horowitz said that investigators "found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6." 

As for reimbursements to confidential human sources, Horowitz stated that at least one was "reimbursed" for their travel, even though that CHS "was only tasked with attending the Inauguration and not the electoral certification on January 6." 

The FBI, reacting to Horowitz's report Thursday, said the bureau "did not have primary responsibility for intelligence collection or event security on January 6 but nonetheless ‘recognized the potential for violence and took significant and appropriate steps to prepare forthis supporting role.’ Further, the Report includes the OIG’s analysis regarding the FBI’s use of confidential human sources (CHSs), and concludes that no FBI CHSs ‘were authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.’" 

The FBI said it accepts Horowitz's recommendations moving forward, specifically for the FBI to "assess the processes and procedures it uses to prepare for events that it determines present potential domestic security issues — but have not been designated as NSSE or SEAR events by DHS — to ensure that its processes and procedures set forth with clarity the division of responsibilities between and within the relevant FBI field office and FBI Headquarters."

The FBI said that DHS has since designated the upcoming 2025 certification of the election a national special security event, and said the bureau "is coordinating closely with DHS, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Capitol Police and other responsible agencies in preparation for the 2025 electoral certification and the subsequent Presidential Inauguration." 

"The FBI is nonetheless committed to assessing our policies and procedures for other, non-NSSE future events, as recommended, to ensure that they clearly set forth the division of labor among FBI field offices and divisions," the FBI said. 

Horowitz had testified on Capitol Hill earlier this year before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. 

TRUMP SAYS WRAY RESIGNATION 'GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA,' TOUTS KASH PATEL AS 'MOST QUALIFIED' TO LEAD FBI

During the hearing, Horowitz did not deny that federal government confidential human sources were in the crowd during the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

"This report confirms what we suspected," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital. "The FBI had encouraged and tasked confidential human sources to be at the capitol that day. There were 26 total present. Four entered the Capitol and weren’t charged, which is not the same treatment that other Americans received." 

Jordan added: "This has been our concern all along — agencies being weaponized against the American people. It’s not how our system is supposed to work." 

Jordan reminded that there were two inspector general reports released this week — this report focused on CHSs on Jan. 6, and one earlier in the week about the FBI spying on congressional staffers during its Trump-Russia probe, including President-elect Trump's nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, while he was on the House Intelligence Committee. 

"There were two IG reports this week and I think they may have had something to do with Mr. Wray's announcement this week," Jordan said. 

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday announced he will resign next month before Trump takes office. 

"When Chris Wray first got there back in 2017, the FBI was spying on congressional hill staffers, including the guy who is slated to replace him, and then the day after he announces he's leaving, this report comes out and confirms what so many of us suspected, that there were these confidential human sources present on Jan. 6," Jordan said. 

• I tried three kinds of packaged ginger cookies from the grocery store.
• Tate's gluten-free ginger zinger cookies impressed me with bits of crystallized ginger.
• The best store-bought gingerbread cookies were Little Debbie's iced gingerbread cookies.

Nothing says the holiday season like a ginger cookie for dessert.

Many brands release seasonal versions of their most popular items during the holidays, from peppermint Milano cookies to Reese's peanut-butter Christmas trees.

I tried three kinds of ginger-flavored cookies, all of which can be found on most grocery store shelves and pack just the right amount of spice for the holiday season.

Here's how store-bought gingerbread cookies ranked, from worst to best.

My least favorite brand of cookie was Tate's Bake Shop's gingersnap cookies.

The bag cost $5.79 at my local Key Food Marketplace.

The bag came with 14 cookies.

This is comparable to other brands of packaged cookies I usually buy.

The cookies were very crispy, but they were not hard to bite into.

Sometimes I find ginger snaps can be a little tough, but these ones crumbled easily.

The cookies were a touch too spicy for my liking.

I thought the cookies tasted strongly of spices like cinnamon and molasses but were slightly off-balance in sweetness.

These cookies were borderline spicy, which I'm personally not a huge fan of. However, I did enjoy the texture.

Next up were Tate's gluten-free ginger zinger cookies.

These cookies, the most expensive of the ones I tried, cost $5.99 at my local Key Food Marketplace.

This package also came with 14 cookies.

However, unlike the ginger snaps, these cookies supposedly contained pieces of crystallized ginger. I was excited to see how the flavors would measure up.

The cookies were about the same size as the ginger snaps but slightly thicker.

I could also see the pieces of ginger on the surface of the crispy cookies.

These cookies were sweet, with just the right amount of ginger flavor.

I loved the texture of the crispy cookies and the crystallized ginger and thought these were just as good as any non-gluten-free cookies I've ever tried.

My favorite of the three kinds of ginger cookies was the Christmas gingerbread soft cookies from Little Debbie.

At my local Stop & Shop grocery store, a box of eight cookies cost $3.59. They were the least expensive, but the box also contained the fewest cookies.

Each cookie came individually wrapped.

I thought these cookies would be a really cute touch for a festive school lunch or snack on the go.

The cookies were sweeter than the other two kinds I tried.

The icing and smattering of red and green sprinkles upped the sweetness, but I also preferred the softer texture of these gingerbread cookies compared to the other two kinds.

Aesthetically, I also thought these were the most festive for the holiday season.

The cookies brought me back to my childhood with their perfect balance of sweetness, spiciness, and soft texture.

While I enjoyed all of these cookies, I would choose the classic gingerbread cookies for a sweet, festive treat.

Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chaired the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, responded to President-elect Donald Trump floating jail time for members of the former congressional committee, underlining he is "not afraid of [Trump's] most recent threats."

"Donald Trump has shamefully undermined the rule of law, degraded our democracy, and eroded our Constitution for years, and his latest lies about the work of the January 6th Select Committee are just the latest installment. But let me be clear: Those of us who investigated his central role in the January 6th insurrection are simply not afraid of his most recent threats," Thompson said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Monday. 

"Donald Trump and his minions can make all the assertions they want – but no election, no conspiracy theory, no pardon, and no threat of vengeful prosecution can rewrite history or wipe away his responsibility for the deadly violence on that horrific day. We stood up to him before, and we will continue to do so."

Trump joined NBC’s "Meet the Press" for an interview that aired Sunday, when the president-elect railed that former Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, Thompson and others on the J6 committee "deleted and destroyed" evidence related to the investigation and "should go to jail."

'RIDICULOUS': CHENEY RESPONDS TO TRUMP FLOATING JAIL TIME FOR J6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS

"Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps," he said in the interview. "They deleted and destroyed all evidence."

"And Cheney was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee," he continued. "For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail."

DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE'LL PARDON JAN. 6 RIOTERS ON DAY ONE: 'ACTING VERY QUICKLY'

Trump’s comments that aired Sunday come as President Biden reportedly mulls issuing blanket, "preemptive pardons" to those viewed as Trump’s political foes, such as Cheney, Thompson and California Sen.-elect Adam Schiff. 

Thompson added in his statement to Fox Digital that the committee diligently followed House rules throughout the investigation. "Our committee was fully authorized by the House, all rules were properly followed, and our work product stands on its own. In fact, in the two years since we have completed our work, no court or legal body has refuted it."

Cheney, a longtime outspoken critic of Trump’s, also responded to Trump’s remarks earlier this week, slamming the suggestion of jail time as "a ​​continuation of his assault on the rule of law." 

HOUSE GOP REPORT ALLEGES JAN 6 COMMITTEE 'DELETED RECORDS AND HID EVIDENCE'

"Here is the truth: Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power," Cheney said in a response statement to Trump, which was provided to Fox News Digital. "He mobilized an angry mob and sent them to the United States Capitol, where they attacked police officers, invaded the building and halted the official counting of electoral votes. Trump watched on television as police officers were brutally beaten and the Capitol was assaulted, refusing for hours to tell the mob to leave."

The Jan. 6 committee was founded in July 2021 to investigate the breach of the U.S. Capitol earlier that year by supporters of Trump ahead of President Biden officially taking office on Jan. 20. The Jan. 6 committee’s investigation was carried out when Democrats held control of the House. 

The committee concluded its 18-month investigation last year, when Republicans regained control of the House and sent referrals to the Justice Department recommending Trump be criminally prosecuted for his involvement in the lead-up to supporters breaching the Capitol. 

The committee was composed of seven Democrats and two Republican lawmakers, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both of whom are no longer in office. 

TRUMP CRITICISM OF LIZ CHENEY AS 'RADICAL WAR HAWK' FRAMED AS CALL FOR VIOLENCE BY 'IRRESPONSIBLE' MEDIA

Trump has previously alleged that members of the committee "deleted" evidence amid the investigation, which was supported by a report released by House Republicans released earlier this year claiming the select committee "deleted" records and hired "Hollywood producers" to promote a political narrative while investigating Jan. 6. 

Among its key findings, the report claimed that the select committee was designed "to promote a political narrative" and also asserted that it "deleted records and hid evidence" ahead of Republicans taking the House majority during the 2022 election cycle. 

"THE SELECT COMMITTEE DELETED RECORDS AND HID EVIDENCE - Reps. Thompson and Cheney failed to turn over video recordings of witness interviews and depositions despite using these recordings in their high-profile, primetime hearings. The Subcommittee recovered over one hundred deleted or password-protected files, including some files that were deleted days before Republicans took the majority. They also hid multiple transcribed interviews of witnesses who had firsthand knowledge of Trump‘s actions on January 6," the report, which was spearheaded by Republican Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk, found. 

REP LOUDERMILK BLASTS JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE FOR TARGETING HIM: 'THERE IS A WAR ON THE TRUTH IN THIS COUNTRY'

Thompson denied the claims of deleting evidence in a July 2023 letter to Loudermilk, detailing that the committee had called on the federal government regarding the "proper archiving of such sensitive material to protect witnesses’ safety, national security, and to safeguard law enforcement operations." Cheney has also publicly and repeatedly denied claims the committee mishandled evidence. 

"Donald Trump knows his claims about the select committee are ridiculous and false, as has been detailed extensively, including by Chairman Thompson," Cheney continued in her response to Trump’s remarks over the weekend, referring to Thompson’s 2023 letter.  "There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting – a Justice Department investigation of the work of a congressional committee – and any lawyer who attempts to pursue that course would quickly find themselves engaged in sanctionable conduct."

The pardon debate – individual, group, partisan, preemptive – is spinning out of control.

In his "Meet the Press" interview, Donald Trump mocked Joe Biden’s repeated assurances about Hunter: "‘I’m not going to give my son a pardon. I will not under any circumstances give him a pardon.’ I watch this and I always knew he was going to give him a pardon."

In a portion of that interview that did not air but was posted online, the president-elect complained to Kristen Welker:

"The press was obviously unfair to me. The press, no president has ever gotten treated by the press like I was."

BIDEN'S PARDONING OF HUNTER INDICATES HE HAS 'A LOT MORE TO HIDE': LARA TRUMP

Why did he appear on "Meet the Press"? "You’re very hostile," Trump said. Her response: "Well, hopefully, you thought it was a fair interview. We covered a lot of policy grounds."

"It’s fair only in that you allowed me to say what I say. But you know, the answers to questions are, you know, pretty nasty. But look, because I’ve seen you interview other people like Biden."

"I’ve never interviewed President Biden," Welker responded. Trump said he was speaking "metaphorically."

"I’ve seen George Stephanopoulos interview. And he’s a tough interviewer. It’s the softest interview I’ve seen. CNN interview. They give these soft, you know, what’s your favorite ice cream? It’s a whole different deal. I don’t understand why."

The strength of Welker’s approach is that she asked as many as half a dozen follow-ups on major topics, making more news. When she asked, for instance, whether he would actually deport 11 million illegal immigrants, as he’d said constantly on the campaign trail, he answered yes – which for some reason lots of news outlets led with. But a subsequent question got Trump to say he didn’t think the Dreamers should be expelled and would work it out with the Democrats.

As for Trump, he reminded me of the candidate I interviewed twice this year. He was sharp and serious, connecting on each pitch, fouling a few off. This was not the candidate talking about sharks at rallies. 

BIDEN, TRUMP BOTH RIP DOJ AFTER PRESIDENT PARDONS HUNTER

With one significant misstep, he made the case that he was not seeking retribution – even backing off a campaign pledge that he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden.

That misstep, when Trump couldn’t hold back, was in saying of the House Jan. 6 Committee members, including Liz Cheney: "For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail."

He did add the caveat that he would let his attorney general and FBI chief make that decision, but it allowed media outlets to lead with Trump wanting his political opponents behind bars. For what it’s worth, there’s no crime in lawmakers holding hearings, and this business about them withholding information seems like a real stretch.

Now back to the pardons. This mushrooming debate was obviously triggered by the president breaking his repeated promise with a sweeping, decade-long pardon of his son, a 54-year-old convicted criminal.

But then, as first reported by Politico, we learned that the Biden White House is debating whether to issue a whole bunch of preemptive pardons to people perceived to be potential targets of Trumpian retaliation.

But the inconvenient truth is that anyone accepting such a pardon would essentially admit to the appearance of being guilty. That’s why Sen.-elect Adam Schiff says he doesn’t want a pardon and won’t accept one.

MEDIA ADMITS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TOO 'WOKE' AFTER KAMALA HARRIS' 2024 LOSS

But many of those potential recipients don’t even know they’re under consideration for sweeping pardons covering anything they may or may not have done.

It is a truly awful idea, and with Biden and Trump both agreeing that DOJ engages in unfair and selective prosecutions – which in the Republican’s case made his numbers go up – the stage is set for endless rounds of payback against each previous administration.

I remember first thinking about the unchecked power of presidential pardons when Bill Clinton delivered a last-minute one to ally and super-wealthy Marc Rich.

So it’s time to hear from Alexander Hamilton, who pushed it into the Constitution. Keep in mind that in that horse-and-buggy era, there were very few federal offenses because most law enforcement was done by the states.

In Federalist 74, published in 1788, Hamilton said a single person was better equipped than an unwieldy group, and such decisions should be broadly applied to help those in need.   

"In seasons of insurrection or rebellion," the future Treasury secretary wrote, "there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth."

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

Otherwise, it might be too late.

But another founding father, George Mason, opposed him, saying a president "may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?"

An excellent argument, but Hamilton won out.

As Hamilton envisioned, George Washington, in 1794, granted clemency to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion to calm a fraught situation.

Something tells me that Biden, Trump and their allies aren’t poring over the Federalist papers. But it’s still an awful lot of sweeping power to place in the hands of one chief executive, for which the only remedy is impeachment.

A test for AGI, ARC-AGI, is closer to being solved — but the test may be flawed, its creators, including notable AI figure Francois Chollet, admit.

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney said President-elect Trump floating jail time for her and other members of the Jan. 6 Committee "is a ​​continuation of his assault on the rule of law." 

"Here is the truth: Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power," Cheney said in a response statement to Trump, which was provided to Fox Digital. "He mobilized an angry mob and sent them to the United States Capitol, where they attacked police officers, invaded the building and halted the official counting of electoral votes. Trump watched on television as police officers were brutally beaten and the Capitol was assaulted, refusing for hours to tell the mob to leave."

Cheney’s response follows Trump joining NBC’s "Meet the Press" for a pre-recorded interview that aired Sunday, where the president-elect railed that Cheney, committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson and others "deleted and destroyed" evidence related to the Jan. 6 investigation and "should go to jail."

"Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps," he said in the interview. "They deleted and destroyed all evidence."

DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE'LL PARDON JAN. 6 RIOTERS ON DAY ONE: 'ACTING VERY QUICKLY'

"And Cheney was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee," he continued. "For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail."

Cheney shot back in her statement that Jan. 6, 2021, "was the worst breach of our Constitution by any president in our nation’s history. Donald Trump’s suggestion that members of Congress who later investigated his illegal and unconstitutional actions should be jailed is a continuation of his assault on the rule of law and the foundations of our republic."

HOUSE GOP REPORT ALLEGES JAN 6 COMMITTEE 'DELETED RECORDS AND HID EVIDENCE'

The Jan. 6 committee was founded in July 2021 to investigate the breach of the U.S. Capitol earlier that year by supporters of Trump ahead of President Biden officially taking office on Jan. 20. The Jan. 6 committee’s investigation was carried out when Democrats held control of the House. 

The committee concluded its 18-month investigation last year, when Republicans regained control of the House, and sent referrals to the Justice Department recommending Trump be criminally prosecuted for his involvement in the lead-up to supporters breaching the Capitol. 

The committee was composed of seven Democrats and two Republican lawmakers, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both of whom are no longer in office. 

Earlier this year, House Republicans released a report ​​alleging the select committee "deleted" records and hired "Hollywood producers" to promote a political narrative while investigating Jan. 6. 

TRUMP CRITICISM OF LIZ CHENEY AS 'RADICAL WAR HAWK' FRAMED AS CALL FOR VIOLENCE BY 'IRRESPONSIBLE' MEDIA

"For nearly two years, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's January 6th Select Committee promoted hearsay and cherry-picked information to promote its political goal – to legislatively prosecute former President Donald Trump," Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., chairman of the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight, said in a statement regarding the report in March. 

Among its key findings, the report claimed that the select committee was designed "to promote a political narrative" and also asserted that it "deleted records and hid evidence" ahead of Republicans taking the House majority during the 2022 election cycle. 

"THE SELECT COMMITTEE DELETED RECORDS AND HID EVIDENCE - Reps. Thompson and Cheney failed to turn over video recordings of witness interviews and depositions despite using these recordings in their high-profile, primetime hearings. The Subcommittee recovered over one hundred deleted or password-protected files, including some files that were deleted days before Republicans took the majority. They also hid multiple transcribed interviews of witnesses who had firsthand knowledge of Trump‘s actions on January 6," the report found. 

REP LOUDERMILK BLASTS JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE FOR TARGETING HIM: 'THERE IS A WAR ON THE TRUTH IN THIS COUNTRY'

Trump had repeatedly claimed that Cheney and others on the committee "deleted" evidence. Cheney slammed Loudermilk’s report at the time as a "cover up" for Trump’s actions on Jan. 6. 

"If your response to Trump’s assault on our democracy is to lie & cover up what he did, attack the brave men & women who came forward with the truth, and defend the criminals who violently assaulted the Capitol, you need to rethink whose side you’re on. Hint: It’s not America’s," she posted to X at the time. 

Cheney added in her statement this week that Trump’s claims of the committee destroying evidence are "ridiculous and false." 

BIDEN TEAM REPORTEDLY CONSIDERING PREEMPTIVE PARDONS FOR FAUCI, SCHIFF, OTHER TRUMP 'TARGETS'

"Donald Trump knows his claims about the select committee are ridiculous and false, as has been detailed extensively, including by Chairman Thompson," she continued. Cheney cited a July 2023 letter from Thompson to Loudermilk, refuting claims that evidence was destroyed, detailing that the committee had called on the federal government regarding the "proper archiving of such sensitive material to protect witnesses’ safety, national security, and to safeguard law enforcement operations." 

 "There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting – a Justice Department investigation of the work of a congressional committee – and any lawyer who attempts to pursue that course would quickly find themselves engaged in sanctionable conduct," Cheney continued. 

Cheney added that materials from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump and the 2020 election should be preserved and made public. 

"The Justice Department should ensure that all that material is preserved and cannot be destroyed. As much of that information as possible should be disclosed in the special counsel’s upcoming report."

As Trump surged in popularity ahead of the 2024 election, Cheney joined forces with Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail to rally support for the Democratic ticket. 

JAN 6 COMMITTEE ALLEGEDLY SUPPRESSED TESTIMONY SHOWING TRUMP ADMIN PUSHED FOR NATIONAL GUARD PRESENCE: REPORT

"I ask you to stand in truth. To reject the depraved cruelty of Donald Trump," Cheney told the Harris supporters in Wisconsin ahead of the election. 

As Biden’s term in office comes to an end, speculation has mounted that the 46th president could hand "preemptive pardons" to those viewed as Trump’s political foes, including Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and California Sen.-elect Adam Schiff. Cheney did not say whether she would accept such a pardon if offered one. 

• I tried cinnamon rolls from Pillsbury, Immaculate Baking Company, Annie's, and Amazon.
• The Pillsbury Grands flaky cinnamon rolls blew me away with their fluffy, doughnut-like texture.
• The Amazon-brand cinnamon rolls were a little too bread-like for my taste.

For many people, there's nothing better than the smell of cinnamon rolls straight out of the oven wafting through the house, especially around the holidays.

The comforting aroma of cinnamon rolls is more than nostalgic — it's also a major business driver, especially during the holiday season when sales of seasonal products like store-bought cinnamon rolls rise.

Pillsbury is one brand dominating the ready-to-bake market, but smaller brands like Immaculate Baking Company and Annie's Organic also have their own versions. Even Amazon, which has its own e-commerce grocery brand, has joined the competition with its own line of cinnamon rolls.

I tried five different kinds of store-bought, canned cinnamon rolls from Pillsbury's, Immaculate Baking Company, Annie's Organic, and Amazon to see which brand had the best-canned cinnamon rolls.

Here's how the store-bought cinnamon rolls ranked, from worst to best.

Ahead of the holiday season, I tried cinnamon rolls from four different brands.

I tried cinnamon rolls from Pillsbury, Immaculate Baking Company, Annie's, and Amazon's Happy Belly, which has since rebranded as Amazon Fresh.

To make the cinnamon rolls, I greased a baking sheet and baked them according to the instructions on each can. They all took around 20 minutes to bake in the oven at 350 degrees Fahrenheit.

Each can of cinnamon rolls also came with icing, which I allowed to come to room temperature while the rolls were baking.

My least favorite brand was Amazon's Happy Belly cinnamon rolls, which have since rebranded to Amazon Fresh.

The can cost $2.49 and included eight rolls plus a bag of icing. This was the least expensive brand I tried, and it came with the most rolls.

The can contained more rolls than the other brands.

However, each cinnamon roll was smaller. The icing, which came in a small plastic bag, melted nicely onto the rolls when they were fresh out of the oven.

I thought the texture of the cinnamon roll was a little bread-like.

I didn't love the texture of this cinnamon roll. It was a little stodgy and thick rather than flaky.

It also lacked the spiced flavor I expect from a cinnamon roll. It was a touch bland, and all I could taste was the sweet, sticky icing. It wasn't bad, per se, but it wasn't my favorite out of all of the rolls I tried.

My fourth-favorite brand of cinnamon roll was from Immaculate Baking Company.

The can came with five cinnamon rolls and icing. It cost $8.49, making it the most expensive brand I tried.

The cinnamon rolls were medium-sized.

This made them easy to hold and bite into. I could see a rich layer of cinnamon swirled inside the bun.

The texture was on the thicker side, but fluffier than the Amazon-brand cinnamon rolls.

The cinnamon roll was sweet, spicy, and buttery, and the icing wasn't too sweet — it was just right. However, for such a high price tag, I expected to be more impressed with these rolls than I was.

The Pillsbury Grands cinnamon rolls landed square in the middle of my ranking.

A can of five rolls, including Cinnabon icing, cost $3.49.

The cinnamon roll was among the largest of the rolls and rose a significant amount while baking.

The icing, which came in a small plastic tub, did require a knife to spread over the top of the roll, which added an extra step. However, I thought it was worth it.

The cinnamon roll was light and flaky, with a balanced amount of sweetness.

The roll was slightly crispy on the outside but fluffy in the center. The Cinnabon icing was also very decadent, without being sickly sweet or toothache-inducing.

The second-best brand I tried was Annie's organic cinnamon rolls.

The can came with five cinnamon rolls and cost $7.99.

These cinnamon rolls were packed with cinnamon flavor.

The icing settled into a creamy coating over the top of the rolls.

The texture was also very flaky, almost like a croissant.

I thought these cinnamon rolls had the perfect balance between buttery and flaky texture, without being too sweet.

But my favorite brand that I tried was the Pillsbury Flaky Grands cinnamon rolls.

A can of five rolls, including Cinnabon icing, cost $7.69.

The cinnamon roll was the largest of the ones I tried.

Its texture was super flaky, just as the packaging promised, and the texture of the roll was very similar to a croissant.

When I bit in, the roll reminded me of a buttery, flaky doughnut.

The roll had just the right amount of cinnamon and butter flavor, but its texture blew me away. It practically melted in my mouth.

I enjoyed all of the rolls, but the flakiest one was the winner in my book.

Not only did the Pillsbury Flaky Grands cinnamon rolls have the best flavor and texture, but I also thought they were well-priced for such a decadent dessert. They tasted like they could have come from an actual bakery.

The next time I'm looking to make a cozy, holiday breakfast, I know which brand I'll be reaching for at the grocery store.

As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile transgender case this past week, a prominent detransitioner and public speaker emphasized the importance of the case and said it could change everything about the gender ideology they fight in the United States.  

U.S. v. Skrmetti revolves around a Tennessee law that bans sex-change treatments and surgeries for children. Experts believe the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could set a precedent that will shape laws about transgender treatments for children across the country.

"It's incredibly important that this law goes through so that other states, not just Tennessee, who have these protective laws, can uphold them in courts and maybe states that are more on the fence, like blue states or purple states, can have pressure put on them to put in these laws to protect children in their area as well," Chloe Cole told Fox News Digital in the frigid cold outside the Supreme Court building

"This is an identity crisis that is plaguing my generation right now," she continued. "Children are losing their health, they’re losing their ability to grow up into adults, are losing their ability to have children when they become adults. It’s unconscionable."  

GOP TENNESSEE AG REACTS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPREME COURT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS CASE: 'FEEL REALLY GOOD'

Cole, who is 20 years old and began transitioning from a female into a male at the age of 12 and stopped at 17, said that she continues to suffer daily pain and faces serious health issues from the long-term effects of the sex-change treatments and surgery she received as a child.

"I've been on the puberty blockers, the testosterone injections, and I've had a double mastectomy, and all three of these treatments have irreversibly and permanently affected my health," she said.

"I basically went through an artificial menopause while I was young," Cole explained. "So, I was experiencing hot flashes and these other uncomfortable, painful symptoms that are not too dissimilar to what women naturally experience when they're in their 40s, 50s, 60s, not before they're even teenagers."

Some activists, including attorneys arguing against Tennessee’s law, posit that sex-change treatments help children suffering from gender confusion, improving their mental health and preventing suicide. However, many former transgender individuals – often called "detransitioners" – dispute the claim that sex-change treatments solve mental health issues. Instead, they say that in addition to causing physical problems, treatments can also lead to serious psychological damage.

Besides having to live with the reality of having both her breasts cut off at the age of 15, Cole said that testosterone has also "made it so that I have permanent changes to my bone structure."

"I have a left-over Adam's apple and facial hair growth, but I also have issues with my urinary tract, with pelvic pain [and] with things like sexual function, which, now, as an adult woman, that is something that has been both physically and psychologically incredibly painful," she explained.

"I’m a woman," she went on. "I aspire to become a mother one day, I want to get married, and this is something that is going to undoubtedly affect my marriage, my romantic life, and potentially my ability to have children."

SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL 'TREATMENTS' TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS

Although gender transition treatment is promoted by doctors and hospital systems across the country, Cole said that there are still many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of these treatments.

"I don't know what the lasting effects are on my fertility. There are so many unknowns about my health, I have no idea what the future of my health is going to look like," she said. "It's been years after the fact, and I'm still experiencing reeling effects from all of this when I could have just grown up into a healthy young woman with a body intact."

Although she continues to suffer the aftereffects of the treatments, Cole said she is resolved to stop more children from suffering what she underwent.  

"This is not what children deserve," she concluded. "Children deserve to be allowed to grow up with their bodies fully intact, they deserve a chance to learn how to love themselves the way that they are, the way they were born, the way that God beautifully crafted them in their mother's womb."

While Washington is enveloped in battles over President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees, a different but equally raucous appointments battle boiled over this week just 300 miles down US-1 from the nation's capital.

North Carolina Republicans, seeing their veto-proof supermajority slip away by a single legislative seat in the state House, are trying to override outgoing Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s disapproval of a bill that would move gubernatorial authority over the NC Board of Elections to the State Auditor’s office.

The Senate overrode the veto but not without an uproar that led to the gallery being cleared. The House is poised to attempt its complementary override, but the GOP’s plans have hit a snag there.

The proposal was part of a bill chiefly geared toward Hurricane Helene relief, and was lambasted by Democrats as a power grab, in part due to the fact the GOP flipped the executive branch office with Auditor-elect Dave Boliek – but failed to see their gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson best Gov.-elect Josh Stein.

NC OVERRIDES VETO OF ICE-TRUMP AGENCY COOPERATION

However, Robinson – as the Senate’s presiding officer – moved to clear the gallery after raucous protestations and chants of "Shame, Shame, Shame!" erupted above lawmakers preparing to vote on the veto override. Robinson has thus far had to do so twice, according to Carolina Public Press.

As the eventually successful vote was about take place, a woman shouted "[the law] destroys the will of the voter – it’s voter suppression!"

"It restructures the entire state constitution."

Robinson, without raising his voice, spoke into his mic that the woman was "disrupting … the legislative process."

When a gallery-watcher shouted that the bill lacked any "reasonable relief for hurricane victims," Robinson banged his gavel and called out, "Clear the gallery."

"Everybody’s gotta go," he said, as police calmly ushered spectators out, threatening those who remained with arrest.

"You can bang that gavel," one man was heard taunting Robinson as he left.

NC JUDGE SENDS PROSPECTIVE JUROR TO JAIL OVER COVID MASK VIOLATION

State Sen. Natasha Marcus, D-Huntersville, was heard on video captured by the Raleigh News-Observer calling out to Robinson that he could not clear the whole gallery, because many people were respectfully watching the vote, and saying the capitol is "the people’s house."

Before he vetoed the bill, Cooper told NBC Charlotte that the legislation "really didn't provide immediate and direct funding to western North Carolina" despite being labeled as Helene relief. He called it a "massive power grab."

Jim Stirling, a research associate at the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, has done a deep dive into the controversy, and his group filed an amicus brief with lawmakers in a recent lawsuit related to the matter.

"It is not under the purview of the governor to execute all laws. The other executive agencies of the executive branch or indeed other executive elected officials are in charge of executing law. Not just the governor," Stirling said.

"Under [Cooper’s] argument, he says effectively that all appointments must be under him because he's in charge of executing the law, and he has the power of appointment on this."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Overriding the veto, however, could render part of the lawsuit moot, he said.

The lawsuit will "probably need to be restarted based on the argument that these appointments must be under the governor, not any other executive agency (like the auditor)," he said.

Neither Cooper nor Robinson responded to a request for comment. 

In moving election boards’ appointment power to the state auditor’s office, the state board’s activities would remain independent of Boliek and the executive branch, but his office would control its appointments and funding, according to NBC Charlotte.

What would change would be the current Democratic control of the elections board, an official told the outlet. The state auditor would also be able to appoint chairpersons in all 100 Tarheel State counties.

Currently, Cooper – and would-be Stein – also appoint the state board’s members, who must consist of three majority-party and two minority-party individuals.

Attempts to move appointment powers away from the governor’s office have been subject to lawsuits in recent months and years. The most recent ruling, in Cooper v. Berger, held that an attempt to move appointment powers to the legislature unlawfully infringed on the executive branch’s express power in that regard.

A prior case, McCrory v. Berger – bearing the name of Cooper’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory – resulted in a state supreme court ruling holding that some appointments made by legislators violate separation of powers.

In the state House, three Republicans from the Helene-ravaged western part of the state voted against the bill, with one, Rep. Mark Pless of Canton, saying it had nothing "that was going to send money to the many needs in Western NC – it was simply moving money from one account to another."

Pless, however, said the election board appointments portion appears "allowable by the legislature," according to FOX-8. The veto-override in the lower chamber, therefore, could come up just short if the trio do not change their original positions.

Transgender rights activists on Thursday participated in a "bathroom sit-in" in a restroom across from House Speaker Mike Johnson's office on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., in protest of a new policy barring trans people from using bathroom facilities that match their gender identity.

Around 15 people were arrested on suspicion of crowding, obstructing or incommoding for illegally protesting inside the Cannon House Office Building, the U.S. Capitol Police told Fox News Digital. 

The protest was organized by the Gender Liberation Movement, which describes itself as a grassroots organization that focuses on bodily autonomy and gender. 

NANCY MACE'S EFFORT TO BAN TRANSGENDER DELAWARE DEMOCRAT FROM CAPITOL WOMEN'S RESTROOMS GAINS SUPPORT

A video posted on the group's Instagram account shows protesters holding signs calling for a "Ban on bathroom bigotry," occupying a restroom and blocking a hallway. 

The Hill reported that Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst and whistleblower, was one of those being led away by authorities in zip ties. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2013 after disclosing classified documents and military reports to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The sentence was commuted in 2017 by former President Obama and Manning was released from prison after serving seven years. 

Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, announced the new bathroom policy in November after Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., tried to block trans people from Capitol restrooms that don't match their gender at birth. 

MACE FACES BACKLASH OVER EFFORT TO BAN NEW TRANSGENDER MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM WOMEN'S BATHROOMS

The move came ahead of the first openly transgender lawmaker, Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, D-Del., joining Congress in January. McBride is a biological male who identifies and presents as a woman. 

Mace recently introduced a resolution to ban men who identify as female from women's restrooms on Capitol Hill. On Thursday, she posted a video on X of herself standing outside a Capitol Police station. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Using a bullhorn, she read the Miranda rule to the protesters arrested. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to Johnson's office.