(WASHINGTON) — Nancy Pelosi is pushing back on No Labels — “perilous,” she calls it, earning some pushback of her own — as South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott echoed some of the election fraud fears that have become popular among his party.
And Donald Trump share more of what he will be doing next week instead of debating his 2024 rivals in Miami.
Here are campaign takeaways for Thursday.
Pelosi vs. No Labels
“Perilous to our democracy”: That’s what former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to say about the group No Labels possibly launching a third-party “unity” ticket to run in the 2024 presidential race given voter dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic front-runners.
“I think that No Labels is perilous to our democracy. I say that completely without any hesitation,” Pelosi said at an event with the nonprofit Third Way.
No Label co-founder and former Sen. Joe Lieberman soon shot back with a rhetorical question.
“Do you know what is ‘perilous’ to democracy? When leaders try to tell Americans what they are allowed to think and when they try to prevent competition from participating in the political process. That’s apparently what my friend Rep. Nancy Pelosi said this morning, and it is wrong,” Lieberman said in a statement.
-ABC News’ Abby Cruz, Hajah Bah and Kelsey Walsh
Tim Scott weighs in on election integrity
During a meet-and-greet in Independence, Iowa, on Thursday, Scott did not defend the integrity of the 2020 election when asked but did say he has more confidence heading into 2024 than in years past.
“I’m more confident today than I was in 2020, and 2022,” Scott replied, drawing laughter.
He went on to single out Georgia and Pennsylvania as he raised baseless concerns about the mail ballots used by those states in 2020: That to me sounds like an invitation for high levels of fraud. Anybody disagree?”
He said signature verification and voter ID law, are “common sense, from my perspective,” but he also talked about reducing drop boxes and having compact windows for early voting.
-ABC News’ Gabriella Abdul-Hakim, Fritz Farrow, Libby Cathey and Hajah Bah
Trump’s debate ‘spin room’
Former President Trump and his campaign continue to attempt to pull the focus away from the upcoming GOP debate, on Nov. 8 in Miami.
Not only is Trump counterprogramming with a rally in Hialeah, Florida, his campaign just announced they will be holding a “Team Trump Spin Room” after he speaks.
Throughout the Republican primary, Trump has indicated he sees no point in attending the debates, to face scrutiny from the other candidates, given his large polling lead.
ABC News’ Lalee Ibssa, Soo Rin Kim and Kendall Ross
Sununu gushes about Haley
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley attended a town hall alongside New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu at the Poor Boy’s Diner in Londonderry, where Sununu — a vocal Trump critic — lapped praise on her and called winning “the issue of 2024.”
“That’s all that matters. If you cannot cross the finish line in November of ’24, get your ass off the ballot,” he said.
At one point, Haley poked fun at Sununu, asking if he was going to endorse her.
“I’m getting closer every day. Getting closer every day,” he retorted, later clarifying he meant that he was getting closer to an endorsement overall as the state’s GOP primary draws nearer.
-ABC News’ Nicholas Kerr and Abby Cruz
Ramaswamy says he’s fighting back with ads
Vivek Ramaswamy is blaming his stagnant polling — after an earlier brush with increased support around the first primary debate — on advertisements targeted at him.
Just one day after telling reporters that he’s “going to put [his] money where his [mouth] is, Ramswamy’s campaign has announced an eight-figure ad buy in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Campaign spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin tells ABC News that the campaign is investing $7-8 million in Iowa and $3-4 million in New Hampshire.
Ramaswamy has said that the money will not go to more events, as he already has a lot: “I think if the election was held amongst the subset of people who go to events, I think we’d probably win Iowa and New Hampshire right now.”
ABC News’ Kendall Ross, Kelsey Walsh, Soo Rin Kim and Lalee Ibssa
(DENVER) — After two and a half days of testimony about how former President Donald Trump allegedly played a key role in the violence on Jan. 6 and how that should disqualify him as a future political candidate, Trump’s team has begun mounting their defense in a historic, dayslong hearing in Denver that will wrap up on Friday.
Trump faces a challenge from six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado, represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from the 2024 presidential election.
He and his attorneys have rejected that argument outright.
Over the past few months, efforts to keep Trump from the Republican primary ballot because of the 14th Amendment, which was first enacted after the Civil War, have gained traction in a few states.
A hearing was separately held on Thursday in Minnesota on a similar 14th Amendment complaint against Trump.
Section 3 of the amendment states that someone isn’t eligible for future office if, while they were in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
Supporters of this theory argue it applies to Trump because of his conduct after he lost the 2020 election but sought to reverse the results, including on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021. Trump maintains he did nothing wrong.
Previous such efforts focused on other Republicans have failed, except in New Mexico, where a local commissioner convicted of trespassing at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was booted from his office.
Among the witnesses that Trump’s attorneys called at the Colorado hearing on Wednesday and Thursday were former Trump administration official Kash Patel, former Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson and another organizer of the event near the White House on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, when then-President Trump addressed supporters shortly before the attack on the U.S. Capitol unfolded.
Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls and Michael van der Veen, who represented Trump during his second impeachment trial, will not be witnesses in this case as originally planned.
However, retiring Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who has spoken out against 2020 election denialism, will begin testifying later on Thursday.
In his testimony on Wednesday, Patel mostly fielded questions about National Guard resources and operations — including the authorization of the forces, his recollection of correspondence with then-President Trump and local governing bodies about deploying the National Guard and the Department of Defense’s timeline of involvement in and around the events of Jan. 6.
During cross-examination, there were sometimes contentious back-and-forth exchanges between CREW lawyers and Patel over the dates of his National Guard-related meetings with Christopher Miller, who was the acting defense secretary in the final days of the Trump administration.
“A lot was going on…Sue me,” Patel said at one point, to which one of the CREW attorneys responded: “The timing does matter, sir.”
“From my perspective, and my conversation with the secretary of defense and the chairman and secretary of the Army, we had what we needed to initiate under the law … the deployment and activation of the National Guard,” Patel said.
“Did any senior DOJ leader ever state in words or substance that they felt they needed … a different authorization from President Trump before they could deploy National Guard troops to keep the peace on Jan. 6?” Trump’s lawyer asked.
“No,” Patel said.
That testimony rebutted one of the arguments about Trump’s behavior around Jan. 6: that he did not act properly in surging National Guard members.
Miller has previously testified before Congress about the timeline of sending in those forces, which did not arrive to the Capitol on Jan. 6 until nearly 5:30 p.m. — hours after the rioting broke out.
Miller said in 2021 that he was aware of the breach at the Capitol by the time Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser called on then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy at 1:34 p.m.
Under questioning from lawmakers in 2021, however, Miller admitted that he did not approve an operational plan to deploy the National Guard to the Capitol until 4:32 p.m., more than three hours after he first learned that demonstrators had breached the Capitol perimeter.
Miller testified then that he did not speak with Trump during the attack.
Patel, in his testimony at Trump’s 14th Amendment hearing in Denver, said on Wednesday that none of the delay in deploying the National Guard had anything to do with Trump.
Patel said he still works for Trump — as senior counsel — and is paid $15,000 per month by a Trump-aligned political group.
Katrina Pierson, a spokeswoman for Trump’s 2016 campaign and one of the organizers of the rally on Jan. 6 held at the Ellipse near the White House, testified on Wednesday after Patel and repeated some of what she previously told the House special committee that investigated Jan. 6.
She said she had concerns about fringe right-wing figures, such as Alex Jones, potentially speaking at the Ellipse rally. Ultimately, they weren’t involved.
Pierson also testified to meetings she had with Trump officials in light of her issues with Jones and others.
At one meeting, she spoke with Trump directly, she said, and they touched on broader topics. “I let him know that there were some groups that were going to the Capitol that had been planning to go to the Capitol,” she said.
Trump asked her if they were expecting “trouble,” she said.
“I said, ‘Well, there have been some incidents at some of the previous rallies.’ And he said, ‘Well, we should call the National Guard,'” she testified.
After Pierson, another organizer of the Jan. 6 rally, Amy Kremer, appeared as a witness for Trump on Thursday.
Kremer said that as people were listening to Trump speak at the rally, she “absolutely did not” get the feeling that he was telling people to storm the Capitol — seeking to bolster a main argument of Trump’s attorneys against the 14th Amendment theory.
Scott Gessler, one of Trump’s attorneys, has highlighted how Trump encouraged supporters to protest peacefully at the Capitol during his speech on Jan. 6.
However, during his remarks at the Ellipse, Trump also repeated his baseless allegations that the 2020 election was fraudulent and said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
During cross-examination of Kremer’s testimony on Thursday, CREW’s lawyers went through some of her past social media posts and she doubled down on a number of her views on Jan. 6.
“There was no insurrection …. There was a riot,” she said.
Later Thursday morning, Rep. Paul Gosar’s chief of staff, Tom Van Flein, began testifying for Trump. Much of the questioning had to do with his communications with Ali Alexander, a lead organizer of the Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse.
Tom Bjorklund, the Colorado Republican Party’s treasurer, was the last witness on Thursday morning — and is expected to resume testifying after a break — and he spoke about how he traveled to Washington on Jan. 6, both for the Ellipse event and then to go to the Capitol that day.
Bjorklund has said that he didn’t enter the complex.
Minnesota court also hears 14th Amendment argument
While the Denver hearing continued, the Minnesota Supreme Court, a few states away, heard oral arguments on whether a similar 14th Amendment challenge to Trump should proceed to an evidentiary hearing.
“This is a case of extraordinary importance,” Ron Fein, an attorney for the group Free Speech for People, representing the plaintiffs, said in his opening.
“Section 3 of the 14th Amendment protects the republic from oath-breaking insurrectionists because its framers understood that if they’re allowed back into power, they will do the same or worse. Section 3’s plain text bars Trump from ever holding office,” Fein argued.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson raised the worrying prospect of chaos at the ballot if different states address the 14th Amendment issue in different ways.
“There could “potentially [be] 50 different states who, depending on the nature of the statutes in those states, [are] deciding this question differently,” she said.
Fein played down the risk from that, contending it was “the way that our constitutional system is set up.”
Nick Nelson, representing Trump, argued in his remarks that when there is a dispute about who is able to be president, “The courts overwhelmingly say that’s not a decision that should be made in the judiciary, that’s a decision that should be made elsewhere.”
Asked by the justices why the court shouldn’t focus on the plain text of Section 3, Nelson said it should be considered in the context of when it was written in the 1800s, after the Civil War.
At one point, Justice Gordon Moore asked Nelson, in his view, what it means to engage in insurrection.
“It doesn’t have to be the Civil War, but that’s the paradigm that we’re working from,” Nelson said. “I would say it’s some sort of organized form of warfare or violence … that is oriented towards breaking away from or overthrowing the United States government.”
When asked about Trump’s impeachment in the wake of Jan. 6, Nelson noted the Republican-led Senate at the time acquitted Trump and said that should be factored into the court’s analysis.
The Minnesota Supreme Court does not have a deadline to make a decision but was urged by the secretary of state’s attorney to do so quickly to ensure a smooth process for the state’s early March primary.
ABC News’ Beatrice Peterson contributed to this report.
(SEATTLE) — Washington state police are searching for a teen who has been charged in the premeditated murder of a stranger while they were apparently asleep on a bus.
Miguel Robert Rivera Dominguez, 17, has been charged with murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree in the death of Marcel Wagner on Oct. 3.
While still at large, Dominguez’s bail has been set at $3 million. He has been charged in adult court.
Wagner was shot on a King County Metro Transit bus with about 15 passengers on board at the time, according to court documents. The bus had video and audio recordings, and captured the incident, according to court records.
“Without any provocation, and in fact without having ever interacted with the victim at all, the defendant fired five rounds into the victim’s head and neck at point blank range. The defendant then fired two more shots through the door of the bus and fled to a location where he could change his clothing before returning home again,” prosecutors alleged in charging documents.
In court documents, the prosecution requested that bail be set at $3 million based on the “likelihood that the defendant will fail to appear in response to a summons and he may commit a violent offense.”
Dominguez does not have a criminal history, according to prosecutors.
Dominguez allegedly took steps to “conceal his identity” and his “calculated actions on the bus” suggest that the murder was “planned and deliberate,” prosecutors said.
“The defendant’s senseless execution of a total stranger strongly suggests that if released on his own recognizance or on a low bail, he will commit future violent offenses,” prosecutors wrote in court documents.
Surveillance footage from the bus shows that Dominguez was allegedly dressed in a dark jacket, full-face ski mask, jeans and black shoes and was carrying a backpack and was accompanied by another unidentified 17-year-old, according to records. For the approximately 12-minute ride after Wagner and Dominguez boarded the bus, there appeared to be “no interaction between Wagner and Dominguez whatsoever,” according to records.
“In fact, it appears that Wagner might even be asleep. Dominguez appears to be texting or otherwise viewing his phone throughout the entire duration of the ride, pausing only occasionally to look outside,” according to records.
Dominguez then allegedly pulls the “stop” line indicating that he wants to get off the bus and pulls out a handgun and “suddenly begins shooting Wagner … without uttering a single word,” according to records.
The accompanying minor, whose identity is not revealed, reacted with “shock” and covered his head, according to records.
He then shouts repeatedly at the bus driver to open the doors and let him off, even firing two rounds from his gun into the still-closed doors. The bullets hit the SeaMar White Center Medical Building, according to records.
The driver then brings the bus to a halt and opens the rear door allowing Dominguez and the other 17-year-old to flee, according to records.
Minutes later, Dominguez was captured on surveillance footage entering a nearby Boys and Girls Club and changing his clothes inside, court records show. Footage from his residence showed him later returning home in that same attire.
According to court records, Dominguez was allegedly suspended from Highline High School during the 2022-2023 academic year after he was involved in a fight, among other issues.
Police were able to identify the minor accompanying Dominguez and he confirmed that Dominguez had shot Wagner and that the two did not know the victim, court records show. The minor also said he did not know Dominguez intended to kill anyone.
Dominguez’s arraignment is scheduled for Nov. 6 — although he is not yet in custody.
“It’s likely he will be wearing a mask to conceal his face while in public. Rivera Dominguez is believed to be armed and extremely dangerous,” the King County Sheriff’s Office said in a release last month.
(LEWISTON, Maine) — Maine State Police said they’re focused on keeping the public safe after an Androscoggin County Sheriff’s deputy reportedly criticized their response to last week’s shooting in Lewiston.
“This deputy has the luxury of his opinion,” Maine State Police Col. William Ross said in a statement. “But as a Command Staff we have the ultimate responsibility over an operation that included 50 law enforcement agencies, multiple air assets and 16 tactical teams that were used to mitigate potential risk to the community and law enforcement.”
The back-and-forth between the law enforcement agencies comes about a week after a 40-year-old U.S. Army reservist, Robert Card, allegedly killed 18 people and injured 13 others in a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine.
In the wake of the shooting, a longtime member of the Androscoggin County Sheriff’s Office reportedly posted and deleted a scathing critique of the state police response. ABC News was not able to immediately verify the authenticity of screenshots of the post.
Maine’s Department of Safety said state police are “aware” of the sheriff deputy’s social media post “expressing his opinion about the law enforcement response and operations regarding the mass shooting in Lewiston. It is unfortunate that one individual has disparaged the exemplary work of hundreds of municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers who worked around the clock to identify, search for and ultimately locate Robert Card’s body in 48 hours.”
Maine State Police said they are currently working on their own timeline of the two-day manhunt for Card, who was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Separately, the state of Maine is now taking stock in the shootings’ aftermath in order to answer the question so many have asked: How could this happen and how can it be prevented from happening again?
Maine Gov. Janet Mills said she’s launching an independent commission in an attempt to answer those questions and others.
Mills said she’ll work with the attorney general to establish a group comprised of experts with legal, investigative and mental health backgrounds, who will set about determining the “facts and circumstances” surrounding the shootings.
The group will be charged with scrutinizing the months leading up to Oct. 25, when there appears to have been a number of missed warning signs about Card’s mental health decline. They’ll also study the police response to the shootings, the governor’s office said.
Mills said she hopes to formally announce the commission and its membership next week.
“It is important to recognize that, from what we know thus far, on multiple occasions over the last ten months, concerns about Mr. Card’s mental health and his behavior were brought to the attention of his Army National Reserve Unit, as well as law enforcement agencies here in Maine and in New York,” Mills said in a statement. “This raises crucial questions about actions taken and what more could have been done to prevent this tragedy from occurring.”
Mills acknowledged that Maine State Police are “working hard to conduct a thorough and comprehensive criminal investigation of the shooting, but I also believe that the gravity of this attack on our people – an attack that strikes at the core of who we are and the values we hold dear – demands a higher level of scrutiny.”
Maine State Police released a statement, in tandem with Mills’ announcement, lauding the decision to scrutinize their actions.
“We applaud the Governor’s decision. The Maine State Police is proud of our actions and response to the Oct. 25 shootings in Lewiston and we welcome an independent review of not only what preceded the shootings but the police response to it,” they said. “This traumatic event has impacted the entire state. It deserves a large scale comprehensive review and we look forward to working with the commission in the coming months.”
(NEW YORK) — The cost of doing business in California could soon be slightly more expensive with minimum wages set to increase in April. But what does that mean for menu prices at fast food restaurants that employ hourly workers?
A spokesperson for Chipotle confirmed to ABC News Thursday that as of now, the company has “not made a decision to raise prices in California to offset the anticipated labor increase in California next year.”
However, on the company’s most recent earnings call, CFO Jack Hartung addressed that labor cost changes will impact Chipotle’s margins.
“We’ve been studying that… it’s going to be a pretty significant increase to our labor,” he said.
“We haven’t made a decision on exactly what level of pricing we’re going to take, but to take care of the dollar cost of that and/or the margin part of that, we haven’t decided yet where we will land,” he continued. “It’s going to be a mid to high single digit price increase, but we are definitely going to pass this on. We just haven’t made a final decision as to what level yet.”
McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski, meanwhile, addressed the same issue on his company’s Q3 earnings call Monday, saying it “is an impact that’s going to hit all of our competitors” and that McDonald’s will explore other areas outside of raising prices to offset increased labor costs, which is ultimately at the discretion of franchisees, and can vary by location.
“There is going to be a wage impact for our California franchisees. I don’t think, at this point, we can say exactly how much of that is going to work its way in through pricing,” Kempczinski said. “Certainly, there’s going to be some element of that, that does need to be worked through with higher pricing. There’s also going to be things that I know the franchisees and our teams there are going to be looking at around productivity.”
He added that in longer term discussions with franchisees, McDonald’s sees this as “an opportunity for us to gain share.”
“We believe we’re in a better position than our competitors to weather this. And so let’s use this as an opportunity to actually accelerate our growth in California,” Kempczinski said.
A spokesperson for McDonald’s told ABC News this week, “The assertion that raising prices is the only way the company is responding to wage increases is inaccurate.”
The wage legislation in question, AB 1228, was signed into law by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in late September, and “authorized the Fast Food Council to set fast-food restaurant standards for minimum wage, and develop proposals for other working conditions, including health and safety standards and training.”
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York in a $250 million lawsuit that could alter the personal fortune and real estate empire that helped propel Trump to the White House.
Trump, his sons Eric and Don Jr., and Trump Organization executives are accused by New York Attorney General Letitia James of engaging in a decade-long scheme in which they used “numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation” to inflate Trump’s net worth in order get more favorable loan terms. The trial comes after the judge in the case ruled in a partial summary judgment that Trump had submitted “fraudulent valuations” for his assets, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and his attorneys have argued that Trump’s alleged inflated valuations were a product of his business skill.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Nov 02, 4:41 PM EDT
‘I stick by that 100%’ Eric Trump says of appraisal testimony
Eric Trump confidently stood by his past testimony regarding his limited involvement in an appraisal during a heated exchange with state attorney Andrew Amer.
Amer had spent the better part of the afternoon highlighting emails between Eric Trump and a Cushman & Wakefield appraiser, suggesting that Eric Trump was deeply involved in the appraisal of an estate and golf course in New York’s Westchester County. Attempting to paint the testimony as inconsistent, Amer played another portion the deposition Eric Trump had given to investigators.
“I pour concrete. I operate properties. I don’t focus on appraisals between a law firm and Cushman. It’s just not what I do in my day-to-day responsibilities,” Eric Trump said in the deposition.
“Will you concede that your testimony … that you really haven’t been involved in appraisal work on this property was incorrect?” Amer then asked Eric Trump on the stand.
“No. I really hadn’t been involved with appraisal work on that property,” Eric Trump responded. “I was clearly involved to a very small point. I see your emails. One hundred percent. I made phone calls.”
When Amer continued to press the issue, Donald Trump’s attorney Chris Kise loudly objected.
“Are you running the courtroom, or is the judge?” Kise shouted to Amer. “It’s asked and answered, asked and answered, asked and answered, and it’s continued all afternoon. At some point it needs to end.”
“There are a handful of emails well over ten years ago … I stick by that 100%” Eric Trump said.
Nov 02, 4:12 PM EDT
Eric Trump denies ignoring appraisal of luxury NY property
Eric Trump denied that he ignored a professional appraisal that would have significantly lowered the value of his family’s Seven Springs estate in New York’s Westchester County.
State attorney Andrew Amer attempted to show Eric Trump multiple emails and calendar invites from 2014 and 2015 to demonstrate that he was personally involved in an appraisal by Cushman & Wakefield executive David McArdle that placed the total value of the property’s undeveloped lots between $30 and $50 million.
Trump’s 2014 financial statement, in contrast, valued the property at $291 million, including $161 for just seven of the undeveloped lots.
“Can we agree that Mr. McArdle’s valuation in relation to the easement donation he was doing was disregarded?” Amer asked.
“No, the exercises are apples and oranges. Nothing to do with each other,” Eric Trump responded.
Nov 02, 3:53 PM EDT
Attorney continues to press Eric Trump on financial statement
Eric Trump grew visibly irritated as he appeared to struggle with his testimony regarding his father’s statement of financial condition.
Resisting state attorney Andrew Amer’s efforts to show he was familiar with the document at the center of the case, he at times raised his voice and punctuated his short answers with phrases like “obviously,” “clearly,” and “as I previously testified.” Other times he responded with lengthy equivocations, prompting Amer to exhort him to keep his answers to “yes or no.”
“You don’t have to give a speech about that,” Judge Engoron implored Eric Trump at one point.
Amer repeatedly asked variations of the same question: Was Eric Trump aware of his father’s statement of financial condition?
“This is not something I ever recall seeing or working on,” Eric Trump said in one clip from his deposition that was played in court. “This is accounting, and that is not what I do on a daily basis.”
Nov 02, 2:49 PM EDT
Eric Trump appears to contradict deposition
After acknowledging in his testimony that he provided Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney with information for his father’s statement of financial condition, Eric Trump was shown video from his own deposition where he appeared to contradict his testimony in court.
“I have no recollection of ever providing Jeff material to be used in a statement that I’ve ever seen,” Eric Trump said in the deposition he gave state attorneys during their probe.
“I don’t think it would have ever registered” what the material was for, Eric Trump said in court today, responding to his own statement during his deposition.
Nov 02, 2:32 PM EDT
Eric Trump clarifies testimony about email
Eric Trump clarified his earlier answer regarding his involvement in his father’s statement of financial condition, in which he was asked if he recalled a 2013 email from then-Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney asking him for notes for the statement.
“I clearly understood I sent notes to Jeffrey McConney,” Eric Trump testified.
“I don’t think that it ever registered [that] it was for a personal statement of financial condition,” he said.
Nov 02, 8:38 AM EDT
Trump Jr. has helped run family’s business for a ‘long time,’ AG says
As Donald Trump Jr. prepares to return to the witness stand this morning, New York Attorney General Letitia James says the Trump Organization executive VP has been with the Trump Organization for a long time for someone who appears to have so little understanding of the business.
In a video posted to social media last night following Trump Jr.’s first day of testimony, James said the eldest son of former President Trump “claimed to have very little understanding of the accounting and legal mechanics of the family business — but we know he has been involved in running the Trump Organization for a long time.”
Trump Jr. testified yesterday that he relied on the expertise of others when he signed the company’s statements of financial condition, distancing himself from the documents at the heart of the attorney general’s case.
While he acknowledged that he had some of the “the most intimate knowledge” about some of the deals described in the statements, Trump Jr. reiterated that he did not have a role in putting the documents together.
“The accountants worked on it. That’s what we pay them to do,” Trump Jr. said.
Trump Jr. will return to the witness stand this morning, with his bother Eric Trump on deck to testify later today.
Nov 01, 5:36 PM EDT
‘I wasn’t involved’ with financial statements, Trump Jr. says
Before stepping down from the witness stand at the end of the afternoon, Donald Trump Jr. was asked repeatedly about his involvement in the Trump Organization’s statements of financial condition — the allegedly fraudulent documents that underpin the attorney general’s case.
Trump Jr., who signed and certified the accuracy of the statements while his father was president between 2016 and 2021, said that he was not involved in preparing the filings.
“I wasn’t involved in the compilation of this statement of financial condition,” Trump Jr. said, placing the responsibility on his accountants.
“Did you work on the statement of financial condition for June 30, 2017?” state attorney Colleen Faherty asked.
“I did not. The accountants worked on it. That’s what we paid them to do,” Trump Jr. said.
Throughout the afternoon, the tone of the proceedings alternated rapidly between lighthearted and heated, varying from playful interactions between Trump Jr. and Judge Engoron, to bitter spats between some of the lawyers.
“I know you don’t like it when good evidence comes in,” Faherty told the defense lawyers during one particularly heated exchange.
“There’s no reason to raise your voice,” Donald Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Clifford Robert, responded.
Trump Jr. is scheduled to return to the stand tomorrow morning.
Nov 01, 4:40 PM EDT
Trump Jr. to resume testimony tomorrow
Donald Trump Jr. has stepped down from the witness stand.
He is due to return to the courtroom tomorrow morning to resume his direct examination.
Court is now adjourned for the day.
Nov 01, 4:25 PM EDT
“Move it along,” judge tells lawyer questioning Trump Jr.
Donald Trump Jr. and state attorney Colleen Faherty got into a rhythm of quick questions and answers during the first hour of direct examination.
“I moved to Florida, but kept the New York pace,” Trump Jr. joked at one point when asked by the judge to speak slower.
So far the state attorney has focused most of her questions on Trump Jr.’s broader roles and responsibilities at his family’s firm, rather than any specific allegations in the attorney general’s complaint.
“I don’t see where we are going at all with this,” Trump attorney Chris Kise said at one point regarding the questioning.
“Move it along as fast as you can,” Judge Engoron told Faherty.
Nov 01, 3:47 PM EDT
Trump Jr. pressed about departure of ex-CFO
Donald Trump Jr. struggled to answer questions when pressed about why former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg departed the family’s firm.
“Because some legal issues he got himself into,” Trump Jr. said, declining to offer specifics about Weisselberg’s guilty plea on tax evasion charges last year.
Previously giving lengthy answers to questions about his background and even smiling with the judge, Trump Jr. appeared tense on the witness stand as he answered questions about Weisselberg.
“The specific event was he was indicted,” Trump Jr. said.
He added that when began working for the Trump Organization as an executive vice president in the 2010s, Weisselberg outranked him. Trump Jr. would seek Weisselberg’s approval for certain business decisions such as refinancing loans.
“Who is above you in your role as an executive vice president in the Trump Organization?” state attorney Colleen Faherty asked.
“Obviously I would have reported to my father in that period of time … people like Allen Weisselberg would have still been senior to me,” Trump Jr. said of that time period.
Trump Jr. said he gained more responsibility in 2016 when his father became president and he was named a trustee of his father’s revocable trust. He said that he, Weisselberg and his brother Eric Trump became a kind of triumvirate running the Trump Organization.
“We stopped reporting to my father on decisions involving the business,” Trump Jr. said.
That relationship broke down once Weisselberg got himself into “legal issues,” Trump Jr. said. He testified that he could not recall the circumstances of Weisselberg’s exit, including the multimillion-dollar severance deal that Weisselberg received, which Weisselberg faced questions about during his own testimony earlier this month.
“I have no knowledge of the specifics of how it happened. He is no longer working at the Trump Organization,” Trump Jr. said of the former CFO.
Nov 01, 3:22 PM EDT
‘I leave it to my CPAs,’ Trump Jr. says of accounting standards
“Sounds very exciting, but no,” Donald Trump Jr. answered to a state attorney’s question about whether he knows about accounting certifications, professional organizations, or accounting standards other than GAAP, which stands for “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.”
“I know nothing about GAAP,” Trump Jr. said, adding, “I leave it to my CPAs.”
“I’m a real estate broker,” Trump Jr. said as he introduced himself on the witness stand. He testified that he began working in the family real estate business “right after 9/11,” working on Trump Park Avenue and the former Sun Times building in Chicago.
State attorney Colleen Faherty tried to pressed him on his lack of accounting knowledge, prompting several objections from the defense.
Judge Engoron sustained the objections and admonished Faherty against asking negative questions.
-ABC News’ Olivia Rubin contributed to this report.
Nov 01, 3:10 PM EDT
Trump Jr. to be questioned by assistant AG
Assistant New York Attorney General Colleen Faherty will start off the direct examination of Donald Trump Jr.
Faherty is familiar with questioning high-stakes witnesses, having led the direct examination of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen last week.
Her quick objections during Cohen’s cross-examination led Trump attorney Alina Habba to accuse Faherty of trying to “throw off” her game.
A seven-year veteran of the New York attorney general’s office and a former criminal defense attorney, Faherty has been a vocal presence in the courtroom since the start of the trial.
Her willingness to spar with Trump lawyer Chris Kise previously led to some heated exchanges in court, such as a sidebar when Faherty demanded Kise “be more respectful.”
“No,” Kise responded.
“That was rude,” Faherty replied.
Nov 01, 3:01 PM EDT
Donald Trump Jr. takes the stand
Donald Trump Jr. has taken the stand, where he will be the first of the former president’s children to testify.
Before taking the stand, Trump Jr. sat while news photographers snapped pictures.
“I should’ve worn makeup,” he quipped.
Nov 01, 2:30 PM EDT
Ivanka Trump appeals ruling requiring her to testify
One week ahead of her planned testimony, Ivanka Trump has appealed Judge Engoron’s decision to require her to testify in person at the Trump Organization’s fraud trial.
Ivanka Trump’s lawyer Bennet Moskowitz asked an appellate court to decide whether Engoron has jurisdiction to compel her testimony and whether the trial subpoenas issued by the New York attorney general were properly served.
Ivanka Trump, who is not a defendant in the case, is currently scheduled to testify next Wednesday as the final witness in the attorney general’s case before the defense presents its case.
Nov 01, 2:08 PM EDT
Donald Trump Jr. arrives at courthouse
Donald Trump Jr. has arrived at the New York State Supreme Courthouse with his attorney.
Unlike his father and his brother Eric Trump — who have visited the courtroom to watch the proceedings – Donald Trump Jr. has not stepped foot inside the courthouse for the trial until today.
A Trump Organization executive vice president, Trump Jr. is scheduled to testify in the case this afternoon.
Nov 01, 1:44 PM EDT
Defense presses state’s expert on his analysis
Defense lawyer Jesus Suarez spent the first hour of his cross-examination working to cast doubt on expert Michiel McCarty’s analysis, which found that Trump defrauded lenders out of $168 million in interest.
“Who created the universe of documents for you to review? It was the New York attorney general, right?” Suarez said before launching into a rapid-fire succession of questions regarding which lenders McCarty had spoken to in the course of his analysis.
“Did you ever interview anyone from Deutsche Bank?” Suarez asked.
“No,” McCarty said.
“Did you ever interview anyone from Ladder Capital?” Suarez asked.
“No,” McCarty repeated.
“Did you ever interview anyone from Mazars,” Suarez asked.
“No,” McCarty responded.
“Did you ever interview anyone from the Trump Organization?” Suarez asked.
“No,” McCarty said again.
Nov 01, 12:34 PM EDT
Defense assails judge after he tells them to speed up questioning
Only 15 minutes into what is expected to be a three-hour cross-examination, Judge Arthur Engoron snapped at defense lawyer Jesus Suarez for asking redundant questions.
“I see why this is going to take two or three hours. Some questions become three or four more questions,” Engoron said, interrupting the cross-examination to request that Suarez shorten his questions.
That prompted Trump lawyer Chris Kise to criticize Engoron for placing an unfair standard on the defense team.
“You never give them speeches. You never limit their questions,” Kise said about Engoron’s approach to the attorney general’s legal team. “I think it’s unfair.”
Kise stressed that the cross-examination of the state’s sole expert witness is particularly important since his testimony is likely to play into the judge’s calculation of Trump’s potential fine.
“This witness is the only witness they have that even hints … about ill-gotten gains,” Kise said.
Engoron, however, refused to back down.
“I stand by my rulings and statements,” the judge said.
Nov 01, 12:17 PM EDT
Expert agrees that high-net-worth borrowers get low rates
Defense attorney Jesus Suarez began what is expected to be a marathon cross examination of the state’s expert witness, Michiel McCarty, by attempting to use his words against him.
“Historically banks have been willing to lend to high-net-worth individuals at low rates because they get repaid?” Suarez said, citing McCarty’s direct examination.
“That is correct,” McCarty said.
Suarez then reminded McCarty that Trump’s loans were paid on time — a point that the former president has reiterated during his appearance in court and on social media.
Suarez then asked if McCarty had charged the attorney general’s office $950 per hour for his expert analysis.
“That’s my standard rate, yes,” said McCarty, who estimated that his total bill for his analysis was $350,000.
The state’s expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump’s lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.
McCarty’s testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case: that Trump’s misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.
State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron’s earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, “The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did.”
McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump’s properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.
“They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently,” Kise said.
“I decided these were ill-gotten,” the Judge Engoron replied.
Following Wallace’s direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.
Nov 01, 11:03 AM EDT
State’s expert witness takes the stand
Listing companies like Marriott, Fannie Mae and AT&T, the New York attorney general’s lone expert witness, Michiel McCarty, began his testimony by outlining some of the deals he worked on during his nearly 50-year career.
McCarty said that he has worked as an expert witness on “dozens of cases” and testified at 15 trials. But he acknowledged that he had limited experience with the compilation of statements of financial condition, prompting an objection from Trump’s lawyer Chris Kise.
“It appears that he does not have the specific experience relevant to the purpose he is here,” Kise argued.
Deemed an expert by Judge Engoron, McCarty went on to explain the report he wrote after reviewing Trump’s finances.
Nov 01, 10:49 AM EDT
Former Trump Organization VP testifies about Ivanka Trump
Former Trump Organization VP David Orowitz testified about Ivanka Trump’s involvement with Trump’s Old Post Office property in Washington, D.C.
“Ivanka wanted me to change the language in the GAAP section. She asked that I review with you,” Orowitz wrote in a 2011 email to then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, referring to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used in the preparation of financial documents.
Defense attorneys have previously tried to downplay the extent to which Ivanka Trump was involved in the representation of Trump’s finances.
Orowitz subsequently stepped down from the witness stand to make way for Michiel McCarty, the state’s sole expert witness, to begin his testimony.
Nov 01, 10:14 AM EDT
‘We have a busy day,’ judge says as court gets underway
“We have a busy day and a busy week, so let’s try to move things along,” Judge Engoron remarked as he brought the courtroom to order to begin the day’s proceedings.
“Would you like to continue your witness?” Engoron asked state attorney Eric Haren.
“We would,” said Haren, before calling back to the stand former Trump Organization vice president David Orowitz, who began his testimony yesterday afternoon.
Defense attorneys Chris Kise, Alina Habba, and Jesus Suarez are sitting at the counsel table, leaving one seat available for Donald Trump Jr., who has not yet appeared ahead of his scheduled testimony this afternoon.
Nov 01, 10:01 AM EDT
Trump rails against judge, gag order
Former President Trump continued to attack Judge Engoron this morning, calling him “crazy, totally unhinged, and dangerous” on his Truth Social platform.
“He then put a RIDICULOUS GAG ORDER ON ME, which we will appeal. He fines me at levels never seen before,” Trump wrote this morning.
Trump recently paid $15,000 in fines related to two violations of the limited gag order Engoron established that prohibits public statements about the judge’s staff.
Trump also complained about the potential fine that Engoron could impose in the case. During court yesterday, the judge remarked that disgorgement — fining Trump for profits made through fraudulent means — is a “clearly available remedy” in the case.
“Now they come up with something called ‘disgorgement.’ I never even heard of the term,” Trump said.
Engoron already ruled in a partial summary judgment that Trump had submitted “fraudulent valuations” for his assets, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.
Nov 01, 8:45 AM EDT
‘Leave my children alone,’ Trump says ahead of sons’ testimony
Former President Trump attacked Judge Arthur Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James on social media ahead of today’s expected testimony from his son Donald Trump Jr.
“Leave my children alone, Engoron. You are a disgrace to the legal profession!” Trump wrote overnight on his Truth Social platform.
Donald Trump Jr. is expected to begin his testimony in the afternoon today.
If that testimony concludes today, his brother Eric Trump could also begin his testimony.
Both of them are executive vice presidents in the Trump Organization.
(WASHINGTON) — Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville said Thursday he is not backing down after his fiery battle with Republican colleagues on the Senate floor over his unprecedented move to hold up hundreds of military nominations and promotions.
Senate Republicans, led by Sens. Dan Sullivan and Joni Ernst, on Wednesday night angrily challenged Tuberville in an all out Republican-on-Republican brawl on the floor, during which they held the floor for more than four hours as they repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed to get Tuberville to cave on his military holds — his attempt to change Pentagon abortion policy. Republicans brought 61 military nominees up for individual consideration on the Senate floor Wednesday night. Tuberville spiked every single one.
The Senate on Thursday did confirm three military nominees using a process to circumvent Tuberville’s hold. The process to confirm the nominees was underway before Wednesday’s drama on the Senate floor. The Senate confirmed Lisa Franchetti to be Chief of Naval Operations, Gen. David W. Allvin to be Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Lt. Gen Christopher J. Mahoney to be Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps.
On Thursday, Tuberville doubled down, saying he “works for the American people” and speculated that many don’t want their money to go toward service members’ abortions. Tuberville has been holding military nominees for months over objection to a Department of Defense policy that allows service members to receive compensation to travel out of state for abortion, asserting that it is taxpayer-funded abortion and a violation of the Constitution.
“I’ve told you all along — I hate I have to do this, but somebody has got to listen to us. I work for the people of this country; I don’t work for another senator or a president — I work for the tax payers of this country,” he said at the Capitol Thursday.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuberville’s actions are allowing for vacancies that are “causing damage to our military readiness.”
“The world is too dangerous to play political games with our military,” she said during Thursday’s White House press briefing.
National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said in Thursday’s White House press briefing that Tuberville’s moves are “beyond ridiculous” and listed some of the crucial military positions that are vacant as a result of Tuberville’s blockade.
Tuberville has maintained that his hold does not impact troop readiness.
ABC Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Tuberville what his message was to his Republican colleagues who say that he’s weakening the military by continuing to block confirmation of generals.
“They’re wrong — we’ve been doing this nine months, all of a sudden it’s an emergency,” Tuberville told Scott. “We tend to drag our feet around a little bit, so I don’t agree.”
Tuberville was clear he will not be changing his position on military nominees despite growing frustration among his GOP colleagues about his methods. Scott asked him if he would consider budging, he was blunt: “No.”
Republicans were out in full force Thursday airing their frustration with Tuberville.
“Well I’m frustrated on behalf of the force,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. “The effect on the force is real, people are losing their slot … and the ripple effect is going to the lower ranks.”
‘It needs to change’
On Wednesday, Sullivan was defiant, sarcastic and even sullen in his pleas to Tuberville. At times, Sullivan was livid. One after one, Republicans raised specific military nominees, reading off impressive lists of credentials and then asking for consent for their confirmation. One after one, Tuberville stood on the floor and blocked them.
“As a U.S. Marine Corps colonel, I know we all know here in the Senate, America needs to have our best players, most combat-capable leaders on the field, and right now that’s not happening,” Sullivan said. “It needs to change.”
The Republican senators who challenged Tuberville Wednesday night were especially frustrated that the Alabama senator blocked the nominees as they were being brought up individually. For months, Tuberville has blocked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from advancing military nominees en bloc, but Tuberville had previously said he wouldn’t object to votes on individual nominees.
“We have done the best we can to honor the request of a fellow senator that these nominations be brought to the floor and voted on individually,” Ernst said. “I really respect men of their word. I do not respect men who do not honor their word.”
While unanimous confirmation requisitions like the ones made Wednesday night aren’t quite the same as individual Senate votes, which could in theory take several days to clear, Senate Republicans hoped this tactic would be the dam break they needed.
It wasn’t. Tuberville blocked every single nominee.
“I cannot simply sit idly by while the Biden administration injects politics in our military from the White House and spends taxpayer dollars on abortion,” Tuberville said on the floor.
Wednesday night’s debacle was a rare moment of Republican infighting on full display on the Senate floor, and speaks to the palpable frustration the Republican conference has with Tuberville for his nine-month blockade.
Ernst, leaving the floor at the end of the night warned that Tuberville’s move Wednesday night would have consequences: “This will be remembered. This will be a dark evening,” Ernst said.
It’s not expected to be the last either. After trying and failing to confirm the 61st military officer of the evening, Sullivan vowed he would continue his efforts to bring nominees up for individual consideration.
“My message to our generals and admirals who are being held up: hang in there. Some of us have your back — we have your back, we will be coming here every night to try to get you guys confirmed,” Sullivan said.
“…You deserve it and our nation has to have it,” Sullivan added.
Sen. Jack Reed, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has for months been trying to find a way around Tuberville’s hold, was presiding over the chamber when Sullivan concluded his remarks for the night. He later called Tuberville’s unwillingness to allow nominees to be confirmed an act of “willful ignorance or stubborn hubris.
“After tonight, one has to wonder why Senator Tuberville persists in his obstruction, which only benefits America’s enemies,” Reed said in a statement. “Over the last ten months Senator Tuberville has undermined our military readiness and callously mistreated military families.”
Reed applauded the Republican senators who tried to get nominees confirmed Wednesday night.
Most of Tuberville’s Republican colleagues have said they agree with his position on the Pentagon’s abortion policy, but not his tactics.
“I’m as pro-life as they come, I strongly disagree with what Secretary [Lloyd] Austin and President [Joe] Biden have done with their politicization of the military on a whole host of fronts including the abortion policy,” Sullivan said.
But Republicans are fed up with Tuberville’s blockade on nominees, who they say should not be punished for the policy decisions of the administration.
“Our service members have been failed by their commander in chief and we must do right by them and the security and protection of our own nation,” Ernst said.
Kennedy: Senate rule change could be a ‘double-edged sword’
Senate Majority Leader Schumer Schumer earlier Wednesday announced intentions to support a Reed-authored proposal that would allow the Senate to temporarily circumvent Tuberville’s hold and to confirm the more than 300 nominees Tuberville is now preventing from going through.
Details of that resolution aren’t quite clear yet, and it will need to go through the Senate Rules Committee to determine the threshold of votes it would need to pass.
The Thursday confirmations are part of a procedural tool to force votes on individual nominees. Schumer had been reluctant to use this tool to overcome Tuberville’s holds over the last nine months because he’s argued it risks playing to Tuberville’s hand and politicizing the military.
Even as frustration mounts with Senate Republicans, most ABC News spoke to Thursday morning are pushing back on a growing effort by Democrats to pass the temporary change to the Senate rules.
Senate Republicans have been resistant in recent years to any sort of modification to the rules. This move, they say, would weaken the individual power of each senator. Rules that allow senators to hold certain nominees or policies make the chamber distinctly unique from the House.
Republicans warned on Thursday that if Democrats try to circumvent Tuberville by modifying the chamber rules, it could backfire on them down the line.
“I think it would be an extraordinary mistake to change the rules on holds, and that I would remind my Democratic colleagues that’s a double-edged sword,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said.
Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; John Cornyn, R-Texas; and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., all said they would also reject efforts to skirt the rule on nominee confirmation.
“I’m pretty reluctant to change the rules …” Hawley said. “If we’re going to change the rules, if we are going to depart from the tradition that we leave the rules as they are, then I have a whole bunch of rules I’d like to see changed so if we’re going to do that, I’ll have my own thoughts about what other rules we’d like to change.”
Schumer has been clear he will support it, and advance it to the Senate floor.
(SPOKANE, Wash.) — Brianna Hayes sought answers through a DNA test taken in her late 20s after she learned the man who raised her and whom she called dad was not her biological father.
Now, the DNA results have led to a lawsuit involving Hayes’ mother and her mother’s former gynecologist.
The lawsuit, filed by Hayes’ mother Sharon Hayes Oct. 25 in Spokane County Superior Court, alleges that the gynecologist, identified in the lawsuit as Dr. David R. Claypool, used his own sperm to artificially inseminate Sharon Hayes, who had gone to Claypool with her then-husband for fertility treatments.
According to the lawsuit, Sharon Hayes was allegedly told by Claypool, at the time a Spokane-based gynecologist, that she needed to pay $100 in cash for the sperm donation for each artificial insemination procedure, and that the sperm “would be provided by college and/or medical students.”
The lawsuit claims that Sharon Hayes asked for a sperm donor who looked physically similar to her then-husband, and who had been screened for health and genetic issues.
After at least two attempts at artificial insemination, Sharon Hayes, who lives in Idaho, became pregnant, according to the lawsuit.
Nine months later, in June 1990, Brianna Hayes was born. She told local ABC News affiliate KXLY-TV that she had no idea she was conceived through artificial insemination until last year, when she took a DNA test in a search for answers to medical challenges she faced.
Through the DNA test, Brianna Hayes, now 33, said she was matched with 16 half-siblings. After additional testing, she said she discovered Claypool was her biological father.
Brianna Hayes, who declined to be interviewed by ABC News, told KXLY-TV her mother’s reaction to the news was “shock and denial.”
“She felt a profound distress. She felt violated,” Brianna Hayes said of her mother, who also declined to be interviewed by ABC News. “She felt conflicted because she said, ‘I love you so much, and obviously this doesn’t take away from the love that I have for you, but what he did was wrong.'”
Of her own reaction to learning Claypool is her biological father, she said, “I feel off-put that I’m a product of his violation.”
Drew Dalton, an attorney for Claypool, did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Last month, Dalton told the Seattle Times, the first outlet to report on the lawsuit, that “the matter is still in mediation as far as I am aware.”
Claypool told the newspaper he did not know Sharon Hayes, saying, in part, “This is the first I’ve heard of anything in 40 years.”
Claypool’s physician and surgeon license expired in 2010, according to the Washington State Department of Health.
In the lawsuit, Claypool is accused of committing “fertility fraud” by concealing “the use of his own sperm” without the consent of Sharon Hayes, who is now 67 and a mother of two.
The lawsuit claims Sharon Hayes experienced “severe and traumatic emotional distress, sleeplessness, anxiety and disruptions in her relationship with her daughter as well as other damages,” following discovery that Claypool is her youngest daughter’s biological father.
The suit requests a trial and seeks financial damages.
Brianna Hayes told KXLY-TV she is speaking publicly about her family’s story to help bring “peace and justice” for her mom, and to call for change. She said she wants to see legislators, including in Washington state, enact legislation to “hold [medical professionals] accountable for this type of violation and breach of consent.”
“I just want to advocate for my mom’s peace and justice and to advocate for the peace and justice of anyone who feels conflicted or affected by [Claypool’s] actions, but also any other medical professional who were committing these actions, and for them to have justice as well,” she said. “And to open the ears and eyes of lawmakers to realize that real people are being affected, and because laws like this are not getting passed through, people continue to be affected.”
(NEW YORK) — A week after a powerful Category 5 hurricane hit Acapulco, Mexico, at least 58 people are still missing, according to the Mexican government. Among the missing are 18 foreign nationals, including 11 Americans.
Hurricane Otis is the strongest hurricane on record to hit Mexico’s Pacific Coast, making landfall with winds up to 165 mph. Prior to Otis, the strongest hurricane on record to hit Mexico’s Pacific Coast was Category 4 Hurricane Patricia in 2015.
So far, 46 people have been confirmed dead. But some officials have been skeptical about the government’s death toll.
Alejandro Martínez Sidney, president of the local chamber of commerce in Acapulco, said in an interview with a local outlet that they’ve counted about 120 dead or missing at sea alone, some of whose bodies have washed up on the beach.
People in the famous party town were so unprepared, an untold number of fishermen and boat crews were still out at sea. They are now among those missing.
A week after the storm hit, many are still without bottled water, food, electricity and internet and about 63,000 businesses have totally collapsed, according to Martínez Sidney.
The families of the missing say at least those bodies are being recovered, as the Mexican navy retrieves vessels in Acapulco’s bay and at times the bodies trapped in them.
But López Obrador has spent much time in the last week fighting with his perceived political enemies, accusing them of exaggerating the damage from Otis to hurt him politically — even as he has actively tried to minimize it.
“It wasn’t that bad for us because when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, there were 2,000 deaths,” López Obrador said Monday.
(MEMPHIS, Tenn.) — Desmond Mills Jr., one of the five former Memphis police officers charged in connection with the death of Tyre Nichols, pleaded guilty Thursday to federal civil rights and conspiracy offenses, the Department of Justice said.
Mills, 33, had previously pleaded not guilty back in September after being indicted on federal civil rights, conspiracy and obstruction offenses.
During a change of plea hearing on Thursday, Mills pleaded guilty to two of the four counts in the indictment — excessive force and failing to intervene, as well as conspiring to cover up his use of unlawful force, according to the DOJ.
Nichols, 29, died on Jan. 10, three days after a violent confrontation with police following a traffic stop.
The federal indictment alleges that Mills — along with Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Justin Smith and Emmitt Martin III — deprived Nichols of his constitutional rights during the confrontation.
Each of the defendants, according to the indictment, were involved in beating Nichols during the Jan. 7 traffic stop and none relayed information about their assault to the Memphis police dispatcher, their supervisor or the emergency medical technicians and paramedics who were coming to the scene.
The officers allegedly spoke at the scene about how they had struck Nichols, but they also did not relay that information to first responders or their supervisors even as his condition “deteriorated and he became unresponsive,” the indictment alleges.
As part of his plea agreement, Mills admitted to “repeatedly and unjustifiably striking Nichols with a baton and to failing to intervene in other officers’ use of force against Nichols,” the DOJ said in a press release.
He also admitted to not providing any medical aid to Nichols afterward, despite knowing he “had a serious medical need,” and not alerting police or EMTs that Nichols had been struck in the head and body, the DOJ stated.
He further admitted to making false statements and accounts about Nichols’ arrest and the use of force used on him to a supervisor and in a Memphis Police Department report, according to the DOJ.
The government said it will recommend a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, based on the terms of Mills’ plea agreement.
“Desmond Mills’ plea today is entirely consistent with our allegations in the civil lawsuit against the City of Memphis,” attorneys Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, who are representing the family of Nichols, said in a statement Thursday. “We stand strong in our belief that these officers, including Mills, acted at the direction of a policy that not only violated civil rights of innocent civilians, but which caused needless pain to many.”
The other four defendants pleaded not guilty to the federal charges. They still face a federal trial scheduled for May 6, 2024, the DOJ said.
If convicted, two of the counts in the indictment carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, while the other two each each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, according to the DOJ.
All five former officers also face state felony charges, including second-degree murder, aggravated assault and aggravated kidnapping, in connection with Nichols’ death. They pleaded not guilty.
The Memphis Police Department fired the five officers — who were on the department’s now-disbanded SCORPION unit — following an investigation into Nichols’ death.
Correction: A version of this story from Wednesday was updated to say Desmond Mills’ lawyer has announced his client will change his plea, but he has not said what the change of plea will be.
