(WASHINGTON) — A former CIA officer pleaded guilty on Tuesday to federal charges of sexually abusing and drugging more than two dozen women during his service postings overseas.
Brian Jeffrey Raymond, 47, admitted in court on Tuesday to keeping nearly 500 videos and photos he took of naked and unconscious women he had drugged in various countries over a 14-year period. In some of the recordings, he is seen “touching and manipulating” their bodies while they were unconscious, according to the Department of Justice.
The Justice Department said Raymond had been an employee of the U.S. government at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.
He abused women in his “embassy-leased housing” between 2006-2020, according to the DOJ.
The department said in a release Tuesday that upon learning of the criminal investigation, Raymond attempted to delete some of the photos and videos.
Under the plea agreement that Raymond reached with federal prosecutors, he will face between 24 and 30 years behind bars and lifelong probation. He will also have to pay restitution to many of the victims identified by the government.
Raymond’s sentencing hearings begin on Sept. 18, 2024.
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s high-profile visit to the Middle East to push for humanitarian pauses in the Israel-Hamas war may have yielded no immediate results, but American envoys on the ground are still quietly making the administration’s case — a strategy that officials and analysts say may ultimately prove to be more effective.
As Blinken departed the region on Sunday, CIA Director William Burns arrived in Israel, embarking on what a U.S. official described as a tour through several countries in the Middle East to meet with “multiple intelligence counterparts and country leaders.”
While many of Burns’ engagements will center on intelligence sharing and counterterrorism, officials say his agenda is also expected to overlap significantly with Blinken’s, with common focal points including hostage negotiations, preventing the spread of the conflict and implementing breaks in Israeli bombardments to benefit civilians in Gaza.
Israel has been warning civilians to leave the area for weeks, a task the U.N. and other organizations said not only was impossible but would precipitate a humanitarian disaster. Gaza has been under siege and bombardment since the terror attack.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not issued any public guarantee that Israel will incorporate the Biden administration’s proposed pauses in its battle plans, but in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ World News Tonight anchor David Muir on Monday, he didn’t rule them out.
“As far as tactical little pauses — an hour here, an hour there — we’ve had them before. I suppose we’ll check the circumstances in order to enable goods, humanitarian goods to come in, or our hostages, individual hostages, to leave,” he said.
Longer windows of calm are likely necessary to advance the administration’s goals of distributing humanitarian aid through Gaza and establishing so-called “safe zones” for civilians, and Netanyahu insists he will not consider even a temporary cease-fire unless Hamas releases the more than 200 hostages it says are being held within Gaza — an unlikely prospect.
But Emily Harding, former deputy staff director on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies, says Burns may be able to move the needle.
“Director Burns has proven himself a very effective intelligence diplomat,” Harding said, noting Burns’ decades of experience in the U.S. foreign service and longstanding connections in the Middle East.
“I think that Burns can help in a sense because he is going to be bringing probably some additional declassified intelligence and he can give the dual message that we support you in doing what you need to do to fix this problem, but we will do everything that we can do to often help you protect civilians,” she continued.
While officials within the Biden administration acknowledge that Israel remains deeply emotionally impacted following Hamas’ horrific terrorist attacks carried out against Israeli civilians a month ago, they have projected confidence that Israel is intent on adhering to the rules of war and cooperating with the U.S. and other partners to minimize civilian suffering where possible. Officials have declined to say whether Israel has violated laws of war in any of its actions, saying making such determinations would be speculation.
U.S. officials have also noted that Israel’s public messaging often appears to be more severe than its actions, raising optimism that quiet engagement may subtly shape its strategy.
But as Arab leaders continue to call for a total cease-fire, it remains to be seen whether anything short of an end to Israel’s military campaign will quell outrage that has rippled through region, especially as Israel ramps up its ground operations in Gaza — opening the door to more complex problems in the days and weeks ahead.
“Gaza City is encircled. We are operating inside it. We are increasing pressure on Hamas every hour, every day. We have killed thousands of terrorists, above ground and below ground,” Netanyahu said on Tuesday.
The development sets the stage for fierce urban fighting in an area still densely populated with civilians — including Gaza’s al Shifa Hospital, a sprawling medical center Israel says serves as host to Hamas’ headquarters as well as a temporary shelter for thousands of displaced Palestinians.
While U.S. officials do not dispute Israel’s assessments of Hamas’ operations in al Shifa and have repeatedly said Hamas uses civilians as human shields, the administration’s rhetoric has seen a subtle shift in tone in recent weeks marked by officials stressing the need for Israel to minimize collateral damage despite the difficult circumstances.
“We continue to stress to our Israeli counterparts that they’ve used discriminate and careful in their targeting as possible,” White House spokesperson John Kirby said on Tuesday.
Although the Israeli offensive is making progress, Seth J. Frantzman, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, says it’s clear the country’s forces will need to engage further to eliminate the threat posed by terrorism.
“Over the last week in Sderot, we witnessed numerous rockets launched from areas near Gaza City, illustrating that despite the IDF’s increasing encirclement, Hamas or other groups can still sustain their attacks,” he said. “While Hamas continues to fire barrages of rockets, it has generally reduced this rocket fire to one or two large barrages a day, generally after nightfall and aimed at central Israel.”
What happens after Israel’s military operation subsides may prove just as controversial.
While Israeli officials say they won’t occupy Gaza after war ends, Netanyahu said on Monday that country will control the enclave’s security for “an indefinite period of time.”
“When we don’t have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn’t imagine,” Netanyahu said.
Asked about the prime minister’s assessment, Kirby said the administration was engaged in “active discussions” with Israel about Gaza’s future.
“The president maintains his position that a reoccupation by Israeli forces is not the right thing to do,” he said. “The one thing there’s absolutely no daylight on is Hamas can’t be part of that equation.”
While there’s still no clear candidate to lead Gaza after the conflict, a former Israeli Intelligence Corps official who is now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli national security think tank, argues that minimizing disagreements over the enclave’s future is essential to Israel’s military success in the present.
“There is a clear division between Israel’s views and those of President Biden and his administration,” he said. “Undoubtedly, the absence of Israeli readiness to discuss the issue will have a negative effect on the administration’s patience for the continued military campaign, and will increase its suspicions regarding Israel’s objectives for ‘the day after.'”
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats are projected to notch several key wins across Tuesday’s elections, indicating both that abortion remains a motivating factor for voters and that the party can remain successful, including in red states, even in the face of President Joe Biden’s poor approval ratings.
A referendum to guarantee abortion access in Ohio was set to pass by a hefty margin, and Democrats in Virginia were projected to flip control of the entire state Legislature, as the party had loudly warned that unified GOP control in Richmond would result in a 15-week abortion ban.
Meanwhile, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, won a second term in a part of the country that just three years ago was handily won by former President Donald Trump, dealing a setback to Daniel Cameron, a rising star and state attorney general who was Republicans’ nominee in the race.
Here are six takeaways from Tuesday’s results:
Backlash to Roe v. Wade doesn’t seem to be going away
Tuesday’s election results made even more plain that, in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision scrapping constitutional protections for abortion, voters are casting ballots in favor of abortion access when it is a prominent election issue.
The Ohio vote on state Issue 1, to enshrine in the state constitution the “right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including abortions, may ultimately pass by a double-digit margin in a state that Trump won twice by eight points and which recently elected a Republican governor and senator.
And in Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin had pushed hard for the GOP to take over the state government — while pitching what he called a 15-week “limit” on abortion, with exceptions — only to be rebuffed by Democratic messaging warning that Republicans wanted to curtail access.
Those two races followed a growing trend across the country, including in conservative places like Kansas and Kentucky, of states passing pro-abortion rights referendums since the 2022 decision striking down Roe v. Wade, the 1972 Supreme Court decision that first codified national protections for the procedure.
And despite the consistent results, Republicans still have been unable to unify around consistent messaging on abortion, including whether there should be federal restrictions, what exceptions should apply and how late into a pregnancy the procedure should or should not be allowed.
“Going into 2024, the energy is still on Democrats’ side. As long as Republicans embrace unpopular abortion stances and run extreme candidates, they will continue to under-perform. Fortunately for Democrats, the GOP seems unwilling to course correct,” said Democratic strategist Lis Smith.
A bad night for GOP rising stars
Tuesday’s results also marked major bumps in the road for Republican rising stars.
Youngkin, who won the Virginia governorship in what was seen as an upset in 2021, has been touted as a future presidential contender.
But his state’s legislative elections are likely to undercut his track record, given how much he involved himself in the races — spending months and raising millions of dollars to help boost other Republicans.
It’s unlikely that speculation over Youngkin’s future will fade completely, given his ability two years ago to win the governorship in a state that Biden won by 10 points in 2020, though Tuesday’s results will likely spark questions about his ability to win over Democratic voters in a post-Roe America.
“It … appears Youngkin doesn’t have as much political juice as he thought he did,” said Democratic strategist Karen Finney.
Cameron’s loss also tarnishes another emerging leader in the party.
The Kentucky attorney general, a 37-year-old Black Republican, is both a protégé of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a Trump supporter who was able to win the former president’s endorsement. That combination fueled conjecture that Cameron would be able to bridge the Republican Party’s warring factions.
However, his loss in a state as Republican-friendly as Kentucky — despite its history of voting for Democratic governors — is likely to leave a mark. He looks set to lose to Beshear by more than then-Gov. Matt Bevin did in 2019, despite Bevin being swamped by approval issues.
How Beshear won
Beshear’s victory offers a potential path for Democrats looking to separate themselves from the national party brand and succeed in less liberal territory.
He ran in part on his record helping his state get through the COVID-19 pandemic and devastating floods and tornadoes, on top of touting economic development projects that had started during his term.
Cameron repeatedly sought to shift the focus to national issues, running ads trying to tie Beshear to Biden and promoting his own endorsement from Trump.
However, voters of all stripes told ABC News during a recent reporting trip to Kentucky that they viewed Beshear as separate from Biden, a message the governor incorporated in his victory speech Tuesday.
He called his win proof that “candidates should run for something and not against someone.”
National Democrats said they are taking notes.
“The overall results also illustrate the strength of the ground game, clearly defining the choice and importance of connecting with voters on their terms and the issues they care about. Gov. Beshear’s victory in Kentucky was a prime example,” Finney said.
Mississippi a silver lining for Republicans
Mississippi’s gubernatorial race did offer one big silver lining to Republicans.
Gov. Tate Reeves won a second term, ABC News projects, amid late speculation that Democratic nominee Brandon Presley, a second cousin of Elvis Presley, could take the race at least to a runoff by keeping the governor from winning at least 50% of the vote.
Presley had launched a full-court press to raise turnout among Black voters in a state where African Americans make up slightly less than 40% of the population, though it was not enough to keep his challenge alive. He also tried to link Reeves to corruption allegations, which Reeves dismissed.
The governor, for his part, depicted Presley as part of a band of “radical” Democrats — who haven’t won the governor’s mansion in more than two decades.
Philadelphia elects its first female mayor
Various parts of the country made history with their election choices on Tuesday.
Among them, Philadelphia was projected to elect its first female mayor.
Cherelle Parker previously worked as a teacher and served in the state legislature, representing northwest Philadelphia, and will serve as the city’s 100th mayor. She centered her campaign around public safety, education and economic issues, and she received endorsements from Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Her Republican opponent, David Oh, a former colleague on the Philadelphia City Council, would have also made history had he won, as the city’s first Asian American mayor.
Elsewhere, Democratic House of Representatives candidate Gabe Amo, a former Biden administration official, was projected to become the first person of color that Rhode Island sends to Congress.
Biden polls poorly, but other Democrats keep winning
Tuesday’s positive results for Democrats seem to fly in the face of recent public polling showing major issues for Biden, the leader of his party, raising concerns that he could be an anchor at the top of the ballot next year.
However, Democrats have consistently performed well in non-presidential elections since he took office, including during last year’s midterms and several specials this year.
Democrats who spoke to ABC News on Tuesday said the results don’t mean they’re out of the woods yet — but that the party may not be in as dire straits as some had feared.
“Voters in 2022 and ’23 have showed up for Democrats and our issues when the stakes are very high. That’s the best news out of tonight, because the 2024 stakes will be astronomical,” argued Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way.
For his part, Biden took a victory lap Tuesday — calling to congratulate successful candidates like Beshear and Parker and seemingly swiping at polls showing him behind Trump in key swing states as a 2020 rematch appears increasingly likely.
“Across the country tonight, democracy won and MAGA lost,” Biden wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. “Voters vote. Polls don’t.”
(NEW YORK) — Criminal justice reform advocate Adam Foss has been acquitted of rape and sexual abuse charges, more than a year after he was charged by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in a 2022 indictment.
Foss had met his 25-year-old accuser in 2017 at a Midtown Manhattan hotel where he allegedly raped the woman as she slept, according to court documents and statements made on the record in court. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty last week. Foss’ attorneys had argued their encounter was consensual; he had pleaded not guilty.
Foss was an assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, whose TED Talk brought him into partnership with singer John Legend on criminal justice reform. (Legend later apologized in 2021 for helping “elevate” Foss.)
The National Law Journal named him among the 40 most up-and-coming lawyers in the United States. In 2013, the Massachusetts Bar Association voted Foss prosecutor of the year.
Defense attorney Priya Chaudhry called the verdict “a testament to the fairness of our legal system” and said Foss “is carefully evaluating his legal options to address the grave impact these false accusations have had on his life.”
“Mr. Foss, a former assistant district attorney from Boston and founder of Prosecutor Impact, expresses sincere appreciation to the jury and judge for their diligent discernment of the truth in a complex case,” Chaudhry said.
A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg expressed disappointment with the verdict.
“Survivors of sexual assault deserve to have their day in court, and our prosecutors fight every day to center and uplift their voices,” Bragg’s office said. “While we are disappointed, we sincerely thank the jury for its service and respect the verdict it rendered. As such, we will decline to comment further at this time.”
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is planning to issue multiple subpoenas aimed at President Joe Biden’s family, which are expected to start being issued as soon as Wednesday, sources tell ABC News.
The move would mark an attempt by Republicans to ramp up their impeachment inquiry into President Biden, which had faced delays during the weeks-long House speaker dispute.
Newly installed House Speaker Mike Johnson has said Republicans will “follow the evidence” when asked if the inquiry is heading toward impeaching President Biden. Johnson has also defended the prospects of subpoenaing Hunter Biden, telling Fox News that “desperate times call for desperate measures and that perhaps is overdue,” but a final decision had not been made.
The first hearing of the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into President Biden took place Sept. 28 and was dominated by contentious moments between Republicans and Democrats, but offered no new evidence.
The proceeding, which stretched for more than six hours, provided House Republicans the opportunity to lay out the various allegations they’ve already levied about the Biden family and their business dealings over the past nine months.
Several of the witnesses, including two witnesses called by Republicans, told the committee there wasn’t enough evidence yet to warrant impeaching President Biden.
Members on the committee also fiercely debated whether an inquiry was necessary, with Democrats pointing to an apparent lack of direct evidence implicating President Biden and Republicans arguing more investigation is needed.
As the September hearing ended, Comer had announced he would issue a subpoena to the president’s son and brother’s bank records “today.” Top Republicans, Comer included, had been threatening the move for months. They have said they believe the bank documents could provide smoking gun evidence so far missing in the case.
(WASHINGTON) — A majority of Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared inclined to uphold a 30-year-old federal ban on firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
At the same time, during oral arguments in the case U.S. v. Rahimi, several conservative justices seemed to seek a narrow ruling that would reaffirm a generally expansive view of the Second Amendment.
The case comes at a time when firearms are a leading factor in intimate partner violence nationwide. A woman is five times more likely to die from a domestic abuse situation if a gun is involved, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
The law in question requires state and federal courts to submit restraining orders to the national criminal background check system, which in turn blocks an attempted gun purchase. More than 77,000 gun sales have been denied under the law since 1998, according to the FBI.
Zackey Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer who was indicted for gun possession in violation of a restraining order obtained by his girlfriend, is challenging the ban as lacking historical precedent. A federal appeals court agreed with him and said the law should be struck down.
Last year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said only laws that have roots in American history and tradition can deprive citizens of a firearm. The Rahimi case is the first major test of the newly-promulgated standard.
“The government is looking down a dark well of American history and only seeing a reflection of itself,” Rahimi attorney Matthew Wright told the justices.
As hundreds of domestic violence survivors and gun safety advocates rallied outside the Court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar vigorously defended the law as consistent with the nation’s long history of keeping guns from people who are not law-abiding or responsible.
“It’s an easy case,” Prelogar said. “The constitutional principle is clear. You can disarm dangerous persons.”
She said the law guards against a “profound harm” to women, the general public and law enforcement officers — and that Congress and legislatures in 48 states have embraced that view.
“I was struck by the data showing that armed domestic violence calls are the most dangerous type of call for a police officer to respond to in this country,” Prelogar told the justices. “And for those officers who die in the line of duty, virtually all of them are murdered with handguns.”
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett appeared to show support for the law. Both suggested that — even if there is not a “historical twin” for a law banning guns for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders — “dangerousness” of a person has long been a basis for gun restrictions.
The court’s liberal justices, who have been highly critical of the “history and tradition” test for gun restrictions, slammed the fact that the ban on guns for domestic abusers is even in question before them.
“I’m a little troubled. We have a history and tradition test that requires a culling of the history where only some people’s history counts,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Elena Kagan pressed Rahimi’s attorney in seeming disbelief of what he was arguing.
“Do you think that the Congress can disarm people who are mentally ill, who have been committed to mental institutions?” Kagan asked Wright.
“There’s definitely a tradition for restricting sale or provision of weapons to the mentally ill,” Wright responded, “so I think ‘maybe’ is the answer to the tradition.”
Kagan accused Wright of ignoring the sweeping implications of his case.
“The implications of your argument are just so untenable,” she said. “Your argument applies to a wide variety of disarming actions, bans, what have you, that we take for granted now because it’s so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others and you don’t give guns to people who have the kind of history of domestic violence that your client has or to the mentally ill.”
Several conservative justices, however, voiced concerns about the law’s potential to deprive non-violent Americans of their gun rights for an extended period of time — and without adequate due process.
“We’re told … that there are situations in which a family court judge who has to act quickly and may not have any investigative resources faces a he/she said situation, and the judge just says, ‘Well, I’m going to issue an order like this against both of the parties,'” said Justice Samuel Alito.
Prelogar disputed that it’s a common occurrence.
Justice Clarence Thomas worried the implications of upholding the law might be too broad: “What if someone is considered ‘not responsible’ for not storing their firearms properly?” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to echo some of those concerns.
“Responsibility is a very broad concept,” Roberts said. “I mean, not taking your recycling to the curb on Thursdays. I mean, if it’s a serious problem, it’s irresponsible. Setting a bad example, you know, by yelling at a basketball game in a particular way. It seems to me that the problem with responsibility is that … what seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that’s not a big deal to others.”
Prelogar said the standard for “responsible” citizen should be “dangerousness” with respect to the use of firearms.
The justices will vote on the case and spend the upcoming months drafting a decision, which is expected for release by the end of June.
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who is facing a second censure resolution over her criticism of Israel, became emotional on the House floor Tuesday as she defended her views on the deadly conflict.
Tlaib rose to speak during debate on a resolution introduced by Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., that would censure her for “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Tlaib’s critics point to her use of the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which is considered by some as a call for ending Israel’s existence. Tlaib, however, has said it’s “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”
Surrounded by some of her progressive Democratic colleagues, Tlaib said she would not be “silenced” and accused members of distorting her words.
“I can’t believe we have to say this but Palestinian people are not disposable,” she said before she broke down in tears for several seconds. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., stood to comfort Tlaib before she continued.
“We are human beings just like anyone else. My sity, my grandmother — like all Palestinians — just wants to live her life with freedom and human dignity we all deserve,” she said. “Speaking up to save lives no matter faith, no matter ethnicity should not be controversial in this chamber. The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinian children sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity.”
An attempt by House Democrats to table, or effectively kill, the McCormick resolution failed on Tuesday afternoon. The House debates the censure resolution Tuesday and is expected to hold a final passage vote Wednesday, according to an updated schedule from House Majority Whip Tom Emmer.
A vote to censure a member of Congress does not hold power beyond a public condemnation of the member’s behavior. It does not deny privileges in Congress or expel the member. A simple majority is all that is needed for a censure resolution to pass.
Censures are rare — more than more than two dozen House lawmakers have been censured.
It will be the second attempt in as many weeks looking to condemn Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American member of Congress, for her controversial comments about Israel amid its response to the deadly Hamas terror attack. The U.S. has designated Hamas a terrorist organization.
In Israel, at least 1,400 people have been killed and 6,900 others have been injured since the surprise attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli officials. In the neighboring Gaza Strip, where Israel Defense Forces are deepening its operational activities, more than 10,000 people have been killed and nearly 26,000 have been injured, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.
The first resolution, brought by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene last week, was killed by House Democrats with the help of some Republicans. The House rejected the Georgia congresswoman’s effort by a vote of 222-186.
Tlaib first drew ire of some colleagues for refusing to apologize for blaming Israel for a deadly hospital blast in Gaza that U.S. officials believed to have been caused by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket.
More recently, she’s faced pushback for calling for a cease-fire as the Israel-Gaza war rages on. She’s gone as far as to accuse President Joe Biden of supporting a Palestinian “genocide” over his administration’s resistance to a general cease-fire, though Biden has called for temporary pauses in the fighting to allow humanitarian aid to enter and for civilians to leave.
Tlaib defended her views during her five-minute speech on the House floor.
“Let me be clear: my criticism has always been of the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s actions. It’s important to separate people and governments, Mr. Chair, no government is beyond criticism,” Tlaib said. “The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent and it’s being used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”
She also again took aim at President Joe Biden, specifically over his past comment questioning the death toll statistics provided by Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry as well as his resistance to an overall cease-fire.
“Seventy-one percent of Michigan Democrats support a ceasefire. So, you can try to censure me, but you can’t silence their voices… President Biden must listen to and represent all of us, not just some of us,” she said.
Later Tuesday, the House is also planning to take up Greene’s revamped resolution to censure Tlaib.
Greene altered her resolution from last week, removing language that accused Tlaib of leading an “insurrection” during an Oct. 18 pro-Palestinian protest. In the new resolution, Greene wrote Tlaib “incited an illegal occupation at the United States Capitol Complex” through the protest.
(WASHINGTON) — It’s Election Day in Virginia and the entire General Assembly is up for grabs.
Polls opened at 6 a.m. and will close at 7 p.m. local time. Projected election results are expected to begin after that, though officials won’t certify the votes until later.
According to the Virginia Department of Elections, 789,704 residents cast their ballots through early voting, including mail-in and in-person ballots.
Commissioner Susan Beals said on Tuesday that while the department is “making every effort this year to provide results as quickly and efficiently as possible,” she noted the length of this year’s ballot because it includes all 140 members of the General Assembly as well as other offices, from supervisors to sheriff’s commissioners.
When asked if there have been any issues at polling locations, Beals said there was a “brief issue” in Chesterfield County but that “everything has been resolved.” Two other counties experienced power outages, Beals added.
The state Legislature is currently split between the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-led House of Delegates. That has stymied Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s agenda, including his push for a 15-week ban on abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which the GOP believes is a compromise on the issue.
State Democrats, however, argue that conservatives will go further than that if they gain control of the entire state government and are hoping support for abortion access will be a motivating issue.
Both parties have heavily campaigned on abortion and education.
Political observers say the results will also influence Youngkin’s future, given his heavy involvement in the races.
(NEW YORK) — WeWork, the office-sharing company that experienced a dazzling rise and sudden decline that came to symbolize the excesses of business startup culture, filed for bankruptcy on Monday.
In 2019, the company was valued at $47 billion. By last week, that figure had plummeted to $45 million, with shares of WeWork’s stock falling more than 98% since the beginning of the year.
Creditors holding 92% of the company’s secured debt agreed on a restructuring plan that would include cutting back its portfolio of office leases, WeWork said in a statement on Monday.
“Now is the time for us to pull the future forward by aggressively addressing our legacy leases and dramatically improving our balance sheet,” WeWork CEO David Tolley said in the statement.
Popularized by a charismatic co-founder and fueled by an era of cheap borrowing, WeWork expanded the old-fashioned business of commercial real estate into a vision of transforming the way people work, replete with chic offices offering free beer on tap.
The company met its undoing, however, when a debt-fueled spending spree on leasing office space ran up against insufficient demand from businesses and freelancers, experts told ABC News. The COVID-19 pandemic, which forced many office employees worldwide to work from home, only made things worse.
Here’s what caused the WeWork bankruptcy, and what its implications could be.
What is WeWork’s business model?
WeWork’s business model rested on the proposition that the company could lease and refurbish office space, and then rent the properties to companies and freelancers at marked-up rates, Samuel Rosen, a professor of finance at Temple University’s Fox School of Business, told ABC News.
“WeWork is kind of a middleman,” Rosen said. “They take out a giant portfolio of real estate leases, rent it out and make a profit.”
The company currently offers office space at 660 currently open or soon-to-come locations in 119 cities worldwide, according to its website.
As part of its appeal to tenants, WeWork gained a reputation for lavish spending on stylishly designed spaces with worker amenities such as free kombucha and beer, hammocks, and rock-climbing walls.
What’s behind WeWork’s collapse?
WeWork took on tens of billions of dollars in debt to amass its large portfolio of leased office space. As of 2021, Japanese venture firm SoftBank had invested $17 billion in the company, Bloomberg reported.
However, demand for shared office space never reached the level necessary to match the large acquisition WeWork made. That lack of tenants in turn meant WeWork couldn’t offset those losses or make their sizable rent payments on the office space they’d leased, Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan who has studied WeWork, told ABC News.
“They mistakenly thought that signing leases gave them tons of assets,” Gordon said. “There’s tons of empty office space, so having nailed down office space made no sense.”
Since WeWork had taken on debt to fund its lease portfolio, the underperformance gradually pushed the company into bankruptcy.
“It’s the combination of a business model that wasn’t as profitable as originally projected, and a lot of debt,” Rosen said.
What are the implications of WeWork’s bankruptcy?
The bankruptcy of WeWork offers a cautionary tale regarding a period of low interest rates in the 2000s and 2010s that spurred a flood of investment into startups as investors sought novel ventures that could deliver high returns, Gordon said.
When borrowing expenses are low, he added, investors bring less scrutiny to where they put their money.
“It’s a testament to how damaging near-zero interest rates are to the market mechanisms that allocate capital,” Gordon said. “Near-zero interest rates make capital get allocated stupidly.”
Since last year, however, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates at the fastest pace in more than two decades, making borrowing more expensive for businesses and consumers alike.
Christopher Kayes, a professor of management at the George Washington University School of Business, said in a statement: “The fall of WeWork signals that the excesses of the last decades are being put to rest.”
“The cheap money that enabled the financing of companies like WeWork to thrive was the match in the powder keg,” Kayes added.
(WASHINGTON) — David Weiss, the special counsel investigating President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, appeared for voluntary testimony Tuesday behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee.
It’s rare for a special counsel to testify before a congressional committee while an investigation is ongoing, and Weiss is unlikely to reveal any details of his probe.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss, who at the time was serving as the Delaware U.S. attorney appointed by former President Donald Trump, as special counsel in August.
Garland has said Weiss has been told he has “full authority” to make any charging decisions stemming from the investigation, even if that would involve bringing a case in a district outside Delaware.
The move came as a plea deal struck between Hunter Biden and federal prosecutors fell apart over the summer and the case appeared to be headed for trial. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to felony gun charges in October after the plea deal fell apart, following a yearslong investigation by special counsel Weiss.
Republicans have blasted Weiss’ appointment, after months of calling for a special counsel to be appointed, with House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., claiming the Department of Justice is trying to “stonewall” Congress’ own investigations into Hunter Biden and called the news part of a “Biden family cover-up,” despite Republicans offering no evidence of such a “cover-up.”
A spokesperson for Weiss said he will “make clear that he’s had and continues to have full authority over his investigation.”
“Consistent with department policy and the law, he will be unable to address the specifics of his investigation,” said Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesperson for Weiss. “At the close of this matter, Special Counsel Weiss will prepare a report, which the Attorney General has committed to making public to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law, department policy and the public interest.”
Since Republicans retook the House last year, they have launched multiple investigations aimed at learning more about who paid Hunter Biden in the past, and have contended that the swirl of foreign money sullies Joe Biden himself.
The GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee released transcripts in June of their interviews with two IRS whistleblowers that they say shows senior Biden administration officials stymied Weiss’ investigation into Hunter Biden.
In their testimony, the whistleblowers claim senior Justice Department officials blocked prosecutors’ attempts to bring charges against Hunter Biden in Washington and California, and refused to grant Weiss special counsel status.
Justice Department officials have disputed this claim, saying, “As both the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney David Weiss have said, U.S. Attorney Weiss has full authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges as he deems appropriate. He needs no further approval to do so.” Several witnesses who appeared before the panel have undercut core claims made by the two IRS whistleblowers.
This interview also comes as House Republicans are looking to bolster support for their impeachment inquiry into President Biden and his family after weeks of it being on the back burner.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys have said they’ll seek a dismissal ahead of the trial date, which has not yet been set. The special counsel, meanwhile, has signaled his intention to bring separate tax charges against Hunter Biden in California or Washington, D.C., as well as possible charges related to his overseas business endeavors, which are also being investigated by GOP-led House Oversight Committee.
