Texas AG Ken Paxton impeached: What to know about the controversy and what comes next

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

(AUSTIN, Texas) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was impeached on May 27, becoming the state’s first statewide official to be impeached since 1917.

The proceedings were sparked by claims from former employees in Paxton’s office that he was misusing his power to aid a friend and donor. The impeachment also underlines the conflict between Paxton and a number of other Republicans, many of whom voted in the state House for his impeachment.

In a defiant statement last month, Paxton called the proceedings “unjust” and a partisan “sham,” labeling the state House Speaker Dade Phelan a traitor.

Phelan, for his part, has defended the process. “What happened this week is nothing I take pride in. It is not anything I was proud of. But it was necessary,” he said before the impeachment vote.

Who is Ken Paxton?

Paxton was suspended while serving his third term as Texas attorney general, the state’s top law enforcement officer, after holding office in the Texas House and Senate for approximately 10 and two years, respectively. Before that, he worked as a corporate lawyer and in private practice.

During his career as attorney general, Paxton has brought several significant lawsuits against both the Obama and Biden administrations, including an effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields some immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. as kids.

As an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, Paxton led an unsuccessful lawsuit contesting the 2020 presidential election results in four states.

While Paxton easily won two of his three attorney general elections, his time in office has also been marred by scandal.

When did the impeachment begin and what is Paxton accused of?

The case for Paxton’s impeachment traces back to 2020, when top aides accused him of abuse of office to benefit donor Nate Paul, himself and Paxton’s alleged mistress. That led to an ongoing FBI probe and multimillion-dollar whistleblower lawsuit, with some of those Paxton staffers claiming they were fired for speaking out.

An attorney for Paul declined to comment to ABC News. Paul has previously denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, Paxton agreed to a $3.3 million settlement with the former staffers and to apologize for calling them “rogue,” but he said he was settling in order to move past the allegations and that he’d done nothing wrong. He also sought to have the state — taxpayers — cover the cost. After that, state House lawmakers began looking into him, they have said.

On May 24, the state House’s investigative committee brought 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton alleging misconduct, including bribery, obstruction of justice and misappropriation of public resources.

By that Saturday, he was impeached and temporarily suspended from office, as required under state law, pending his trial in the state Senate.

He faces other legal troubles, too.

In 2015, he was charged with securities fraud related to investments in a tech company and has pleaded not guilty, though he has yet to stand trial. That case is referenced in the impeachment charges against Paxton.

Separately, last year, Paxton was also sued by the state bar over alleged professional misconduct for backing the lawsuit against the 2020 election results. “Texas Bar: I’ll see you and the leftists that control you in court,” he said then.

The state House investigating committee, which recommended the impeachment, held a public forum in May detailing the whistleblower claims. The evidence presented to legislators included three hours of testimony from investigators.

Afterward, the House voted to impeach Paxton in a bipartisan 121-23 majority vote.

What’s next?

Paxton awaits trial in the state Senate, which must start by Aug. 28. The chamber will review a set of trial rules on Tuesday, to be proposed by a seven-member committee chosen by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick who, like Paxton, has historically aligned himself with Trump.

One rule the committee will determine is whether the attorney general will be allowed to present a defense, which is an allowance that was not made for the state House proceedings and that Paxton criticized.

“My office made every effort to present evidence, testimony, and irrefutable facts that would have disproven the countless false statements and outright lies,” Paxton wrote on Twitter in May.

Where do legislators stand?

While a majority overwhelmingly supported Paxton’s impeachment in the state House, the Republican-controlled upper chamber requires two-thirds support to convict him, which would permanently remove and bar him from holding future Texas office.

State senators have largely remained mum on the pending trial, likely because of a commitment to protect the integrity of the proceedings, where they will essentially function as jurors, as stressed by the lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate. In a streamed event with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Patrick spoke directly to the press, saying he couldn’t speak further on the case and asking for privacy as the trial proceeds.

“This is very serious. These are very serious people, and the Senate is going to do our job in a professional way,” he said.

The potential jurors include one unusual member, should she not recuse: the attorney general’s wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton. The Paxtons have long supported one another’s political endeavors: She could be found with a guitar in hand singing at his events and he gave a $2 million loan toward her state Senate campaign in 2018. She has not yet commented on the impeachment and has not been accused of doing anything wrong.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, has called the impeachment a “travesty” and defended the attorney general on Twitter. “Virtually all of the information in the articles was public BEFORE Election Day, and the voters chose to re-elect Ken Paxton by a large margin,” Cruz wrote.

Most state House Republicans voted for the impeachment. One of them, Rep. Stan Kitzman, issued a statement calling the charges “a slap in the face to every Texan who believes in the rule of law and the integrity of our public offices.”

In the legislative session that recently ended, the state House was able to pass multiple conservative priorities it set forth, like banning hormonal treatments for children under the age of 18. But it also failed to agree on other proposals, like more stringent immigration legislation — an example of the disagreements between the party’s more centrist and more hard-line wings.

The state GOP chair, Matt Rinaldi, alluded to that tension in a statement about Paxton: “The impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General are but the latest front in the Texas House’s war against Republicans to stop the conservative direction of our state.”

What could happen to Paxton?

Until Paxton’s trial, while he remains suspended, John Scott has been appointed interim attorney general by Gov. Greg Abbott.

Should the state Senate not reach a two-thirds majority to remove Paxton, he will continue to serve in his role as before, albeit alongside legislators, many from his own party, who voted to impeach him.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Prince Harry, Meghan part ways with Spotify

MARTIN BUREAU/AFP via Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — Prince Harry and Meghan’s much-heralded deal with Spotify, one of the first deals they announced after leaving their royal roles, has come to an end.

Spotify and Archewell Audio, Harry and Meghan’s production company, confirmed the end of the partnership in a joint statement, saying, “Spotify and Archewell Audio have mutually agreed to part ways and are proud of the series we made together.”

When the deal between Spotify and the Sussexes was announced in late 2020, it was described by Spotify as a multi-year partnership that would see Harry and Meghan both hosting and producing podcasts with the goal of building “community through shared experience, narratives and values.”

Shortly after the deal was announced, in December 2020, Harry and Meghan released a holiday special podcast that featured nearly one dozen celebrities, athletes, activists and intellectuals reflecting on the year and looking ahead to 2021.

The only other podcast that came from the partnership with Harry and Meghan was an original series hosted by Meghan that examined the stereotypes and labels faced by women.

The 12-episode series, titled “Archetypes,” featured interviews with everyone from Serena Williams and Mariah Carey to Mindy Kaling, Paris Hilton, Issa Rae and more.

The podcast won a People’s Choice Award for top podcast in 2022 and a Gracie for digital media in 2023.

Meghan described “Archetypes” as a “labor of love” in a statement celebrating the People’s Choice Award win.

“I loved digging my hands into the process, sitting up late at night in bed, working on the writing and creative,” Meghan said in a statement on the Archewell website. “And I loved digging deep into meaningful conversation with my diverse and inspiring guests, laughing and learning with them, and with each of you listening.”

Spotify announced last week that it plans to lay off 200 people, or 2% of its workforce, amid a change in the company’s “podcast strategy.”

Harry and Meghan have not commented publicly on the end of their partnership with Spotify beyond the joint statement from their production company.

The couple launched Archewell Audio, one arm of their broader Archewell nonprofit organization and production company, in 2020, after moving to California and stepping down from their roles as senior working royals.

The Sussexes, who live in California with their two children, also inked a deal with Netflix upon their departure from their royal roles. Meghan told The New York Times they hoped to create “content that informs but also gives hope.”

The couple’s biggest project to date with Netflix has been their six-part docuseries, titled Harry & Meghan, that saw them speaking out about their love story and their decision to step down from their royal roles.

Since leaving the U.K., Meghan has also written a children’s book, The Bench, and Harry released his bestselling memoir, Spare.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Donald Trump’s relentless attacks on special counsel Jack Smith

Tom Brenner for The Washington Post via Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — It was a history-making moment Tuesday when special counsel Jack Smith and former president Donald Trump appeared together for the first time in the same Miami courtroom.

Then, hours later, after Trump pleaded not guilty to federal charges, he got on stage in front of supporters at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, and blasted the man who oversaw his indictment as a “deranged lunatic.”

“He’s a raging and uncontrolled Trump-hater, as is his wife,” Trump said.

As part of his strategy to discredit the investigation, Trump has repeatedly gone after Smith and his wife, who produced a 2020 documentary about Michelle Obama, as well as documentaries about other high-profile figures.

Trump’s repeated attacks on Smith and his family follow a familiar pattern of his lashing out at those leading probes into his conduct. His inflammatory comments about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the judge overseeing his hush-money criminal case in New York prompted questions about whether a gag order would be issued.

“Trump has done this with [New York Attorney General] Letitia James, he has done this with [Fulton County District Attorney] Fani Willis, just every prosecutor that’s investigated him,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told ABC News. James has sued Trump for alleged fraud and Willis is looking into Trump’s efforts to interfere with the presidential election in Georgia.

Trump has entered a not guilty plea to the fraud charges and had repeatedly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

Smith, a career prosecutor, was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November to oversee the investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office as well as his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The special counsel probe resulted in a 37-count indictment against Trump accusing him of willfully retaining documents containing the nation’s top secrets and obstructing authorities seeking to get them back.

Then on Tuesday, in court, the first public encounter between Smith and Trump unfolded. Smith sat in the first row, not far from Trump, who at times frowned and looked down at the floor, but never looked back at Smith.

That evening, Trump slammed Smith as a “thug” and accused him of doing “political hit jobs.”

Various legal experts have pushed back on claims by Trump and GOP congressional allies that the Smith’s prosecution is political “weaponization” of the Justice Department.

“His main focus as a prosecutor is, ‘Can I prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt?’ And what we’ve seen with him, just looking at who he’s prosecuted, he’s prosecuted people in all parties,” Steve Friedland, a law professor at Elon University and a former federal prosecutor, said of Smith.

Former colleagues of Smith lauded his experience and temperament in previous interviews with ABC News, with one calling him “completely apolitical.”

“This is someone that is not doing this for political reasons,” Rahmani said. “There’s plenty of evidence to support these charges.”

J. Michael Luttig, a retired conservative federal appeals court judge, shared that view in a Twitter post on Tuesday: “There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought today’s charges against the former president.”

Garland, speaking on the Trump indictment for the first time Wednesday, also came to Smith’s defense on the weaponization claims, although he didn’t comment specifically on Trump’s attacks.

“Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor,” Garland said. “He has assembled a group of experienced and talented prosecutors and agents who share his commitment to integrity.”

Government prosecutors on Tuesday did not ask the magistrate judge overseeing his arraignment to warn Trump to stop the attacks, nor have they asked the judge handling the case to do so, as a judge in New York warned Trump about comments he made about Manhattan District Attorney Bragg.

Trump and his defenders have taken aim at Smith’s cases involving one-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who was charged in an alleged plot to violate campaign finance laws, and former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, who was indicted on corruption charges. The Edwards case ended in a hung jury, while McDonnell’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

“He destroyed that man and he destroyed that family,” Trump said of Smith’s prosecution of McDonnell. “And by the way, I will tell you, I’m here and I love you all. And I can take it. But what these thugs have done to my family is a disgrace.”

Smith has not responded to Trump’s disparaging remarks.

“Smith is not going to play this case out in public,” said Friedland, who closely followed the Edwards case in 2011. “And we’ve seen that with John Edwards. We’ve seen that in other cases, and that’s true for most prosecutors.”

In his statement after charging Trump, in which he urged the public to read the indictment and emphasized the defendants — Trump and his personal aide Walt Nauta — he said they “must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

“We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone,” Smith said. “Applying those laws. Collecting facts. That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more. Nothing less.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Surfside condo that collapsed and killed 98 was not built to code, federal investigators say

GIORGIO VIERA/AFP via Getty Images

(SURFSIDE, Fla.) — Federal investigators looking into the Surfside, Florida, condo collapse that killed 98 people in 2021 said Thursday the structure did not meet building codes when it was erected 42 years ago.

“Our preliminary analysis of the original structural design of CTS shows that the building did not meet building codes in effect at the time, nor today’s building codes,” National Institute of Standards and Technology project leader James Harris said at a public hearing. “Furthermore, there’s evidence of errors in construction and renovations that compounded those deficiencies.”

NIST cautioned that these updates are preliminary. Investigators are placing a particular emphasis on the pool deck, with NIST’s Glenn Bell saying there were pervasive concerns with the deck’s design and misplaced slab reinforcement, along with possible problems with planter changes, the addition of fill and paving and slab reinforcement corrosion.

“Our analysis to date shows that even absent any sudden overload or obvious initiator of a failure on that tragic night of the collapse, the conditions that existed in the pool deck slab at that time represented a serious safety concern for the building,” Bell said.

NIST is hoping to find footage from Champlain Towers South’s surveillance cameras. It also plans to create a virtual reality model and conduct more testing.

Martin and Pablo Langesfeld, whose sister and daughter Nicole died during the collapse, spoke at the meeting.

“What many of the affected families find most troubling is the possibility of new development on the site of the collapse,” Martin Langesfeld said, referring to plans filed on Monday for new condominiums that could be built starting in 2024.

He went on, “You have repeatedly mentioned that NIST will inform the public if any signs of danger are discovered but how will this work if the building has already been developed?”

If approved and ultimately constructed, the new luxury development at the site of the collapse would be 12 stories tall, just like Champlain Towers South. In a letter to Surfside officials, an attorney representing the company proposing the new building said the project “will be a significant improvement to the property and a benefit to the area.”

The developer bought the property last year for $120 million.

NIST’s investigation will not be finished until May 2024 at the earliest. The final report could take an additional year.

“We do not need hypotheses. We need concrete answers,” Pablo Langesfeld said. “While I understand that a proper investigation takes time, it feels like an excessive delay.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Delphi double murder suspect confessed multiple times: Prosecutors

mphotoi/Getty Images

(DELPHI, Ind.) — Prosecutors are alleging that Delphi, Indiana, double murder suspect Richard Allen, while in custody, confessed five or six times to the killings.

Defense attorneys didn’t dispute the allegation in a Thursday hearing, but argued the confessions were unreliable because of Allen’s deteriorating mental and physical health.

Judge Fran Gull is considering the defense’s request to move Allen to a different facility.

Allen was arrested in October 2022 and charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of Abby Williams, 13, and Libby German, 14. The best friends were enjoying a day off from school when they were killed on a Delphi hiking trail in February 2017.

Allen, a Delphi resident, has pleaded not guilty.

Allen’s trial has been scheduled for January 2024.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue mass shooter found guilty in federal death penalty trial

Mint Images/Getty Images

(PITTSBURGH) — Robert Bowers was found guilty on Friday on all counts in the 2018 mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11 worshippers.

Bowers was convicted on all 63 charges, including 11 counts of hate crimes resulting in death. Bowers offered to plead guilty if the death penalty was taken off the table, but prosecutors turned him down.

The jury deliberated for less than one day. Jurors will next weigh if Bowers should be sentenced to death.

Bowers stormed the Tree of Life synagogue on Oct. 27, 2018, gunning down 11 people in the deadliest antisemitic attack in American history. Bowers allegedly told investigators after his arrest that he wanted to kill Jewish people, according to a criminal complaint.

Prosecutors said Bowers, armed with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle and three handguns, moved “methodically” through the synagogue and shot many of his victims at close range.

In opening statements in May, defense attorney Judy Clarke admitted that Bowers was the shooter and said he “shot every person he saw … and injured first responders who came to their rescue.”

“There will be no question that this was a planned act and that he killed 11 people,” Clarke said, but she asked the jurors to “scrutinize his intent.”

The jury, comprised of 11 women and seven men, included an intensive care nurse, a new father and a veteran.

The penalty phase is set to begin June 26.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

New study shows brain changes could be a reason it’s hard to lose weight

bymuratdeniz/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — Ways to lose weight have been trending with the rising popularity and success stories of certain drugs that help with weight loss, such as Ozempic and Mounjaro, and more people turning to supplements like berberine, deemed “nature’s Ozempic.”

Still, many people who have obesity report struggling to sustain weight loss.

Now, new research shows that it’s not just about willpower to lose weight and keep it off: Experts say how your brain responds to food may make a big difference.

A recent study published in Nature Metabolism found that the brain responds to nutrients differently in people who have obesity, even after meaningful weight loss.

Researchers studied 60 participants over 40 years old; half had a diagnosis of obesity and half did not.

To understand how the brain responds to food in these two groups, different solutions containing glucose, lipids or water alone were directly infused into participants’ stomachs on separate days. Brain responses were then measured with functional MRI scans for about 30 minutes post-infusion, and researchers also measured hormonal levels in the blood and participant-reported hunger scores.

The results showed that the group of participants without obesity had appropriate activation of reward centers in the brain in response to the nutrients.

Conversely, these same areas of the brain were not activated on the scan for participants with obesity.

This finding did not change after repeating the scan three months later in participants with obesity who experienced 10% diet-driven weight loss.

Experts say this lack of reward response could lead to overeating and make it difficult to change eating habits that can contribute to weight gain.

“This study really, really proves the biological and brain causes are contributions for overweight and obesity are really a real thing,” said Dr. Jennifer Ashton, ABC News chief medical correspondent and board-certified obesity medicine specialist.

While these findings further support what experts know to be true, that there’s more behind weight loss than willpower, researchers in the study caution there are important limitations.

It was only done in a relatively few number of adults over 40 years old, so it may not be generalizable to younger populations. And the study used a feeding tube to give the nutrients that doesn’t mimic how most people really eat or account for food choices, so these differences in the brain may not hold true in all circumstances.

Experts also emphasize that these findings do not guarantee someone with obesity can’t lose weight and keep that weight off even in the setting of these changes. Ashton adds that she hopes studies like this one fuel more targeted treatments for people who are overweight or have obesity, and add to evidence supporting why medications that are used for weight loss, like Wegovy, are proving to work so well for some people.

“I think it represents a possibility for target and intervention starting in the brain with those hormonal signals of hunger and satiety, and that’s what a lot of these FDA-approved weight loss drugs are doing,” Ashton said.

Dr. Jade A Cobern, M.D., M.P.H., board-eligible in pediatrics and resident in General Preventive Medicine at Johns Hopkins, is a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Iowa Supreme Court prevents 6-week abortion ban from going into effect

Marilyn Nieves/Getty Images

(DES MOINES, Iowa) — The Iowa Supreme Court prevented a six-week abortion ban that was signed into law several years ago from going into effect.

The court was split in a 3-3 decision Friday on the case, meaning abortion remains legal in Iowa.

The 2018 bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds, prevents abortions from being performed once cardiac activity can be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant.

However, the law was struck down by a district court in January 2019, which ruled that the law violated the Iowa Constitution and that there was no state interest in banning abortions so early in pregnancy.

In that ruling, Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert referenced a 2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision in regard to a different bill that attempted to restrict abortion, in which the justices had written “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution.”

Currently, abortion is banned in the state after 22 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group focusing on sexual and reproductive health.

Patients who want an abortion in Iowa must have one in-person counseling sessions and then return at least 24 hours later for the abortion.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, Iowa’s highest court in June 2022 reversed the 2018 decision and concluded that abortion is not protected by the state constitution.

Since the 2018 decision, the composition of the state Supreme Court had shifted with Reynolds, a Republican, appointing four of the seven justices.

But the court disagreed that it could revive a law that had been struck down years prior.

“The State appealed [the January 2019 ruling], and now asks our court to do something that has never happened in Iowa history: to simultaneously bypass the legislature and change the law, to adopt rational basis review, and then to dissolve an injunction to put a statute into effect for the first time in the same case in which that very enactment was declared unconstitutional years earlier,” Justice Thomas Waterman wrote in the court’s decision Friday.

The justice added, “In our view, it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it into effect.”

If the court had decided in favor of the ban, Iowa would have joined several others states that have passed so-called “heartbeat bills” in the past including Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Texas.

Ohio and South Carolina have also passed six-week abortion bans, but both are currently facing legal challenges.

Abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa, praised the decision. The group wrote on Twitter, “The Iowa Supreme Court just preserved abortion access in Iowa by blocking a near-total abortion ban from taking effect. This is a resounding victory for Iowans and reproductive freedom. #BansOffOurBodies”

Reynolds criticized the court, saying it failed to exercise its authority.

“To say that today’s lack of action by the Iowa Supreme Court is a disappointment is an understatement,” she wrote in a statement. “Not only does it disregard Iowa voters who elected representatives willing to stand up for the rights of unborn children, but it has sided with a single judge in a single county who struck down Iowa’s legislation based on principles that now have been flat-out rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no fundamental right to abortion and any law restricting it should be reviewed on a rational basis standard — a fact acknowledged today by three of the justices. Still, without an affirmative decision, there is no justice for the unborn.”

Since Roe was overturned, providers in states like Iowa are struggling with worker shortages and other barriers to keeping their doors open. In data provided exclusively to FiveThirtyEight by #WeCount — a national research project led by the Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit that supports research on abortion and contraception — of the eight remaining clinics in Iowa and Nebraska, four had no available appointments, three had wait times between four and five weeks and one had an appointment available in one to two weeks in April.

The data also indicated that there were 24,290 fewer legal abortions between July 2022 and March 2023, compared to a pre-Dobbs baseline.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Pittsburgh synagogue mass shooting: Verdict reached in federal death penalty trial

Mint Images/Getty Images

(PITTSBURGH) — A verdict has been reached in the federal death penalty trial of Robert Bowers, who is accused of killing 11 worshippers in a mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Bowers allegedly stormed the Tree of Life synagogue on Oct. 27, 2018, gunning down 11 people in the deadliest antisemitic attack in American history. Bowers allegedly told investigators after his arrest that he wanted to kill Jewish people, according to a criminal complaint.

Prosecutors said Bowers, armed with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle and three handguns, moved “methodically” through the synagogue and shot many of his victims at close range.

In opening statements in May, defense attorney Judy Clarke admitted that Bowers was the shooter and said he “shot every person he saw … and injured first responders who came to their rescue.”

“There will be no question that this was a planned act and that he killed 11 people,” Clarke said, but she asked the jurors to “scrutinize his intent.”

Bowers faces 63 charges, including 11 counts of hate crimes resulting in death. Bowers offered to plead guilty if the death penalty was taken off the table, but prosecutors turned him down.

The jury, comprised of 11 women and seven men, includes an intensive care nurse, a new father and a veteran.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Pattern of discriminatory, unlawful policing in Minneapolis made George Floyd murder ‘possible,’ DOJ finds

Thinkstock Images/Getty Images

(MINNEAPOLIS) — The Minneapolis Police Department for years engaged in a pattern of discriminatory law enforcement practices against Black and Native American people, using unnecessary excessive force and violating the rights of protesters expressing their First Amendment rights, a more than two-year investigation by the Justice Department released Friday found.

The results of the sweeping ‘pattern-or-practice’ investigation, prompted in part because of the police killing of George Floyd that sparked racial justice protests across the country in 2020, show that “the systemic problems in MPD made what happened to [Floyd] possible,” the department said in its final report.

The systemic problems continued despite reform efforts, the report said.

Attorney General Merrick Garland traveled to Minneapolis Friday to announce the findings.

“As I told George Floyd’s family this morning, his death has had an irrevocable impact on the Minneapolis Community, and our country and on the world. His loss is still felt deeply by those who loved and knew him and by many who did not. George Floyd should be alive today,” Garland said.

“We observed many MPD officers who did their difficult work with professionalism, courage, and respect. But the patterns and practices we observed made what happened to George Floyd possible,” he said. “As one city leader told us, ‘These systemic issues didn’t just occur on May 25, 2020. There were instances like that, that we’re being reported by the community long before that.'”

“We also found that MPD officers routinely disregard the safety of people in their custody. Our review found numerous incidents in which MPD officers responded to a person saying that they could not breathe with a version of, ‘You can breathe, you’re talking right now,'” Garland said.

In vivid detail during his remarks, Garland described some of the disturbing conduct investigators found.

In 2017 an MPD officer “shot and killed an unarmed woman who he said had “spooked him” when she approached his squad car,” Garland said.

“The woman had called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in a nearby alley,” he said.

The report also outlines how MPD officers stop, search and use force against people who are Black and Native American at disproportionate rates.

“The data showed, for example, that MPD stopped black and Native American people nearly six times more often than white people in situations that did not result in arrest or citation,” Garland said.

At times, officers reported for racist conduct or remarks were not held accountable until there was public outcry, he said.

In one stop of a car full of four Somali American teens, one officer told them, “Do you remember what happened in Black Hawk Down when we killed a bunch of your folk? I’m proud of that. We didn’t finish the job over there. If we had you guys wouldn’t be over here.”

“Such conduct is deeply disturbing, and it erodes the community’s trust in law enforcement,” Garland said.

Investigators found the MPD used unjustified deadly force in encounters with suspects, engaged in unreasonable use of force in encounters with young suspects and at times failed to give proper medical aid to people they had taken into custody.

After Floyd’s murder at the hands of Officer Derek Chauvin and as the MPD’s policing practices fell under increased scrutiny, officers suddenly stopped reporting the race and gender of suspects they encountered in law enforcement actions, the report showed, with the percentage of recorded race data dropping from around 71% of encounters to about 35% afterwards through the next two years.

In 2021, Chauvin was convicted of state murder and manslaughter charges and later pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges both for Floyd’s murder and for holding a 14-year-old teen by the throat and beating him in 2017. A federal jury found three other officers involved in the encounter with Floyd guilty of federal civil rights offenses for failing to save him.

A separate state investigation into MPD resulted in a consent decree returned in March that required the department to implement widespread changes after disturbing findings of race discrimination and excessive force by police.

The DOJ report examines the MPD’s use of neck restraints, like the one used by Chauvin against Floyd, and found “numerous incidents” where officers used them even in situations that did not result in an arrest or where they were otherwise unjustified. Of nearly 200 encounters between 2016 and 2022 where neck restraints were used against suspects, officers did not make an arrest in 44 of them, the report shows.

And although in June 2020 the MPD banned the use of all neck restraints and chokeholds, the policy met “considerable resistance” from officers in the force and the DOJ investigation found MPD officers continued to use neck restraints since the ban was implemented, including against racial justice protesters.

The report also paints a concerning portrait of MPD’s abilities to repair its strained relationship with the broader public, pointing to instances where officers found to have committed misconduct were never disciplined and complaints from members of the public went disregarded.

One officer told DOJ investigators that morale in the department is “at an all time low,” which is reflected in the increasingly depleted ranks of MPD. As of May 2023, there were 585 sworn MPD officers, the report says, down from 892 in 2018.

The more than two-year investigation included interviews with more than 2000 community members and local organizations, the report says, including family members of people killed by MPD officers. Investigators also interviewed dozens of MPD officers, reviewed thousands of documents detailing police encounters and participated in more than 50 ride-alongs.

Friday’s report includes several disturbing details of racist comments by MPD officers that were described to investigators or captured on video.

In one protest in May 2020 following Floyd’s murder, a lieutenant was caught on camera saying, “I’d love to scatter ’em but it’s time to fu—-‘ put people in jail and just prove the mayor wrong about his white supremacists from out of state,” the officer is heard saying. “Although, this group probably is predominantly white, ‘cuz there’s not looting and fires.”

At times, officers would invoke racist stereotypes in their encounters with suspects, with one officer purportedly telling an arrestee, “we’ll get you Popeyes in a minute.”

One Black officer said he regularly heard his white colleagues making racist remarks, calling Black people “ghetto,” saying “Black people don’t work,” and “you don’t have to worry about Black people during the day ‘cuz they haven’t woken up — crime starts at night.”

Garland previously traveled to Louisville just last March to announce a disturbing series of findings out of the DOJ’s investigation into the Louisville Metro Police Department, that found police engaged in a pattern of violating citizens’ civil rights by conducting unlawful searches and discriminating against residents based on race.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.