(ATLANTA) — The credit card statements of Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade appear to show he paid for multiple trips for him and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, according to copies of the statements included in a new filing submitted by Wade’s wife as part their divorce proceeding.
The filings, made Friday, could support allegations made by a defendant in Willis’ Georgia election interference case that Willis engaged in an improper relationship with Wade that resulted in financial gain for both of them.
The allegations were made in a court filing earlier this month by Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staffer, who is seeking to dismiss the indictment against him and disqualify Willis from the case on the grounds that she potentially committed “an act to defraud the public of honest services” based on her “intentional failure” to disclose the alleged relationship with Wade that she allegedly “personally benefitted from.”
Credit card statements of Wade’s included in Friday’s filing show Willis’ name next to trips booked to San Francisco and Miami. The trips appear to be from Wade’s statements from the fall of 2022 and the spring of 2023, after he had been hired by Willis as a prosecutor on the election interference case.
The filing comes a day after Willis asked the judge in Wade’s divorce case to quash a subpoena she was served as part of that case last week, arguing her deposition in the matter would be “outside the scope of discovery” and amounts to an attempt to “harass” her. Friday’s filing from Wade’s wife urged the judge not to quash the subpoena, saying Willis “has information and knowledge directly relevant to alleged conduct” of Wade.
Former President Trump, responding on social media, accused Willis and Wade of bringing the charges against him “to enrich themselves” and called on his case to be “totally and completely dismissed.”
The Cobb County judge overseeing the divorce case has set a hearing for Monday to hear arguments on Willis’ efforts to quash the subpoena. The judge is also scheduled to hear arguments from Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney for Roman who first filed the allegations, who is now seeking to unseal the divorce case.
The Fulton County judge overseeing the election interference case on Thursday set a hearing date of Feb. 15 to hear evidence over Roman’s allegations. The DA’s office was ordered to respond to the allegations in court by Feb. 2.
Roman’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
A spokesperson from the district attorney’s office repeated a previous statement, saying they “will respond in court.”
Speaking on Sunday at the Big Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day service, Willis appeared to address the allegations for the first time, calling herself a “flawed” and “imperfect” person and defending Wade as a “great friend and a great lawyer.” She did not deny the allegations, and suggested they were motivated by race.
Roman, Trump and 17 others pleaded not guilty in August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Four co-defendants subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.
(GRAND JUNCTION, Colo.) — Authorities are investigating a mysterious homicide after a human head and hands were found in a freezer at a recently sold Colorado home.
The discovery was made on Jan. 12 at a residence in Grand Junction, according to the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies responded to a call for a “suspicious incident” around 2:30 p.m. local time, the sheriff’s office said.
People cleaning out the property discovered what they believed to be human remains, the sheriff’s office said. They were found in a freezer, a sheriff’s office spokesperson said.
An autopsy conducted by the Mesa County Coroner’s Office this week confirmed that the remains were a human head and hands, the sheriff’s office said Thursday.
“At this time, we have no other definitive answers until further testing can be completed,” the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. “These types of tests take a significant amount of time, and again, we ask for patience from the public as this investigation continues.”
The sheriff’s office added that it hopes to “positively identify the victim while remaining respectful of the victim and the victim’s family.”
A sheriff’s office spokesperson told ABC News on Friday that the investigation remains active and no further information is being released at this time.
Investigators believe this is an isolated incident, and that there is no threat to the community.
(AUGUSTA, Maine) — Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on Friday asked the state’s highest appeals court to consider her decision to bar former President Donald Trump off of Maine’s GOP primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — before the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Colorado 14th Amendment case disqualifying Trump.
In a news release, Bellows said, “Maine law provides the opportunity to seek review from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court,” something she requested on Friday.
Her request comes after Maine’s Superior Court on Wednesday deferred ruling on Bellows’ earlier decision, which was appealed by Trump’s team, until the U.S. Supreme Court settled the Colorado case.
The state’s top trial court punted the case back to Bellows for a decision to wait until there’s a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bellow’s request Friday is an appeal of the Superior Court’s decision to defer. If considered by the Maine Supreme Court, as Bellows is requesting, the timeline for a ruling on this case might be sped up and settled ahead of the state’s March 5 GOP primary.
“This appeal ensures that Maine’s highest court has the opportunity to weigh in now, before ballots are counted, promoting trust in our free, safe and secure elections,” Bellows said in a statement.
“Like many Americans, I welcome a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Colorado case that provides guidance as to the important Fourteenth Amendment questions in this case,” she said.
“In the interim, Maine law provides the opportunity to seek review from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court — which I requested today,” she said. I know both the constitutional and state authority questions are of grave concern to many. This appeal ensures that Maine’s highest court has the opportunity to weigh in now, before ballots are counted, promoting trust in our free, safe and secure elections.”
(NEW YORK) — Taking a daily multivitamin supplement may improve memory and slow cognitive decline in aging adults, according to a new study.
The results could have major implications for the millions of Americans who are suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
The study, published Thursday, is the third in a series conducted under the COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS), a large, nationwide clinical trial testing cocoa extract and multivitamin supplements to see if they can improve cognition and decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s.
In two prior studies, the group found daily multivitamins did have a positive effect on cognition. The current study combines a study of more than 500 participants with meta-analysis of data from more than 5,000 participants.
“Cognitive decline is among the top health concerns for most older adults, and a daily supplement of multivitamins has the potential as an appealing and accessible approach to slow cognitive aging,” first author Chirag Vyas, an instructor in investigation in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), said in a statement announcing the study.
For the first part of the study, researchers administered in-person cognitive assessments to 573 people. The results, published the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, showed that a daily multivitamin improved memory and cognition over two years, compared to a placebo.
Those who took multivitamins displayed memory that was equivalent to someone nearly five years younger than they and had cognition equivalent to someone who was two years younger.
Additionally, statistically significant benefits were seen in improvements for episodic memory – that is, the capacity to recall a memory – but not for executive attention, which is the ability to block out distractions and focus on a task.
The team also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate studies, with non-overlapping participants, and similarly found that taking a multivitamin showed benefits for memory and cognition.
“These findings will garner attention among many older adults who are, understandably, very interested in ways to preserve brain health, as they provide evidence for the role of a daily multivitamin in supporting better cognitive aging,” said Dr. Olivia Okereke, senior author of the report and director of geriatric psychiatry at MGH, in a statement.
There are currently an estimated 6.7 million people in the U.S. living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, a number that is expected to rise to 14 million by 2060, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Previous research has already shown that the risk of dementia can be slowed by maintaining a healthy lifestyle, including controlling high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and depression. Cutting down on smoking, refraining from binge drinking, and getting plenty of physical exercise, may also improve brain health, according to the CDC.
The new study did have limitations, including that the multivitamin used was the Centrum Silver brand, meaning other multivitamin brands may not produce the same results. It’s also unclear what particular vitamins in the multivitamin itself contributed to the positive effects.
Additionally, 98% of participants in the study were white, so the new study’s results may not be generalizable to the non-white population.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Tim Scott is expected to endorse former President Donald Trump for president at a rally in New Hampshire Friday evening, sources confirmed to ABC News — delivering a blow to Nikki Haley, who appointed Scott to the Senate when she was South Carolina governor.
The news, first reported by the New York Times, comes after a source confirmed to ABC News that Haley and Trump reached out to Scott for his endorsement. The source told ABC that Trump kept in touch with Scott since he suspended his presidential campaign in November.
A source told ABC News that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis reached out to Scott as well, although the nature of their conversation was not confirmed.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond for comment.
The endorsement comes just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, set for Jan. 23.
Throughout his campaign, Scott was plagued by rumors that he was vying to be Trump’s vice president. Many voters told ABC News that they saw Scott more as a No. 2. Scott slammed the rumors, saying he did not run for president to be in second place.
Scott, who has pledged not to run for reelection in the Senate, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in December that his endorsement “certainly won’t happen this year, if I do it at all.” A source confirmed to ABC News that he arrived at this decision only recently.
Haley, who served as South Carolina governor from 2011 to 2017, appointed Scott to the Senate in 2012.
Haley finished in close second to DeSantis in the Iowa caucuses — both of whom lost to Donald Trump. She’s trailing the former president in New Hampshire polls, according to 538’s most recent polling averages. A primary win could be used as a way to build momentum for her campaign as Haley heads into her home state of South Carolina, where she is still polling far behind Trump.
In a statement, Haley drew on Trump’s own words to criticize Scott’s endorsement.
“Interesting that Trump’s lining up with all the Washington insiders when he claimed he wanted to drain the swamp,” Haley said in the statement. “But the fellas are gonna do what the fellas are gonna do.”
ABC News’ Nicholas Kerr contributed to this report.
Former President Donald Trump speaks at his caucus night event at the Iowa Events Center, Jan. 15, 2024 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump is on trial this week in New York City to determine whether he will have to pay former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll additional damages for defaming her in 2019 when he denied her allegations of sexual assault.
Last year, in a separate trial, a jury determined that Trump was liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s, and that he defamed her in a 2022 social media post by calling her allegations “a Hoax and a lie” and saying “This woman is not my type!”
Trump has denied all wrongdoing and has said he doesn’t know who Carroll is.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jan 19, 3:52 PM
Trump’s attorney renews request for mistrial
Trump attorney Alina Habba renewed her request for a mistrial in the case Friday, arguing that E. Jean Carroll failed to preserve evidence when she deleted the death threats she received after she accused Trump of sexual assault in 2019.
“Despite being served with a subpoena in connection with this action, Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to preserve relevant evidence. In fact, she did much worse — she actively deleted evidence which she now attempts to rely on in establishing her damages claim,” Habba wrote in a letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan Friday.
Habba originally requested a mistrial during her cross-examination of Carroll on Wednesday, which Kaplan immediately denied.
Carroll explained during cross-examination that she deleted some emails and messages that were “filled with threats” before 2023.
“I deleted them early on because I didn’t know how to handle death threats. I had no idea,” Carroll testified. “I thought deleting them was the smartest, best, quickest way to get it out of my life.”
Renewing her request in writing Friday, Habba asked for Judge Kaplan to either declare a mistrial, preclude Carroll from seeking damages based on the death threats, or instruct the jury about the “spoliation of relevant evidence.”
Jan 18, 4:27 PM
Defense challenges expert on reputation repair
Donald Trump’s defense attorneys contested the conclusion of a plaintiff’s expert who said restoring E. Jean Carroll’s reputation would cost as much as $12 million.
Defense attorney Michael Madaio challenged the validity of Northwestern University professor Ashlee Humphreys’ report, suggesting that it failed to consider Carroll’s increased social media following and career prospects after she accused Trump of rape.
Madaio also argued that some of the negative attention Humphreys calculated really came from articles about the allegation, and not from Trump’s statements denying the claim.
“It’s likely more people know her name,” Humphreys allowed.
Humphreys also conceded that she had never, herself, carried out a reputation repair campaign.
“Do you have any real-world experience other than being a professor?” Madaio asked. “Have you ever applied the methodologies in the report in the real world?”
“No,” Humphreys responded. “I teach students how to apply these methodologies.”
At several points during the cross-examination, Judge Kaplan expressed frustration with Madaio’s questions and the pace of his cross-examination.
“We’re now wasting time — big time,” Kaplan thundered at one point.
Court was subsequently adjourned for the day after Humphreys stepped down from the witness stand. The trial is currently scheduled to resume on Monday.
Jan 18, 1:48 PM
Repairing Carroll’s reputation would cost $12M, says expert
Former President Trump’s defamatory denial of E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegation was seen online as many as 25 million times and 63 million times on television, causing “severe” damage to Carroll’s reputation that would cost more than $12 million to repair, an expert called by Carroll’s attorneys testified.
The expert, Northwestern University professor Ashlee Humphreys, said Trump’s statements reached between 85 and 104 million people. Not everyone believed them — maybe a fifth to a quarter — but they altered the associations attached to Carroll’s name, Humphreys said.
Before June 2019, Humphreys said Carroll was known as a journalist, a “truth-teller and sassy advice columnist.” After her allegation became public and Trump responded to it, Carroll was publicly associated with being a liar or a Democratic operative, Humphreys said.
“I found that damage to her reputation was severe and the costs to repair it were considerable,” Humphreys testified. She estimated it would cost $12 million to repair Carroll’s reputation by placing positive messages about her on television, with social media influencers and on blogs.
Jan 18, 12:26 PM
‘It took great courage to come forward,’ Carroll says
E. Jean Carroll testified on redirect examination that she would prefer to have the reputation she had prior to her allegation against then-President Trump than the one she has now — despite defense assertions that her online following and her income have increased.
“Would you prefer to have the reputation you have now with all those Twitter followers, or the reputation you had before June 2019? Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan asked.
“Before,” Carroll responded.
Carroll testified she did not go public with the accusation to enhance her social status, get herself on a magazine cover, or make money. “No, it took great courage to come forward and say what happened,” Carroll said.
While she said she anticipated backlash, Carroll said that Trump’s defamatory statements made the backlash worse than what she expected.
After earlier conceding under cross-examination that she received negative messages in the hours before the White House issued a public denial of her rape claim, she testified on redirect that the messages became more threatening and abusive after Trump’s statement.
Regarding the tweets Carroll received after she went public but before Trump’s denial, Carroll’s attorney asked her, “Did any of those tweets accuse you of being a paid Democratic operative?”
“No,” Carroll responded.
“Did any of those tweets threaten your life?” her attorney asked.
“No,” Carroll said.
“Did any of those tweets say you should be in jail?” her attorney asked.
“No,” Carroll answered.
“Did any of those tweets say you should be raped?” her attorney asked.
“No,” Carroll replied.
Carroll then stepped down from the witness stand, concluding her testimony. Her lawyers next plan to call a reputational repair expert to the stand.
Jan 18, 11:16 AM
Defense presses Carroll on her ‘bigger status’
E. Jean Carroll’s Twitter followers increased from about 12,000 to 282,000 after she went public with her rape allegation against then-President Trump, Carroll said under cross-examination.
Carroll testified that the increase was the “result of hard work,” but defense attorney Alina Habba asked, “You don’t believe any of that increase came from coming forward with your story?”
The defense has suggested that Carroll craved attention, took on Trump to revive her flagging career, and relished the verdict in an earlier trial — known as Carroll II — that established Trump was liable for sexually abusing and then defaming her.
“Did the Carroll II verdict, in your opinion, provide you with bigger status in New York?” Habba asked.
“It provided me with enormous elation,” Carroll responded.
The defense has also suggested that Carroll assumed the burden for any abusive or threatening messages by appearing on television, participating in a podcast, and sitting for an interview with The New York Times.
“Do you believe you are more well-known because of the allegations you brought against my client, Donald Trump?” Habba asked.
“Yes I am more well-known, and I’m hated by a lot more people,” Carroll responded. “I am partaking in this trial to bring my old reputation and status back.”
“So you sued Donald Trump to get your old reputation back?” Habba asked.
“Yeah,” Carroll bluntly answered, ending the cross-examination.
Jan 18, 10:42 AM
Carroll concedes she was attacked online before Trump’s denial
E. Jean Carroll, who testified yesterday that she’s been inundated with online attacks ever since then-President Trump fiercely denied her rape allegation on June 21, 2019, conceded on cross-examination that, after the allegation was published, people were sending her negative messages in the hours before the White House publicly issued Trump’s denial.
“Nothing like making up fake news to ruin the president’s win in 2020,” one message said. “I’ve got some advice for you drop this lie because it’s a bad look for you,” said another. A third called Carroll a “lying sack of s— making false accusations right after a presidential run announcement.”
“And that was before President Trump’s tweet?” defense attorney Alina Habba asked Carroll.
“Yes,” Carroll said.
Habba attempted to show more of the messages sent to Carroll, but Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, interrupted, saying, “We’ll stipulate that there were nasty tweets sent to Ms. Carroll prior to 5:17 p.m.,” the time of the first Tweet repeating Trump’s denial.
Habba is trying to convince the jury that the former president should not be financially liable for the negativity hurled at Carroll by others. Carroll, who is seeking at least $10 million in damages, suggested that all of the negative, threatening messages she received mimic Trump.
“They want to emulate him,” Carroll testified. “They’re standing up for the man that they admire.”
Jan 18, 8:21 AM
Cross-examination of Carroll to resume
E. Jean Carroll will return to the witness stand this morning to resume her cross-examination — this time without Donald Trump in the courtroom.
After attending the first two days of the trial, Trump will be absent today to attend the funeral of former first lady Melania Trump’s mother, Amalija Knavs, who died last week after a long health battle.
During yesterday’s proceedings, Judge Lewis Kaplan, for a third time, denied a request from Trump’s legal team to pause the trial so Trump could attend the funeral.
“We would have assumed that for a trial like this, it’s not an emergency in terms of timing, the judge would have been very nice, and they would let me go because I want to be at every trial day,” Trump told reporters after court yesterday, calling Kaplan a “radical Trump hater.”
Trump’s attorney Alina Habba told Judge Kaplan she intends to question Carroll for less than an hour today, after which Carroll’s lawyers plan to call to the stand an expert on reputational harm, as well as Robbie Myers, the former editor of the magazine where Carroll worked as an advice columnist.
Jan 17, 4:53 PM
Carroll agrees she did not shy away from publicity
E. Jean Carroll conceded on cross-examination that she anticipated “blowback” would follow the publication of her rape allegation against then-President Trump, and that she did not shy away from publicity that she now says has shattered her reputation.
“You’ve continued to publicize every lawsuit you had against President Trump?” defense attorney Alina Habba asked.
“Yes,” Carroll responded. “Because I wanted people to know that a woman can speak up and win a trial. I wanted people to know. I’m 80. I don’t want to be quiet. It’s not right to make a woman be quiet. It has gone on for too long.”
The defense has been trying to portray Carroll as an attention-loving woman who is overplaying her emotional accounts of how the backlash following her rape accusation affected her.
Carroll also said under questioning that she hosted watch parties in her lawyer’s office that were attended by comedian Kathy Griffin and Trump’s niece Mary Trump, both of whom are critics of the former president.
“Isn’t Kathy Griffin known for holding up a severed head of President Trump?” Habba asked.
“Yes,” Carroll said.
Court subsequently adjourned for the day, with Carroll scheduled to return to the witness stand on Thursday for additional cross-examination.
Trump indicated he would be making remarks to the press later this afternoon.
Jan 17, 4:24 PM
Judge promptly rejects defense request for mistrial
In the middle of E. Jean Carroll’s cross-examination, former President Trump’s defense attorney Alina Habba sought a mistrial, which the judge promptly denied.
Habba was questioning Carroll about threatening emails she said she received. Carroll said she deleted many of those messages because “I didn’t know how to handle death threats. I thought deleting them was the easiest way to get them out of my life.”
When Carroll said she had deleted some messages around the time of her earlier trial involving Trump, Habba asked for a mistrial, saying, “The witness has just admitted to deleting evidence herself.”
Judge Kaplan immediately denied the request and said, “The jury will disregard everything Ms. Habba just said.”
Habba also questioned whether Carroll received disparaging messages after publishing her account of the sexual assault at Bergdorf Goodman, but before Trump issued his denial.
“Some of the slime happened before the president issued his statement?” Habba asked.
“No,” Carroll responded. “Because they were reacting to the White House statement.”
Asked how she knew, Carroll said, “Because of the wording,” prompting Habba to say, “So a denial from the White House would mean that any statement echoing it would be President Trump’s fault?”
Jan 17, 2:46 PM
Cross-examination of Carroll stumbles at the start
The direct examination of E. Jean Carroll ended with her telling the jury she would “never get used to attacks” like the ones she has continued to endure from former President Trump and his followers.
“Was he posting about you as recently as yesterday? Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan asked regarding Trump.
“That’s what I’ve been told,” Carroll answered before she was shown a Truth Social post from Tuesday, during the lunch break, in which Trump called the trial a “fake case from a woman I’ve never met, seen or touched.”
The cross-examination of Carroll began on a discordant note when defense attorney Alina Habba tried to confront Carroll with some of her testimony from an earlier deposition.
There was a dispute over whether Habba had properly told the judge which part of the deposition she intended to introduce.
“We’re going to do it my way, Ms. Habba,” Judge Kaplan said.
“Sure,” Habba replied, abandoning that line of questioning.
Jan 17, 2:01 PM
Judge denies defense motion for him to recuse himself
Following the a lunch break, the defense team made an immediate motion for Judge Kaplan to recuse himself from the trial because of the “general hostility” defense attorney Michael Madaio said the judge has shown toward Trump’s side.
Kaplan responded with a single word: “Denied.”
Carroll is now returning to the witness stand to continue her testimony.
Jan 17, 1:17 PM
‘You can’t control yourself,’ judge admonishes Trump
At the lunch break, Judge Lewis Kaplan threatened to boot former President Trump from the courtroom if he continues to make side comments within earshot of the jury.
The warning came after E. Jean Carroll’s attorney Shawn Crowley complained for a second time about Trump’s comments.
“The defendant has been making statements that we can hear at counsel table,” she said, quoting Trump as saying, “It is a witch hunt” and “It really is a con job.”
When a video of Trump disparaging E. Jean Carroll was played for the court, Crowley said Trump remarked, “It’s true.”
Judge Kaplan, in response, addressed the defense from the bench.
“Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me,” the judge said. “Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial.”
“I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that,” the judge added, to which Trump threw his up his arms and said, “I would love it, I would love it.”
“I know you would, because you can’t control yourself in this circumstance,” Kaplan replied. “You just can’t.”
Jan 17, 12:38 PM
Carroll says she’s always on ‘hyper alert’ due to threats
Ever since then-President Trump defamed her in June of 2019, E. Jean Carroll told the jury, she has been inundated with threats of physical and sexual violence.
In one message, Carroll said of the sender: “He wants me to stick a gun in my mouth in pull the trigger.”
Another message said, “I hope someone really does attack, rape and murder you.”
When another message was displayed for the jury, Carroll said, “I’m sorry people in the courtroom have to see this.” Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, replied, “I’m sorry to have to ask you about it, Ms. Carroll.”
The message said, “i will rape u e jean carroll.”
Carroll described her visceral reaction to these messages. “The body believes it’s going to happen,” she said. “It feels like it’s going to happen.”
Carroll said she now lives her life on “hyper alert” for potential threats in and around her home in upstate New York.
“I have a pit bull rescue. He’s a great dog, but I never, never had him off the leash. When the first threats came in, I let him off the leash and he now patrols,” Carroll said. “I alerted the neighbors to be on the watch and I bought bullets for the gun I had inherited from my father.”
“Where do you keep that gun?” Kaplan asked. “By my bed,” Carroll responded.
Jan 17, 12:00 PM
Judge instructs Trump to keep his voice down
Former President Trump has been making side commentary during E. Jean Carroll’s testimony within earshot of the jury, Carroll’s lawyer complained during a break in the proceedings, outside the jury’s presence.
“Mr. Trump is sitting at the back table and has been loudly saying things” like “‘Carroll’s statements are false’ and ‘she now seems to have gotten her memory back,'” the attorney, Shawn Crowley, told Judge Kaplan.
Sitting at the defense table, Trump has been seen scoffing, chuckling, and encouraging his attorney, Alina Habba, to interject during the proceedings. He has been visibly shaking his head at some of what Carroll asserts on the witness stand.
When, earlier, Judge Kaplan denied the defense’s request for an adjournment and instructed Habba to “sit down,” Trump was heard saying, “He is a very nasty guy.”
During Carroll’s testimony in which she said she interpreted Trump’s remark that “she’s not my type” to mean “I’m too ugly to assault,” Trump was heard laughing after the judge overruled a defense objection.
Before the jury returned to the courtroom, Judge Kaplan addressed Trump’s side comments and instructed him to “take special care” to keep his voice down when conferring with counsel, “so that the jury does not overhear it.”
Jan 17, 11:35 AM
Trump ‘ended the world that I had been living in,’ Carroll says
Recounting her response when Trump denied her rape claim in 2019, Carroll said that when Trump said “she’s not my type,” she interpreted it to mean “I’m too ugly to assault.”
“What did it feel like to have the President of the United States say those things about you?” her attorney Roberta Kaplan asked.
“To have the President of the United States, one of the most powerful persons on Earth, calling me a liar for three days and saying I’m a liar 26 times — I counted them — it ended the world that I had been living in. And I entered a new world,” Carroll responded as Trump sat at the defense table. “I was attacked. I was attacked on Twitter, I was attacked on Facebook, I was attacked in news blogs, I was attacked, brutally attacked, in messages.”
The jury saw some of those messages, which mimicked Trump’s statements, calling her “lying old hag” or saying “shame on you and your lying I-hate-Trump story.”
Carroll testified that the messages started instantly and have not stopped. She said she sometimes receives “scores and scores, sometimes hundreds a day.”
Jan 17, 11:25 AM
Carroll says she’s paid ‘as dearly as is possible to pay’
“I’ve paid just about as dearly as is possible to pay,” E. Jean Carroll testified about her life after then-President Trump fiercely denied her rape claim in a series of defamatory statements in 2019.
When New York magazine, on June 21, 2019, published an excerpt of Carroll’s book that included her allegation that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room, she testified that she expected him to respond.
“I expected him to deny it but to say it was consensual, which it was not, but that’s what I expected him to say,” Carroll testified.
“Is that what he did?” her attorney Roberta Kaplan asked. “No,” Carroll answered.
According to a reporter’s Tweet from 5:17 p.m. on June 21, 2019, which was shown in court, Trump responded to the allegation by saying, “I’ve never met this person in my life.”
“That is a lie,” Carroll said. “He said I made up an accusation to sell a book. That is a lie. He said I made up the accusation for publicity’s sake. That is a lie. He said my accusation damaged the real victims of sexual assault. That is a lie.”
Carroll read additional statements by Trump reacting to her allegation.
“He said people like me, who make false accusations, are very dangerous, in very dangerous territory, that I shouldn’t have done it for the sake of publicity. That is also a lie,” Carroll said.
Jan 17, 10:32 AM
Carroll takes the stand as Trump looks on
Eight months after a jury determined that former President Trump was liable for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist is back on the witness stand this morning — this time with Trump in attendance.
“I’m here because Donald Trump assaulted me and, when I wrote about it, he lied and he shattered my reputation,” Carroll told the jury after taking the stand. “Yesterday I opened up Twitter and it said ‘Hey lady, you’re a fraud.'”
The courtroom seating arrangement, with Carroll on the witness stand and Trump looking on from the defense table, brings the two of them face-to-face after they appeared to avoid eye contact during the trial’s first day Tuesday.
Jan 17, 10:24 AM
‘I said sit down,’ judge admonishes Trump attorney
The start of former President Trump’s defamation trial this morning was delayed briefly by a juror transportation issue.
As proceedings got underway, outside the jury’s presence, a tense exchange unfolded between the judge and defense attorney Alina Habba, who again repeated a request to adjourn the trial on Thursday so Trump can attend the funeral of former first lady Melania Trump’s mother, Amalija Knavs.
“I am asking your honor to have the kindness that my client deserves,” Habba said to Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has already twice denied the defense’s request to postpone the trial due to Thursday’s funeral.
Kaplan, interrupting Habba, said, “Indeed Ms. Habba, the right that he has according to the Supreme Court of the United States is to be present either in person or through counsel.”
Habba persisted, with Trump looking on, prompting the judge to instruct her to “sit down” and make no further argument.
“I said sit down,” Kaplan said.
“I don’t like to be spoken to that way,” Habba responded. “I am asking your honor to please refrain from speaking to me that way. I am asking for an adjournment.”
“It’s denied. Sit down,” Kaplan said.
Jan 17, 9:32 AM
Trump arrives at courthouse
Former President Trump has arrived at Manhattan federal court for Day 2 of his defamation damages trial.
His motorcade pulled up to the courthouse at around 9:15 a.m. ET.
Jan 17, 7:37 AM
Carroll set to testify as first witness
Donald Trump is expected to be in the courtroom this morning when E. Jean Carroll takes the stand to testify about how the then-president’s defamatory denial of her sexual assault allegations in 2019 upended her life.
Trump “unleashed his followers to go after her online” after Carroll went public with her allegations, damaging her reputation as a writer and making her feel unsafe in her own home, Carroll’s attorney Shawn Crowley told the jury in her opening statement yesterday.
“Ms. Carroll bought bullets for the gun that she inherited from her father, and she now sleeps with it right beside her bed. She checks her surroundings every time she leaves her house or gets out of her car,” Crowley said. “She’s afraid — afraid that someday, somebody is going to make good on their threats and come after her in person.”
Despite sitting feet from each other in the courtroom yesterday, Carroll and Trump avoided eye contact and never interacted during the first day of the trial. However, when Carroll takes the stand to testify this morning, she will speak directly in front of the counsel table where Trump is seated.
Jan 16, 8:30 PM
Trump expected to attend trial Wednesday, sources say
Former President Trump, who was campaigning in New Hampshire Tuesday evening, is expected to return to New York to attend the second day of his defamation trial on Wednesday, sources tell ABC News.
Trump is then scheduled to return to New Hampshire later Wednesday.
Jan 16, 6:02 PM
Trial is ‘straight out of banana republic,’ says Trump attorney
Donald Trump’s legal counsel Boris Epshteyn briefly spoke to reporters outside court at the conclusion of Tuesday’s proceedings, calling the trial “straight out of [a] banana republic.”
“Manhattan is 90-95% Democrat,” Epshteyn said, despite voter registration records showing the borough is about 70% Democratic. “Does anybody think the President will get a fair trial here? Absolutely not,” he said.
Despite a jury last year finding Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll, Epshteyn alleged that Carroll is making “false accusations.”
“President Trump has consistently stated that he did not commit the allegation and did not commit the acts that the plaintiff alleges. He has been steadfast in that. And it is right to defend himself from false accusations,” Epshteyn said.
Epshteyn declined to comment on whether Trump plans to attend court tomorrow.
Carroll did not speak to reporters when she left court.
Jan 16, 4:52 PM
Carroll seeking a ‘windfall’ over ‘mean Tweets,’ Trump attorney says
E. Jean Carroll is looking for a “windfall” over a series of “mean Tweets from Twitter trolls,” Trump attorney Alina Habba said during the defense’s opening statement, in which Habba sought to cast doubt on the severity of the alleged harm Carroll said she endured.
Habba told the jury they do not have to believe Carroll’s account of how she has suffered as a result of Trump’s defamatory statements.
“Her career has prospered and she has been thrust back into the limelight like she has always wanted,” Habba said, accusing Carroll of using her story “to obtain as much fame and notoriety as possible.”
The defense framed Carroll’s lawsuit as nothing more than an attempt to shake down Trump for money over scores of critical Tweets that have nothing to do with the defamatory statements by Trump that are at issue in the trial.
“She expects you as the jury to give her an award for every negative comment that was thrown her way,” Habba said. “She is looking for you to give her a windfall because some people on social media said mean things about her.”
Habba showed a photo of Carroll in the company of Trump critic Kathy Griffin and said Carroll is close with another critic of the former president, his niece Mary Trump.
“This is someone who craves fame and seeks fame wherever she can get it,” Habba said. “She got what she wanted.”
The proceedings were dismissed for the day after both sides concluded their opening statements. The trial will resume Wednesday with the first witness in the case.
Jan 16, 4:00 PM
Trump ‘unleashed his followers,’ Carroll’s attorney says
Donald Trump’s lies about E. Jean Carroll “unleashed his followers to go after her,” and as Trump campaigns for president he “continues to lie about Ms. Carroll,” Carroll’s attorney said in her opening statement.
“How much money will it take to make him stop?” Carroll’s attorney, Shawn Crowley, said. “He kept up those very same lies even after a federal jury sat in this courtroom and unanimously found that he sexually assaulted her and defamed her.”
Crowley reminded the jury that Trump “was president when he made those statements and he used the world’s biggest microphone to humiliate her” — the result of which was that he “wrecked” Carroll’s reputation in a matter of days, Crowley said.
“Donald Trump’s response was swift and brutal,” Crowley said. “Donald Trump did not just deny the assault. He went much, much further.”
She quoted Trump’s statements from June 22, 2019: “‘People should pay dearly for making up accusations” about him.
Crowley also quoted Trump saying “she’s not my type” on that day in 2019. “In other words, she was too ugly to assault. She must have been lying because she was too unattractive for Mr. Trump to sexually assault,” Crowley said.
Carroll, who is now 80, sat at the plaintiff’s table as her attorney showed the jury messages Trump’s followers posted calling her ugly and urging her to kill herself.
“When Donald Trump called Ms. Carroll a fraud and a liar, they listened and they believed and they decided to go after her,” Crowley said. “Donald Trump knew exactly what he was unleashing.”
Jan 16, 3:40 PM
‘This is not a do-over,’ judge instructs jury
Judge Lewis Kaplan told the nine jurors that they must accept as true that Trump forcibly sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her when he denied it.
“Ms. Carroll did not make up her claim of forcible sexual abuse,” Judge Kaplan told the panel. “His false statements tended to disparage Ms. Carroll or tended to expose her to hatred or to induce an unsavory opinion of her.”
The judge made it clear the jury was only determining damages related to two defamatory statements Trump made in June 2019 when he denied Carroll’s rape allegation. He said the trial was not an opportunity to re-litigate the prior trial, in which a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual assault.
“This trial is not a do-over of the previous trial which determined those facts,” Kaplan said.
Jan 16, 3:18 PM
Trump departs before opening statements
Former President Trump has departed Manhattan federal court prior to the delivery of opening statements in his defamation damages trial.
Trump voluntarily showed up to court for jury selection this morning, and did not return after the lunch break. He has a campaign event scheduled later today in New Hampshire.
His attorney suggested Trump would return to court for at least part of tomorrow’s proceedings, when E. Jean Carroll is expected to be the first witness.
The jury has been sworn in, with opening statements to begin following instructions from the judge.
Jan 16, 2:08 PM
2 election deniers don’t make cut as jury is seated
A jury of nine has been selected to hear the evidence in the case.
One juror is a married father of two grown children who works in the subway system. and said he is an avid local news viewer. Another juror is a German native who emigrated to the United States and said she does not watch the news.
The jury also includes a newlywed who works in property management and gets his news from social media, a woman with a master’s degree who works as a publicist for a tech firm, and a single man who works in television.
Two people who said they believed that the election was stolen from Donald Trump by President Joe Biden did not make the jury. Nor did a man who said he believed Trump was being treated unfairly by the United States court system.
Opening arguments will begin follow the lunch break. As they exited the courtroom, Trump and Carroll came within feet of each other but appeared to ignore one another.
Jan 16, 12:11 PM
Prospective jurors questioned about political leanings
Former President Trump has been twisting and turning in his seat at the defense table as prospective jurors answer the judge’s questions about their political affiliations, voting habits, campaign donations, and any experience with sexual assault — and whether they ever watched The Apprentice or read E. Jean Carroll’s advice column in Elle magazine.
As another columnist was known to say, “Only in New York, kids.”
One prospective juror, number 68, affirmed that he donated to Trump’s campaign, followed him on social media, and believed that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump by President Joe Biden.
Prospective juror 63 was excused after he said that his knowledge of Trump’s criminal indictments — of which there are four that the former president is currently facing — would impact his ability to be fair and impartial.
The majority of prospective jurors signaled they were registered to vote, prompting the judge to ask if they had voted in 2016 and 2020. Trump turned to look at those who answered in the affirmative.
Three prospective jurors said they had donated to Trump’s campaign. Eleven said they donated to either the Obama, Clinton or Biden campaigns. At least ten watched The Apprentice.
Jan 16, 11:32 AM
Judge explains case to prospective jurors
Judge Kaplan explained the case to prospective jurors, saying, “Ms. Carroll sued Mr. Trump for defamation for certain statements he made” shortly after she publicly accused him of raping her.
“This trial is limited to the issue of the money damages, if any, that Ms. Carroll should receive for those publications. The reason that’s so is that the court determined in a previous decision that Mr. Trump is liable,” Kaplan said. “It has been determined already that Mr. Trump did sexually assault Ms. Carroll.”
To whittle down the jury pool, Kaplan began with this question: “Having heard what you have heard about this case so far, would you be unable to give both sides a fair trial and to decide this case solely on the basis of the evidence you hear during this trial and the instructions I give you?”
Three prospective jurors were immediately excused for signaling they could not be fair.
One woman said she worked for Ivanka Trump’s company from 2017 to 2018. “Would that experience have any effect on your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?” Judge Kaplan asked regarding her connection to Trump’s eldest daughter. “No,” the woman replied.
After the judge asked if anyone else had worked for Trump or his family, a man indicated he was an officer in the U.S. Navy while Trump was commander in chief. The man said it would have no impact on his ability to be fair.
Jan 16, 11:23 AM
Prospective jurors enter courtroom to begin selection process
As prospective jurors filed into the courtroom for jury selection, Donald Trump surveyed the group. One woman appeared to smile upon recognizing Trump. A man leaned forward and appeared to stare for several seconds.
“You’ve been summoned for possible service in a civil case,” Judge Kaplan said before introducing the plaintiff and defendant. “This case is between a writer, advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, and former President Donald Trump,” he said.
Jurors were told the case is expected to last three to five days and that they would sit through Thursday and, if necessary, return on Monday. They were also told they will be anonymous.
“That means neither your names nor the names of the jurors who are ultimately selected will be made public,” Judge Kaplan said. He had earlier cited Trump’s rhetoric as among the reasons for the anonymous jury.
Jurors will assemble daily at an off-site location and be driven to court under guard, the judge said.
“This is for your own protection. As you may understand, this case has attracted media attention and that’s likely to continue,” Kaplan said.
Jan 16, 10:40 AM
Layout of courtroom has Trump sitting 2 tables behind Carroll
Unlike courtrooms where the counsel tables are arranged side by side, the counsel tables in the courtroom this morning are arranged behind one another, with Trump and his attorneys seated two tables behind Carroll and her counsel.
Trump appeared to take note of that arrangement when he entered the courtroom.
He appeared to point at Carroll, then he and his team asked a man seated at the table between them to slide over — possibly to block Trump’s view of Carroll, or to provide a better view of the proceedings.
Jan 16, 10:27 AM
Judge again declines to delay trial
On Friday, Judge Kaplan denied a request from Trump’s attorneys to postpone the trial for a week so Trump could attend Thursday’s funeral of Amalija Knavs, the mother of former first lady Melania Trump, who died last Tuesday after a long health battle.
In court this morning, Trump attorney Alina Habba repeated her request for an adjournment so Trump can attend Knavs’ funeral.
“You asked me for a week’s adjournment and I denied it,” Judge Kaplan said. “The repetition is not accomplishing anything.”
The judge said Friday that he would grant a continuance so the trial, which was initially scheduled to conclude this week, would be extended so Trump could testify on Monday, Jan. 22.
Jan 16, 10:12 AM
Defense lodges several objections as court gets underway
“The court has made a number of rulings precluding evidence and argument,” said Judge Lewis Kaplan as court got underway, asking each side’s lead attorney to affirm that the parties understood the rules.
The defense objected, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Kaplan quickly dispensed with the objection, saying, “Overruled.” Kaplan, who has a reputation as a no-nonsense judge, also overruled several other defense objections.
“I do think these are issues that will become an issue on appeal. We still don’t know what witnesses are coming in and which aren’t,” Trump attorney Alina Habba said, before Kaplan interrupted, saying, “Ms. Habba you have had a witness list for months.”
Habba pressed on, with Kaplan noting her objections.
“I have heard you, I have considered what you have to say and I have ruled,” Judge Kaplan said.
Jan 16, 9:56 AM
Trump seated in courtroom
Donald Trump has taken a seat in court, where jury selection in his defamation trial is scheduled to get underway this morning.
His decision to attend this trial is a clear shift for the former president, whose lawyers portrayed his absence from last year’s defamation and battery trial as a service to New York City, saying the city would not have to suffer the “logistical and financial burdens” of Trump’s attendance.
Carroll’s attorneys, however, pounced on Trump’s absence.
“He didn’t even bother to show up here in person,” attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury.
Writing on social media last month, Trump blamed his absence at the trial on “not good advice” from his then-lawyer Joe Tacopina.
“I was asked by my lawyer not to attend–‘It was beneath me, and they have no case.’ That was not good advice,” Trump wrote.
Trump attorney Alina Habba is serving as Trump’s lead defense attorney for this week’s trial.
Jan 16, 9:21 AM
Carroll arrives for trial
E. Jean Carroll has arrived at the courthouse for the first day of the trial.
She smiled to reporters as she entered court.
Jan 16, 9:03 AM
Trump arrives at courthouse
Following his victory in Iowa, former President Trump landed at 3:30 a.m. in New York and just arrived at his civil defamation trial in lower Manhattan.
Trump is not required to attend the trial, though his decision not to attend last year’s defamation and battery trial by the same plaintiff, writer E. Jean Carroll, was mocked by Carroll’s attorney.
Trump’s motorcade pulled up to the courthouse this morning at at 8:50 a.m. ET.
Jan 16, 8:51 AM
On heels of Iowa victory, Trump is back on trial
When Donald Trump’s federal defamation trial gets underway in lower Manhattan this morning, it will be only about 11 hours since the former president claimed victory in the Iowa caucuses.
The trial is expected to take about a week, which could take Trump right to the doorstep of the New Hampshire Primary, scheduled for next Tuesday.
Trump has said that he plans to attend the trial at some point during the week, but has not indicted when.
The former president did not attend last year’s trial, held at the same courthouse, where a New York jury found him liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll and defaming her when he denied her accusation in a 2022 social media post.
(LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va.) — Seven people were on board a small plane that landed on the Loudoun County Parkway in Loudoun County, Virginia, on Friday afternoon, according to the Virginia State Police and the Federal Aviation Administration.
No injuries have been reported, state police said.
The FAA said the single-engine Cessna 208 Caravan made a “hard landing” on the road around 12:50 p.m. after taking off from Virginia’s Dulles International Airport around 12:15 p.m. The plane was en route to Lancaster Airport in Pennsylvania at the time, the FAA said.
“We are relieved to report there were no injuries,” Stan Little, CEO of the airline, Southern Airways, said in a statement to Washington, D.C., ABC affiliate WJLA. “We are thankful to our pilots, who did exactly what they were trained to do — to put the safety of our passengers first. We are working closely with the authorities to thoroughly investigate the situation.”
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating.
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump is doubling down on his claims of “complete and total” presidential immunity as he awaits a decision from an appeals court on his effort to have his federal election interference case dismissed.
Trump, appearing to go further than before, wrote on his social media platform on Thursday, in all caps, that even “events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity” or else there would be “years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.”
Later that day, during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump continued to make his case — unprompted.
Hannity asked Trump to deliver a closing message to New Hampshire voters, who will cast their ballots in the GOP primary on Tuesday.
The former president briefly responded that his message is “Make America Great Again” and then launched into remarks on his legal troubles.
“If a president is afraid to act because they’re worried about being indicted when they leave office — a president of the United States has to have immunity. And the Supreme Court’s going to be ruling on that,” he said. “If they don’t have immunity, no president is going to act. You’re gonna have guys that just sit in office and are afraid to do anything.”
Constitutional scholar Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at University of Chapel Hill, expressed deep skepticism about Trump’s claim that he is entitled to total immunity from criminal prosecution.
“I would describe it as a dangerously bad argument,” Gerhardt told ABC News. “It contradicts nearly everything we know about the Constitution and the intent of the framers.”
Gerhardt continued, “It would be an argument that might make sense if the president were king, but he’s not king.”
Trump’s latest comments also received pushback from one of his Republican rivals.
Nikki Haley, who is looking to beat Trump in New Hampshire’s open primary, was asked to respond to Trump’s social media post on immunity during a CNN town hall on Thursday night.
Haley said it should be “common sense” that presidents can’t do whatever they want with no repercussions.
“It should be common sense, right? Common sense,” she said. “Obviously, if a president is doing something and it’s related to, you know, whether it’s terrorist threats or something like that and people die, that’s one thing.”
“But do you get just total freedom to do whatever you want? No, that’s never the way it was intended to be,” she continued. “There needs to be accountability. No one is above the law.”
Still, Haley said if president she would pardon Trump if he is convicted because him going to jail would only “further divide our country.”
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals also seemed extremely wary of Trump’s case when they heard arguments earlier this month.
One judge called Trump’s arguments “paradoxical” and another asked if his team was saying a president could sell pardons or order the military to assassinate a rival with no consequences.
Trump’s attorney argued that any criminal prosecution of a president for action taken while in office is only possible if they are both impeached and convicted first.
The appeals court has not indicated when a decision will be made. But the case could well wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court depending on how the process plays out.
The Supreme Court previously ruled, in a case involving former President Richard Nixon, that presidents can’t be held liable in civil cases for actions they undertook as part of their official duties.
There are no Supreme Court rulings, however, on whether sitting or former presidents are immune from criminal charges related to their actions while in office. That’s because Trump is the first current or former president to ever be criminally indicted.
-ABC News’ Abby Cruz, Lalee Ibssa and Soorin Kim contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday signed a stopgap measure to avoid a partial government shutdown that would have taken effect at the end of the day, the White House said.
The measure keeping government funding going for a few more weeks until early March while Republicans and Democrats continue fighting over spending.
Lawmakers on Thursday narrowly averted a partial government shutdown, buying a few extra weeks to try to work out an agreement on a set of bills that will fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.
After several days of nail-biting over Friday’s looming deadline, which would have seen four of 12 government funding bills expiring, both chambers passed the short-term funding bill — allowing them to get out of town as another snowstorm headed toward the East Coast.
The legislation extends the funding expiration date for the four government funding bills set to expire on Friday to March 1. The other eight bills, which were set to run out of funding on Feb. 2, will now run out of funds on March 8.
“Avoiding a shutdown is very good news for the country, for our veterans, for parents and children, and for farmers and small businesses, all of whom would have felt the sting of the government shutdown,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. “And this is what the American people want to see. Both sides working together and governing responsibly. No chaos, no spectacle, no shutdown.”
The Senate easily passed the short-term funding bill by an overwhelming vote of 77-18. The House passed it 314-108.
House Freedom Caucus members unsuccessfully pushed for Johnson to add a last-minute border amendment to the stopgap funding bill. Ahead of the vote, the House Freedom Caucus put out a statement urging all Republicans to oppose the funding measure.
“Speaker Mike Johnson should walk away from his agreement with Senate Majority Leader Schumer and pass an appropriations package that meaningfully reduces spending year-over-year and secures our southern border. That is what winning looks like,” the statement said.
The short-term bill buys Congress some additional breathing room, but it ultimately does little to resolve the longer-term questions about government funding that have plagued this Congress, which has already extended its deadline to complete work on government funding twice before, for months.
It’s not clear if this extra bit of time will finally make the difference, despite a breakthrough in negotiations between the House and Senate that has allowed for expedited work on longer-term funding bills.
Earlier this month, Schumer and Johnson reached an agreement on the overall cost of government funding bills after months of squabbling over the matter as House Republicans sought to exact funding cuts greater than those previously agreed to by President Joe Biden and former-Speaker Kevin McCarthy during negotiations over the federal debt limit.
Johnson and Schumer finally settled the matter by announcing they would keep levels consistent with the Biden-McCarthy agreement, inspiring renewed confidence that these extra few weeks could be the magic push that Congress needs to finally complete its work.
But there’s still a long way to go, and it’s not clear whether the extra six weeks Congress is expected to buy itself Thursday will be enough to turn that handshake agreement into legislation that can be voted on and passed — especially with Speaker Johnson’s right flank raging over the deal.
Many of his most right-of-center members are frustrated that Johnson did not fight harder to exact cuts in the agreement.
Johnson has pushed back on that and argued that the stopgap measure that passed Thursday is an important part of his larger effort to secure Republican priorities on the larger government funding bills.
“This is an important thing for us because it allows us to fight for our policy changes, our policy riders, in those spending bills. It takes time to do that. And so, the reason we need just a little more time on the calendar is to allow that process to play out,” Johnson said.
But those policy riders are controversial, and Senate Democrats have vowed to block them.
It’s teeing up a precarious situation for Johnson as he negotiates the next set of bills.
This all comes as negotiations continue on a separate spending package that would provide aid to Ukraine and Israel and strengthen border security. Johnson is digging in on hard-line demands for more restrictive border reforms despite progress in the Senate on a bipartisan compromise.
To further complicate matters, the House is only scheduled to be in session for 11 legislative days between now and the new March 1 funding deadline. The Senate is scheduled for a two-week recess in February.
The next 40 days could make for a crunch on the clock and for Johnson.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller and Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — New York City Mayor Eric Adams has vetoed a ban on solitary confinement in city jails that was overwhelmingly passed by the city council. He also vetoed legislation to require more transparency on data from the NYPD.
“Vetoing this bill will keep those in our custody and our correction officers safer,” said Adams in a statement Friday after vetoing the solitary confinement legislation.
Adams said if the bill were to take effect, “the Department of Correction would no longer be able to protect people in custody, or the union workers charged with their safety, from violent individuals.”
The city council could still override Adams’ veto with a vote of two-thirds of all council members, or 34 votes.
The council passed the legislation concerning solitary confinement on Dec. 20, with a 39-7 vote. The legislation, sponsored by Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, would require all people in city custody to have at least 14 hours of out-of-cell time in shared spaces and would limit solitary confinement to a temporary four-hour period after an incident or confrontation.
The legislation would also implement new disciplinary processes that would only allow isolation only in instances where an incarcerated person engages in a violent incident while in custody.
“Solitary confinement is inhumane, and its presence in our city is indefensible,” Williams said in a statement following the legislation’s passage. “Committing an infraction in jail can cause you to lose privileges, not basic human rights. People in solitary are isolated, denied human contact and connection, denied support, and come out of these deplorable conditions worse than when they went in – and some don’t come out at all.”
“The physical and psychological harm caused by solitary confinement leads to increased death and violence in jails, endangering those incarcerated, as well as correction officers and staff,” said City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. “When formerly incarcerated New Yorkers eventually return to their communities, the lasting trauma of solitary confinement follows them home, and affects us all as neighbors and members of a shared community.”
The mayor said in a statement that despite his opposition to the bill, his administration “does not support solitary confinement in our jails” and “we have achieved significant reductions in key indicators of violence in our correction system without solitary confinement.”
The NYC council also passed policies concerning NYPD transparency, which Mayor Adams also vetoed. These bills would force the NYPD to publicly report on police-civilian investigative stops and consent searches, as well as to expand NYPD reporting on vehicle stops to include the justification and the type of offense observed, as well as other data connected to vehicle stops.
These policies would also expand public insight into overtime, NYPD’s use of stop-question-and-frisk, and crime status information such as data on criminal complaints, arrests, and summons issued. The NYPD has long been under scrutiny over allegations of discriminatory policing by marginalized communities.
“While Intro. 586 has good intentions behind it, the bill is misguided and compromises our public safety,” the mayor said. “Our administration supports efforts to make law enforcement more transparent, more just, and more accountable, but this bill will handcuff our police by drowning officers in unnecessary paperwork that will saddle taxpayers with tens of millions of dollars in additional NYPD overtime each year.”
Mayor Adam’s policies have contributed to an increase in NYPD overtime pay, according to a recent Gothamist report. NYPD activity in the subway system alone has pushed overtime pay from $4 million to $155 million this year under Adams’ push to reduce crime and crack down on New Yorkers sleeping in the subways, according to the Gothamist. The local news outlet found that an “influx of officers corresponded to a 2% drop in what police call ‘major’ crimes in the subway.”
The passage by the city council had been applauded by local civil liberties groups and activists.
