(WASHINGTON) — Two U.S. veterans from Alabama, Andy Huynh, 27, and Alexander Drueke, 39, volunteered to fight alongside the Ukrainian military against Russia, but haven’t been heard from in days.
Family members are desperately waiting for word after two Americans who volunteered to assist Ukrainian forces have gone missing amid unconfirmed reports of their capture. U.S. officials revealed they’re also aware of a third American who has been reported missing during the war.
U.S. lawmakers said Wednesday they have been asked by the families of the former service members from Alabama — Alexander Drueke and Andy Tai Ngoc Huynh — for their help in locating them.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., said in a statement her office is helping a family locate Drueke, 39, of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
“Earlier this week, the mother of Alexander Drueke, a Tuscaloosa Army Veteran who volunteered to assist the Ukrainian Army in combating Russia, reached out to my office after losing contact with her son. According to his family, they have not heard from Drueke in several days,” she said in a statement.
Sewell said her office has been in contact with the State Department, the FBI and other members of the Alabama Congressional delegation.
Drueke, an Army veteran, reportedly went to Ukraine in mid-April to volunteer to help train the Ukrainian forces, his mother, Lois “Bunny” Drueke, told “Good Morning America.”
“He wanted to go over and help train the Ukrainian soldiers and show them how to use the equipment that the U.S. has been sending over there for them,” she said.
She said she last heard from her son in a text message on June 8.
“He said that he was going dark for a day or possibly two. And I responded to stay safe, that I loved him and he responded, ‘Yes, ma’am. I love you too,'” she said. “And that was my last communication with him.”
She said he was with Huynh at the time, whom he had met since going to Ukraine, and there are unverified reports that they may have been captured by Russian forces.
Drueke was a chemical operations specialist in the Army Reserve from 2002 to 2014 and held the rank of staff sergeant at the end of his service, an Army official confirmed to ABC News. He was deployed to Kuwait from December 2004 to December 2005 and to Iraq from November 2008 to July 2009, the official said.
Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said his office is helping in the search for Huynh, 27, of Trinity, Alabama, after his family reached out to the congressman’s office this week.
“According to Huynh’s family, they have not been in contact with him since June 8, 2022, when he was in the Kharkiv area of Ukraine,” he said in a statement.
Aderholt said his office has reached out to the State Department and FBI to “get any information possible.”
Huynh, a former Marine, spoke to Huntsville, Alabama, ABC affiliate WAAY in early April about his decision to help defend Ukraine.
“I’ve made peace with the decision. I know there’s a potential of me dying. I’m willing to give my life for what I believe is right,” he told the station.
Huynh served in the Marines from 2014 to 2018, reaching the rank of corporal, a Marine Corps spokesperson confirmed to ABC News.
He got engaged in March, before he left for Ukraine the following month.
“We just really want him back,” his fiancée, Joy Black, told “Good Morning America” through tears. “He’s got such a big heart. He knew this wasn’t the easy thing, but this was the right thing.”
“Even though not great things have happened I’m still really, really proud of him,” she continued.
White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he “can’t confirm the reports” of two Americans captured in Ukraine.
“We’ll do the best we can to monitor this and see what we can learn about it,” he said. “Obviously, if it’s true, we’ll do everything we can to get them safely back home.”
The State Department also is aware of the “unconfirmed” reports, a spokesperson said.
“We are limited in terms of what we know at the moment,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters Thursday. “We’re closely monitoring the situation, we are in contact with Ukrainian authorities, as well as with the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the families of the two reported missing U.S. citizens.”
Price said the State Department had not had any direct communication with Russia concerning the whereabouts of the two men.
“If we feel that such outreach through our embassy in Moscow or otherwise would be productive in terms of finding out more information on the whereabouts of these individuals, we won’t hesitate to do that,” he said, adding that the department had not “seen anything from the Russians indicating that two such individuals are in their custody.”
Price said the department is also aware of a third, unidentified American who reportedly traveled to Ukraine to fight and whose “whereabouts are unknown.”
“Similarly, our understanding was that this individual had traveled to Ukraine to take up arms,” Price said, adding that the person was identified as missing “in recent weeks” and that the State Department was also in contact with their family.
The State Department has warned U.S. citizens against traveling to Ukraine during the war and that Russian security officials could be “singling out” U.S. citizens.
When asked about the two missing Americans in Ukraine, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that he did not have any information about it.
“Perhaps the Defense Ministry has some information, but I don’t,” Peskov said at a press briefing Thursday.
Several Westerners have been taken prisoner during the war, including two men from the United Kingdom who were sentenced to death this month by Russian-backed separatists who accused them of being mercenaries.
ABC News’ Devin Garbitt, Benjamin Stein, Ben Gittleson, Shannon Crawford and Matt Seyler contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced Thursday the recall of more than 407,000 over-the-counter pill bottles, citing the products do not meet the child resistance packaging required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA).
Aurohealth recalled nearly 137,300 units of the Walgreens brand Acetaminophen. Consumers can contact Aurohealth for information on how to return the product to their nearest Walgreens store to receive a full refund.
Aurohealth also recalled about 25,660 units of Kroger brand arthritis pain acetaminophen. Time-Cap Labs recalled nearly 209,430 units of Kroger brand aspirin and ibuprofen. Further, Sun Pharma also recalled about 34,660 units of Kroger brand acetaminophen.
Consumers can contact Kroger for information on how to properly dispose of the product and receive a full refund.
The pill bottles have been sold at supermarkets nationwide.
Andy Grammer made one couple’s wedding dreams come true by singing at their ceremony. Andy explained on Instagram that the lovebirds asked him every day on TikTok and he couldn’t say no to their “sweetness, sincerity, playfulness and joy.” He said it was “an honor” to perform at their wedding.
Meghan Trainor teased more of her song “Bad For Me,” revealing it features artist Teddy Swims. She took to Instagram to share more of her single, which is about a toxic relationship, and previewed a portion of Teddy’s verse.
Harry Styles shouted out his old teacher who was at his concert in Manchester, England, reports Manchester Evening News. Harry told Mrs. Vernon, “I just want to thank you for everything in those formative years,” and joked to the audience, “Can you imagine dealing with me when I was 4?” Harry said it meant “a lot” to see his old educator in the crowd and told her, “I’m dedicating this next song to you.”
Kate Bush is delighted the younger generation has fallen in love with her 1985 hit “Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)” after it was featured on the new season of Stranger Things. She raved on her website, “I’ve never experienced anything quite like this before!” She also thanked the show’s creators because “the track is being discovered by a whole new audience.” Kate’s song is currently in fourth place on the Billboard Hot 100.
John Legend turned the tables on his label by forcing them to do TikTok videos. He went around the office and asked workers what song of his they’re currently jamming to. A marketing manager then leaked the title of one of his new songs, “Honey,” and had to run out of the room. He joked, “I was not forced to make this TikTok.”
Coldplay is the 11th act in history to make over $1 billion in touring revenues, reports Billboard. The group achieved that milestone after finishing their North American leg of the Music of the Spheres tour. Coldplay has been touring almost nonstop for over 20 years, which is why they were able to achieve this ultra-rare feat.
Is Dove Cameron about to pull a Halsey? The “Boyfriend” singer took to TikTok to share a video of her “waiting (im)patiently for my label to give me the go ahead to drop my next single” and teased she should “just leak it anyway.” Dove says her new song, “Breakfast,” will drop on June 24.
John Legend turned the tables on his label by forcing them to do TikTok videos. He went around the office and asked workers what song of his they’re currently jamming to. A marketing manager then leaked the title of one of his new songs, “Honey.” He joked, “I was not forced to make this TikTok.”
Oops, she did it again! Britney Spears deactivated her Instagram for a second time. It is unknown when she’ll return.
Meghan Trainor teased more of her song “Bad For Me,” revealing it features artist Teddy Swims. She took to Instagram to share more of her single, which is about a toxic relationship, and previewed a portion of Teddy’s verse.
Harry Styles shouted out his old teacher who attended his concert in Manchester, England, reports Manchester Evening News. Harry told Mrs. Vernon, “I just want to thank you for everything in those formative years,” and joked to the audience, “Can you imagine dealing with me when I was 4?” Harry said it meant “a lot” to see his old educator in the crowd and told her, “I’m dedicating this next song to you.”
As Christine McVie prepares to release her first solo compilation, Songbird (A Solo Collection), on June 24, the Fleetwood Mac singer/keyboardist has shared some potentially disappointing news regarding her famous band with Rolling Stone.
Fleetwood Mac finished its most recent tour in 2019, with a lineup that featured Crowded House‘s Neil Finn and Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers guitarist Mike Campbell stepping in for Lindsey Buckingham after Buckingham’s much publicized firing from the group in 2018.
Christine tells the magazine, “Those guys were great. We have a great time with them, but we’ve kind of broke up now, so I hardly ever see them.”
Christine adds that Fleetwood Mac no longer exists “as we know it.” Regarding the band’s future, she says, “We might get back together, but I just couldn’t say for sure.”
Christine, who is 78, also notes that she isn’t sure if she wants to tour again.
“I don’t feel physically up for it,” she maintains. “I’m in quite bad health. I’ve got a chronic back problem, which debilitates me. I stand up to play the piano, so I don’t know if I could actually physically do it.”
In addition, Christine says that her ex-husband, Fleetwood Mac bassist John McVie, also has “health issues” and isn’t sure if he wants to tour anymore. “You’d have to ask him,” she adds.
If Fleetwood Mac does decide to hit the road again, Christine says she’d like to have Buckingham back in the band.
“He’s the best,” Christine says. “Neil and Mike were such a cheerful couple, but Lindsey was missed.”
Although she says she’s “quite happy to be at home,” Christine won’t completely rule out another Fleetwood Mac tour.
“I’ll just leave it open and say that we might,” she notes.
(EL PASO, Texas) — The U.S. saw the largest number of migrants arrested or encountered along the southern border since Customs and Border Protection began counting numbers of migrants encountered since the year 2000, statistics released by CBP, on Wednesday show.
CBP encountered 239,416 migrants along the southwest land border in May, a 2% increase compared to April, and 25% of those those encountered were previously arrested and deported by CBP.
The past four months, according to CBP statistics, migrant numbers along the southern border have increased steadily over 200,000 each month.
The amount of unaccompanied minors also saw a 20% increase from this month to last.
Drug seizures along the southern border were down in May in double digits, according to CBP.
“Our message to those who would try and gain illegal entry to the United States remains the same – don’t make the dangerous journey only to be sent back,” said CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus in a statement. “As temperatures start to rise in the summer, human smugglers will continue to exploit vulnerable populations and recklessly endanger the lives of migrants for financial gain.”
The numbers come as Title 42 — the Trump administration policy, continued by the Biden administration that expelled migrants along the southern border under the auspices of the pandemic, was ordered to be kept in place by a federal judge in May.
The Justice Department, which handles litigation for the federal government, has appealed the ruling.
“Current restrictions at the U.S. border have not changed: single adults and families encountered at the Southwest Border will continue to be expelled, where appropriate, under Title 42,” Magnus said.
(WASHINGTON) — Members of the House select committee appeared divided this week on whether they should make a criminal referral against former President Donald Trump at the conclusion of their investigation, with Chairman Bennie Thompson telling reporters it’s “not our job” to prosecute Trump before Vice Chair Liz Cheney said the decision to refer findings hasn’t been made.
The back-and-forth has reignited questions on the merits of sending a criminal referral to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department. A referral is not required for the agency to investigate Trump, nor will one guarantee it, but public hearings outlining Trump’s “seven-point plan” to overturn the 2020 presidential election have amped up pressure on Garland to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump — the first in history against a former president.
While a criminal referral from the Jan. 6 committee might, on paper, end up being a mostly symbolic gesture, experts told ABC News the move deserves careful consideration.
“I don’t think that there is any member of that committee who has any doubt about whether Donald Trump violated the law or questions the actual merits of a criminal referral,” said Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “What I suspect is that it has much more to do with trying to preserve Congress’ authority and not wanting division between those who are trying to hold Donald Trump accountable in Congress and the Justice Department.”
“But,” she added, “the calculation that says, ‘We will hold back, and therefore preserve our own authority,’ is mistaken.”
Pros and cons
Amid concerns that Republicans will paint a criminal referral, and any subsequent DOJ investigation, as politically-motivated, the committee may decide to leave its findings in a public report, which would then serve as an indirect “handoff” to the Justice Department, said Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law, who outlined some reasons that might give the committee pause.
“The downside with a referral could be that if Garland’s Justice Department does move ahead, that it would be perceived as potentially political by some parts of the American public,” he said. “It could be better for the Justice Department to appear more independent than seeming as though it’s responding to a direct referral coming out of the committee.”
On the other hand, Goodman said, while a referral doesn’t have any compulsory force tied to it, “I think Garland has shown us time and again that he is reactive, not proactive — and what he reacts to are other institutions, forcing the question.”
Garland told reporters that he and his prosecutors are closely watching the committee’s hearings this week, and the Department of Justice sent a new letter on Wednesday telling the committee’s chief investigator it is “critical” members “provide us with copies of the transcripts of all its witness interviews,” which the committee so far has declined to do. The request suggests there are matters DOJ is investigating beyond the violence on the ground on Jan. 6 it is already prosecuting — specifically alternate or fake electors as part of the discredited theory that Pence could unilaterally block the certification of Joe Biden as president.
Regardless of whether the committee makes a formal criminal referral, each legal expert ABC News spoke with said it would be concerning if the government did not, at the very least, open a criminal investigation.
“As a matter of constitutional theory and law and accountability and the separation of powers, if Merrick Garland doesn’t at least try, even if the Justice Department loses, there’s no disincentive left for any future president to not use the massive powers of the White House to commit widespread crimes,” said Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a former assistant U.S. attorney. “It’s a green light for a crime spree in the White House because every other lever of accountability has failed.”
Then sentiment is clearly shared by Cheney, who has taken the tone of a criminal prosecutor in the hearings, arguing that Trump and his allies engaged in criminal activity, using video testimony of Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann recalling how he suggested that Trump White House attorney John Eastman “get a great effing criminal defense lawyer.”
Using the clip to tease Thursday’s hearing, Cheney pointedly noted how a federal judge already found Trump’s pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct the congressional count of electoral votes “more likely than not” violated two federal criminal statutes: obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
“President Trump had no factual basis for what he was doing and he had been told it was illegal. Despite this, President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman and others to overturn the outcome of the election on Jan. 6,” Cheney said.
Trump, in a 12-page statement sent to reporters on Monday night, blasted the panel illegitimate and their presentation one-sided, calling it “a smoke and mirrors show.”
While the committee weighs sending a formal criminal referral, here’s a look at federal statutes the committee and experts say Trump and his allies may have violated:
Obstruction of an official proceeding – 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The committee has outlined an alleged “sophisticated seven-point plan” it says Trump and his allies engaged in with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, including “corruptly” planning to replace federal and state officials with those who would support his fake election claims and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his oath to the Constitution.
Acting on a plan with the intent to stop the counting of electoral votes would likely violate 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which makes it a felony to attempt to “corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding,” such as a presidential election, and comes with up to 20 years in prison.
“If there is enough evidence to prove that Trump knew he had lost the election, then it’s obvious that he was acting with corrupt intent,” Goodman said. “You can’t try to pressure the vice president to overturn the election if you know you actually lost.”
Cheney, raising texts sent to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging Trump to call for violence to stop on Jan. 6, mirrored language in the statute Monday to raise the question, “Did Donald Trump, through action — or inaction — corruptly seek to instruct or impede Congress’ proceedings to count electoral votes?”
The committee has attempted to make the case that even without a “smoking gun” such as Trump admitting on tape he knew the election was lost, a preponderance of evidence should have made that clear to him, and members will lead their case next to the potential legal culpability of Trump’s direct — and indirect pressure — on the Justice Department and state election officials.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States – 18 U.S.C. § 371
This statute, also raised by Cheney ahead of Thursday’s hearing, criminalizes the agreement between two or more persons to “impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful government functions” and is punishable by up to five years in prison.
As part of the “seven-point plot” Cheney has laid out, the committee argues Trump’s legal team violated this federal criminal statute when instructing Republicans in battleground states to replace Biden electors with slates of Trump electors and send those votes to Congress and the National Archives.
While Trump’s intent to defraud would need to be proved for a conviction, experts interviewed by ABC News say, how Trump relates to other potential defendants would be considered when weighing potential criminal charges to bring, and they note some of his closest allies “have very significant criminal exposure.”
Former Trump White House attorney John Eastman, in drafting a plan for Trump to cling to power by falsely claiming Pence could reject legitimate electors, as well as Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who allegedly with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, told then- Attorney General Bill Barr that Trump was “becoming more realistic” that he lost as they were “working on it,” may have a harder defense to make.
“If those individuals know Trump lost and indicated it, it’s going to be easier to prove the case against them,” Goodman said.
And if those close to Trump are charged, it may be easier to prove he agreed to participate in the conspiracy.
“For example,” Finkelstein said, “if John Eastman is found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States or obstruction of an official proceeding and Donald Trump was found to be in a conspiracy with John Eastman, the exact nature of his intent may not have to be the same as if he is a principal defendant because, under federal conspiracy law, he only needs to have agreed to the object to the conspiracy.”
Seditious conspiracy – 18 U.S.C. § 2384
Seditious conspiracy is defined as when two or more people in the U.S. conspire to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force” the U.S. government, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law. It comes with 20 years in prison if convicted.
Since the use of force is an element of this crime, and Trump was not on the Capitol grounds during the attack, experts cautioned that the burden of proof might be more difficult in this instance.
“It must mean that Trump acted with foreknowledge and intend to use force and violence, and I think that’s going to be very hard to prove, though there is a lot of evidence that points in that direction,” Goodman said.
The Justice Department last week announced an indictment charging the then-leader and four other members of the extremist far-right group the Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy. Three have pleaded not guilty, and two others are set to enter not guilty pleas on Thursday. In an apparent suggestion the two were linked, the committee has argued that hundreds of Proud Boys traveled to Washington specifically for an insurrection, as indicated by members of the group marching on the Capitol before Trump even began speaking.
If the committee accuses Trump of conspiring with Proud Boys or other far-right extremist groups who are accused of organizing the Capitol attack, there’s more potential for a seditious conspiracy charge, which could then trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from serving in government.
“But in some sense,” Goodman cautioned, “it’s easier to prove that Trump might have had more knowledge that his supporters would try to enter the Capitol and occupy the Capitol physically but not use violence.”
Fraud by wire, radio or television – 18 U.S.C. § 1343
The committee introduced evidence this week of Trump and his allies fundraising $250 million off fraudulent election claims, asking for money for an “Official Election Defense Fraud” fund — but the panel said no such fund existed — with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., casting the “big lie” as “a big rip-off.”
“Claims that the election was stolen were so successful, President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election,” said Amanda Wick, senior investigative counsel to the committee, in a taped video. “Most of the money raised went to this newly created PAC, not to election-related litigation.”
The allegation has raised questions over potential wire fraud charges, or the attempt to defraud another through physical or electronic mail.
However, experts told ABC News this charge might be more difficult to prove, going back to the question of Trump’s intent. Prosecutors would have to convince a grand jury that Trump intended to mislead.
“He can say, ‘I wasn’t in charge of setting up those fundraising efforts, I didn’t know that they were potentially illegal,'” Wehle said. “So that’s a thornier case.”
To charge or not to charge
The experts ABC spoke with agreed the Jan. 6 committee has made a compelling case so far, and that the onus is on Garland and the Justice Department to follow the roadmap it’s laid out.
They argue the rule of law is at risk.
“What’s at stake is the very structure of our democracy and our ability to hold public officials to the confines of the law,” Finkelstein said.
“The committee’s public hearings have raised the stakes enormously for the country, in the sense that the criminal activity shown to have gone on is so brazen, that if the Justice Department does not enforce the law in this case, it really does further erode the rule of law and democracy,” Goodman said.
“Even if the effort fails, at least there’s a message sent that there is a cop on the block,” Wehle added. “Because we’re headed for a very, very dark era of American history if something doesn’t happen.”
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Alexander Mallin and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(WORCESTER, Mass.) — A bishop has declared that a Massachusetts school “may no longer identify itself as Catholic.”
A bishop has declared that a central Massachusetts school “may no longer identify itself as Catholic” because it refuses to remove Black Lives Matter and Pride flags it began flying on campus last year.
Arguing that the flags “embody specific agendas and ideologies (that) contradict Catholic social and moral teaching,” Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester issued a decree on Thursday punishing the Nativity School of Worcester, a tuition-free private middle school that serves about 60 boys from under-resourced communities.
The decree prohibits the school from calling itself Catholic and prevents Mass and sacraments from taking place on school grounds.
In a statement, the school said it began displaying the flags in Jan. 2021 at the request of its students, the majority of whom, it noted, are people of color.
“As a multicultural school, the flags represent the inclusion and respect of all people. These flags simply state that all are welcome at Nativity and this value of inclusion is rooted in Catholic teaching,” said the school.
According to the school, when McManus became aware of the flags in March of this year, he asked the school to take them down. Later that month, an unknown person removed them, the school said, “[causing] harm to our entire community. The flags were later raised again.
In May, McManus threatened to punish the school in an open letter, where he claimed the Church is “100% behind the phrase ‘black lives matter’” but accused “a specific movement with a wider agenda” of “co-opt[ing] the phrase.”
The school said it would seek to appeal the bishop’s decision while continuing to fly the flags.
A spokesperson for the diocese did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
(NOTE LANGUAGE) Comedian Jerrod Carmichael has flamed Dave Chappelle about jokes he made that some saw as transphobic.
In a conversation with GQ about coming out in the HBO comedy special Jerrod Carmichael:Rothaniel, Carmichael didn’t hold back about the controversy surrounding Chappelle and his rallying against cancel culture.
Netflix employees staged a walkout over Chappelle’s Netflix special The Closer last year, claiming it was “transphobic.”
In response, Chappelle said on the stand-up stage, “You said you want a safe environment at Netflix, but it seems like I’m the only one who can’t go to the office anymore.”
“Even though the media frames this as if it’s me vs. that community, that’s not what it is,” the Mark Twain Award winner insisted.
Chappelle said to the crowd, “Everyone I know from this community has been nothing but loving and supporting.” He called the controversy “nonsense.”
Carmichael says the threat of cancel culture is “not true,” calling it “a boogeyman to sell tickets.”
“Who’s getting canceled for what they’ve said? What does that mean, that people are mad on Twitter? These grown men are fine.”
Carmichael adds, “I think, a lot of times, people who offer nothing truthful or meaningful about themselves then complain about society at large and create this boogeyman. It’s like, listen, that’s the most urgent thing in your life? God bless you. I’m tired of hearing it.”
Calling out his fellow comedian by name, Carmichael said, “Chappelle, do you know what comes up when you Google your name, bro? … Your legacy is a bunch of opinions on trans sh**? It’s an odd hill to die on.”
Carmichael continues, “And it’s like, ‘Hey, bro. Who the f***are you? Who do you f***? What do you like to do?’ Childish jokes aside, who the fuck are you? It’s just kind of played.”
(WASHINGTON) — On Jan. 6, 2021, pro-Trump rioters broke into the U.S. Capitol. The attack resulted in deaths, injuries, more than 700 arrests and former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment.
Dr. Simone Gold, a leading figure in the anti-vaccine moment, was sentenced to prison Thursday for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, Gold and her coalition of physicians have pushed conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 vaccine and promoted disproven treatments like ivermectin. She pleaded guilty in March to a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully entering and remaining in a restricted area of the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack.
Christopher Cooper, U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, sentenced Gold on Thursday to a 60-day prison term followed by 12 months of supervised release, and ordered her to pay a $9,500 fine.
In an interview with The Washington Post in January about her involvement in the riot, Gold said that she “regrets being there.”
Gold did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
In March, ABC News reported that despite the warnings from health agencies about unproven COVID-19 treatments, several physician groups like America’s Frontline Doctors had partnered with telemedicine platforms and pharmacies to offer easy access to drugs like ivermectin.
A House probe launched in October is investigating America’s Frontline Doctors and other organizations for allegedly “spreading misinformation and facilitating access to disproven and potentially hazardous coronavirus treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.”
“Attempts to monetize coronavirus misinformation have eroded public confidence in proven treatments and prevention measures and hindered efforts to control the pandemic,” Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, wrote in a letter to Gold when the investigation was launched in the fall.
