(WASHINGTON) — A United States Capitol Police Officer, who defended the Capitol during the attack on Jan. 6, 2021, vividly recounts the events of that day, describing it as a profoundly devastating experience for himself, his fellow officers and the nation as a whole.
Former Capitol Police Officer Winston Pingeon spoke with ABC News about the trauma of Jan. 6.
“It’s hard to relive and talk about moments like this,” Pingeon said. “I had that moment right there that I might die right here on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.”
Pingeon and his team, dressed in full riot gear, rushed to the Capitol’s west front that day, the site of some of the most brutal violence against police officers that day.
“I remember hearing radio calls of officers yelling for help that the line had been breached,” Pingeon said. “They sounded panicked and like they really needed help. So, in my mind, that was one of the first indicators, ‘hey, maybe this is not just a normal protest.'”
Pingeon recalls his team being outnumbered and says he was punched in the face by rioters who had descended on the Capitol that day to protest the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, fueled by false claims about election fraud spread by Former President Donald Trump.
“I was knocked on my back,” Pingeon said. “My helmet came down and felt like someone was on top of me and I couldn’t see anything. And I remember just thinking, I have to protect my gun, because they stole my baton.”
Pingeon wasn’t injured as severely as other officers, but he has invisible scars that may never fully heal.
He returned to work shortly after the riot and served in the Capitol Police for another nine more months as the memory of Jan. 6 became politicized. He has since left law enforcement.
“Right after Jan. 6, it seemed like everybody was on the same page,” Pingeon said. “This is not OK. Then very quickly the narrative shifted. And that was really difficult to see.”
Approximately 140 Capitol Police officers were injured by rioters, making it one of the most violent days for law enforcement in recent U.S. history.
Four officers who responded to the Capitol attack have since died by suicide.
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering multiple strokes hours after he was pepper sprayed by rioters. The Washington DC medical examiner ruled he died of natural causes, but said his experience on Jan. 6 played a role in his condition.
Despite the deaths and injuries to officers, a months-long investigation by ABC News found conservative figures, including Trump, have begun to downplay the violence on Jan. 6, painting that day as a largely peaceful protest and recasting imprisoned rioters as “hostages.”
Derrick Evans, a former West Virginia House of Delegates and congressional candidate who served three months in federal prison for charges related to Jan. 6, repeated many of those false claims in an interview with ABC News.
“Do I think that anyone should be fighting police officers? No, I do not,” Evans said. “I think it’s wrong to do that. The police officers are the ones that really started the whole violence over there.”
Winston Pingeon reacted strongly.
“That’s not true,” he said when ABC News played video of Evans’ comments for the former Capitol Police officer. “We were there protecting. We were there to hold a line. We’re not pushing back unless we’re pushed on first. So its completely ridiculous.”
Multiple accused rioters from Jan. 6 have claimed they were incited to violence by police, but none have been successful in court.
Evans was convicted of trespassing at the Capitol and attempting to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election, a charge the Supreme Court has recently found was applied in an overly broad manner to Jan. 6 criminal cases.
“I don’t even think [Jan. 6] is really worth remembering. It’s been blown out of proportion by the media,” he said.
Meantime, the former president and his allies have made rewriting the history of Jan. 6 a centerpiece of his campaign, often saying a large number of capitol rioters deserve to be pardoned.
“If they’re innocent, I would pardon them,” Trump told ABC’s Rachel Scott during a panel at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) Convention.
A pardon is exactly what Capitol rioter Rachel Powell told ABC News she’s waiting for behind bars.
“If Trump gets that, he’s promising that he will pardon us, if he gets in and they don’t steal the next election,” Powell said.
Powell called ABC News from federal prison, where she is currently serving a more than four-year sentence for her actions on Jan. 6.
Several of Powell’s fellow Jan. 6 inmates feel the same, she told ABC News. Powell sent ABC News a photo, taken inside of her correctional facility, showing her and three other Jan. 6 inmates smiling, with the words “Trump 2024” written in marker on top.
“I would want to know why they did what they did, and I’d be curious to know if they have remorse today. I think that’s what I would want to know,” Pingeon said. “Because loyalty to one man, to alter your life negatively, to go to prison for years. I mean, I would ask them: Was it worth it?”
(FLINT, Mich.) — Vice President Kamala Harris dunked on former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, particularly on the auto industry at her rally Friday night, with an assist from NBA star and Michigan native, Magic Johnson.
“When it came to building the cars of the future, Donald Trump sat on the sidelines and let China dominate and then he talks down to American workers, saying ‘we can’t compete with Chinese workers,'” Harris said. “And make no mistake, Donald Trump is no friend of labor.”
Harris’ attacks focused on what she said was her rival’s unkept promises on manufacturing and putting Michigan auto jobs at risk something her campaign attacked Trump on the same topic in a digital ad launched last month.
The vice president also highlighted comments that Vance made earlier this week about whether the Trump administration would honor a $500 million grant going to General Motors to convert a Lansing plant to make electric vehicles.
“So, two days ago, Donald Trump’s running mate suggested that if Trump wins, he might let the Grand River assembly plant in Lansing close down, the same plant that our administration helped save earlier this year, along with 650 union jobs,” Harris said. “Michigan, we together fought hard for those jobs, and you deserve a president who won’t put them at risk.”
Asked by the Detroit Free Press on Wednesday whether Trump would honor or cancel the Biden administration grant, Vance didn’t give a direct answer.
“First of all, the $500 million grant came along with some really ridiculous strings and no protections for American jobs not getting shipped to foreign countries because a lot of not just the cars themselves, but the battery components, the minerals, this stuff is all produced in China, and so when we write massive checks on American taxpayer expense to these companies, a lot of times what we’re doing is selling American middle class jobs to the Communist Chinese, and we ought to be doing exactly the opposite,” Vance told the Detroit Free Press.
“We ought to be rebuilding the American middle class and investing in our own workers, not shipping our tax dollars off to electric vehicles made in China,” Vance added.
In Michigan, Trump is running a new ad targeting auto workers, accusing Harris of wanting to “end all gas powered cars” and force Americans to drive electric vehicles. Harris shot back Friday night.
“Let us be clear: Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive,” Harris said. “But here’s what I will do, I will invest in communities like Flint.”
Johnson, who is from Lansing and went to Michigan State, spoke in the program ahead of Harris, and praised her as “strong,” “smart” and “passionate.”
“Nobody’s going to outwork her. She’s committed to you as the people United States, the people of Michigan. She’s committed to you,” Johnson said. “She’s going to be a president for everybody. And one thing she’s going to do is finally unite us, bring us together, that other party is trying to tear us down.”
But the five-time NBA Finals champion took time to directly address Black men, a demographic whose support for Democrats has softened.
“There’s a lot of Black men in here. I don’t mean to not talk to other people, but this is important,” Johnson said. “Our Black men, we’ve got to get them out to vote, that’s number one.”
“Kamala’s opponent promised a lot of things last time to the Black community that he did not deliver on,” Johnson added. “And we gotta make sure Black men understand that. So, that’s why I’m here: To make sure I help Black men understand, first, get out and vote, and then vote for the next president of the United States Kamala Harris.”
Johnson also called on America to take inspiration from Mexico, which swore in its first woman president on Tuesday.
Earlier Friday, ahead of the Flint rally, Harris stopped by a firehouse in Redford Township, right outside Detroit, where she labeled Trump “an existential threat” to labor.
“Donald Trump’s track record is a disaster for working people, and he’s trying to gaslight people all over our country, but we know the facts and we know the truth: He is an existential threat to America’s labor movement,” Harris claimed.
In a short statement Thursday, Edward Kelly, the president of the firefighters’ union, announced his board voted not to endorse a candidate for president — following the Teamsters’ lead.
“This decision, which we took very seriously, is the best way to preserve and strengthen our unity,” Kelly said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration is saying those whose parole is expiring from the Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) program will need to seek another immigration benefits and if they don’t find one, depart the country.
CHNV was implemented by the Biden administration with the intention to reduce irregular migration of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, and to allow qualifying individuals to lawfully enter the United States in a safe and orderly manner on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
The program was briefly paused for fraud concerns but has been reimplemented with better safeguards.
These processes were set up as temporary in nature, a source told ABC News, to allow the beneficiaries to work and provide them the time and opportunity to pursue avenues for immigration benefits or humanitarian relief if eligible such as, for example, asylum or Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
“As initially stated in the Federal Register notices, a grant of parole under these processes was for a temporary period of up to two years,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told ABC News. “This two-year period was intended to enable individuals to seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits for which they may be eligible, and to work and contribute to the United States.”
The Department said those who do not have pending immigration benefits or who have not been granted an immigration benefit during their two-year parole period will need to depart the United States before the expiration of their authorized parole period or may be placed in removal proceedings after the period of parole expires.
CHNV parolees may be eligible to apply for humanitarian relief or certain immigration benefits with USCIS, the Department said.
DHS points to the CHNV process as an example of a southwest border encounter reducer.
(PORTLAND, Ore.) — Police in Portland, Oregon, said they’re seeking the mother of a 2-year-old girl who died from a suspected fentanyl exposure last month, and who is also wanted for “several violent crimes.”
Police said they have been unable to locate Mary Jacobo, 26, for over three weeks since the death of her toddler. The girl went into cardiac arrest on Sept. 12 and was transported from her home by ambulance to a local hospital, where she died, police said.
The cause and manner of death have not yet been confirmed, but “based on evidence discovered at the child’s home, and conversations with hospital staff, fentanyl is believed to be a contributing factor,” the Portland Police Bureau said in a press release.
The name of the deceased girl was not released by police.
Following the girl’s death, police said they were looking to speak with Jacobo, whom they said left the home “as this incident was initially unfolding.”
Jacobo has not been located in the weeks since, despite “significant investigatory efforts,” police said Friday.
Since the death of her child, Jacobo is suspected of having committed an armed carjacking and other unspecified crimes, police said.
Jacobo also has multiple warrants for her arrest, police said. However, police are not sharing details on the charges in the warrants because Jacobo isn’t yet in custody and the cases may be confidential, Portland Police Sgt. Kevin Allen told ABC News.
Police asked for the public’s assistance in locating Jacobo, warning that she is considered armed and dangerous.
Police described Jacobo as 5 feet, 5 inches tall and 135 pounds, with hazel eyes. She has brown hair that may have been recently dyed blonde, police said. She also has tattoos on the front of her neck, her chest and on her left hand.
Anyone with information on Jacobo’s whereabouts is urged to call 911, police said.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court, at once a major flashpoint in the 2024 campaign and potential presidential election referee, gavels open a new term on Monday with the nation deeply divided over its recent rulings and skeptical of the justices’ ethics and impartiality.
The court’s fall docket includes high-profile disputes over age-verification to access pornography online, the marketing of flavored e-cigarettes to kids, regulation of untraceable “ghost guns,” and EPA limits on sewage dumped into the Pacific Ocean.
A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors is considered one of the most significant cases of the term, so far. The justices have been asked to decide whether the medical restriction, adopted in more than 20 states, discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.
“This is one of the most significant LGBTQ cases to ever reach the Supreme Court,” said Chase Strangio, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who is expected to argue before the court. “This case will have a huge impact on the future of litigation on behalf of LGBTQ people.
The court could also be forced to weigh in on last-minute appeals over election rules, including changes to how ballots are cast and counted and, potentially, how contested election results are certified. It has already issued decisions allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for state voter registration and rejecting Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s bid to appear on the Nevada ballot.
The six conservative and three liberal justices return to the bench for oral arguments after delivering an extraordinary round of socially and politically-consequential decisions in June.
“Depending on your point of view, last term was either the term that the court saved the presidency or the term that the court let the most dangerous man in the history of American politics off the hook,” said Irv Gornstein, executive director of the Supreme Court institute at Georgetown Law.
The court’s blockbuster ruling on presidential immunity for former President Donald Trump and a pair of decisions sharply curtailing the power of federal agencies, among others, galvanized partisan interests around the court and ignited fierce public debate even as the full scope and impact of the judgments remains unclear.
Just 43% of Americans say they approve of the court’s work, a near-record low, according to Gallup. A successive series of reported alleged ethics violations by several justices, their resistance to independent enforcement of a new ethics code, and extraordinary leaks to the media of internal justice communications has only complicated the public’s view.
“Something does feel broken,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran high court litigator, of the internal workings of the court. “Some of [the justices] up there seem visibly frustrated.”
With less than a month before the general election, the justices may be eager to maintain a lower profile, some court analysts say, and their lighter-than-normal case load might be a key indicator.
“This term is, at least at the moment, a much quieter term than we’ve had in the last couple of years,” said outgoing ACLU legal director David Cole. “But that could change if the presidential election is close and disputed.”
Here’s a look at five key cases to watch:
Transgender kids: U.S. v Skrmetti
Key question: Does Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
Tennessee and 25 other states have passed bans on medical treatments for minors seeking to identify with, or live as, a gender identity inconsistent with his or her sex at birth. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether those bans are constitutional.
While leading American medical organizations have endorsed the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and, in some cases, surgeries to improve the health and wellbeing of young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria, some medical groups and conservative lawmakers consider the treatments inappropriate and dangerous.
LGBTQ advocates and families of transgender minors allege Tennessee’s ban prohibits an otherwise legal and approved treatment for some people illegal for others purely on the basis of their sex. They claim it violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and overrides parental authority.
The state denies discrimination, insisting it has the right to regulate medical treatments and access to certain types of procedures, independent of a patient’s sex. The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with Tennessee.
This case marks the first time the nation’s highest court will take up the merits of legislation targeting transgender Americans. A decision could most directly impact the more than 300,000 high school-aged transgender youth in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute.
“We expect the Supreme Court is going to say whether governments have to treat trans people with equality, whether it’s okay for them to single us out for mistreatment, specifically in the realm of health, but with implications beyond,” said Gabriel Arkles, senior legal counsel with Advocates for Trans Equality.
The case has not yet been set for oral argument; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.
Ghost guns: Garland v VanDerStok
Key question: Can the government require purchase-age limits, background checks, serialization and registration for self-assemble gun kits widely available online?
Facing an explosion of crimes and deadly accidents involving self-assembled and untraceable weapons known as ghost guns, the Biden Administration issued a new regulation in 2022 classifying online parts kits and gun templates as “firearms” under federal law.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether that regulation can stand, forcing manufacturers and retailers to comply with licensing, background check, record-keeping and serialization requirements for gun kits, parts, and blueprints as with any other fully-assembled firearm.
Gun groups, which sued over the rule, say parts kits and 3D blueprints do not meet the definition of a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which governs gun sales and production in the U.S. The administration says the law is broadly written and clearly applies to anything that can be “readily converted to a functional condition.”
The dispute centers on competing interpretations of the text of federal law – not Second Amendment rights – but the outcome could have a major practical impact, experts say.
“If the Court strikes down the rule, it significantly limits federal regulation in this area,” said Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law professor. “There’s a real risk that criminals will be able to order guns on the internet, and the entire gun control framework will not apply to them.”
Oral arguments in the case have been scheduled for Oct. 8; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.
Death penalty: Glossip v Oklahoma
Key question: Must Oklahoma put a man to death even though the state doesn’t want to, he maintains his innocence, and prosecutors suppressed key evidence that could have undermined a conviction?
Richard Glossip has been scheduled for execution 8 times and been given his “last meal” 3 times. In 2015, he won a temporary reprieve by challenging the method of lethal injection at the U.S. Supreme Court; he ultimately lost.
Now, Glossip is back at the high court in a last-ditch bid to save his life – this time with the state of Oklahoma on his side, declaring that he may be innocent and deserves a new trial.
Oklahoma’s Republican governor and attorney general – both staunch supporters of the death penalty – have called Glossip’s 2004 murder conviction “deeply flawed.” He was linked to the crime by only the testimony of the confessed killer who later recanted and, unbeknownst to the jury, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and taking psychiatric medication.
The state’s highest court, in narrowly divided rulings, denied all of Glossip’s appeals and rejected the state officials’ requests to vacate the conviction and initiate a new trial. It has said the execution must go forward.
“You might think this is extraordinary – someone having exculpatory evidence in the file that the state didn’t disclose and sometimes even allowing people to testify falsely,” said University of Chicago Law professor David Strauss. “It’s actually not that extraordinary. It actually happens pretty often, and the court should pay attention to that, and, if possible, do something about it.”
The dramatic case will test the Supreme Court on the competing values of finality after decades of failed appeals; the primacy of state courts on matters of state law; and the meaning of justice in a case with so many apparent flaws.
“It would be remarkable to me for the Supreme Court to say where the state and the individual don’t want execution it should go forward nonetheless,” said ACLU legal director David Cole.
Oral arguments in the case have been scheduled for Oct. 9; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.
Online porn: Free Speech Coalition v Paxton
Key question: Can states require websites with sexual material “harmful to minors” to verify a user’s age and display warnings that porn is potentially addictive?
Nineteen states have enacted age verification requirements for websites with sexually-explicit material that could be harmful to minors. Under Texas’ law, adults must submit personal information – including an uploaded copy of their ID – in order to obtain access.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether forcing adults to prove their age unlawfully burdens their First Amendment rights to view constitutionally-protected material, even if the objective is to protect kids.
“Pornography is protected speech; that’s black letter law. Material that is not obscene as to adults may be obscene as to children; that’s black letter law. No one’s disputing any of that,” said Jeremy Broggi, a Supreme Court litigator with Wiley Rein LLP. “In this case, the dispute is about when you say that everyone has to verify their age to access the material, does that burden the rights of adults that want to access it?”
Free speech advocates and the ACLU argue that the law is astonishingly broad and burdensome – applying to not just porn sites but public health resources and R-rated entertainment, among other things. They say it also robs people of a right to anonymity and that there are more effective and automated ways to block children.
“In addition to the censorship problem, there’s a question about what happens to this data. You put your photo ID on the website. They, in theory, are not allowed to keep it, although, how is Texas going to police that?” said Alan Morrison, associate dean for public interest and public service at George Washington University Law School.
Texas insists its requirements are reasonable measures to protect children, not unlike lawful requirements to verify a customer’s age before purchasing liquor or entering a strip club.
“PornHub has now disabled its website in Texas,” said Attorney General Ken Paxton, “because Texas has a law that aims to prevent them from showing harmful, obscene material to children. In Texas, companies cannot get away with showing porn to children. If they don’t want to comply, they should leave Texas.”
Both sides say the Supreme Court’s ruling could have a sweeping impact nationwide.
“More people watch porn and view porn each year than vote and read the newspaper,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran Supreme Court litigator with Williams & Connolly LLP. A 2016 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reports that up to 70% of men and 40% of women have used pornography within the past year.
The case has not yet been set for oral argument; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.
Flavored e-cigarettes: FDA v Wages and White Lion
Key question: Did the FDA illegally refuse to approve the sale of flavored vapes, or e-cigarettes, popular among teens?
With e-cigarettes and vapes booming in popularity, the Supreme Court will scrutinize how the Food and Drug Administration vets new nicotine products for market and why it rejected a wave of flavored vapes in recent years.
Under federal law, the companies must provide FDA with reliable and robust evidence to show that the products would promote public health and that, on balance, the benefits to adult smokers would outweigh the risks of youth addiction.
At the center of the case is FDA’s refusal to approve applications from makers of e-liquid flavors like “Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,” “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies” and “Iced Pineapple Express.”
The agency said the companies had provided insufficient evidence that the benefits of their flavored products exceed the dangers to hooking kids. The companies later sued, alleging a flawed analysis that discounted the ways vape products help people stop smoking.
A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel concluded that the FDA refusal to approve new flavored nicotine products was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of federal law. The agency has appealed.
“If you ask adults who smoke if they were to switch to e-cigarettes what kind of flavors are they interested in, the majority of responses are tobacco flavor. If you ask kids, they like the fruit or candy flavor,” said Caroline Cecot, an administrative law expert at George Washington University Law School. “This was a big part of what the FDA was sort of thinking about. And we have this evidence.”
Nearly a quarter of high school students who use e-cigarettes consume illicit menthol-flavored varieties, according to the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey.
The Supreme Court’s decision could impact how quickly and how much more widely available additional flavored nicotine products will be on the market in the U.S. The case has not yet been set for oral argument; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.
(NEW YORK) — Dr. Lisa Newman, the chief of the section of breast surgery at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, sat down with ABC News to discuss breast cancer prevention, early screenings and diagnosis discrepancies.
A new American Cancer Society report, released in October, which is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, finds that breast cancer mortality rates overall have dropped by 44% since 1989, averting about 517,900 breast cancer deaths. However, not all women have benefited from this progress.
ABC News discussed the issue with Newman, who provided more context.
ABC NEWS: Dr. Lisa Newman, chief of the section of breast surgery at New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Newman, thank you so much for joining us. So overall, are you encouraged or concerned by this report?
DR. LISA NEWMAN: Well, thank you for this attention to such a major problem of breast cancer. As you mentioned, it is rising in incidence in American women. So we are very gratified to see these continued declines in breast cancer mortality rates. This is a testimony to our successes with breast health awareness, early detection through screening mammography programs and wonderful advances that we’ve made in treatment.
But as you also noted, we are still seeing some rather appalling and disturbing trends in the breast cancer statistics. It’s very concerning to us that the rates of breast cancer are rising for young women, women younger than the age of 50. And this is for a variety of reasons. We are also seeing very concerning disparities in the burden of breast cancer and, in particular, breast cancer death rates continue to be significantly higher for African-American women and for Black women younger than the age of 50.
ABC NEWS: As far as the disparities with regard to ethnic groups, which we also discussed, why the increase there as well?
NEWMAN: Yeah. The disparities in breast cancer burden are also secondary to some complex factors with the disproportionate mortality rates that we see in Black women. We know that this is going to be explained heavily by socioeconomic disadvantages that are more prevalent in the African-American community, and African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with more advanced breast cancers because of delays in diagnosis.
Black women are more likely to have delays in initiation of treatment, and there are some tumor biology questions that we need to evaluate in research, as well. A lot of the research that I do actually looks at the breast cancer burden of women with African ancestry. And we do know that African ancestry in and of itself increases the likelihood of getting biologically aggressive forms of breast cancer and getting breast cancer at younger ages. So we need to address that, these socioeconomic disparities, but we also need more research to understand these biological differences.
ABC NEWS: And we saw that we’re just seeing that trend of an increase year after year. What can we do to, to try and bring these numbers down?
NEWMAN: Being aware of breast health is very important and making sure that you get screened regularly. For average risk women, The American Society of Breast Surgeons advocates in favor of getting yearly mammograms starting at age 40. If you have a strong family history, you should consider getting genetic testing, because if you do have inherited predisposition for breast cancer, you may need to start getting your mammograms at even younger ages.
ABC NEWS: The good news that we see here in this report: The mortality rate has dropped in the last year compared to 35 years ago. What do you attribute that to?
NEWMAN: Yeah. Very exciting to see that the mortality rates are declining. This is secondary to women advocating more forcefully for themselves and getting screened regularly. Women also, we want to remind women that mammograms aren’t perfect. And so women do indeed need to be aware of the potential danger signs of breast cancer, such as a new lump in the breast, lump in the underarm, bloody nipple discharge, changes in the skin appearance of the breast like swelling, a rash.
ABC NEWS: And what are some basic things that all women can do to protect themselves? You mentioned diet, for example. What kinds of food or diet would be helpful with this?
NEWMAN: Well, a good way to look at it is in terms of the holistic picture and in general, the dietary patterns that are good for cardiovascular health are good for breast health. So a diet that has lots of fresh fruits and vegetables in it, minimizing fat intake, minimizing alcohol intake, alcohol has also been associated with breast cancer risk.
ABC NEWS: Such important and lifesaving information. Dr. Newman, thank you very much for coming on the show.
(NEW YORK) — Israelis broadly pick former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris as better for Israel’s security and in turn favor Trump for the U.S. presidency, albeit with sharp political divisions, a national survey by Langer Research Associates and PORI (Public Opinion Research Israel) finds.
Fifty-eight percent of Israelis in the survey, conducted in September, said Trump would be better for Israel’s security, vs. 20% for Harris. If they had a vote in the U.S. election, Israelis said they’d pick Trump over Harris by a similar 54%-24%, with the rest taking a pass.
To a large degree, these attitudes follow the fault lines in Israeli politics. Among people who would support parties in the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if an election in Israel were today, 88% picked Trump as better for Israel’s security and 84% preferred him for the U.S. presidency — results that may reflect tensions between Netanyahu’s government and the Biden administration.
Supporters of Israeli opposition parties, by contrast, split closely, 39%-37%, Harris-Trump, in preference for the presidency. That said, even opposition party supporters picked Trump over Harris as better for Israel’s security, albeit by a comparatively close 41%-32%.
While much attention now is on the conflict with Hezbollah and Iran, another question finds majority Israeli rejection of the suggestion that Israel is doing too little to avoid civilian casualties in the war in Gaza. To the contrary, “considering the challenges of conducting battles in populated areas,” 54% said Israel is doing too much to avoid such casualties. Twenty-eight percent said it’s doing the right amount; 14%, too little.
The three questions in this study were included in a random-sample, face-to-face survey of 1,012 Israelis, with fieldwork by PORI, Sept. 8-22, before the bulk of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah and Iran’s subsequent missile attack this week. (Eighty-two percent of interviews were completed before Sept. 17, when thousands of Hezbollah pagers exploded.)
The U.S. election
In addition to the political gaps in attitudes toward the U.S. presidential candidates, ethnic and religious differences are sharp. Sixty-four percent of Jews picked Trump over Harris as better for Israel’s security, while Arabs, who account for about 17% of Israel’s adult citizen population, divided essentially evenly, 27%-24%; 36% saw no difference between the two. In vote preference, Jews went for Trump by 58%-23%, while Arabs split 28%-26%; the rest said they wouldn’t participate or didn’t express a preference.
Gaps also are present within the Jewish population. The shares picking Trump as better on security ranged from 53% of secular Jews to 88% of Orthodox Jews. Patterns are similar in preference for the presidency: Secular Jews favored Trump by 11 points, 46%-35%, widening to 65%-17% among traditional Jews and 69%-3% among ultra-Orthodox Jews, and peaking for Trump at 85%-4% among Orthodox Jews.
U.S. election preferences among Israeli Jews overall are sharply different from those of Jews in the United States. In ABC News/Ipsos polling, combining late August and mid-September surveys for an adequate sample size, U.S. Jews favored Harris over Trump by 63%-33%.
Another difference is by age. In the United States, Harris does best with younger adults. In Israel, it’s Trump who does best in this group, with 65% of those younger than 35 picking Trump on security and 58% supporting him for president. These drop to 52% and 48% for Trump, respectively, among Israelis age 65 and older.
Trump also prevails among Israelis in strength of sentiment. Thirty percent overall said they’d “surely” support Trump for president, vs. 10% who said this about Harris; and 37% said Trump would be “much” better for Israel’s security, compared with 12% for Harris.
Civilian casualties in Gaza
There also are ethnic, religious and political gaps in views of efforts to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, given the challenges of urban combat. Strikingly, while just 7% of Jews said Israel is doing too little to avoid such casualties, that rises to 50% of Israeli Arabs.
Among Jews, about eight in 10 of those who are Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox said Israel is doing too much to avoid civilian casualties. This falls to 63% of traditional Jews and 47% of secular Jews.
Politically, among those who favor coalition parties, 76% said Israel is doing too much to avoid civilian casualties. This declines to 41% of opposition party supporters, with 21% saying Israel is doing too little; 34%, about the right amount.
About this survey
This survey is a joint project of Langer Research Associates, a New York-based firm that specializes in the design, management and analysis of public opinion research domestically and internationally; and PORI (Public Opinion Research Israel), a leading Israeli public opinion research firm founded in 1966. The study’s questions were asked as a part of PORI’s September face-to-face omnibus survey.
The survey was conducted in Hebrew and Arabic among 1,012 respondents across Israel via area probability sampling. One hundred primary sampling units were randomly selected, with households selected via random walk and respondents selected via the last-birthday method. Up to three revisits were made at each selected household. In quality control, 20% of each interviewer’s work was re-checked randomly by phone.
Data were weighted for probability of selection and calibrated to census data for sex by age and region. Results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 points for the full sample, including a design effect due to weighting of 1.05. As in any survey, error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats and Republicans have proposed vastly different policies on education – and one key difference highlights a battle that has been happening on the ground in states across the country.
Education Savings Accounts, or ESAs, and school vouchers have spurred debates at the local level for years.
ESA programs allow families to divert a designated amount of per-student public school spending to pay for expenses for private schools, microschools and homeschooling — including tuition, books, tutoring, transportation and more.
School vouchers similarly use public funds to allow students to pay for tuition.
Arizona passed the country’s first ESA program in 2011, and at least eight other states have followed its lead: Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia.
Former President Donald Trump has expressed support for ESAs and has proposed a plan that will allow parents to spend up to $10,000 a year per child in taxpayer money, “completely tax-free,” on alternative education or homeschooling costs.
The Democratic 2025 platform opposes using private school vouchers and tuition tax credits, opportunity scholarships, “and other schemes that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from public education.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a former public school teacher who is running for vice president on Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential ticket, has opposed private school vouchers in the past.
In opposition to a school voucher policy proposal from Republicans in his state amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, Walz stated: “We are not going to defund our public schools at this time, when especially those hardest hit need them more than ever,” MPR News reported at the time.
The start of vouchers
Scholars trace the origins of school choice to the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that segregating public school students based on race was unconstitutional.
Anti-segregation efforts led to state-funded school voucher programs in some states like Virginia and Georgia, offering financial assistance to white students to attend all-white private academies known as segregation academies.
However, the first modern private school voucher program started in Milwaukee in 1990, as some communities of color saw vouchers as a chance to help low-income students of color attend private schools.
Vouchers also have been geared toward disabled students; however, vouchers often force students with disabilities to forfeit some Individuals with Disabilities Education Act protections because they are considered “parentally placed” in private schools.
These schools are not legally required to provide individualized or “appropriate” education to students and are not held to the same nondiscrimination standards as public schools.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, microschools, private schools, and homeschooling have seen a boom — and so has the availability for families to use vouchers or ESAs to fund tuition at these institutions or fund alternative forms of education and their expenses.
According to pro-ESA organization EdChoice, the number of students using ESAs has increased seven-fold between 2022 and 2024 to a total of more than 328,000 students.
As these programs continue to gain momentum, the debate about these policies continues.
Evolution of voucher and ESA programs.
The debate about ‘school choice’
How much ESA programs cost has varied from state to state — in Arizona, the ESA program has been estimated by the state governor’s office to cost the state $943,795,600 for the 2024 fiscal year for roughly 79,728 students. Meanwhile, in West Virginia, it could cost over $10 million for roughly 2,333 applicants to the 2022-2023 academic year of the program, according to the scholarship program report.
This has been one major source of contention around ESAs.
Critics of school choice, including West Virginia Education Association President Dale Lee, say that public schools are already under pressure due to underfunding and poor staffing. Shifting funds away from public schools will make it harder for them to thrive, Lee said.
“Because of the loss of funding, we’ve reduced the opportunities in the curriculum areas that they have,” said Lee, adding that vocational and technical schools have reduced the number of offerings they have and reduce the number of courses that secondary students have available.
In some cases, that includes the arts.
“As a high school teacher myself, the arts are one of the areas that for many students, that’s what drew them into the school, and that’s why they were continuing,” Lee said.
He said public education is supposed to be “the great equalizer” … “if you go back to the system of the haves and have nots, you eliminate that opportunity for students.”
Emily Kirkland, communications director at the Arizona Education Association, slammed some ESA programs for funding controversial purchases. These purchases have been dubbed “welfare for the wealthy” by critics, after a CNN analysis of state and federal data found that wealthy communities are disproportionately benefiting from these programs.
ABC affiliate KNXV-TV in Arizona analyzed ESA data for the 2022-2023 school year and found that some of the money was used for purposes that have been condemned by critics, including ski resort passes, trampoline parks and ninja warrior training centers, aeroponic indoor gardens, pianos and more.
Expenses in some states, like Arizona, are approved by program staffers.
Supporters of school choice, including president and CEO of pro-school choice EdChoice Robert Enlow, applauds the transparency, arguing that its more insight into specific expenditures than is publicly known from public schools. He adds that the expenses allow families to tailor their education to their individual needs.
“You can see in Arizona, every single minute of every single day where every single dollar is going in the ESA program, I challenge you to do that in public schools, right?” said Enlow. “You may not like where the dollars are going. There may be an issue of whether you like it, but the reality is, you know exactly where they’re going.”
Enlow adds that these programs allow students to take an individualized approach, noting that those who may have different needs based on disability, neurodiversity, and other needs can make adjustments based on those needs.
He adds that criticism over spending doesn’t take into account that, in some cases, families are buying what schools would buy: “It’s OK if a government system buys $1,000 per classroom Lego set, but it’s not OK if a family does it?”
It is unclear how successful alternative education like microschooling or homeschooling can be. Rules and regulations dictating microschool and homeschool requirements are determined by each state’s Department of Education. For example, the National Microschooling Center notes that some microschool educators do not need to be licensed teachers and some institutions do not need to follow state academic standards.
Enlow notes that as these kinds of educations become more popular, the question about what regulation should look like and how success is measured is being asked: “You can’t put a one-size-fits-all system of regulation on a system that is meant for families to have individual options and choices.”
“Successes are in children making progress towards what makes them a successful human being, a successful strategy for coping and for living and for being successful right in life,” Enlow said. “We believe, for example, that families want to have knowledge about how their kids are doing on a test, but we don’t think this is the only way to go.”
Critics are concerned about the lack of regulations and accountability about the quality of education, success of the institution and the stability of the institution.
“I called microschools the food trucks of the education industry, because they can open up, go wherever they want, and close down very quickly,” said Josh Cowen, author of “The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers.”
Cowen calls alternative education “a predatory environment where private schools and microschools are promising the world to each of these kids,” making it hard for families to know what the truth is because of the lack of oversight and measures of success.
He continued, “It could take months, if not years, for a parent to understand that they’ve gone to a school that has substantially altered their child’s academic trajectory. Or worse, it could take three or four years, and by then, it’s too late. And so that’s where you need oversight.”
In West Virginia, Lee argues that the school choice program has contributed to a teacher shortage, citing poor teacher pay, poor school funding and poor resources that contributes to low moral “when you’re seeing the dollars go to these microschools and learning pods where there’s no accountability.”
Enlow argues that adding more education paths for students could lead to improvements in public schools: “Who’s going to really buy a system where we’re just trying to let it continue the way it is without any kind of challenge?”
(BUTLER, Pa.) — Former President Donald Trump is making his return to the site of his first assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, for a rally on Saturday — a moment the campaign hopes will spur inspiration among his fervent supporters as they come together to honor the victims who died during the July shooting.
“I’m going back to Butler because I feel I have an obligation to go back to Butler. We never finished what we were supposed to do,” Trump said earlier this week in an interview with NewsNation. “I said that day, when I was shot, I said, ‘We’re coming back. We’re going to come back.’ And I’m fulfilling a promise. I’m fulfilling, really, an obligation.”
Trump’s rally is taking place at Butler Farm Show, the exact same location as the outdoor rally where he was shot in the right ear nearly three months ago. One main difference this time around: security will be tighter.
Security will be of utmost concern during Trump’s remarks after lapses in security plans led to the gunman being able to scale an unmanned building. Security personnel have already started increased measures. For example, a secure perimeter was enacted around the fairground earlier than usual as the campaign started to set up the rally site.
The campaign quickly worked in the weeks after the July attempt to secure an October rally date at the site, knowing the significance of having Trump return to a place where he survived an assassination attempt for the first time.
The campaign told ABC News the family of Corey Comperatore, the man who was killed at Trump’s rally while shielding his family, along with one of the two supporters who were injured, David Dutch, will be in attendance on Saturday.
Several of Trump’s allies are expected to attend in a show of force, including tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who posted his plans on X, and Pennsylvania senatorial candidate Dave McCormick, who was just about to walk onstage before shots rang out.
Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, will also appear with Trump.
With exactly a month until Election Day, Saturday’s Butler rally will be an opportunity for Trump, if he can stay on message, to rally his base behind him in the sprint to November, just as he was able to do in the days after he was shot.
After being struck in the ear, Trump was briefly taken to the ground by Secret Service agents covering him until he rose back up moments after, pumping his first in the air with a bloody ear, shouting “Fight, fight, fight!”
The moment has since become a central messaging of his campaign, Trump and his supporters often chanting, “Fight, fight, fight!” at campaign rallies and his campaign frequently using Trump’s image of pumping his fist after surviving an assassination attempt as a symbol of his defiant campaign just days ahead of the critical week of the Republican National Convention.
Counter snipers in Trump’s Secret Service immediately killed the shooter, identified by the FBI as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, but the incident stirred a flurry of questions regarding the security of the former president, prompting U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to step down and Trump to only hold indoor rallies for a few weeks after the attack.
Just nine weeks after the shooting in Butler, Trump had a second apparent assassination attempt on his life while he was out golfing at his course in West Palm Beach, Florida. More recently, it was revealed that there were assassination threats from Iran against Trump as well.
In the wake of both incidents, the former president was granted presidential-level security as his campaign has been forced to grapple with new security protocols in the planning of his campaign events.
Trump has gradually started holding a limited number of big and small outdoor campaign events again, including in Asheboro, North Carolina, on Aug. 21, where he was seen surrounded by bulletproof protective glass for the first time as he spoke in front of thousands of supporters gathered at an outdoor aviation museum.
As the campaign prepares for its high-profile rally on Saturday, they’ve said that the rally will be about honoring the victims and their family and expressing thanks to law enforcement and the Pennsylvania community; however, it comes as in recent weeks Trump has escalated his attacks, veering into dark rhetoric on the road.
After once calling for unity, Trump now blames rhetoric from Democrats as the reason behind threats on his life.
In the immediate aftermath of his attack at Butler, Trump called for both sides to tone down their rhetoric against each other — a posture that ended relatively quickly for Trump, who returned to his usual attacks.
While addressing the country after officially being nominated Republican presidential candidate at the RNC in Milwaukee, Trump said, “just like our ancestors, we must now come together, rise above past differences.”
“Any disagreements have to be put aside, go forward, united as one people, one nation pledging allegiance to one great beautiful — I think it’s so beautiful — American flag,” he said as he concluded his nomination speech at the RNC.
But just days after that, Trump, at his first rally after President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race, called his political opponents “dangerous people” and escalated personal attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris — who was shaping up to be Biden’s successor at the time.
“I was supposed to be nice,” Trump said in Charlotte, North Carolina, in late July. “They say something happened to me when I got shot — I became nice.”
“When you’re dealing with these people — they’re very dangerous people — when you’re dealing with them, you can’t be so nice. You really can’t be so — if you don’t mind — I’m not going to be nice. Is that okay?” Trump continued, followed by the crowd chanting, “Fight, fight, fight.”
Just as Trump is returning to Butler, many of the former president’s more ardent supporters have shied away from continuing to attend his rallies.
“It’s kind of like — it almost brings back memories, because it’s almost kind of the same set up,” said one Butler rally attendee, speaking at the Asheboro, North Carolina, rally last month where Trump delivered remarks in front of thousands of supporters outside for the first time since his first assassination attempt.
“At least we got snipers on it. Really, every roof of snipers on it makes me feel more safe. It brings back memories, especially when we go back in October,” he said.
Susan Gibala, of Irwin, Pennsylvania, said she went to a Trump rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, just after she survived the Butler rally, and has continued to feel safe at Trump rallies.
“To be honest with you, this is one of the safest places. And I know that I was in Butler when that happened. And I know that sounds very strange to say, but I feel like these are the safest places I could be,” Gibala said, attending another Trump rally in Indiana, Pennsylvania, last month.
“So it hasn’t really changed me in that sense. I know a lot of my friends, they had to take time out. They had to really work through some things, but I just believe this is one of the safest places to be.”
(LOS ANGELES) — The former Los Angeles police detective convicted in 2012 of killing her ex-lover’s wife was denied parole on Wednesday in the 1986 murder and will continue to serve her 27 years-to-life sentence.
Stephanie Lazarus was convicted of murdering Sherri Rasmussen, a 29-year-old hospital critical care nursing director, who was shot three times in the home she shared with her husband, John Ruetten.
Lazarus was sentenced to 27 years to life after a jury found her guilty of first-degree murder. She became eligible for parole in 2023 after the state of California passed a law giving special consideration to youthful offenders who had committed their crimes when they were under the age of 26.
Lazarus was 25 at the time of the murder.
Commissioner Garland stated that the board had “found good cause to rescind Lazarus’ parole” and would reconvene for further hearings regarding Lazarus.
There will be another chance for parole. Lazarus will be set for another suitability hearing within 120 days.
“The Killer Down the Hall,” a new “20/20” airing Friday, Oct. 4, on ABC at 9 p.m. E.T. and streaming the next day on Hulu, features the story of Stephanie Lazarus, including interviews with the victim’s family and friends.
“It’s definitely, uh, pound for pound, one of the greatest true-crime stories of all time,” Mark Groubert, a journalist who wrote a feature on Lazarus’ LAPD unit for L.A. Weekly, told “20/20.”
Ruetten and Lazarus met at UCLA in the 1970s and had a friendly relationship that involved casual sex, according to Ruetten’s testimony at Lazarus’ trial. Ruetten also testified that he never considered Lazarus his girlfriend. He also admitted to sleeping with Lazarus shortly after becoming engaged to Rasmussen. On Feb. 24, 1986, Ruetten discovered his wife lying in a pool of blood on the living room floor of their condo in Van Nuys, California. He immediately called 911.
The original investigators determined the crime scene at the home that Ruetten and Rasmussen shared showed all the signs of a “hot prowl,” a term police use to describe a home invasion. Investigators strongly believed that Rasmussen was the victim of a burglary that escalated into her murder. She had ligature marks on her wrist, indicating that, at some point, someone had tied her up. She also had three gunshot wounds to her chest, along with a bite mark on her arm.
On the night of the murder, LAPD Homicide Detective Lyle Mayer questioned a very emotional John Ruetten about what he knew regarding the day Sherri was killed.
Ruetten denied killing his wife and agreed to undergo a polygraph examination, but the results came back inconclusive. However, he had a rock-solid alibi, according to the Rasmussen family attorney.
“He was at work that day,” John Taylor, the attorney, said. “He had left work. He had stopped to pick up his dry cleaning and then came back between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. and found his wife murdered in the living room area of the house.”
In the eyes of Mayer, the lead detective, Ruetten was a grieving husband. Investigators said they didn’t feel he was hiding anything, and as far as they were concerned, he was not a suspect — and they told him so.
“I believe your house was burglarized today,” Mayer told Ruetten in the interrogation room. “Once those persons, or that person, or whoever was inside, I believe they were trying to steal your stereo and probably some other items.”
Not long after Rasmussen’s murder, investigators quickly pursued a new lead. Another burglary with a similar M.O. occurred in the same Van Nuys neighborhood.
A woman interrupted the burglary when she came home and found two men in her house, one of whom was armed. They fled, and witness sketches of the suspects were created. Even though the LAPD had these new suspects, there was no evidence directly tying anyone to Rasmussen’s murder. Sherri’s family and friends believed the motive to be personal. Her father, Nels Rasmussen, says he urged the police to investigate a disgruntled nurse Sherri had worked with, as well as Ruetten’s former lover, Stephanie Lazarus, whose name Rasmussen never knew. But the detectives continued to focus solely on the burglary theory.
At this point, detectives said they did not have a single witness, fingerprints, or murder weapon.
The case went cold until 2001, when the Los Angeles Police Department launched the LAPD’s Cold Case Unit. That year, detectives were given more than 9,000 unsolved murders spanning more than two decades, and Rasmussen’s case was one of them.
With new technology and a fresh set of eyes, cold case investigators took another look at the bite mark that was on Rasmussen’s forearm.
Detective Cliff Shepard was the lead officer who investigated the Rasmussen case for the unit.
“Up to that point, nobody else had looked at it other than Mayer and myself, really,” Shepard said. “When I was going back over the reports, they indicate that a bite swab had been collected,” Shepard said. “And when I looked at the evidence… no evidence for a bite swab. So, I checked with our property, they verified they did not have the swab booked with our evidence room. There’s no record of it.”
Shepard sought assistance from Jennifer Francis, a criminalist at the LAPD’s Scientific Investigation Division, to locate the swab, which she traced to a freezer at the L.A. County Medical Examiner’s Office.
The swab was sent out to forensics for analysis, which returned a DNA profile of an unidentified female but returned no match in law enforcement databases.
The DNA had given police a profile, but it did not provide a name. Even with this new information, the investigator’s theory remained that Sherri’s killer or killers were burglars. By 2005, Shepard had moved on from the Rasmussen cold-case investigation without identifying a suspect, even with the DNA profile.
“My biggest regret is not interviewing Ruetten. Not meeting with him and having a face-to-face,” Shepard said.
The case went cold until 2009 when Detective Jim Nuttall from the Van Nuys division took over the investigation with a fresh set of eyes.
One of the first things Nuttall noticed was the four-year-old DNA report by Francis indicating that a woman was present at the murder. He also thought the stereo equipment stacked by the door was suspicious, leading him to question the burglary theory.
After going back to speak with Sherri’s family and Ruetten, Nutall and his team of investigators compiled a list of five female suspects who were in Rasmussen’s orbit. Three of the five were immediately eliminated – Rasmussen’s sister, mother, and her close friend –after submitting DNA samples. The fourth suspect, a nurse with alleged tension with Rasmussen at her job, also was eliminated.
The fifth suspect was Stephanie Lazarus, Ruetten’s ex-lover from college. Ruetten told Detective Nuttall that he had already given Lazarus’ name to the LAPD 23 years ago. The conversation, however, was never documented.
Four months after reopening the Rasmussen case, Nuttall did something no other officer investigating Sherri’s murder had done: He took a hard look at Lazarus.
The decision was made to have a special surveillance unit follow Lazarus to observe her and obtain a DNA sample. After following her, the unit noticed she had thrown a cup away in a public trash can. They recovered the cup to test the DNA against that from the bite mark.
The DNA matched the bite mark on Rasmussen, providing detectives with the evidence they needed to arrest Lazarus. Lazarus was charged with Sherri’s murder and pleaded not guilty.
In February 2012, 26 years after the murder of Rasmussen, Lazarus stood trial at a courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. She was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life and an additional two years for the use of a firearm.
After her conviction, Lazarus continued to profess her innocence but changed her story in 2023 when she became eligible for parole.
“The only reason she confessed is because she wants to get out on parole,” Teresa Marie Lane, a sister of Rasmussen, said. “We really have to keep her in because she has no regard for what she did. She does not have remorse.”
