(LONDON) — The British government has approved the extradition of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, to the United States to face charges of espionage.
Assange now has 14 days to appeal the decision of both the District Judge and the Secretary of State’s decision to order extradition.
Assange has always denied any wrongdoing.
According to a tweet by Wikileaks, Assange will appeal through the legal system to the High Court.
“Under the Extradition Act 2003, the Secretary of State must sign an extradition order if there are no grounds to prohibit the order being made,” the U.K. Home Office said in a statement following the decision. “Extradition requests are only sent to the Home Secretary once a judge decides it can proceed after considering various aspects of the case. On 17 June, following consideration by both the Magistrates Court and High Court, the extradition of Mr Julian Assange to the US was ordered. Mr Assange retains the normal 14-day right to appeal.”
According to the U.K. Home Office, all extradition requests from countries outside Europe are sent to Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The court then hears arguments from both sides before making a decision on the extradition.
“In this case, the UK courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange,” the U.K. Home Office continued. “Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, and that whilst in the US he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health.”
Assange is wanted in the U.S. in connection with one of the largest thefts of classified government information in American history. He was arrested in the U.K. in April 2019 and, just hours later, the United States announced charges against him for allegedly conspiring with former intelligence officer Chelsea Manning in order to gain unlawful access to a government computer.
Following his arrest by The Metropolitan Police in London in April 2019, the indictment again Assange, which was originally filed in March 2018, was released and claimed that Assange helped Manning crack a password on a Pentagon computer.
Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for her role in the offense in 2013. However, her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama as one of his final acts in office in January 2017.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — New details and never-before-seen photographs have emerged about the “heated” phone call between President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021.
The information came out in the House select committee’s third public hearing this month in its investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The panel on Thursday focused on the intense pressure placed on Pence by Trump and others to single-handedly overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 presidential race.
Pence refused Trump’s last-ditch demands, which witnesses said sparked a mocking response from Trump.
The committee shared new photographs of Trump on that very phone call, which it obtained from the National Archives. Another exhibit showed a handwritten note on Trump’s schedule that the call was slated to take place at 11:20 a.m., just hours before a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol as Pence was presiding over Congress certifying Biden’s win.
“The conversation got pretty heated,” Ivanka Trump, the ex-president’s daughter who was in the room, told the committee in a videotaped deposition.
She recalled the phone call representing a “different tone” from what she’d previously heard her father use with Pence.
Other aides who were also inside the Oval Office echoed Ivanka Trump’s alarm.
Eric Herschmann, then was serving as the White House counsel, told lawmakers that the conversation started off with a “calmer tone” but “then it became heated.” Herschmann said he didn’t think many people were paying attention to the call until it became “louder.”
Nicholas Luna, Trump’s former assistant, told the committee he was delivering a note to the Oval Office when he overheard some of Trump’s side of the conversation.
“I remember hearing the word ‘wimp,'” Luna said in a taped deposition. “Either he called him a wimp, I don’t remember if he said, ‘You are a wimp, you’ll be a wimp.’ Wimp is the word I remember.”
Julie Radford, Ivanka Trump’s former chief of staff, said in her deposition she remembered being told by Ivanka Trump “her dad had just had an upsetting conversation with the vice president.”
Radford said she was told the former president had called Pence “the p-word.”
Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Pence’s national security adviser at the time, said in a taped deposition that he remembers Trump telling Pence he wasn’t “tough enough.”
Greg Jacob, who served as Pence’s legal counsel between December 2020 and January 2021, testified live on Thursday about what he experienced on the other side of the call.
Jacob said he and several other people were with Pence finalizing his statement on why he couldn’t unilaterally reject state electors when Pence stepped out of the room to receive the call from Trump.
“No staff went with him,” Jacob told the committee.
After the call, Jacob testified, Pence appeared to be “steely, determined, grim.”
The House select committee on Thursday commended the former vice president for his “courage” in rejecting Trump’s demands.
“Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other vice president has ever done,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in his opening remarks.
“The former president wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner, or send the votes back to the states to be counted again,” Thompson continued. “Mike Pence said no. He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong.”
Rep. Pete Aguilar, a Democrat who led the hearing Thursday, said it was a “pressure campaign that built to a fever pitch with a heated phone call on Jan. 6.”
Jan. 6 Committee member Rep. Aguilar says Americans will hear “how Vice Pres. Pence withstood an onslaught of pressure from Pres. Trump, both publicly and privately.”
The committee also revealed new photographs of Pence and his family hiding in an underground location of the Capitol complex as Trump supporters stormed the building.
In one photo, Pence is seen looking at a tweet Trump had just sent asking rioters to leave the area.
Pence remained in the underground location for four hours as law enforcement officials eventually pushed back the mob.
Jacob, Pence’s former adviser, told the committee that Pence decided to stay in the area so as to “not to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the United States fleeing the United States Capitol.”
Jacob also testified that Trump didn’t check in on Pence at all during that time, which left Pence frustrated.
ABC News on Wednesday published exclusively-obtained White House photos of the Pence family after he was evacuated from the Senate floor, where the joint session of Congress was taking place.
(WASHINGTON) — Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a rare public appearance during the frenzied crush of Supreme Court opinion season, delivered public praise of her colleague Justice Clarence Thomas and gave a pep talk to progressives Thursday as the embattled institution prepares to issue major rulings driven by the court’s conservative majority.
“If it doesn’t kill me, it makes me stronger. That is what adversity does to you,” an upbeat Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal justices, told an audience at the American Constitution Society conference in Washington.
In the coming days, the court will issue opinions on abortion, gun rights, immigration, school prayer and climate policy. The justice did not directly address any of the pending cases, or an unprecedented leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito last month that showed the conservative majority ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Sotomayor did, however, discuss how infamous and unjust court decisions can later be corrected, citing the Dred Scott case of 1857, which held that enslaved or free black Americans could not be citizens. She noted that it took eight years and a Civil War to rectify, but that ultimately it was overturned.
“We have to have continuing faith in the court system, in our system of government, in our ability — I hope not through war — but through constitutional amendment, to change in legislation, towards lobbying, towards continuing the battle each day to regain the public’s confidence that we as a court, as an institution have not lost our way,” Sotomayor said.
“We as a society, have taken steps some may disagree with. But if we disagree, we will continue to battle to do justice,” she said.
Alito, in his draft opinion in the abortion case, cited the Scott case to justify overturning Roe, arguing that the 1973 landmark opinion was similarly, in his view, wrongly decided from the start.
Sotomayor’s appearance was the first by a member of the court’s liberal wing since the leaked opinion breached a cherished code of trust, upended court operations and stirred new security threats to the justices, including an alleged assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Her remarks also followed public comments by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas last month, each of whom suggested relations among justices and with their clerks have significantly deteriorated amid recent events.
“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally,” Thomas said at a conference in May. “You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”
Sotomayor heaped praise on Justice Thomas — who has been sharply criticized by Democrats and progressive legal scholars for his positions in controversial cases and for the alleged involvement of his wife, Ginni Thomas, in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Thomas was one of the only justices to dissent from the court’s decision to decline to take up several election-related cases.
“I suspect I have probably disagreed with him more than with any other justice, that we have not joined each other’s opinions more than anybody else,” Sotomayor said, and yet “he is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there…”
Thomas has a “very different philosophy of life,” Sotomayor continued, “but I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them. That’s why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our difference of opinions in cases.”
While many Democrats and progressive activists have been downtrodden about the direction of the Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority — some are demanding dramatic changes to the size and scope of the court — Sotomayor urged optimism and civility in the face of disappointment.
“You can lie down and let the truck run you over. Or, you can…get up and build the barricades,” she told the crowd. “I don’t mean this literally, I mean it figuratively….Look, there are days I get discouraged. There are moments where I am deeply, deeply disappointed. And yes, there have been moments where I’ve stopped and said, ‘Is this worth it anymore?’ And every time I do that, I lick my wounds for a while. Sometimes I cry. And then I say, OK — let’s fight.”
(NEW YORK) — For more than a century, the Boy Scouts of America was a powerful institution aimed at empowering young people to make “ethical and moral choices.” But repeated lawsuits over sex abuse claims scouts say they suffered in scouting and the court-ordered release of decades of internal Boy Scouts of America records cataloguing abuse allegations led to institutional disgrace and bankruptcy.
The century-long-cover-up by The Boy Scouts of America to conceal pedophiles that were in their ranks and how their secret “perversion files” would eventually lead to the financial downfall and bankruptcy of the organization.
ABC News Studios partners with Imagine Documentaries and Vermilion Films to present “Leave No Trace: A Hidden History of The Boy Scouts.” The film examines financial records, court documents and firsthand survivor accounts to dissect a coverup of sexual abuse within the Boy Scouts of America.
After premiering at the Tribeca Festival on June 9, “Leave No Trace” is set to stream on Hulu and in select theaters on Thursday, June 16.
Stream the full story June 16 on Hulu
The Boy Scouts of America responded to ABC News about the film’s release and said they are “deeply sorry for the pain endured by survivors of abuse,” but the organization challenges aspects of the film.
“While there are aspects of the film “Leave No Trace” that mischaracterize the BSA’s policies and actions, rather than challenge these inaccuracies, our focus is on supporting survivors,” the organization told ABC News. It continued, “The BSA welcomes any opportunity for survivors to share their stories as part of the healing process, and we applaud the bravery and resilience of all survivors of past abuse in Scouting.”
The Boy Scouts of America still remains one of the largest youth organizations in the United States and reported approximately 2.1 million youth members and nearly 800,000 adult volunteers in 2019. At its height, the organization served over 5 million youths in 1979.
In 2012, the Boy Scouts of America was forced by a court order in a sexual abuse lawsuit brought by a former scout in Oregon to release over 20,000 pages of documentation of alleged child sexual abuse cases within the organization from 1965 to 1985.
The film investigates how the organization allegedly helped cover up the abuse cases and failed to report the allegations externally to police or other local officials.
In February 2020, the Boy Scouts of America filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to offer “equitable compensation” to victims and their families, according to a press release.
Three months later, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware set a November 2020 deadline for all survivors of sexual abuse to file claims, according to a press release.
More than 82,000 sexual abuse claims were reportedly filed.
Earlier this year, survivors of sex abuse in scouting voted to accept a proposed 2.7 billion dollar settlement from the Boy Scouts of America as part of its reorganization plan. If approved by the bankruptcy court, it would be the largest sex-abuse payout in American history.
(TALLAHASSEE, Fla.) — Florida was the first state to advise against vaccinating healthy kids for COVID-19.
Florida was the only state in the U.S. that didn’t preorder any COVID-19 vaccines for young children, federal officials said Thursday.
The Florida Department of Health did not want to be involved in a “convoluted vaccine distribution process,” a representative from the department told ABC News in a statement on Wednesday.
“The Florida Department of Health (Department) has made it clear to the federal government that states do not need to be involved in the convoluted vaccine distribution process, especially when the federal government has a track record of developing inconsistent and unsustainable COVID-19 policies,” the representative said.
In March, the state’s Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, announced Florida would become the first state to officially advise against vaccinating healthy children for COVID-19.
“Already the rates were low. So, we’re kind of scraping at the bottom of the barrel particularly with healthy kids, in terms of actually being able to quantify with any accuracy and any confidence, the infinite potential of benefit,” Ladapo said at the time.
The representative for the state health department reiterated the health department still does not recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for all children.
“It is also no surprise we chose not to participate in distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine when the Department does not recommend it for all children,” the representative wrote.
Doctors will be able to order vaccines as they are needed, the department said. However, the representative noted that there are currently no orders in the Department’s ordering system for the COVID-19 vaccine for these young kids.
On Thursday, the White House quickly pushed back on Florida’s decision not to order any shots for young children.
“By being the only state — this is Florida — not preordering, which means that pediatricians, for example, in Florida will not have immediate ready access to vaccines, some pharmacies and community health centers in the state get access through federal distribution channels, but those options are limited for parents. We encouraged Florida on several occasions to order vaccines … and we will continue to do so,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a press briefing on Thursday.
Jean-Pierre said the White House has been working with states for “some time” to ensure that if the vaccines are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the doses will be “shipped to places like pediatricians and children’s hospitals, places where parents would get health care for their youngest or as quickly as possible.”
With Florida not preordering vaccines, it will make it more difficult for parents to get a hold of vaccines for their young children, Jean-Pierre added.
Dr. John Brownstein, an epidemiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and an ABC News contributor, concurred, adding that access to the shots will be critical to uptake.
“Vaccines access and confidence are tightly linked. If you make it harder for parents to vaccinate their kids, it will reduce the likelihood they will, especially if on the fence. By not making preorders available to Florida vaccination clinics, you are doing a disservice to so many families who have waited over two years to vaccinate their youngest kids,” Brownstein said.
Issues of equity may also be exacerbated, as some lower-income families may have a harder gaining access to the shots, Brownstein said.
“This rollout was already going to be the most challenging yet, especially with pharmacies playing a more limited role. By removing the state from the ordering equation, you are shifting a cumbersome process to pediatric frontline health care that is already stretched way too thin,” Brownstein added. “More challenging access will unfortunately only serve to exacerbate health disparities. Minority and low-income communities that already have a more challenging time accessing vaccines will have less options available.”
A committee of advisors to the FDA voted on Wednesday to recommend the Moderna vaccine for children under 6, which is a two-dose vaccine, and the Pfizer vaccine for kids under 5, which is a three-dose vaccine.
If FDA leadership chooses to officially authorize the vaccines, the administration can start shipping out vaccines to states. On Friday and Saturday, the CDC’s advisers will meet to review the data on both vaccines for children.
Thus far, states have preordered 3.8 million doses of vaccines for the youngest children, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett and Sasha Pezenik contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Two U.S. veterans from Alabama, Andy Huynh, 27, and Alexander Drueke, 39, volunteered to fight alongside the Ukrainian military against Russia, but haven’t been heard from in days.
Family members are desperately waiting for word after two Americans who volunteered to assist Ukrainian forces have gone missing amid unconfirmed reports of their capture. U.S. officials revealed they’re also aware of a third American who has been reported missing during the war.
U.S. lawmakers said Wednesday they have been asked by the families of the former service members from Alabama — Alexander Drueke and Andy Tai Ngoc Huynh — for their help in locating them.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., said in a statement her office is helping a family locate Drueke, 39, of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
“Earlier this week, the mother of Alexander Drueke, a Tuscaloosa Army Veteran who volunteered to assist the Ukrainian Army in combating Russia, reached out to my office after losing contact with her son. According to his family, they have not heard from Drueke in several days,” she said in a statement.
Sewell said her office has been in contact with the State Department, the FBI and other members of the Alabama Congressional delegation.
Drueke, an Army veteran, reportedly went to Ukraine in mid-April to volunteer to help train the Ukrainian forces, his mother, Lois “Bunny” Drueke, told “Good Morning America.”
“He wanted to go over and help train the Ukrainian soldiers and show them how to use the equipment that the U.S. has been sending over there for them,” she said.
She said she last heard from her son in a text message on June 8.
“He said that he was going dark for a day or possibly two. And I responded to stay safe, that I loved him and he responded, ‘Yes, ma’am. I love you too,'” she said. “And that was my last communication with him.”
She said he was with Huynh at the time, whom he had met since going to Ukraine, and there are unverified reports that they may have been captured by Russian forces.
Drueke was a chemical operations specialist in the Army Reserve from 2002 to 2014 and held the rank of staff sergeant at the end of his service, an Army official confirmed to ABC News. He was deployed to Kuwait from December 2004 to December 2005 and to Iraq from November 2008 to July 2009, the official said.
Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said his office is helping in the search for Huynh, 27, of Trinity, Alabama, after his family reached out to the congressman’s office this week.
“According to Huynh’s family, they have not been in contact with him since June 8, 2022, when he was in the Kharkiv area of Ukraine,” he said in a statement.
Aderholt said his office has reached out to the State Department and FBI to “get any information possible.”
Huynh, a former Marine, spoke to Huntsville, Alabama, ABC affiliate WAAY in early April about his decision to help defend Ukraine.
“I’ve made peace with the decision. I know there’s a potential of me dying. I’m willing to give my life for what I believe is right,” he told the station.
Huynh served in the Marines from 2014 to 2018, reaching the rank of corporal, a Marine Corps spokesperson confirmed to ABC News.
He got engaged in March, before he left for Ukraine the following month.
“We just really want him back,” his fiancée, Joy Black, told “Good Morning America” through tears. “He’s got such a big heart. He knew this wasn’t the easy thing, but this was the right thing.”
“Even though not great things have happened I’m still really, really proud of him,” she continued.
White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he “can’t confirm the reports” of two Americans captured in Ukraine.
“We’ll do the best we can to monitor this and see what we can learn about it,” he said. “Obviously, if it’s true, we’ll do everything we can to get them safely back home.”
The State Department also is aware of the “unconfirmed” reports, a spokesperson said.
“We are limited in terms of what we know at the moment,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters Thursday. “We’re closely monitoring the situation, we are in contact with Ukrainian authorities, as well as with the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the families of the two reported missing U.S. citizens.”
Price said the State Department had not had any direct communication with Russia concerning the whereabouts of the two men.
“If we feel that such outreach through our embassy in Moscow or otherwise would be productive in terms of finding out more information on the whereabouts of these individuals, we won’t hesitate to do that,” he said, adding that the department had not “seen anything from the Russians indicating that two such individuals are in their custody.”
Price said the department is also aware of a third, unidentified American who reportedly traveled to Ukraine to fight and whose “whereabouts are unknown.”
“Similarly, our understanding was that this individual had traveled to Ukraine to take up arms,” Price said, adding that the person was identified as missing “in recent weeks” and that the State Department was also in contact with their family.
The State Department has warned U.S. citizens against traveling to Ukraine during the war and that Russian security officials could be “singling out” U.S. citizens.
When asked about the two missing Americans in Ukraine, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that he did not have any information about it.
“Perhaps the Defense Ministry has some information, but I don’t,” Peskov said at a press briefing Thursday.
Several Westerners have been taken prisoner during the war, including two men from the United Kingdom who were sentenced to death this month by Russian-backed separatists who accused them of being mercenaries.
ABC News’ Devin Garbitt, Benjamin Stein, Ben Gittleson, Shannon Crawford and Matt Seyler contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced Thursday the recall of more than 407,000 over-the-counter pill bottles, citing the products do not meet the child resistance packaging required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA).
Aurohealth recalled nearly 137,300 units of the Walgreens brand Acetaminophen. Consumers can contact Aurohealth for information on how to return the product to their nearest Walgreens store to receive a full refund.
Aurohealth also recalled about 25,660 units of Kroger brand arthritis pain acetaminophen. Time-Cap Labs recalled nearly 209,430 units of Kroger brand aspirin and ibuprofen. Further, Sun Pharma also recalled about 34,660 units of Kroger brand acetaminophen.
Consumers can contact Kroger for information on how to properly dispose of the product and receive a full refund.
The pill bottles have been sold at supermarkets nationwide.
(EL PASO, Texas) — The U.S. saw the largest number of migrants arrested or encountered along the southern border since Customs and Border Protection began counting numbers of migrants encountered since the year 2000, statistics released by CBP, on Wednesday show.
CBP encountered 239,416 migrants along the southwest land border in May, a 2% increase compared to April, and 25% of those those encountered were previously arrested and deported by CBP.
The past four months, according to CBP statistics, migrant numbers along the southern border have increased steadily over 200,000 each month.
The amount of unaccompanied minors also saw a 20% increase from this month to last.
Drug seizures along the southern border were down in May in double digits, according to CBP.
“Our message to those who would try and gain illegal entry to the United States remains the same – don’t make the dangerous journey only to be sent back,” said CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus in a statement. “As temperatures start to rise in the summer, human smugglers will continue to exploit vulnerable populations and recklessly endanger the lives of migrants for financial gain.”
The numbers come as Title 42 — the Trump administration policy, continued by the Biden administration that expelled migrants along the southern border under the auspices of the pandemic, was ordered to be kept in place by a federal judge in May.
The Justice Department, which handles litigation for the federal government, has appealed the ruling.
“Current restrictions at the U.S. border have not changed: single adults and families encountered at the Southwest Border will continue to be expelled, where appropriate, under Title 42,” Magnus said.
(WASHINGTON) — Members of the House select committee appeared divided this week on whether they should make a criminal referral against former President Donald Trump at the conclusion of their investigation, with Chairman Bennie Thompson telling reporters it’s “not our job” to prosecute Trump before Vice Chair Liz Cheney said the decision to refer findings hasn’t been made.
The back-and-forth has reignited questions on the merits of sending a criminal referral to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department. A referral is not required for the agency to investigate Trump, nor will one guarantee it, but public hearings outlining Trump’s “seven-point plan” to overturn the 2020 presidential election have amped up pressure on Garland to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump — the first in history against a former president.
While a criminal referral from the Jan. 6 committee might, on paper, end up being a mostly symbolic gesture, experts told ABC News the move deserves careful consideration.
“I don’t think that there is any member of that committee who has any doubt about whether Donald Trump violated the law or questions the actual merits of a criminal referral,” said Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “What I suspect is that it has much more to do with trying to preserve Congress’ authority and not wanting division between those who are trying to hold Donald Trump accountable in Congress and the Justice Department.”
“But,” she added, “the calculation that says, ‘We will hold back, and therefore preserve our own authority,’ is mistaken.”
Pros and cons
Amid concerns that Republicans will paint a criminal referral, and any subsequent DOJ investigation, as politically-motivated, the committee may decide to leave its findings in a public report, which would then serve as an indirect “handoff” to the Justice Department, said Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law, who outlined some reasons that might give the committee pause.
“The downside with a referral could be that if Garland’s Justice Department does move ahead, that it would be perceived as potentially political by some parts of the American public,” he said. “It could be better for the Justice Department to appear more independent than seeming as though it’s responding to a direct referral coming out of the committee.”
On the other hand, Goodman said, while a referral doesn’t have any compulsory force tied to it, “I think Garland has shown us time and again that he is reactive, not proactive — and what he reacts to are other institutions, forcing the question.”
Garland told reporters that he and his prosecutors are closely watching the committee’s hearings this week, and the Department of Justice sent a new letter on Wednesday telling the committee’s chief investigator it is “critical” members “provide us with copies of the transcripts of all its witness interviews,” which the committee so far has declined to do. The request suggests there are matters DOJ is investigating beyond the violence on the ground on Jan. 6 it is already prosecuting — specifically alternate or fake electors as part of the discredited theory that Pence could unilaterally block the certification of Joe Biden as president.
Regardless of whether the committee makes a formal criminal referral, each legal expert ABC News spoke with said it would be concerning if the government did not, at the very least, open a criminal investigation.
“As a matter of constitutional theory and law and accountability and the separation of powers, if Merrick Garland doesn’t at least try, even if the Justice Department loses, there’s no disincentive left for any future president to not use the massive powers of the White House to commit widespread crimes,” said Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a former assistant U.S. attorney. “It’s a green light for a crime spree in the White House because every other lever of accountability has failed.”
Then sentiment is clearly shared by Cheney, who has taken the tone of a criminal prosecutor in the hearings, arguing that Trump and his allies engaged in criminal activity, using video testimony of Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann recalling how he suggested that Trump White House attorney John Eastman “get a great effing criminal defense lawyer.”
Using the clip to tease Thursday’s hearing, Cheney pointedly noted how a federal judge already found Trump’s pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct the congressional count of electoral votes “more likely than not” violated two federal criminal statutes: obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
“President Trump had no factual basis for what he was doing and he had been told it was illegal. Despite this, President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman and others to overturn the outcome of the election on Jan. 6,” Cheney said.
Trump, in a 12-page statement sent to reporters on Monday night, blasted the panel illegitimate and their presentation one-sided, calling it “a smoke and mirrors show.”
While the committee weighs sending a formal criminal referral, here’s a look at federal statutes the committee and experts say Trump and his allies may have violated:
Obstruction of an official proceeding – 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The committee has outlined an alleged “sophisticated seven-point plan” it says Trump and his allies engaged in with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, including “corruptly” planning to replace federal and state officials with those who would support his fake election claims and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his oath to the Constitution.
Acting on a plan with the intent to stop the counting of electoral votes would likely violate 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which makes it a felony to attempt to “corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding,” such as a presidential election, and comes with up to 20 years in prison.
“If there is enough evidence to prove that Trump knew he had lost the election, then it’s obvious that he was acting with corrupt intent,” Goodman said. “You can’t try to pressure the vice president to overturn the election if you know you actually lost.”
Cheney, raising texts sent to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging Trump to call for violence to stop on Jan. 6, mirrored language in the statute Monday to raise the question, “Did Donald Trump, through action — or inaction — corruptly seek to instruct or impede Congress’ proceedings to count electoral votes?”
The committee has attempted to make the case that even without a “smoking gun” such as Trump admitting on tape he knew the election was lost, a preponderance of evidence should have made that clear to him, and members will lead their case next to the potential legal culpability of Trump’s direct — and indirect pressure — on the Justice Department and state election officials.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States – 18 U.S.C. § 371
This statute, also raised by Cheney ahead of Thursday’s hearing, criminalizes the agreement between two or more persons to “impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful government functions” and is punishable by up to five years in prison.
As part of the “seven-point plot” Cheney has laid out, the committee argues Trump’s legal team violated this federal criminal statute when instructing Republicans in battleground states to replace Biden electors with slates of Trump electors and send those votes to Congress and the National Archives.
While Trump’s intent to defraud would need to be proved for a conviction, experts interviewed by ABC News say, how Trump relates to other potential defendants would be considered when weighing potential criminal charges to bring, and they note some of his closest allies “have very significant criminal exposure.”
Former Trump White House attorney John Eastman, in drafting a plan for Trump to cling to power by falsely claiming Pence could reject legitimate electors, as well as Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who allegedly with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, told then- Attorney General Bill Barr that Trump was “becoming more realistic” that he lost as they were “working on it,” may have a harder defense to make.
“If those individuals know Trump lost and indicated it, it’s going to be easier to prove the case against them,” Goodman said.
And if those close to Trump are charged, it may be easier to prove he agreed to participate in the conspiracy.
“For example,” Finkelstein said, “if John Eastman is found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States or obstruction of an official proceeding and Donald Trump was found to be in a conspiracy with John Eastman, the exact nature of his intent may not have to be the same as if he is a principal defendant because, under federal conspiracy law, he only needs to have agreed to the object to the conspiracy.”
Seditious conspiracy – 18 U.S.C. § 2384
Seditious conspiracy is defined as when two or more people in the U.S. conspire to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force” the U.S. government, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law. It comes with 20 years in prison if convicted.
Since the use of force is an element of this crime, and Trump was not on the Capitol grounds during the attack, experts cautioned that the burden of proof might be more difficult in this instance.
“It must mean that Trump acted with foreknowledge and intend to use force and violence, and I think that’s going to be very hard to prove, though there is a lot of evidence that points in that direction,” Goodman said.
The Justice Department last week announced an indictment charging the then-leader and four other members of the extremist far-right group the Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy. Three have pleaded not guilty, and two others are set to enter not guilty pleas on Thursday. In an apparent suggestion the two were linked, the committee has argued that hundreds of Proud Boys traveled to Washington specifically for an insurrection, as indicated by members of the group marching on the Capitol before Trump even began speaking.
If the committee accuses Trump of conspiring with Proud Boys or other far-right extremist groups who are accused of organizing the Capitol attack, there’s more potential for a seditious conspiracy charge, which could then trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from serving in government.
“But in some sense,” Goodman cautioned, “it’s easier to prove that Trump might have had more knowledge that his supporters would try to enter the Capitol and occupy the Capitol physically but not use violence.”
Fraud by wire, radio or television – 18 U.S.C. § 1343
The committee introduced evidence this week of Trump and his allies fundraising $250 million off fraudulent election claims, asking for money for an “Official Election Defense Fraud” fund — but the panel said no such fund existed — with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., casting the “big lie” as “a big rip-off.”
“Claims that the election was stolen were so successful, President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election,” said Amanda Wick, senior investigative counsel to the committee, in a taped video. “Most of the money raised went to this newly created PAC, not to election-related litigation.”
The allegation has raised questions over potential wire fraud charges, or the attempt to defraud another through physical or electronic mail.
However, experts told ABC News this charge might be more difficult to prove, going back to the question of Trump’s intent. Prosecutors would have to convince a grand jury that Trump intended to mislead.
“He can say, ‘I wasn’t in charge of setting up those fundraising efforts, I didn’t know that they were potentially illegal,'” Wehle said. “So that’s a thornier case.”
To charge or not to charge
The experts ABC spoke with agreed the Jan. 6 committee has made a compelling case so far, and that the onus is on Garland and the Justice Department to follow the roadmap it’s laid out.
They argue the rule of law is at risk.
“What’s at stake is the very structure of our democracy and our ability to hold public officials to the confines of the law,” Finkelstein said.
“The committee’s public hearings have raised the stakes enormously for the country, in the sense that the criminal activity shown to have gone on is so brazen, that if the Justice Department does not enforce the law in this case, it really does further erode the rule of law and democracy,” Goodman said.
“Even if the effort fails, at least there’s a message sent that there is a cop on the block,” Wehle added. “Because we’re headed for a very, very dark era of American history if something doesn’t happen.”
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Alexander Mallin and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(WORCESTER, Mass.) — A bishop has declared that a Massachusetts school “may no longer identify itself as Catholic.”
A bishop has declared that a central Massachusetts school “may no longer identify itself as Catholic” because it refuses to remove Black Lives Matter and Pride flags it began flying on campus last year.
Arguing that the flags “embody specific agendas and ideologies (that) contradict Catholic social and moral teaching,” Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester issued a decree on Thursday punishing the Nativity School of Worcester, a tuition-free private middle school that serves about 60 boys from under-resourced communities.
The decree prohibits the school from calling itself Catholic and prevents Mass and sacraments from taking place on school grounds.
In a statement, the school said it began displaying the flags in Jan. 2021 at the request of its students, the majority of whom, it noted, are people of color.
“As a multicultural school, the flags represent the inclusion and respect of all people. These flags simply state that all are welcome at Nativity and this value of inclusion is rooted in Catholic teaching,” said the school.
According to the school, when McManus became aware of the flags in March of this year, he asked the school to take them down. Later that month, an unknown person removed them, the school said, “[causing] harm to our entire community. The flags were later raised again.
In May, McManus threatened to punish the school in an open letter, where he claimed the Church is “100% behind the phrase ‘black lives matter’” but accused “a specific movement with a wider agenda” of “co-opt[ing] the phrase.”
The school said it would seek to appeal the bishop’s decision while continuing to fly the flags.
A spokesperson for the diocese did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
