(NEW YORK) — COVID-19 cases are continuing to surge in New York City and unvaccinated residents are bearing the brunt.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, as of Wednesday, the Big Apple has a seven-day case rate of 369.8 per 100,000, the second-highest rate in the United States, only behind California.
On July 17, New York City recorded a seven-day average of 4,380 cases, 14% higher than the average of 3,828 cases recorded two weeks ago, according to the city’s Department of Health & Mental Hygiene.
Additionally, the test positivity rate hit 14.46%, the highest seen since January 2022, during the omicron surge.
Doctors say that more than a year-and-a-half into the vaccine rollout, the majority of those getting sick, hospitalized and dying are unvaccinated people.
DOHMH data shows that the average weekly rate of cases among the unvaccinated sits at 764.29 per 100,000.
This is nearly three times higher than the rate among those vaccinated and boosted at 278.93 per 100,000 and 3.5 times higher than the rate among those vaccinated and not boosted at 216.89 per 100,000.
COVID-19-related-hospitalizations are more than five times higher at 36.84 per 100,000 compared to 6.93 per 100,000 and 6.82 per 100,000 for the vaccinated without a booster and the vaccinated with a booster groups, respectively.
Deaths are also more than six times higher for the unvaccinated at 5.27 per 100,000 compared to 0.96 per 100,000 for the vaccinated but not boosted group and 0.77 per 100,000 for those vaccinated and boosted.
Dr. Roy Gulick, chief of the division of infectious diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine, told ABC News that even though the case rate is lower among those vaccinated without a booster compared to those vaccinated with a booster, the real measure of protection is the rate of hospitalizations and deaths, which is lower among the boosted group.
“What’s becoming apparent is that what we really want is to avoid severe disease and we define severe disease as requiring hospitalization or intensive care unit,” he said. “Even if the vaccines don’t prevent infection, if they protect against severe infection, then that’s a big positive.”
Gulick said that rising cases appear to be fueled by the highly infectious BA.5 variant.
BA.5, an offshoot of the original omicron variant, has become the dominant strain in New York City, making up more than 57% of cases as of July 2, according to the DOHMH.
“The BA. 5 variant is accounting for a significant number of infections,” Gulick said. “This almost all certainly due to BA.5.”
Evidence has shown that BA.5 is better at evading protection from both vaccines and previous infection including antibodies from BA.1 — the original omicron variant — and BA.2, the first subvariant.
The COVID situation in the city appears to be reflective of what’s going on in New York State. BA.5 currently accounts for an estimated two-thirds of COVID cases in the New York region as defined by the CDC.
Gov. Kathy Hochul held a press conference Wednesday as the state hit 15% test positivity rate for the first time since January.
“We’ve seen the past and the past can become the present if we don’t take the steps now,” she said of the rising number of cases.
Hochul said the mask mandate on public transit will remain in place until cases are “consistently lower” and issued several preparedness plans.
Among them include sending more than three million tests to schools ahead of the start of the fall semester and distributing at-home kits from the stockpile of 20 million.
Hochul said, at the moment, schools don’t have mask mandates, but she kept open the possibility “if things change.”
“I’m going to reserve the right to change this policy,” she said.
(NEW YORK) — As prices for goods are on the rise, there has been a debate over how much control consumers have at the cash register.
Some economists, like Rakeen Mabud of the Groundwork Collaborative, an economic policy think tank, say there isn’t much attention being paid to companies that are charging these prices.
Mabud spoke with ABC News’ “START HERE” to discuss the role of corporations during the current economic climate.
START HERE: I think the usual way this economic story is being told is that the economy is, you know, it’s worse for everyone. Everyone’s taking a hit, but you’ve said that’s not necessarily the case. Why is that?
MABUD: If you look at the data, we see that corporate profits are at 70-year record highs. So even as consumers are struggling to send their kids to school and put gas in the tank and put food on the table, there are some people who are making a lot of money off this crisis.
Essentially what’s going on is that big corporations are using the cover of inflation to jack up their prices beyond what their input costs would justify and rake in those profits, and consumers are paying the price. Some of the most egregious examples are credit card companies. Visa and MasterCard, for example, are a massive duopoly in their space, and so they have a huge amount of market share. And what we saw is that these companies make money by taking a fixed percentage cut of each transaction. So with inflation, as prices are rising, they’re inherently going to be pulling in more money, and yet these companies are also increasing that transaction fee.
If you’re going from 10% of the price of an apple to 15% of a price of an apple, you’re going to be making more money. And critically I think a lot of companies have been blaming supply chain issues. Visa and MasterCard don’t have that excuse. There are no supply chain issues to be seen here. It is just straight-up corporate profiteering.
START HERE: But if people were being charged super unfairly for certain, like kind of expendable, not necessity items, when do they stop spending the money? Isn’t the issue is people have more money to spend? You’ve heard conservative economists say, “Well, duh, we sent out large stimulus checks to people for simply living through a pandemic.” Wages have been going up. And so, when stuff gets more expensive, people are still paying it. We haven’t seen in the data a lot of reticence from people to completely shift their spending habits simply because of inflation. So isn’t the issue yeah, people have more money, they should spend more money. They’ve got it.
MABUD: Yeah. There’s a lot of research and evidence to suggest that two things are not driving up prices. Increase worker wages and money in people’s pockets. I think the critical thing to remember here is we are coming out of a wild time in our economy. We just went through a pandemic, [an] unprecedented sort of economic forces and disruptions. At Groundwork Collaborative, where I work, we often like to say we are the economy. It’s this idea that when all of us do well, that’s when the economy does well.
And that’s really what these stimulus payments and our attention to workers and families throughout this crisis have gotten us. It’s gotten us a recovery that’s been pretty healthy. I think the other thing to remember here is that corporations are making a lot of money and they also have a lot more information about where price increases are coming from. So if you think about it, if you’re a CEO, you have a good sense of how much of the price increase that you’re passing off to a consumer is because of actual input costs going up. Some, something that you use in their manufacturing process.
START HERE: Like supply chain issues like that. That creates a real need to raise costs, perhaps.
MABUD: Absolutely. For example. If you’re a bicycle producer and the cost of steel goes up, the price of that bike is going to go up a little bit. And, as a CEO, you can also gild the lily a little bit more. Take another spoonful of sugar and the consumer has no idea. So I think we really see executives exploiting that information asymmetry.
And the key thing here is that we have listened to hundreds and hundreds of earnings calls. These are the calls where CEOs and business executives are telling their investors what happened last quarter and what to expect in the coming quarters. And they’re saying the quiet part out loud. So when it comes down to it, I think the easiest way to understand what’s going on here is to follow the money. What we see is consumers are paying more and more out of their own pockets and shareholders are getting richer and corporate profits are increasing.
We have dozens of quotes from CEOs on these earnings calls that essentially say, “Hey, is the great strategy for us to be raising prices on consumers right now?” And so just by way of example, the CEO of 3M, which makes masks and medical equipment, bragged on the company’s Q1 2022 earnings call that the team, “Did an amazing job driving higher prices,” which have, “more than offset the amount of inflation.”
3M also said that they’re already working on higher prices to expand its profit margins even further. The CEO of Constellation Brands, which produces Modelo and Corona, has said on an earnings call, that we want to take as much as we can when it comes to pricing.
These CEOs are not shy about what they’re doing and it’s borne out in the data. So recent research shows that corporate profit comprises most of the inflation that we’re seeing in price hikes that we’re seeing. I think that’s probably changing a little bit, but it’s undeniably true that this is outside of historical norms.
START HERE: But what do you do to combat any of these issues? Because you’ve been on record saying the Fed has been raising interest rates to try to get inflation under control. You’ve said they shouldn’t do that. Continuing to raise interest rates will actually hurt regular people more as they try to live their lives. So what are the other options? Is it like you just ask these companies to volunteer to charge last year? Do you want to have laws that dictate how companies can make and spend their money? What do you do?
MABUD: The way to address the current price hikes is not to make people poorer and to take away their jobs. Because when we talk about the Fed raising interest rates, what we’re talking about is them jacking up unemployment.
The way to address the supply side issues that we’re facing is really to expand our toolbox, and that means making big investments and functional supply chains. It means tackling pandemic profiteering when we see it happen. Three-quarters of states have a price gouging law. We could do that at the federal level. It means taxing companies, [and] decreasing the incentives to jack up profits to sky-high astronomical levels.
There are a lot of tools in our toolbox. And I think once we start to really unpack where some of these current price hikes are coming from, those tools become a lot more available to us.
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday reiterated that “no person” is above the law amid calls from some congressional Democrats to charge former President Donald Trump over last year’s Capitol riot.
A visibly animated Garland twice stated that “no person” is above the law during a press conference when pressed specifically about Trump, whom Democrats say incited the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection over his unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in 2020.
The Department of Justice has been prosecuting various cases related to the rioting that day.
“There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, what’s it not doing, what our theories are and what our theories aren’t, and there will continue to be that speculation,” the attorney general said. “That’s because a central tenant of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenant of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in the public.”
“We have to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election, and we must do it in a way filled with integrity and professionalism,” Garland added.
In the 18 months since the attack on the Capitol, the Justice Department has charged 855 defendant’s from all 50 states, and among those 263 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 90 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer, according to the Justice Department.
The Justice Department has secured more than 325 pleas in January 6th cases and just under 100 have been sentenced to time in federal prison.
Former Trump campaign and White House official Steve Bannon is currently on trial over contempt of Congress charges, pleading not guilty to allegations that he did not comply with the House Select Committee Investigating the attack on the US Capitol.
However, as the House panel investigating the insurrection ramps up its public hearings, Democrats are clamoring for the Justice Department to charge the former president himself. Those calls ramped up after testimony before the panel revealed that Trump was aware that some in the crowd during his speech at the Ellipse were armed before urging his supporters to march to the Capitol.
“Trump was told the mob was armed. He sent them to the Capitol to kill us. He wanted to go into the House Chamber to overturn the election. He assaulted a Secret Service agent who told him no. He must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the…law,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., tweeted last month.
The issue of charging Trump is not a new one, though this is the first time it is an option since he left the White House.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 said it could not definitively clear the then-president of obstruction of justice accusations but cited longstanding Justice Department policy against charging sitting presidents.
(WASHINGTON) — Steve Bannon, who served as former President Donald Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, is on trial for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September of last year, with the committee telling him it had “reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged Bannon with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, setting up this week’s trial.
Here is how the news is developing. All times are Eastern:
Jul 20, 4:39 PM EDT
Defense says Bannon was in ongoing negotiations with committee
As his cross-examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling wrapped up, defense attorney Evan Corcoran continued to frame Bannon’s noncompliance with the subpoena as happening at a time when Bannon’s attorney was still in negotiations with the committee.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon wasn’t in negotiations because there was nothing to negotiate — Trump hadn’t actually asserted executive privilege, Amerling said, so there was no outstanding issue to resolve. And she said that the committee had made clear to Bannon repeatedly that there were no legal grounds for his refusal to turn over documents and testify before the committee.
Corcoran showed the jury the letter that Trump sent to Bannon on July 9, 2022 — just two weeks ago — in which Trump said he would waive executive privilege so Bannon could testify before the committee. He also displayed the letter that Bannon’s former attorney, Robert Costello, sent the committee on the same day saying that Bannon was now willing to testify in a public hearing.
But Amerling then read aloud from the letter that the committee sent to Costello in response, noting that Bannon’s latest offer “does not change the fact that Mr. Bannon failed to follow [proper] process and failed to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena prior to the House referral of the contempt resolution concerning Mr. Bannon’s defiance of the subpoena.”
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn noted that before two weeks ago, Bannon never offered to comply with the subpoena, even after being told repeatedly by the committee last year that his claims had no basis in law and that he could face prosecution; even after he was found in contempt of Congress in October last year; even after he was criminally charged a month later for contempt of Congress; and even after a lawsuit related to executive privilege had been resolved by the Supreme Court six months ago.
Amerling testified that had Bannon complied with the subpoena in time, the committee would have had “at least nine months of additional time” to review the information, and now there are “five or so months” left of the committee.
“So as opposed to having 14 in total, the committee only now has five?” Corcoran asked.
“That’s correct,” said Amerling.
Jul 20, 3:48 PM EDT
Defense argues Bannon was constrained by questions over executive privilege
In the defense’s ongoing cross examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling, attorney Evan Corcoran continued to stress how Bannon was prevented from testifying due to the right of executive privilege that protects confidential communication with members of the executive branch.
But Amerling testified that there are two main issues with such a claim.
First, she said, some of what the subpoena requested “had nothing to do with communication with the former president” and “could not possibly be reached by executive privilege” — especially Bannon’s communications with campaign advisers, members of Congress and other private parties, as well as information related to Bannon’s podcast, she testified.
In addition, despite what others may have said, “The president had not formally or informally invoked executive privilege,” Amerling said. “It hadn’t been invoked.”
Yet Bannon still refused to comply with the subpoena, despite having no legal grounds to do so, she said.
Amerling reiterated that by the time the committee met to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, “there had been extensive back-and-forth already between the select committee and the defendant’s attorney about the issue of executive privilege, and the select committee had made its position clear.”
Corcoran also argued that Bannon didn’t comply with the subpoena right away because he expected the deadline would ultimately change, due to the fact that it’s common for subpoena deadlines to shift.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon’s situation was different.
“When witnesses are cooperating with the committee and indicate they are willing to provide testimony, it is not unusual to have some back-and-forth about the dates that they will appear,” she said. However, she said, “it is very unusual for witnesses who receive a subpoena to say outright they will not comply.”
In his questions, Corcoran also suggested that Amerling might be a biased witness, noting that she had donated to Democratic causes in the past, and that she is a member of the same book club as one of the prosecutors in the case, Molly Gaston.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” Corcoran asked.
“We are,” Amerling replied.
Amerling said that it had been some time — perhaps as much as a year or more — since she and Gaston both attended a meeting of the club. But she conceded that, with the types of people who are in the book club, it was “not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Jul 20, 12:55 PM EDT
Defense attorney presses Jan. 6 staffer on timing of subpoena deadline
Under cross-examination from Bannon defense attorney Evan Corcoran, House Jan. 6 committee senior staffer Kristin Amerling was pressed on why the committee set the deadlines it did for Bannon to comply with the subpoena — especially since “the select committee is still receiving and reviewing documents” now, Corcoran said.
Corcoran pressed Amerling over who specifically decided that Bannon should have to produce documents by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, and who specifically decided that Bannon should have to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2021.
Amerling said that the “process” of drafting the subpoena involved many people, including senior staff like herself, but it was all ultimately approved by committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
“To the best of my recollection, because of the multiple roles that we understood Mr. Bannon potentially had with respect to the events of Jan. 6, at the time that we put the subpoena together, there was a general interest in obtaining information from him expeditiously, because we believed this information could potentially lead us to other relevant witnesses or other relevant documents,” Amerling said. “There was general interest in including deadlines that required expeditious response.”
“The committee authorization is just through the end of this year,” so it is operating under “a very tight timeframe,” she said.
Corcoran also said he wanted to made clear to the jury that, as he put it, “in this case, there is no allegation that Steve Bannon was involved in the attack” on the Capitol.
Earlier, Amerling testified that the committee tried to give Bannon “an opportunity” to explain his “misconduct” in ignoring the subpoena and to provide “information that might shed light on his misconduct, such as he might have been confused” about the subpoena — but Bannon never presented any such explanation or information before he was found in contempt, she said.
Jul 20, 11:17 AM EDT
Jan. 6 staffer says panel ‘rejected the basis’ for Bannon’s privilege claim
Kristin Amerling, a senior staffer on the House Jan. 6 committee, returned to the stand to continue her testimony from Tuesday. She testified that Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that his non-compliance “would force” the committee to refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution.
She said the subpoena issued to Bannon indicated he was “required to produce” records encompassing 17 specific categories, including records related to the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, his communications with Trump allies and several right-wing groups, his communications with Republican lawmakers, and information related to his “War Room” podcast.
The committee was seeking to understand “the relationships or potential relationships between different individuals and organizations that played a role in Jan. 6,” Amerling said. “We wanted to ask him what he knew.”
Asked by prosecutor Amanda Vaughn if Bannon provided any records to the committee by the deadline of 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, Amerling replied, “He did not.”
“Did the committee get anything more than radio silence by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7?” Vaughn asked.
“No,” said Amerling.
Amerling said that in a correspondence she received that day at about 5 p.m. — after the deadline had passed — Bannon’s attorney at the time, Robert Costello, claimed that Trump had “announced his intention to assert” executive privilege, which Costello said at the time rendered Bannon “unable to respond” to the subpoena “until these issues are resolved.”
But the next day, Amerling recalled on the stand, she sent Costello a letter from Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson, “explaining that the committee rejected the basis that he had offered for refusing to comply.”
“Did the letter also tell the defendant he still had to comply?” Vaughn asked Amerling.
“Yes, it did.” Amerling said.
“Did the letter warn the defendant what might happen if he failed to comply with the subpoena?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, it did,” said Amerling.
The letter was “establishing a clear record of the committee’s views, making sure the defendant was aware of that,” Amerling testified.
Jul 20, 10:06 AM EDT
Judge won’t let trial become ‘political circus,’ he says
Federal prosecutors in Steve Bannon’s contempt trial raised concerns with the judge that Bannon’s team has been suggesting to the jury that this is a “politically motivated prosecution” before the second day of testimony got underway Wednesday morning.
Before the jury was brought in, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to make sure the jury “doesn’t hear one more word about this case being” politically motivated, after she said the defense’s opening statement Tuesday had “clear implications” that the defense was making that claim.
Nichols had barred such arguments from the trial.
In response, defense attorney Evan Corcoran defended his opening statement, saying it “was clearly on the line.”
Nichols then made it clear that during trial, the defense team may ask witnesses questions about whether they themselves may be biased — “but may not ask questions about whether someone else was biased in an action they took outside this courtroom.”
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus,” Nichols said.
Speaking to reporters after the first full day in court, Bannon blasted members of the Jan. 6 committee and House Democrats for not showing up as witnesses in his trial.
“Where is Bennie Thompson?” asked Bannon regarding the Jan. 6 committee chairman. “He’s made it a crime, not a civil charge … have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.”
“I will promise you one thing when the Republicans that are sweeping to victory on Nov. 8 — starting in January, you’re going to get a real committee,” Bannon said. “We’re going to get a real committee with a ranking member who will be a Democrat … and this will be run
appropriately and the American people will get the full story.”
The first witness for the prosecution, Kristin Amerling of the Jan. 6 committee, testified that a subpoena is not voluntary.
Amerling, the Jan. 6 panel’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, read aloud the congressional resolution creating the committee and explained that the committee’s role is to recommend “corrective measures” to prevent future attacks like the one on Jan. 6.
“Is a subpoena voluntary in any way?” asked prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
“No,” Amerling replied.
Amerling also discussed how important it is to get information in a timely manner because the committee’s authority runs out at the end of the year. “There is an urgency to the focus of the Select Committee’s work … we have a limited amount of time in which to gather information,” she said.
Amerling noted that Bannon was subpoenaed pretty early on in the committee’s investigation.
She said the committee subpoenaed Bannon in particular because public accounts indicated that Bannon tried to persuade the public that the 2020 election was “illegitimate”; that on his podcast the day before Jan. 6 he made statements “including that all hell was going to break loose, that suggested he might have some advance knowledge of the events of Jan. 6”; that he was involved in discussions with White House officials, including Trump himself, relating to “strategies surrounding the events of Jan. 6”; and that he had been involved in discussions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 with “private parties who had gathered in the Willard hotel in Washington, D.C., reportedly to discuss strategies around efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power or overturning the election results.”
“Is that something that would have been relevant to the committee’s investigation?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, because the Select Committee was tasked with trying to understand what happened on Jan. 6, and why,” Amerling replied.
Amerling will be back on the stand Wednesday morning when the trial resumes.
Jul 19, 3:55 PM EDT
Defense tells jury ‘there was no ignoring the subpoena’
Bannon’s defense attorney Matt “Evan” Corcoran said in his opening statement that “no one ignored the subpoena” issued to Bannon, and that “there was direct engagement by Bob Costello,” Bannon’s attorney, with the House committee, specifically committee staffer Kristin Amerling.
He said Costello “immediately” communicated to the committee that there was an objection to the subpoena, “and that Steve Bannon could not appear and that he could not provide documents.”
“So there was no ignoring the subpoena,” Corcoran said. What followed was “a considerable back and forth” between Amerling and Costello — “they did what two lawyers do, they negotiated.”
Corcoran said, “the government wants you to believe … that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up to a congressional hearing room … but the evidence is going to be crystal clear no one, no one believed Mr. Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021,” and the reasons he couldn’t appear had been articulated to the committee.
Corcoran told the jury that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable that Steve Bannon willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear for the deposition on Oct. 14, 2021 — “but you’ll find from the evidence that that date on the subpoena was the subject of ongoing discussions” and it was not “fixed.”
In addition, Corcoran told jurors, you will hear that “almost every single one” of the witnesses subpoenaed led to negotiations between committee staff and lawyers, and often the appearance would be at a later date than what was on the subpoena.
Corcoran also argued that the prosecution may have been infected by politics, telling the jury that with each document or each statement provided at trial, they should ask themselves: “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
Jul 19, 3:31 PM EDT
Prosecutors say Bannon’s failure to comply was deliberate
Continuing her opening statement, federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that the subpoena to Bannon directed him to provide documents by the morning of Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition the morning of Oct. 14, 2021 — but instead he had an attorney, Robert Costello, send a letter to the committee informing the committee that he would not comply “in any way,” she said.
“The excuse the defendant gave for not complying” was the claim that “a privilege” meant he didn’t have to turn over certain information, Vaughn said. “[But] it’s not up to the defendant or anyone else to decide if he can ignore the [request] based on a privilege, it’s up to the committee.”
And, said Vaughn, the committee clearly told Bannon that “your privilege does not get you out of this one, you have to provide documents, and you have to come to your deposition.” And importantly, she said, the committee told Bannon that “a refusal to comply” could result in criminal prosecution.
“You will see, the defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate here,” Vaughn told the jury. “The only verdict that is supported by the evidence here: that the defendant showed his contempt for the U.S. Congress, and that he’s guilty.”
Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn began opening statements by saying, “In September of last year, Congress needed information from the defendant, Steve Bannon. … Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan. 6, 2021. … Congress had gotten information that the defendant might have some details about the events leading up to that day and what occurred that day.”
So, Vaughn told the jury, Congress gave Bannon a subpoena “that mandated” he provide any information he might have.
“Congress was entitled to the information it sought, it wasn’t optional,” Vaughn said. “But as you will learn in this trial, the defendant refused to hand over the information he might have.”
Vaughn said Bannon ignored “multiple warnings” that he could face criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena and for preventing the government from getting “important information.”
“The defendant decided he was above the law and decided he didn’t need to follow the government’s orders,” she said.
Jul 19, 2:51 PM EDT
Judge instructs jury of the burden of proof
Prior to opening statements, the judge made clear to the jury that the Justice Department has the burden to prove four distinct elements “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
(1) that Bannon was in fact subpoenaed for testimony and/or documents;
(2) that the testimony and/or documents were “pertinent” to the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation;
(3) that Bannon “failed to comply or refused to comply” with the subpoena;
(4) that the “failure or refusal to comply was willful.”
Jul 19, 2:44 PM EDT
Jury sworn in after judge denies continuance
A 14-member jury has been sworn in for the contempt trial of ex-Trump strategist Steve Bannon.
Of the 14 jurors, nine are men and five are women.
The swearing-in of the jury comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a one-month delay of the trial, which attorneys for Bannon argued was necessary due to a “seismic shift in the understanding of the parties” of what the government’s evidence will be.
“We have a jury that is just about picked,” Nichols said in denying the request for a one-month continuance.
One of the jurors, a man who works for an appliance company, said Monday during jury selection that he watched the first Jan. 6 committee hearing and believes the committee is “trying to find the truth about what happened” on Jan. 6.
Another juror, a man who works as a maintenance manager for the Washington, D.C., Parks and Recreation department, said he believes what happened on Jan. 6 “doesn’t make sense.”
Another juror, a woman who works as a photographer for NASA, said “a lot” of her “photographer friends were at the Capitol” on Jan. 6, and she has watched some of the Jan. 6 hearings on the news.
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday he would like to see the upper chamber now vote on legislation to codify the right to same-sex and interracial marriage after 47 Republicans joined Democrats in the House in approving the measure on Tuesday night.
Schumer said during a floor speech that he was “really impressed by how much bipartisan support it got in the House.” He added: “I want to bring this bill to the floor. And we’re working to get the necessary Senate Republican support to ensure it would pass.”
President Joe Biden also wants the Senate to take up the measure quickly, with his aides saying senators should “act swiftly” in sending the bill to him for his signature.
“We need this legislation, and we urge Congress to move as quickly as possible,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said aboard Air Force One on Wednesday. “It’s something the vast majority of the country support, just like they support restoring Roe [v. Wade], stopping a national abortion ban and protecting the right to use contraception.”
Calls for swiftly bringing the legislation to the floor come amid some concern that the Senate’s legislative calendar is too full to take up the bill before a month-long recess that begins on Aug. 5.
“We have more priorities than we have time,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, said on Tuesday.
Schumer needs at least 10 Republicans to join the 50 members of the Democratic caucus and avoid a filibuster of a vote. Conservative Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia told reporters on Wednesday that he did not have a problem with the measure but needed to see the fine print in the bill, according to a spokeswoman.
Bill co-sponsor Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said there was “a possibility” that 10 Republicans would vote for it, though the extent of Senate GOP support is currently unclear. In the House, 77% of Republicans rejected the measure, including leadership.
“I think that’s obvious,” Portman said Wednesday when asked if Republican views on same-sex marriage were shifting. His own position changed in 2013 when he revealed that his son is gay.
While some congressional Republicans have argued the bill over-states the danger to national marriage rights and is being used as political tool, Portman said the bill sends an important message even if it fails to gain the necessary support.
Senate Republican whip John Thune told reporters that he “would not be surprised” if enough of his conference supported the proposal, adding that he likely would not push his members to oppose it. But the conservative from South Dakota said the matter was nothing more than a political distraction.
“I don’t think it’s an issue right now that anybody’s talking about,” Thune said. “I think this is an issue that Democrats have concocted because they like to shift the subject from inflation and gas prices and the [southern] border and other issues.”
After expressing reservations about the bill to ABC News on Tuesday, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, told reporters on Wednesday he was “looking at the bill and probably will” support it.
GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ted Cruz of Texas ignored reporter questions about how they may vote.
Known as the Respect for Marriage Act, the same-sex and interracial marriage legislation comes as the House takes up a series of bills that seek to codify unenumerated constitutional rights extended by the Supreme Court, including the right to same-sex marriage and access to contraception for married couples.
Abortion access was another such right until the high court reversed Roe last month.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurrence in that case that the court should next reverse its ruling on same-sex marriage and contraception access.
This week, the House is also set to vote on a bill that would protect access to contraception after it approved legislation last week to codify a women’s right to an abortion. The fate of those bills in the Senate is not clear.
ABC News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Steve Bannon, who served as former President Donald Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, is on trial for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September of last year, with the committee telling him it had “reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged Bannon with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, setting up this week’s trial.
Here is how the news is developing. All times are Eastern:
Jul 20, 3:48 PM EDT
Defense argues Bannon was constrained by questions over executive privilege
In the defense’s ongoing cross examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling, attorney Evan Corcoran continued to stress how Bannon was prevented from testifying due to the right of executive privilege that protects confidential communication with members of the executive branch.
But Amerling testified that there are two main issues with such a claim.
First, she said, some of what the subpoena requested “had nothing to do with communication with the former president” and “could not possibly be reached by executive privilege” — especially Bannon’s communications with campaign advisers, members of Congress and other private parties, as well as information related to Bannon’s podcast, she testified.
In addition, despite what others may have said, “The president had not formally or informally invoked executive privilege,” Amerling said. “It hadn’t been invoked.”
Yet Bannon still refused to comply with the subpoena, despite having no legal grounds to do so, she said.
Amerling reiterated that by the time the committee met to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, “there had been extensive back-and-forth already between the select committee and the defendant’s attorney about the issue of executive privilege, and the select committee had made its position clear.”
Corcoran also argued that Bannon didn’t comply with the subpoena right away because he expected the deadline would ultimately change, due to the fact that it’s common for subpoena deadlines to shift.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon’s situation was different.
“When witnesses are cooperating with the committee and indicate they are willing to provide testimony, it is not unusual to have some back-and-forth about the dates that they will appear,” she said. However, she said, “it is very unusual for witnesses who receive a subpoena to say outright they will not comply.”
In his questions, Corcoran also suggested that Amerling might be a biased witness, noting that she had donated to Democratic causes in the past, and that she is a member of the same book club as one of the prosecutors in the case, Molly Gaston.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” Corcoran asked.
“We are,” Amerling replied.
Amerling said that it had been some time — perhaps as much as a year or more — since she and Gaston both attended a meeting of the club. But she conceded that, with the types of people who are in the book club, it was “not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Jul 20, 12:55 PM EDT
Defense attorney presses Jan. 6 staffer on timing of subpoena deadline
Under cross-examination from Bannon defense attorney Evan Corcoran, House Jan. 6 committee senior staffer Kristin Amerling was pressed on why the committee set the deadlines it did for Bannon to comply with the subpoena — especially since “the select committee is still receiving and reviewing documents” now, Corcoran said.
Corcoran pressed Amerling over who specifically decided that Bannon should have to produce documents by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, and who specifically decided that Bannon should have to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2021.
Amerling said that the “process” of drafting the subpoena involved many people, including senior staff like herself, but it was all ultimately approved by committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
“To the best of my recollection, because of the multiple roles that we understood Mr. Bannon potentially had with respect to the events of Jan. 6, at the time that we put the subpoena together, there was a general interest in obtaining information from him expeditiously, because we believed this information could potentially lead us to other relevant witnesses or other relevant documents,” Amerling said. “There was general interest in including deadlines that required expeditious response.”
“The committee authorization is just through the end of this year,” so it is operating under “a very tight timeframe,” she said.
Corcoran also said he wanted to made clear to the jury that, as he put it, “in this case, there is no allegation that Steve Bannon was involved in the attack” on the Capitol.
Earlier, Amerling testified that the committee tried to give Bannon “an opportunity” to explain his “misconduct” in ignoring the subpoena and to provide “information that might shed light on his misconduct, such as he might have been confused” about the subpoena — but Bannon never presented any such explanation or information before he was found in contempt, she said.
Jul 20, 11:17 AM EDT
Jan. 6 staffer says panel ‘rejected the basis’ for Bannon’s privilege claim
Kristin Amerling, a senior staffer on the House Jan. 6 committee, returned to the stand to continue her testimony from Tuesday. She testified that Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that his non-compliance “would force” the committee to refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution.
She said the subpoena issued to Bannon indicated he was “required to produce” records encompassing 17 specific categories, including records related to the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, his communications with Trump allies and several right-wing groups, his communications with Republican lawmakers, and information related to his “War Room” podcast.
The committee was seeking to understand “the relationships or potential relationships between different individuals and organizations that played a role in Jan. 6,” Amerling said. “We wanted to ask him what he knew.”
Asked by prosecutor Amanda Vaughn if Bannon provided any records to the committee by the deadline of 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, Amerling replied, “He did not.”
“Did the committee get anything more than radio silence by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7?” Vaughn asked.
“No,” said Amerling.
Amerling said that in a correspondence she received that day at about 5 p.m. — after the deadline had passed — Bannon’s attorney at the time, Robert Costello, claimed that Trump had “announced his intention to assert” executive privilege, which Costello said at the time rendered Bannon “unable to respond” to the subpoena “until these issues are resolved.”
But the next day, Amerling recalled on the stand, she sent Costello a letter from Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson, “explaining that the committee rejected the basis that he had offered for refusing to comply.”
“Did the letter also tell the defendant he still had to comply?” Vaughn asked Amerling.
“Yes, it did.” Amerling said.
“Did the letter warn the defendant what might happen if he failed to comply with the subpoena?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, it did,” said Amerling.
The letter was “establishing a clear record of the committee’s views, making sure the defendant was aware of that,” Amerling testified.
Jul 20, 10:06 AM EDT
Judge won’t let trial become ‘political circus,’ he says
Federal prosecutors in Steve Bannon’s contempt trial raised concerns with the judge that Bannon’s team has been suggesting to the jury that this is a “politically motivated prosecution” before the second day of testimony got underway Wednesday morning.
Before the jury was brought in, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to make sure the jury “doesn’t hear one more word about this case being” politically motivated, after she said the defense’s opening statement Tuesday had “clear implications” that the defense was making that claim.
Nichols had barred such arguments from the trial.
In response, defense attorney Evan Corcoran defended his opening statement, saying it “was clearly on the line.”
Nichols then made it clear that during trial, the defense team may ask witnesses questions about whether they themselves may be biased — “but may not ask questions about whether someone else was biased in an action they took outside this courtroom.”
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus,” Nichols said.
Speaking to reporters after the first full day in court, Bannon blasted members of the Jan. 6 committee and House Democrats for not showing up as witnesses in his trial.
“Where is Bennie Thompson?” asked Bannon regarding the Jan. 6 committee chairman. “He’s made it a crime, not a civil charge … have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.”
“I will promise you one thing when the Republicans that are sweeping to victory on Nov. 8 — starting in January, you’re going to get a real committee,” Bannon said. “We’re going to get a real committee with a ranking member who will be a Democrat … and this will be run
appropriately and the American people will get the full story.”
The first witness for the prosecution, Kristin Amerling of the Jan. 6 committee, testified that a subpoena is not voluntary.
Amerling, the Jan. 6 panel’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, read aloud the congressional resolution creating the committee and explained that the committee’s role is to recommend “corrective measures” to prevent future attacks like the one on Jan. 6.
“Is a subpoena voluntary in any way?” asked prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
“No,” Amerling replied.
Amerling also discussed how important it is to get information in a timely manner because the committee’s authority runs out at the end of the year. “There is an urgency to the focus of the Select Committee’s work … we have a limited amount of time in which to gather information,” she said.
Amerling noted that Bannon was subpoenaed pretty early on in the committee’s investigation.
She said the committee subpoenaed Bannon in particular because public accounts indicated that Bannon tried to persuade the public that the 2020 election was “illegitimate”; that on his podcast the day before Jan. 6 he made statements “including that all hell was going to break loose, that suggested he might have some advance knowledge of the events of Jan. 6”; that he was involved in discussions with White House officials, including Trump himself, relating to “strategies surrounding the events of Jan. 6”; and that he had been involved in discussions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 with “private parties who had gathered in the Willard hotel in Washington, D.C., reportedly to discuss strategies around efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power or overturning the election results.”
“Is that something that would have been relevant to the committee’s investigation?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, because the Select Committee was tasked with trying to understand what happened on Jan. 6, and why,” Amerling replied.
Amerling will be back on the stand Wednesday morning when the trial resumes.
Jul 19, 3:55 PM EDT
Defense tells jury ‘there was no ignoring the subpoena’
Bannon’s defense attorney Matt “Evan” Corcoran said in his opening statement that “no one ignored the subpoena” issued to Bannon, and that “there was direct engagement by Bob Costello,” Bannon’s attorney, with the House committee, specifically committee staffer Kristin Amerling.
He said Costello “immediately” communicated to the committee that there was an objection to the subpoena, “and that Steve Bannon could not appear and that he could not provide documents.”
“So there was no ignoring the subpoena,” Corcoran said. What followed was “a considerable back and forth” between Amerling and Costello — “they did what two lawyers do, they negotiated.”
Corcoran said, “the government wants you to believe … that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up to a congressional hearing room … but the evidence is going to be crystal clear no one, no one believed Mr. Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021,” and the reasons he couldn’t appear had been articulated to the committee.
Corcoran told the jury that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable that Steve Bannon willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear for the deposition on Oct. 14, 2021 — “but you’ll find from the evidence that that date on the subpoena was the subject of ongoing discussions” and it was not “fixed.”
In addition, Corcoran told jurors, you will hear that “almost every single one” of the witnesses subpoenaed led to negotiations between committee staff and lawyers, and often the appearance would be at a later date than what was on the subpoena.
Corcoran also argued that the prosecution may have been infected by politics, telling the jury that with each document or each statement provided at trial, they should ask themselves: “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
Jul 19, 3:31 PM EDT
Prosecutors say Bannon’s failure to comply was deliberate
Continuing her opening statement, federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that the subpoena to Bannon directed him to provide documents by the morning of Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition the morning of Oct. 14, 2021 — but instead he had an attorney, Robert Costello, send a letter to the committee informing the committee that he would not comply “in any way,” she said.
“The excuse the defendant gave for not complying” was the claim that “a privilege” meant he didn’t have to turn over certain information, Vaughn said. “[But] it’s not up to the defendant or anyone else to decide if he can ignore the [request] based on a privilege, it’s up to the committee.”
And, said Vaughn, the committee clearly told Bannon that “your privilege does not get you out of this one, you have to provide documents, and you have to come to your deposition.” And importantly, she said, the committee told Bannon that “a refusal to comply” could result in criminal prosecution.
“You will see, the defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate here,” Vaughn told the jury. “The only verdict that is supported by the evidence here: that the defendant showed his contempt for the U.S. Congress, and that he’s guilty.”
Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn began opening statements by saying, “In September of last year, Congress needed information from the defendant, Steve Bannon. … Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan. 6, 2021. … Congress had gotten information that the defendant might have some details about the events leading up to that day and what occurred that day.”
So, Vaughn told the jury, Congress gave Bannon a subpoena “that mandated” he provide any information he might have.
“Congress was entitled to the information it sought, it wasn’t optional,” Vaughn said. “But as you will learn in this trial, the defendant refused to hand over the information he might have.”
Vaughn said Bannon ignored “multiple warnings” that he could face criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena and for preventing the government from getting “important information.”
“The defendant decided he was above the law and decided he didn’t need to follow the government’s orders,” she said.
Jul 19, 2:51 PM EDT
Judge instructs jury of the burden of proof
Prior to opening statements, the judge made clear to the jury that the Justice Department has the burden to prove four distinct elements “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
(1) that Bannon was in fact subpoenaed for testimony and/or documents;
(2) that the testimony and/or documents were “pertinent” to the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation;
(3) that Bannon “failed to comply or refused to comply” with the subpoena;
(4) that the “failure or refusal to comply was willful.”
Jul 19, 2:44 PM EDT
Jury sworn in after judge denies continuance
A 14-member jury has been sworn in for the contempt trial of ex-Trump strategist Steve Bannon.
Of the 14 jurors, nine are men and five are women.
The swearing-in of the jury comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a one-month delay of the trial, which attorneys for Bannon argued was necessary due to a “seismic shift in the understanding of the parties” of what the government’s evidence will be.
“We have a jury that is just about picked,” Nichols said in denying the request for a one-month continuance.
One of the jurors, a man who works for an appliance company, said Monday during jury selection that he watched the first Jan. 6 committee hearing and believes the committee is “trying to find the truth about what happened” on Jan. 6.
Another juror, a man who works as a maintenance manager for the Washington, D.C., Parks and Recreation department, said he believes what happened on Jan. 6 “doesn’t make sense.”
Another juror, a woman who works as a photographer for NASA, said “a lot” of her “photographer friends were at the Capitol” on Jan. 6, and she has watched some of the Jan. 6 hearings on the news.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced a few executive actions to address climate change, with a focus on helping Americans facing extreme heat — but the steps fall short of the more sweeping measures climate activists are calling for.
While Biden didn’t declare a climate national emergency on Wednesday, as many activists and Democratic lawmakers encouraged him to do, he strongly suggested he would do so soon.
“Now let me be clear, climate change is an emergency and in the coming weeks, I’m going to use the power I have as president to turn these words into formal, official government actions through the appropriate proclamations, executive orders and regulatory power that the president possess,” he said. “When it comes to fighting climate change I will not take no for an answer.”
For now,, the directives largely appear to provide more funding to or otherwise strengthen existing programs.
According to the White House, the president’s latest set of executive actions focus on “protecting communities facing extreme heat with additional FY22 funding for FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and additional guidance to support the Department of Health and Human Services Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).” The BRIC program offers funding to communities for hazard mitigation, while the LIHEAP provides low-income Americans with assistance in covering their energy costs.
Biden also announced additional actions to boost the domestic offshore wind industry.
Biden made the announcements while visiting a now-defunct coal-fired power plant, called Brayton Point, in Somerset, Massachusetts. The site is expected to be turned into a manufacturing plant that will produce transmission cables for Massachusetts’ offshore wind industry, according to the White House.
“I come here today with a message,” Biden said. “As president I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger, and that’s what climate change is about.”
Biden continued, “It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger. The health of our citizens and our communities is literally at stake.”
A White House official told reporters that Wednesday’s actions are a “continuation of the decisive steps on climate that the president has taken since day one.”
The Biden administration’s efforts to continue to pivot the U.S. power sector toward zero-emission energy options, such as off-shore wind, move the country in the right direction but don’t address the larger problem of cutting and reducing current energy-based emissions from the existing fossil fuel industry. Without continuing to cut and reduce current emissions from a range of polluting areas, it will take much more than empowering renewable energy and improving building efficiency to reach Biden’s climate goals.
Wednesday’s announcements come as people across the United States — and around the world — grapple with sweltering temperatures this week. A scorching airmass remains over the majority of the continental U.S. on Wednesday, with a heat dome sitting over the Southwest and Great Plains and triple-digit temperatures stretching throughout the Midwest and up and down the East Coast.
ABC News’ Julia Jacobo and Tracy Wholf contributed to this report.
(PHILADELPHIA) — The legal team representing the family of two young Black girls who were seemingly waved off by a Sesame Place character is calling for the costumed performer to be fired.
“We want a genuine and authentic apology,” attorney B’Ivory LaMarr said in a press conference Wednesday. “The second thing that we’re requesting is for the immediate termination of that performer. The third thing that we’re going to request is — we’re going to demand that they take care of any type of health care or mental care expenses that these children have realized.”
In a video posted on Twitter, two young Black girls at Sesame Place Philadelphia waved excitedly and held out their arms as a performer dressed in a Rosita costume approached.
Rosita high-fives parkgoers as she walks down the line, before appearing to shake her head at and wave off the two girls as she walks away from them.
“#BabyPaige & her cute lil friends went to @SesamePlace this weekend to celebrate Paige’s 4th birthday & this is how #SesamePlace treated these beautiful Black children,” the tweet, posted by the apparent aunt of the girl celebrating her birthday, read.
Outrage ensued online, as more footage of similar incidents with park characters and Black children were posted online in response to the viral video. Calls to boycott Sesame Place are growing on social media.
“While we hate to speculate and consider ‘race’ as the motivating factor, which would explain the performer’s actions, such actions both before and after the young girls reached out only leads us to one conclusion,” said LaMarr, who is representing the family, in a statement to ABC News.
He continued, “Although Sesame Place purports to stand for inclusivity and equality, this was not demonstrated this past Saturday. We are currently investigating this incident and will exercise every legal remedy possible to further protect this family.”
In the park’s initial statement, the performer portraying Rosita is said to have intended the “no” hand gesture in response to requests to hold children for a photo and did not intentionally ignore the girls.
The park said it has apologized to the family directly and has invited them for a meet-and-greet with the characters. It has not responded to ABC News’ request for comment on the family’s employee termination demands.
Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit that runs Sesame Street, said it will “conduct bias training and a thorough review of the ways in which they engage families and guests” at Sesame Place after a video of a potential racial bias incident went viral online.
“As a global nonprofit educational organization with a mission to help children grow smarter, stronger and kinder, Sesame Workshop has always stood for respect, inclusion and belonging and is committed to providing the highest quality engaging experiences for all children and families,” the organization said in a statement.
In an interview with ABC News, the mother of the birthday girl Jodi Brown said she’s happy the video went viral.
“These are innocent children. And the job of the character is to bring joy to the kids,” she said. “I also think that a lot of parents, as you can see in the other videos that are now released, have went through a similar thing and just didn’t speak up about it right away. So now they have the courage to say ‘hey, this also happened to my child.'”
Sesame Place Philadelphia released a second statement on the incident, saying, “We know that it’s not OK. We are taking actions to do better. We are committed to making this right.”
The park said it will conduct training for employees to deliver an “inclusive, equitable and entertaining” experience for parkgoers.
Sesame Place is a licensed park partner of Sesame Workshop.
ABC News’ Sabina Ghebremedhin and Kendall Ross contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Gov. Larry Hogan is a popular Republican who won two statewide elections in Democratic-leaning Maryland — but his full-throated endorsement didn’t mean enough to the Republican base in Tuesday’s primary.
Hogan’s preferred candidate, his former Commerce Secretary Kelly Schulz, is projected to lose the GOP nod to succeed Hogan.
Instead, primary voters chose state Del. Dan Cox, a vocal critic of Hogan’s policies — in particular restrictions to combat COVID-19 — who was backed by former President Donald Trump, another Hogan foe. The governor, in turn, assailed Cox as a right-wing “conspiracy theorist.”
Hogan, a moderate who twice won over a majority of voters in a blue state, hoped to see a similar politician win the nomination to continue the GOP’s control of the governorship.
But Trump, as he has done to mixed success in other state primaries, weighed in to support the more conservative choice and relished the chance to punish a Republican critic.
It was Cox — who criticized the 2020 elections results; opposes abortion and restrictions on guns; and who has campaigned heavily against government’s role in public life, including COVID lockdowns and changes in education — who won out.
“RINO Larry Hogan’s Endorsement doesn’t seem to be working out so well for his heavily favored candidate,” Trump said in a statement after Tuesday’s race. “Next, I’d love to see Larry run for President!”
In remarks on Tuesday night, Cox said, “President Trump didn’t have to come alongside an outsider, a newcomer so to speak. Somebody that believed in his vision of America first. A person that believed in it for each one of us. But he did.”
Soon, Hogan’s office was telling reporters that he would not vote for Cox in November.
And, according to The Baltimore Sun, Schulz adviser Doug Mayer spoke sharply about who the base had chosen: “The Maryland Republican Party got together and committed ritualized mass suicide. The only thing missing was Jim Jones and a glass of Kool-Aid. I hope it was a good party.”
This year’s primary season has seen the next phase of the GOP’s political identity slowly form, race by race, across the country.
In Maryland as in some other states, like Arizona and Georgia, a relative sliver of high-profile Republicans have decided to challenge the Trump-backed candidates, many of whom baselessly question the 2020 election as he does or who run further to the right of the general electorate.
In Georgia, for example, the Trump choice lost handily. In Illinois and in Maryland, it was the reverse.
While that narrows the lane for local anti-Trump Republicans, some Democrats hope the victory of more right-wing nominees will give them a boost in the November midterms.
In Maryland as elsewhere, Democratic groups spent big on advertising in the Republican primary trying to raise the profile of Cox as the more conservative choice in a state with blue-leaning voters.
Observers says they may be right: The day after the primary, the Cook Political Report changed its rating for the Maryland governor from “lean Democrat” to “Solid Democrat.”
In a press conference earlier this month, Hogan blasted the Democratic Governors Association decision to advertise about Cox, saying Democrats were “spending over $1 million … [because they] desperately want [Cox] to be the Republican nominee.”
Cox reportedly attended that press conference, occasionally shouting back at the governor and at Schulz, then later posted a series of videos on social media that called the event “laughable” and “hilarious.”
So where does Tuesday’s result leave more moderate Republicans like Hogan? He has been pointed and emphatic about his hopes for the party repudiating Trump — as epitomized during a speech at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California this past May.
“The last four years were the worst four years for the GOP Party since the 1930s, even worse than after Watergate when Ronald Reagan had to rebuild the party from the ashes,” Hogan said in remarks about the future of the Republican party. “We lost the White House, the Senate, the House. We lost governors’ seats, and state legislative bodies. Trump said we would be winning so much we’d would get tired of winning. Well, I’m tired of our party losing.”
Republican voters, though, aren’t tired of Trump. While a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, showed half of the party preferred someone else as a potential 2024 candidate, Trump was still the overwhelming favorite among a hypothetical field of candidates.
And a significant number of Republican candidates have found primary success sowing the same sorts of doubts that Trump embraces and that Hogan warned against. According to data collected by FiveThirtyEight, at least 120 election-denying candidates who ran for all sorts of down-ballot offices advanced from their primaries and will be on the general election ticket in November.
Cox likewise attacked the 2020 election. He called former Vice President Mike Pence a “traitor” for certifying the 2020 election results in now-deleted tweets. (He later apologized.) He also organized buses to drive Maryland residents to Trump’s rally on Jan. 6, 2021, though he said he didn’t go to the Capitol and denounced the rioting that broke out there.
Schulz’s loss is deflating for Hogan for another reason: He opted-out of a run for Senate but has yet to take a presidential bid off the table, citing his belief that he has a winning brand of Republican politics.
In an interview with CBS News earlier this month, Hogan said “more and more people are encouraging” him to consider campaigning.
“There’s a diminishing number of folks that are wanting the former President Trump to run,” he told CBS. “There’s a growing number of people that are looking for our kind of successful, bigger-tent politics.”
ABC News’ Alisa Wiersema contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — As the House committee probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol continues to reveal how it says then-President Donald Trump and his allies worked to overturn the 2020 election, a bipartisan group of senators has quietly reached agreement on a sweeping effort to overhaul the very law at the heart of the former president’s effort — the Electoral Count Act of 1887 — and was set to unveil a bill Wednesday.
The ambiguous 19th century law attempts to prescribe both the process by which the Electoral College selects the president and vice president and how Congress then counts those votes.
The senators hope to address the apparent loopholes and vagueness in the bill, problems laid bare last year on Jan. 6 when Trump’s congressional supporters tried to overturn the results in five states that voted for Joe Biden and the committee says Trump attempted to pressure his own vice president to hijack what is normally a ceremonial role in overseeing the certifying of each state’s slate of electoral votes, a move that fueled the Capitol insurrection.
The bipartisan group of 16 senators, nine Republicans and seven Democrats, led by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and including Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a joint statement, “From the beginning, our bipartisan group has shared a vision of drafting legislation to fix the flaws of the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887. Through numerous meetings and debates among our colleagues as well as conversations with a wide variety of election experts and legal scholars, we have developed legislation that establishes clear guidelines for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes for President and Vice President. We urge our colleagues in both parties to support these simple, commonsense reforms.”
The new legislation, the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA), would enshrine the vice president’s “ministerial” role rendering that person powerless to alter the electoral count; dramatically raise the number of congressional objectors required to challenge a state’s results to 20%, or one-fifth of members, in both chambers — a jump from the current requirement of one in each house; clarify that states may not select electors after Election Day; and dictate what happens if an alternate slate of electors is presented to Congress, according to a one-sheet released from the group.
The bill text, according to an aide familiar with the matter, is nearly done and is expected to be released soon.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence ignored the pressure campaign Trump and his allies mounted and certified the electoral totals from each state, but the Senate group in its release states that the bill “affirmatively states that the constitutional role of the Vice President, as the presiding officer of the joint meeting of Congress, is solely ministerial and that he or she does not have any power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.”
Additionally, the new legislation seeks to stop any state from sending a false slate of electors, as was part of a plan by Trump’s allies in the wake of Joe Biden’s win in 2020.
“We define who is the official at the state level for submitting the slate and that is the governor, unless the state law or state Constitution indicates otherwise,” Collins told reporters Tuesday, adding that the state “would not be able to change who submits the change (to Congress) after the election.”
“Congress could not accept a slate submitted by a different official. This reform would address the potential for multiple state officials to send Congress competing slates,” the release states.
The Maine GOP moderate said the bill states that under the Constitution or under federal laws “an aggrieved candidate could bring a lawsuit and challenge any kind of due process challenge, for example, and there would be a process for expedited consideration in the courts.”
In addition to those changes to the 1887 law, the Senate group reached back to an 1845 law, the Presidential Election Day Act, to strike what it calls “an archaic” provision “that could be used by state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by declaring a ‘failed election’ –- a term that is not defined in the law,” the group’s release states. Current law states that if electors are not chosen by Election Day in November, states may appoint electors in a manner they choose.
“Instead, this legislation specifies that a state could move its presidential election day, which otherwise would remain the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November every four years, only if necessitated by ‘extraordinary and catastrophic’ events,” according to the release.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told ABC News that his portion of the ECRA dealt with the problem that cropped up just days after the 2020 election in which a Trump appointee at the General Services Administration — a little-recognized federal agency that normally unlocks millions of dollars for office space, equipment, and government staff for a presidential transition — refused to send a letter recognizing Joe Biden as the president-elect.
That provision “would allow an eligible candidate, during the limited time period in which the outcome of a presidential election is reasonably in dispute, to receive transition resources, removing the need for the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration to ascertain the apparent winner during this time,” the release states.
The group goes on to define a sole election winner as someone who “receives the majority of pledged electoral votes and there are no further legal or administrative actions pertaining to the results; receives the majority of electoral votes at the meeting of electors in December following the election; or is formally elected at the joint meeting of Congress on January 6.”
In addition to the ECRA, a slimmer bipartisan group also introduced the “Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act” to deal with the unprecedented rise in threats against poll workers and other election officials.
This measure would “double the penalty under federal law for individuals who threaten or intimidate election officials, poll watchers, voters, or candidates. Under current law, threats of violence or intimidation against these individuals are punishable by no more than one year in prison. This penalty would be raised to no more than two years in prison,” the release states. Additionally, the measure seeks to improve the handling of election-related mail, and — though there was no widespread evidence of fraud, like voting system tampering, despite Trump’s false claims to the contrary — “increase the existing maximum penalties for individuals who willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter election records from $1,000 to $10,000 and from up to one year in prison to up to two years in prison. In addition, it would make it illegal to tamper with voting systems,” according to the release.
Both parties have, in recent years, sought — largely through symbolic challenges — to use the arcane 1887 election law to partisan advantage in what is usually a simple, barely-noticed ceremony of formalities at the heart of a peaceful transfer of power in the U.S, and the legislation introduced Wednesday is also designed to close the door on some of that. Democrats did it in 2001 and 2017 during the joint session of Congress after bitter electoral outcomes that saw their party out of power in the White House.
After the 2020 election, however, Trump and his congressional allies’ outsized effort — without evidence to back their claims of election fraud — moved Congress to finally act. After a violent, pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, the culmination of a months-long effort to reverse the election results, as GOP lawmakers challenged the results of Arizona’s vote for Joe Biden, many senators abandoned the effort – though six conservatives, led by Missouri’s Josh Hawley, ultimately stuck with it.
Collins’ effort began in earnest in January and has included an influential roster in the Senate, from the more consensus-minded, like GOP Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ohio’s Rob Portman, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Republicans more supportive of Trump, like Graham, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis and Indiana’s Todd Young. Democrats, primarily led by Joe Manchin of West Virginia, include Virginia’s Mark Warner, Biden ally Chris Coons of Delaware, Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.
The participation of Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, a progressive fresh off a major bipartisan win reforming the nation’s gun laws, was a surprise to many at first, with a number of participants — from Republican to Democrat — eventually expressing admiration for his ability to forge consensus.
“At first, I was really skeptical of Chris’ involvement. I thought, ‘No way. He’s a ringer for (Senate Majority Leader Chuck) Schumer.’ But seriously, he was constructive, thoughtful,” said one Republican senator who asked to speak on background of the group’s deliberations.
The group is aiming to present their work in two parts – with the core of the bill going to the Rules Committee which has jurisdiction over election law.
On Tuesday, that panel’s chair, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, told ABC News that she planned to hold hearings on the bill and allow her members to consider the legislation and potentially make changes. The rest of the bill would go to the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who strongly rebuked Trump and his fellow Republicans for attempting to stop the orderly transfer of power, said he has kept close tabs on what the group is doing and is “generally supportive.” If he were to support the bill, that could have great sway over his conference and give cover to those who might fear a Trump backlash.
Earlier this year, McConnell, R-Ky., told ABC of the Electoral Count Act, “I think it needs fixing, and I wish them well, and I’d be happy to take a look at whatever they can come up with.” Asked for any red lines in those negotiations, the leader said, “I just encourage the discussion, because I think [the ECA] clearly is flawed. This is directly related to what happened on January 6th, and I think we ought to be able to figure out a bipartisan way to fix it.”
