(NEW YORK) — A market drop, a price spike and a looming recession — this year has battered the finances of everyday Americans. But some can wait out the misery. Eventually, the market will likely improve, as will debilitating grocery and fuel costs.
Older people and retirees, however, lack the luxury of time. For them, the twin crunch of rising living costs and falling stock returns sounds an especially urgent alarm, straining their budgets while choking off supplementary funds from their portfolios, experts told ABC News.
Typically, financial advisors encourage older people to transition their holdings away from volatile assets like stocks to predictable assets such as bonds, since as one ages, the risk of a major downturn begins to outweigh the reward of sizable gains. Nevertheless, many older people and retirees retain significant stock holdings.
Fifty-nine percent of Americans aged 65 and older own stock either directly or through accounts like a 401(k), according to a Gallup poll updated in May. The share of older people invested in the stock market is slightly larger than the 56% measured in 2021 and the 55% in 2020, though the difference is not statistically significant, Gallup says.
Data on Fidelity’s 21.2 million 401(k) investors shows that — as of late March — more than a third of people aged 60-67 have at least 67% or more in stocks, the financial services firm told ABC News.
By necessity, some older people under financial stress need to sell stock to shore up their budgets, even if they stand to lose potential gains down the road by selling in a down market, experts said. But individuals should take steps to avoid such a choice, if possible, like drawing on other portfolio income like dividends or taking up additional work, they added.
“Market risk is particularly important if you need money soon, as is the case with many soon to retire or already living in retirement,” Rob Williams, the managing director of financial planning and retirement income at Charles Schwab, told ABC News.
“Markets, global-political risk, and inflation are clearly concerning many investors,” he added. “There’s a general fear.”
Retirees typically carry two types of exposure to the stock market: 401(k)s and other accounts sponsored by their employer as well as IRA and other brokerage accounts held away from their employer, Williams said. Americans largely rely on retirement funds, since the share of employers that provide pensions has declined in recent decades.
Oftentimes, investors peg 401(k) accounts to the S&P 500, which has fallen more than 20% so far this year. Investors flocked to funds that tracked the S&P because of its incredible run during bull market that began in 2009 and lasted more than a decade.
Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq — which also drew considerable investment due to years of outsized returns — has fallen nearly 30% over that period, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped about 16%.
Difficult times for the market and the economy may continue, experts said. The Federal Reserve last week raised borrowing costs significantly, hiking its benchmark interest rate 0.75%, the largest increase since 1994. Additional rate hikes will likely follow, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said.
In theory, the moves should slash inflation by slowing the economy and eating away at demand. But the strategy also risks tipping the economy into a recession.
Even though such economic prospects pose a challenge for older people and retirees, they shouldn’t panic, experts said. “At some point, the business cycle and the market cycle play out,” Mona Mahajan, senior investment strategist at Edward Jones Investors, told ABC News. “You’ll get a down year in equities. Volatility should be expected if you’re exposed to equity markets.”
Whenever possible, older people and retirees should try to weather the potential downturn without a major sell off, experts said.
Recent Stories from ABC News
“It’s always better to be in the market than trying to time yourself in and out of the market,” Mahajan said. “Investors are notoriously poor at picking market bottoms — or tops, for that matter.”
But older people who rely on their portfolios for regular income will find it more difficult to weather a downturn, said Williams, the managing director at Charles Schwab. For them, it’s of paramount importance that they diversify their holdings, so their day-to-day finances do not depend on volatile assets or segments of the market, he said.
“The less time you have to recover, the more critical it is to have a diversified allocation that limits exposure to individual securities or sectors of the market and with exposure to a mix of cash, bonds, and stocks,” he said.
Older people also benefit from a portfolio that provides alternative sources of income beyond gains in stock price, Williams said. “Investment income in the form of interest and dividends can create a floor of cash flow to avoid having to sell investments, in particular in bear markets,” he added. Dividends from U.S. companies held for at least 60 days are taxed at the capital gains rate, which runs anywhere from 0% to 20%, depending on one’s tax bracket; as opposed to the higher tax rate for personal income.
To be sure, the economy may avert a recession altogether. And the stock market may have fallen nearly as far as it will go, since many investors have already acted in anticipation of additional rate hikes from the Fed.
For now, older people can draw solace from the possibility that the worst in markets has already passed, said Mahajan, the senior investment strategist at Edward Jones.
“In our view, we’re closer to the bottom than we are to the top,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruling Thursday striking down a New York state law limiting the right to carry a concealed handgun in public is sparking a furor from Albany to Washington as gun safety activists and Democrats warn the ruling will lead to more guns, and more violence.
The high court’s ruling struck down the century-old law mandating that gun owners demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a concealed handgun outside of their homes.
The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas for the conservative majority with the three liberal justices dissenting.
President Joe Biden said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling, saying it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”
“In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans,” he said in a statement. “I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence.”
The decision sparked an outcry among New York Democrats, including New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who said she might call a special session of the state legislature to consider responses to the ruling — falling just six weeks after 10 Black people were killed in a mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket.
“It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,” Hochul tweeted.
“In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options — including calling a special session of the legislature,” she added. “Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence.”
New York City’s Democratic Mayor Eric Adams warned that the ruling would allow for more guns on the streets and put residents at risk.
“We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license,” he said in a statement.
“We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West,” he added, ahead of a public press conference.
Congressional Democrats pan ruling after prominent mass shootings
Democrats in Washington, meanwhile, bemoaned the decision, noting that it comes as the nation grapples with a spate of high-profile mass shootings, including in Buffalo and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
“Just weeks after mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, as parents and young people across the country call for an end to gun violence, the far-right Supreme court has struck down one of the nation’s oldest gun safety laws. Congress must pass gun safety legislation now,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., tweeted.
“This right-wing Supreme Court just gave in to the gun lobby and struck down a critical New York State gun control law. As we face rising gun violence across the country, this decision will only make it harder to protect New Yorkers from dangerous weapons in our communities,” added Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y.
Aligned groups advocating for stricter gun laws echoed those lamentations, painting in stark terms the violence they say could follow the ruling.
“More people will be harmed by guns as a result of today’s decision,” Everytown for Gun Safety Executive Director Eric Tirschwell said Thursday. “More people will be intimidated by guns, more people will be shot and wounded and more people will be shot and killed. By wrongly issuing this decision, and ignoring its public safety implications, the Supreme Court risks converting the Constitution into a suicide pact…”
Republicans, gun rights groups rejoice
Republicans and gun rights groups, for their part, hailed the ruling, casting it as a needed protection of the Second Amendment.
“Today’s SCOTUS decision reaffirms what we already knew: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” tweeted Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. “This is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners across America.”
“While states like NY have tried to restrict your Constitutional 2nd Amendment right through burdensome laws and regulations, today’s Supreme Court ruling rightfully ensures the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves without unnecessary government interference,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in a tweet.
The National Rifle Association, the nation’s preeminent gun rights group, praised the ruling as a “watershed win.”
“The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home. This ruling brings life-saving justice to law-abiding Americans who have lived under unconstitutional regimes all across our country, particularly in cities and states with revolving door criminal justice systems, no cash bail and increased harassment of law-enforcement,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said in a statement.
Ruling comes as Congress pushes gun reform bill
The reactions come as Congress is working to move forward with a gun reform bill that would, among other things, provide funds for states to implement so-called red flag laws and close the “boyfriend loophole” to keep weapons out of the hands of domestic abusers, and break a 26-year long stalemate on bipartisan gun legislation on Capitol Hill.
Democrats, in particular, have been buoyed by what they say is public support for stricter gun laws, including a September Pew survey showing that majorities of Democrats and Republicans are against people carrying concealed guns without a permit.
The legislation is expected to ultimately pass, with 15 Senate Republicans voting Thursday to end debate on the bill ahead of a final vote by the end of the week and House Democrats, expected to be supportive, controlling that chamber.
(WASHINGTON) — Federal agents searched the Virginia home of former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark on Wednesday morning, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the activity.
It was unclear which federal agencies conducted the search, but one neighbor who witnessed the law enforcement activity said they saw officials entering and exiting the Lorton, Virginia, home after arriving there early Wednesday. A spokesperson for the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department told ABC News that its officers assisted with law enforcement activity at the house, but deferred to the Justice Department for further comment.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., said they “can confirm there was law enforcement activity in that area yesterday,” but declined to comment on specific individuals or the nature of that activity.
A lawyer for Clark did not respond to a request for comment. But Russ Vought, a former Trump White House official and the president of the Center for Renewing America, where Clark is now a senior fellow, said in a statement that “more than a dozen DOJ law enforcement officials searched Jeff Clark’s house in a pre-dawn raid, put him in the streets in his pajamas, and took his electronic devices.”
“The new era of criminalizing politics is worsening in the U.S.” Vought said. “This is not America, folks. The weaponization of government must end. Let me be very clear. We stand by Jeff and so must all patriots in this country.”
Clark, a former assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources, has emerged as a key player in Donald Trump’s efforts to leverage the powers of the Justice Department to find widespread corruption in the 2020 electoral process after it became clear that Joe Biden had won.
On Thursday, the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack was expected to hear testimony from multiple former Justice Department officials with knowledge of Clark’s proposal of a plan to pressure states to invalidate Biden’s electoral victories after the 2020 election.
In one instance, emails obtained by ABC News in August 2021 showed how Justice Department officials rebuffed Clark’s request to urge officials in Georgia to investigate and possibly overturn Biden’s victory in the state.
An alleged plan to appoint Clark acting attorney general — which would have empowered him to pursue baseless allegations of voter fraud — prompted several Justice Department officials to threaten their resignation. Trump ultimately withdrew the plan.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect that the eyewitness to Wednesday’s activity was not certain what agency the officials were from.
(ATLANTA) — A committee of advisers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted unanimously Thursday to greenlight the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 6 to 17, clearing the way for parents to have one more vaccine to choose from when considering whether to inoculate their children against the virus.
At this time, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is the only shot available for children and adolescents 5 years old and older.
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration completed the first step in the authorization process, when it signed off on the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 and older, following a unanimous vote from their advisers.
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is now expected to issue her official recommendation for use.
However, even with another COVID-19 vaccine on the horizon, health experts question how much the Moderna shot will truly move the needle with hesitant parents.
Children 5 years and older became eligible for a primary series of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in November. Even with the shots available for nearly eight months, more than 25.4 million children over the age of 5 are still completely unvaccinated against COVID-19, with just 44% of the age group now fully vaccinated, according to CDC data.
Despite slow uptake, scientists from the CDC stressed on Thursday that vaccination against COVID-19 for children remains critical, as young people are not immune to severe disease or the long-term consequences of the virus.
As parents consider getting their children vaccinated, scientists from Moderna reported that their COVID-19 shots are safe and effective for use in children.
Myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that can occur following vaccination, remains “rare,” according to officials. The greatest risk for the heart inflammation appears to be in adolescents 12 to 17 years old.
For children ages 5 to 11 years old, there have been no statistical significance for myocarditis, and the risk level remains “very low” for younger children, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro of the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Coordination Unit reported.
Although officials acknowledged that adverse events following vaccination can occur, most people recover in the subsequent weeks and months.
“In general, most adverse events reported after COVID vaccines are mild and transient events like injection site and systemic reactions,” one official said.
(NAPA COUNTY, Calif.) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, has been charged with driving under the influence, causing injury, following his May 28 arrest, the Napa County District Attorney’s Office said.
Paul Pelosi is also charged with driving with 0.08% blood alcohol level or higher, causing injury, the office said in a press release Thursday. Both charges were filed as misdemeanors.
The 82-year-old was detained on May 28 around 11:44 p.m. and booked on two misdemeanor counts at the time, according to the Napa County Criminal Justice Network’s records.
The California Highway Patrol in Napa said at the time that units responded to a two-vehicle crash at 10:26 p.m. local time on State Route 29 at Walnut Lane. Paul Pelosi was driving a Porsche and traveling eastbound on Walnut Lane and attempted to cross SR-29 when his vehicle was hit by a party traveling northbound on SR-29 in a Jeep, according to the CHP.
Paul Pelosi’s bail had been set at $5,000 and he was released the next morning, the records show.
ABC News’ Morgan Gstalter contributed to this report.
(BUFFALO, N.Y.) — The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday striking down a New York State law limiting the right to carry a concealed handgun in public is drawing criticism from many in the state, including Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown.
“It is a disappointment and it is a dark day for sensible gun reform in this nation,” Brown told ABC News’ Linsey Davis during an interview for ABC News Live Prime.
This ruling comes weeks after 10 African Americans were gunned down on May 14 in a racially motivated mass shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, New York, and after many other mass shootings in the country. Brown added the ruling would only add to gun violence in the country and be another hurdle for law enforcement.
“I do see a concern for law enforcement. They will not know who is legally permitted to carry a weapon if there are more weapons being carried in a concealed fashion in the city of Buffalo, and across the state of New York and other communities across the country. It will make the job of law enforcement a lot more difficult,” Brown said.
While Brown is criticizing the ruling, other New York lawmakers are praising the decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholds the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and correctly declares New York’s shameful attempt to shred Second Amendment rights on New Yorkers unconstitutional,” New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik said in a statement shortly after the decision was announced.
Brown called her statement “absolutely wrong.”
“Far too many innocent Americans are losing their lives to gun violence. We don’t want to take away the rights of responsible gun owners. We certainly do not want to infringe on the Second Amendment, but it does make sense for there to be sensible gun reform that does not infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners and at the same time keeps average innocent Americans safe from unnecessary gun violence,” he said.
This ruling also coming on the heels of what could potentially be historical bipartisan gun reform legislation passage in Congress, gaining support from 15 Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“The timing of this ruling is very difficult, particularly when you have a bipartisan group of United States senators that have advanced sensible gun reform after years of inaction in the Congress,” Brown said.
Legislation that was pressed upon after several mass shootings, most recently in Uvalde, Texas, would be the first time in nearly 30 years that Congress has acted on gun reform.
“It took tragedies like the mass shooting, the act of domestic terror that took place in Buffalo on May 14, and other mass shootings since that time to finally get Congress to take some action– and on the day when we are seeing further movement in Congress on sensible gun reform, this ruling comes down from the United States Supreme Court. It is a disappointment,” Brown said.
(WASHINGTON) — The House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday afternoon focused on what it said was a “brazen attempt” by then-President Donald Trump to misuse the Department of Justice for his own political gain.
The panel heard from three former officials directly affected by Trump’s pressure campaign: former attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, former deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue and former top DOJ lawyer Steve Engel, all of whom said they repeatedly told Trump allegations of widespread voter fraud were untrue.
All three men described in stunning detail the desperate attempts by Trump and his allies to recruit the department in his plot to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden — which culminated in a plan to replace Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, a less-qualified but loyal official who was leading the department’s environmental division.
Notably, Clark’s Virginia home was raided by federal agents on Wednesday, as the Justice Department expands its investigation into a scheme to send fake electors to Congress and the National Archives.
Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., on Thursday characterized Trump’s pressure campaign against the DOJ — as well as his attacks on local election officials, then-Vice President Mike Pence and more — as the “inner workings of what was essentially a political coup.”
“He pressured the Justice Department to act as an arm of his reelection campaign,” Thompson summarized in his closing statement. “He hoped law enforcement officials would give the appearance of legitimacy to his lies, so he and his allies had some veneer of credibility when they told the country that the election was stolen.”
Here are some key takeaways from Thursday’s hearing:
Trump’s demands included seizing voting machines
Rosen and Donoghue shed light on an emergency meeting called by a particularly “agitated” Trump on New Year’s Eve, during which the president urged the department to seize voting machines from across the country.
Rosen said the officials in the room told him no.
“There was no factual basis nor was there any legal authority to do so,” Rosen testified.
It wasn’t the only request Trump made of the department before Jan. 6. He also wanted officials to send a lawsuit to the Supreme Court regarding election fraud, appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged fraud and more, witnesses said.
One theory propagated by Trump was that Italian satellites had switched votes from him to Biden, which Donoghue described as “pure insanity.”
Rosen said the department declined all of Trump’s demands because they “did not think that they were appropriate based on the facts and the law as we understood them.”
Tense Jan. 3 White House meeting on ‘murder-suicide pact’
The second half of the hearing zoomed in on a critical meeting at the White House on Jan. 3, 2021, when Trump weighed appointing Clark to lead the Justice Department.
The committee displayed a White House call log that already referred to Clark as the “acting attorney general,” suggesting that Trump was already ready to turn over the Justice Department to Clark before the meeting.
“What do I have to lose?” Trump mused at one point in the meeting. Donoghue replied that it was “not in anyone’s best interest.”
All three live witnesses described threatening to quit if Clark was appointed, citing his lack of qualifications to serve in such a high-level role.
“I said, Mr. President, within 24, 48, 72 hours you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of the entire Justice Department because of your actions, what’s that going to say about you?” Engel said.
Engel said at that point, White House counsel stepped in to describe appointing Clark as a “murder-suicide pact.”
Scott Perry emerges as key figure in DOJ pressure campaign
The committee on Thursday outlined what it said was the role Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., played in trying to elevate Clark to attorney general as other officials in the department pushed back on Trump’s election baseless claims.
Perry was among the group of Republicans who met with Trump on Dec. 21, 2020, on how to continue challenging Joe Biden’s victory and push claims of voter fraud.
The next day, Perry introduced Clark to Trump in a White House meeting. Clark met with the president without the knowledge of his superiors, in violation of DOJ rules.
Perry also texted White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to help with Clark’s ascension. In one message displayed during the hearing, Perry wrote: “Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going.”
Perry’s office continued to defend his actions, with his spokesperson telling ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott on Thursday there’s “nothing new here.”
Clark was ready to inform Georgia officials the DOJ found fraud
Clark was a key player in Trump’s attempt to get the Justice Department to falsely claim voter fraud in Georgia and other states.
A draft letter Clark circulated asked Georgia’s governor and other top state officials to convene the state legislature into a special session to investigate claims of voter fraud — fraud former Attorney General Bill Barr had already deemed meritless.
Donoghue said he and Rosen had “visceral reactions” to the draft document, adding that if it had been sent it might have sparked a “constitutional crisis.”
Former White House counsel Eric Herschmann recalled what he said to Clark when he became aware of his plans.
“When he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said ‘[expletive], congratulations. You just admitted your first step you would take as AG would be committing a felony,” Herschmann said. “‘You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.'”
“I told Clark the only thing he knew was that environmental and election both start with “e,” and I’m not even sure you know that,” he added.
Trump: ‘Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to us’
Drawing from handwritten notes, Donoghue documented that Trump told him to, “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
When Donoghue told Trump on a Dec. 27, 2020, phone call he couldn’t change the outcome of the election, he recalled Trump “responded very quickly — and said, ‘that’s not what I’m asking you to do — I’m just asking you to say it is corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Donoghue recalled.
He also said Trump told him the Justice Department was “obligated to tell people that this was an illegal, corrupt election,” despite officials repeatedly telling him no widespread fraud existed and that Biden was the legitimate winner.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans on the panel, emphasized the gravity of Trump’s request, saying, “The president wanted the top Justice Department officials to declare that the election was corrupt, even though, as he knew, there was absolutely no evidence to support that statement.”
GOP members of Congress sought preemptive pardons
Former White House officials detailed in taped depositions how several Republican members of Congress requested “blanket pardons” in the final days of the Trump administration.
Among those listed by the officials were Reps. Perry, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andy Biggs of Arizona and Louie Gohmert of Texas.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Meadows, added in her testimony that Gaetz had been asking for a pardon since “early December.” ABC News has previously reported on an ongoing DOJ investigation on sex trafficking allegations involving Gaetz.
Hutchinson also said she “heard” that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia had requested a pardon from White House lawyer Pat Phillbin and said that Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio “talked about pardons,” and asked for an update on whether the White House was going to pardon members of Congress, but did not directly ask for one, to her knowledge.
John McEntee, a former Trump White House aide, testified that at one point, the idea of a “blanket pardon” was floated for everyone involved in Jan. 6.
One after another, Republican lawmakers dismissed of denied the allegations.
In a statement to ABC News, Brooks dismissed said pardons “were unnecessary after all,” and while Gaetz did not deny the claim, he dismissed the committee in a tweet as a “political sideshow.”
Jordan called his involvement “100% fake news” in a tweet, and Perry’s spokesperson called it “a ludicrous and soulless lie.” Greene called it “gossip and lies” and the committee a “Witch Hunt.”
(WASHINGTON) — Justice Stephen Breyer invoked the nation’s latest gun violence massacres, including those at Uvalde and Buffalo, in his dissent against the Supreme Court’s ruling to expand the Second Amendment on Thursday.
The 6-3 ruling struck down a New York state gun law that regulates the right to concealed carry, making this the most significant case regarding the Second Amendment since a 2010 decision to dismantle a nearly 30-year ban on handgun ownership in Chicago.
The decision comes as the country grapples with daily gun violence across the nation, and as investigations into the massacres at Uvalde and Buffalo are still underway.
In his dissent, Breyer noted the recent series of shootings.
“Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day,” Breyer wrote.
Breyer argued that the court’s decision was made based on pleadings, rather than with “the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary record.”
As such, Breyer’s dissent includes a thorough recognition of instances of firearm violence within recent years.
Breyer added that this ruling “concerns the extent to which the Second Amendment prevents democratically elected officials from enacting laws to address the serious problem of gun violence…And yet the Court today purports to answer that question without discussing the nature or severity of that problem.”
Breyer wrote that the primary difference between his opinion and that of the court majority is that he believes the Second Amendment allows states to address the issues that are caused by gun violence. Therefore, Breyer believes the ruling will take away the state’s ability to do so.
“Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so,” Breyer wrote.
The opinion in Thursday’s case was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas for the conservative majority with the three liberal justices dissenting.
Thomas wrote that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
President Joe Biden also addressed the link between court’s decision and the recent atrocities at Uvalde and Buffalo.
“In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans,” he said in a statement. “I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence.”
Just a month before the court’s ruling, 19 students and 2 teachers were murdered at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The shooter legally purchased an AR-15 just days before committing the massacre.
Over a week before the shooting in Uvalde, a shooter killed 10 people, all of whom were Black, at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York. The shooter had also obtained an AR-15 while following state laws.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it is taking Juul Labs e-cigarettes and other products off the market.
It comes after the federal health agency completed a nearly two-year review of the manufacturer’s application to sell its vaping device and tobacco- and menthol-flavored pods.
Ultimately, the FDA decided to block Juul’s application.
“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf said in a statement. “The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market. We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”
Juul Labs said it would seek a stay of the decision and was “exploring all of our options under the FDA’s regulations and the law, including appealing the decision and engaging with our regulator.”
The company has long claimed it’s product is important as a tool to stop smoking cigarettes.
“We remain committed to doing all in our power to continue serving the millions of American adult smokers who have successfully used our products to transition away from combustible cigarettes, which remain available on market shelves nationwide,” Juul Labs said.
After hitting the market in the mid-2010s, Juul became the most popular brand of e-cigarettes available, in large part due to its wide variety of flavors, including creme, mango and mint.
Politicians and anti-tobacco advocates have accused the company of using these flavors — along with a sleek design resembling a USB flash drive — to market vaping to U.S. children and teenagers.
More than 2 million American middle and high school students used e-cigarettes in 2021 — with 8 in 10 students saying they use flavored e-cigarettes, according to the FDA.
The 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey found Juul was the most popular e-cigarette brand used by adolescents with 25.4% of high school e-cigarette users and 35.1% of middle school users saying Juul was their most used brand.
Nicotine exposure from e-cigarettes can hinder brain development in adolescents and young adults, which can continue into the mid-20s, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Just one Juul pod contains as much nicotine as a pack of 20 traditional cigarettes, the manufacturer has said.
The CDC also says e-cigarettes can contain heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals that can damage the lungs.
The American Heart Association applauded the decision, saying in a statement, “We call on Juul to immediately comply with the FDA order so these products no longer threaten public health, and we urge the FDA to take swift and severe enforcement action if the company defies the order.”
Juul did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Stock in major tobacco firm Altria Group, which holds a 35% stake in Juul, fell 9% Wednesday morning after The Wall Street Journal reported the FDA decision was coming.
Parent company Pax launched the Juul e-cigarette in 2015. After success with initial sales, Juul spun out from Pax as a separate company in 2017.
In 2018, when Altria acquired its stake in Juul, the e-cigarette company represented 75% of the tobacco vaping market, according to a Wells Fargo analysis of Nielsen data. By 2021, Juul’s share of the market had fallen below 50%, The New York Times reported.
Juul CEO Kevin Burns stepped down in 2019 as the company faced sharp scrutiny over the health effects and the addictive nature of its products. He was replaced by longtime tobacco executive K.C. Crosthwaite, who currently leads the firm.
In 2009, Congress gave the FDA authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution and marketing of tobacco products.
E-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul, were required to submit their products to the FDA to review by September 2020 but were able to sell products while the FDA review was under way.
ABC News’ Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Thursday’s hearing of the Jan. 6 committee focused on the pressure then-President Donald Trump and his allies put on the Justice Department to help overturn the 2020 election.
Jun 23, 5:56 pm
Previewing next hearing, chair calls Jan. 6 attack ‘backup plan’ in a ‘political coup’
Summing up the hearing, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said Trump continuing to push the lie of a stolen election and pressure his officials to break the law was “about protecting his very real power and very real fragile ego — even if it required recklessly undermining our entire electoral system by wildly casting faceless doubt upon it.”
“In short, he was willing to sacrifice our republic to prolong this presidency. I can imagine no more dishonorable act by a president,” he said.
Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., closed by previewing the focus of hearings to come in July, calling the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol Trump’s “backup plan of stopping the transfer of power” if he couldn’t get away with a “political coup.”
“We are going to show how Donald Trump tapped into the threat of violence, how he summoned a mob to Washington and how — after corruption and political pressure failed to keep Donald Trump in office — violence became the last option,” he said.
Jun 23, 5:42 pm
Trump considered ‘blanket pardons’ for everyone involved in Jan. 6
In a taped deposition, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office John McEntee said he witnessed Trump having conversations about the possibility of a “blanket pardon” for all those involved in Jan. 6.
When asked by the committee if Trump thought about pardons for his family members, McEntee said Trump had hinted at a blanket pardon “for all the staff and everyone involved” before he left office.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger responded to that by saying, “The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you have committed a crime.”
Jun 23, 5:45 pm
Trump WH officials testify which GOP representatives asked for presidential pardons
In a series of stunning taped testimony, former White House officials said several Republican members of Congress — including Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rep. Scott Perry, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Paul Gosar, and Rep. Mo Brooks — asked the White House for pardons in some form in the final days of the Trump administration following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
“Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania,” read an email from Brooks, requesting pardons for himself, Gaetz and others involved in election objections.
Former aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, also said Rep. Jim Jordan talked with the White House about pardon updates for members of Congress but did not specifically ask.
“The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the president’s positions on these things,” recalled former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann.
“I know he had hinted at a blanket pardon for the January 6 thing for anybody, but I think he had all the staff and everyone involved, not January 6, but just before he left office,” said former Trump White House aide John McEntee in a taped deposition. “I know he had talked about that.”
“The only reason I know that you ask for a pardon is that you think you committed a crime,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.
Jun 23, 5:15 pm
Official recalls asking DOJ head of national security to stay on amid mass resignation planning
Former deputy acting attorney general Richard Donoghue illustrated how serious discussions were of mass resignations at the Justice Department as Trump threatened to replace his attorney general with a lower-level official who supported his plan to overturn the election, describing his fears of the potential impact that it could have in the final days of Trump administration.
Donoghue said he pleaded separately with the head of DOJ’s national security division, John Demers, to not be among those who would resign.
“I prefaced the call by saying, ‘John, we need you to stay in place. National security is too important and we need to minimize the disruption,'” Donoghue said in the hearing.
Donoghue said while Demers showed a willingness to resign, he agreed with Donoghue’s assessment, as they imagined what would happen to the nation’s top law enforcement agency should all the top officials resign.
“As Steve Engel noted, the goal was to make clear to Trump he would leave Clark leading a “graveyard,” a comment that “clearly had an impact on the president,” Donoghue said.
Jun 23, 5:13 pm
Trump on trying to change DOJ leadership: ‘What do I have to lose?’
While discussing whether to fire a top official in the Department of Justice in a 2.5 hour meeting at the Oval Office on Jan. 3, 2021, Trump turned to officials in the room and asked them a question, former deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue testified Thursday.
“What do I have to lose?” Trump asked, according to Donoghue.
“It was actually a good opening,” Donoghue said. “And I began to explain to him what he had to lose, and what the county had to lose and what department had to lose, and this was not in anyone’s best interest.”
Donoghue said no one in the room supported Jeffrey Clark taking over as the department’s top official, describing him to the president as unqualified. Clark at the time was a Trump-appointed Justice Department official overseeing the department’s Civil Division and environmental enforcement matters.
Jun 23, 5:08 pm
Former DOJ leader tells Trump that attorneys general across US would resign ‘en masse’
According to call logs displayed by the committee, the White House had already begun referring to Jeffrey Clark as “acting attorney general” on Jan. 3, 2021 — despite Jeff Rosen, who wouldn’t fall in line with election fraud conspiracies, actually serving as acting attorney general.
Trump also met with the aforementioned officials in the Oval Office on Jan. 3, and said, according to Rosen, “‘Well the one thing we know is you’re not gonna do anything. You don’t even agree that the concerns that are being presented are valid. And here is someone who has a different view, so, why shouldn’t I do that?'”
Former deputy acting attorney general Richard Donoghue recalled asking attorney generals across the country what they would do if Clark was put in charge.
“All essentially said they would leave,” he told the panel. “They would resign en masse if the president made that change in the department leadership.”
Jun 23, 4:54 pm
Inside GOP Rep. Scott Perry’s role in the DOJ pressure campaign
A hard-right conservative member of the House and leader of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., has been one of Trump’s most loyal supporters in Congress.
As the Jan. 6 committee laid out Thursday, that support continued after the 2020 election, when he was among the Republicans who met with Trump at the White House on Dec. 21, 2020, on how to continue challenging Joe Biden’s victory and push claims of voter fraud.
The next day, Perry introduced Jeffery Clark to Trump in a White House meeting. Clark did not work on election issues at the Justice Department, and he met with the president without the knowledge of his superiors in violation of DOJ rules.
“So, for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been the only the attorney general in the deputy attorney general from the DOJ side can have … conversations with the White House,” Jeffrey Rosen, the then-acting attorney general, told the committee.
Why was Clark recommended? Here’s how Rudy Giuliani explained it, in his recorded interview with the committee: “I do recall saying to people that somebody should be put in charge of the Justice Department who isn’t frightened of what is going to be done to their reputation.”
Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general at the time, said Perry wanted Clark to “take over” the Justice Department, and pushed Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff and his former House colleague, to make it happen.
-ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel
Jun 23, 4:46 pm
Trump, in emergency meeting, urged DOJ to seize voting machines, former officials say
Former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and his former deputy Richard Donoghue described Thursday how Trump tried to get the Department of Justice to seize voting machines in late 2020.
Donoghue said an “agitated” Trump called an emergency meeting on New Year’s Eve to make the request.
“There was nothing wrong with them so we told him no,” Rosen told the committee. “There was no factual basis nor was there any legal authority to do so.”
“Toward the end of the meeting, the president, again, was getting very agitated,” Donoghue recalled. “And he said, ‘People tell me I should just get rid of both of you, I should just remove you and make a change in leadership, put Jeff Clark in, maybe something will finally get done.’”
After detailing an effort by Jeffrey Clark to replace acting attorney general Jeff Rosen in order to help Trump overturn the election, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., turned to former top DOJ lawyer Steven Engel on other efforts by Trump to pressure the department.
After Trump sent a proposed draft lawsuit, done outside the department, to top DOJ attorneys that he wanted to send to the Supreme Court, Engel called it a “meritless lawsuit” and an “unusual request” that the department would never bring.
“Obviously, even the person who drafted this lawsuit didn’t really understand in my view the law, and or how the Supreme Court works or the Department of Justice,” Engel said.
Trump and the White House also asked the Department of Justice if it could point a special counsel to look at widespread election fraud — which did not exist — with Engel detailing why “that was not legally available,” before Kinzinger claimed Trump even offered the position of special counsel to campaign attorney Sidney Powell, as his pressure campaign continued.
Jun 23, 4:18 pm
GOP congressman fought for Clark’s ascension: ‘We gotta get going’
The committee outlined how Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., played a role in trying to elevate Jeffrey Clark, then an obscure DOJ official, to department leadership amid the resistance from other DOJ officials to Trump’s efforts to undermine the election.
Records from the National Archives obtained by the committee showed Perry and Clark met Trump on Dec. 22, 2020. Perry later told a local television news network he had worked with Clark before and “obliged” when asked by Trump to introduce him.
The committee later displayed text messages which showed Perry advising White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to help with Clark’s ascension.
“Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going,” Perry wrote to Meadows on Dec. 26, 2020.
The next text, sent 30 minutes later, showed Perry telling Meadows to “call Jeff.”
“I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won’t work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done.”
Jun 23, 4:14 pm
DOJ official warned Clark’s plan could lead to ‘grave, constitutional crisis’
Former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue said he tried to convey to Jeffrey Clark that a draft letter he circulated seeking to ask Georgia’s governor and other top state officials to convene the state legislature into a special session to investigate claims of voter fraud — which didn’t exist — could launch the country into a “constitutional crisis.”
“I had to read both emails and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing — because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially,” he recalled, adding he and former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen had “visceral reactions to it.”
“I thought it was very important to get a prompt response rejecting this out of hand. In my response, I explained a number of reasons that this is not the department’s rule to suggest or dictate [to] state legislatures,” he said.
“More importantly, this was not based on fact. This was actually contrary to the facts as developed by department investigations over the last several weeks and months,” he added. “For the department to insert itself into the political process this way, I think, would have had great consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled into a constitutional crisis — and I want to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he did not seem to really appreciate it.”
Jun 23, 4:03 pm
Trump: ‘Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to us’
Drawing from handwritten notes, then-acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue documented that Trump told him to, “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
When Donoghue told Trump he couldn’t change the outcome of the election, he recalled Trump “responded very quickly.”
“And said, ‘that’s not what I’m asking you to do — I’m just asking you to say it is corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Donoghue said.
He also said Trump told him the Justice Department was “obligated to tell people that this was an illegal, corrupt election,” despite officials repeatedly telling him no widespread fraud existed and that Biden was the legitimate winner.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger emphasized the gravity of Trump’s request.
“‘Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to us,'” he said. “The president wanted the top Justice Department officials to declare that the election was corrupt, even though, as he knew, there was absolutely no evidence to support that statement.”
Jun 23, 3:47 pm
Taped testimony previews showdown Oval Office meeting with Trump
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., played previous video testimony ahead of questioning live witnesses to preview how the committee would reveal findings from what took place inside a heated Oval Office meeting on Jan. 3, 2021, between Trump and top Justice Department officials.
“The meeting took about another two and a half hours from the time I entered. It was entirely focused on whether there should be a DOJ leadership change,” former deputy acting attorney general Richard Donoghue recalled in taped testimony. “I would say, directly in front of the president, Jeff Rosen was to my right. Jeff Clark was to my left.”
“He looked at me and he underscored,” said former acting attorney general Jeff Rosen, “‘Well the one thing we know is you’re not gonna do anything, you don’t even agree that the concerns that are being presented are valid. And here is someone who has a different view, so, why shouldn’t I do that, you know?’ That’s how the discussion went, proceeded.”
Former White House attorney Eric Herschmann underscored the purpose of the meeting, where “Jeff Clark was proposing that Jeff Rosen be replaced by Jeff Clark — and I thought the proposal was asinine.”
Donoghue recalled that Clark “repeatedly said to the president that if he was put in the seat, he would conduct real investigations that would, in his view, uncover widespread fraud.”
Jun 23, 3:46 pm
DOJ denied all of Trump’s requests ahead of Jan. 6: Rosen
Former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen told the committee that Trump made several requests to the Department of Justice after Bill Barr left his position in December 2020.
According to Rosen, Trump called him “virtually every day” between December 23 and January 3.
Trump wanted the DOJ to appoint a special counsel for election fraud, set up a meeting with Rudy Giuliani, to potentially file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, hold a press conference and to send letters to state legislatures furthering baseless claims of fraud.
“I will say that the Justice Department declined all of those requests that I was just referencing,” Rosen said, “because we did not think that they were appropriate based on the facts and the law as we understood them.”
Jun 23, 3:40 pm
Former White House attorney suggests Clark ready to commit felony
The committee played a video of former Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann recalling what he said he told Jeffrey Clark, a lower-level DOJ official overseeing environmental law enforcement, who supported Trump’s proposal to have him become acting attorney general to help overturn the election results.
“When he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said ‘[expletive], congratulations. You just admitted your first step you would take as AG would be committing a felony,” Herschmann said. “‘You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.'”
“I told Clark the only thing he knew was that environmental and election both start with “e,” and I’m not even sure you know that,” he added.
In audio testimony, former deputy acting attorney general Richard Donoghue also recalled telling Clark, “Go back to your office, we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill,” and calling the draft letter he wanted to send swing states to appoint alternate slates “a murder-suicide pact.”
Rosen and Donoghue were detailing a two-and-half Oval Office meeting where Trump repeatedly pressed but was eventually dissuaded from his plan to install Clark atop the Justice Department to pursue baseless allegations of voter fraud just days before Congress was set to convene to certify Biden’s victory.
Jun 23, 3:20 pm
Cheney: Public to hear about members of Congress who sought pardons
Vice-chair Liz Cheney focused her opening statement Thursday on teasing a draft letter that Trump and former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark wanted the department to send to Georgia officials citing already disproven allegations of fraud.
“As you will see, this letter claims that the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigations have ‘identified significant concerns hat may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia,'” Cheney said. “In fact, Donald Trump knew this was a lie. The Department of Justice had already informed the president of the United States repeatedly that its investigations had found no fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the 2020 election.”
ABC News obtained and published the draft letter in full last year. Read it here.
Cheney also said the public today will see video testimony by three members of Trump’s White House staff identifying certain members of Congress who contacted the White House after Jan. 6 to “seek presidential pardons for their conduct.”
Jun 23, 3:10 pm
Chair convenes hearing on Trump’s ‘brazen attempt’ to pressure DOJ
Three former top officials in the Justice Department — former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, former deputy acting attorney general Richard Donoghue and former top DOJ lawyer Steven Engel — sat before lawmakers Thursday as Committee Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., convened the fifth public hearing this month.
“Today, we’ll tell the story of how the pressure campaign also targeted the federal agency charged with enforcement of our laws, the Department of Justice,” Thompson said, going to call it “a brazen attempt to use the Justice Department to advance the president’s professional and personal agenda.”
All three witnesses are expected to detail how they resisted Trump and his allies’ repeated entreaties to enlist the Justice Department in his failed bid to overturn his election loss.
Jun 23, 2:51 pm
Rep. Adam Kinzinger to lead hearing
Rep. Adam Kinzinger will lead questioning in today’s hearing, committee aides confirmed to reporters. Kinzinger is one of the two Republicans on the nine-member committee.
“The threat to our democracy is real. And today, we’ll see just how close we came to losing it all,” Kinzinger tweeted ahead of the hearing. “Tune in as we uncover President Trump’s pressure campaign on [the Justice Department] in his desperate attempt to subvert the will of the people to stay in power.”
Jun 23, 2:27 pm
Filmmaker with new Trump footage sits for deposition
British documentary filmmaker Alex Holder sat for a deposition with the committee earlier Thursday after a subpoena commanded him to turn over documentary footage — never-seen publicly — filmed for a series on Trump’s final months in office.
“I have no further comment at this time other than to say that our conversation today was thorough and I appreciated the opportunity to share more context about my project,” Holder said in a statement to ABC News.
Holder was “given unparalleled access and exclusive interviews with President Trump, Ivanka, Eric, and Don Jr., Jared Kushner as well as Vice President Pence; in the White House, Mar-A-Lago, behind-the-scenes on the campaign trail, and before and after the events of January 6th,” according to a statement from his spokesperson.
He received a subpoena last Thursday from the committee to turn over footage shot for his documentary series and submitted the materials requested earlier this week.
-ABC News Ali Dukakis
Jun 23, 2:37 pm
House GOP leader dodges questions on Trump, integrity of 2020 election
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., at a news conference Thursday dodged questions about endorsing Trump in 2024 and whether there was any widespread election fraud in the 2020 election.
McCarthy also said he had no regrets about not allowing Republicans to serve on the Jan. 6 committee. Trump has said McCarthy made a “foolish” mistake by refusing to allow Republican members to join the panel after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked several of his picks.
“I do not regret not appointing anybody at all,” McCarthy told reporters.
There are two Republicans serving on the House panel: Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. The two outspoken Trump critics were appointed by Pelosi.
-ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel
Jun 23, 2:14 pm
Federal agents search home of former Trump Justice Department official
Federal agents searched the Virginia home of former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark on Wednesday morning, multiple sources with direct knowledge of the activity told ABC News.
It was unclear which federal agencies conducted the search, just hours before the House Jan. 6 committee was set to hold a hearing on then-President Donald Trump’s effort to corrupt the Justice Department in what it says was his plot to overturn the election, but one neighbor who witnessed the law enforcement activity said they saw officials entering the residence early Wednesday.
Clark, a former assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources, emerged as a key player in Trump’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department in the wake of the 2020 election. He previously pleaded the Fifth Amendment in an appearance before the Jan. 6 committee and has declined to comment through an attorney when asked about specific details regarding his alleged coordination with Trump and others.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Alexander Mallin, Luke Barr and Mike Levine
Jun 23, 1:56 pm
Hearing to detail Trump pressure campaign on DOJ
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and what led up to it is set on Thursday to bring into focus Trump’s relentless post-Election Day efforts to enlist the Justice Department in his failed bid to overturn his election loss.
The committee’s fifth hearing this month will feature testimony from three former top officials in the department who say they resisted Trump and his allies’ repeated entreaties, former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, former deputy acting attorney general Richard Donoghue and former top DOJ lawyer Steven Engel.
All three have previously confirmed that they joined a group of top White House lawyers in threatening a mass resignation if Trump didn’t back away from plans to oust Rosen and replace him with another obscure official in the top echelons of the department who was sympathetic to the Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.
