Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The House is back in session Tuesday after a two-week-long Easter recess, and Speaker Mike Johnson is returning with his speakership under threat after fellow Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a motion to oust him just months after he ascended to the position.

The Georgia Republican filed a motion to vacate Johnson just before the chamber broke for recess. She made the move after a vote to fund the government to prevent a shutdown — which Johnson needed Democratic votes to pass.

Greene called her motion to vacate a “warning,” adding that “it’s time for our conference to choose a new speaker.”

In the last few weeks, Greene’s criticism of Johnson has only grown — accusing him of working closely with Democrats and shifting away from Republican ideals when it comes to providing aid to Ukraine.

On Monday, she called him a “Democratic Speaker” because of his propensity to lean on Democrats to pass legislation.

“Our Republican Speaker of the House is upsetting many of our members by relying on Democrats to pass major bills and working with Dems by giving them everything they want,” Greene wrote on X. “That makes him the Democrat Speaker of the House not our Republican Speaker of the House.”

Last week, Greene said Johnson had changed, saying he worked more with Democrats than Republicans.

“Mike Johnson has completely changed his character in a matter of about five months after he has become speaker of the House,” Greene said to Tucker Carlson on his program on April 3. “…He called himself a conservative, always has been, he’s a Republican member, but yet here we are …”

She added that Johnson “has made a complete departure of who he is and what he stands for.”

“And to the point where people are literally asking, ‘is he blackmailed? What is wrong with him?’ Because he’s completely disconnected with what we want,” she said.

Asked if she though Johnson was, in fact, being blackmailed, Greene responded, “I have no idea. I can’t comprehend, Tucker.”

Reliance on Democrats’ votes led to the ouster of Johnson’s predecessor, Kevin McCarthy. He was removed from the post by Republican hard-liners who were similarly upset that he worked with Democrats to pass legislation, including an eleventh-hour deal to keep the government open last fall.

Johnson has held the position since October.

Johnson has said Greene is a friend and he is just as frustrated as she is over the GOP’s razor-thin majority and need to rely on Democrats.

“…With the smallest margin in U.S. history, we’re sometimes going to get legislation that we don’t like,” Johnson said in a interview on Fox News. “And the Democrats know that when we don’t all stand together, with our razor-thin majority, then they have a better negotiation position, and that’s why we’ve got some of the things we didn’t like.”

Greene has threatened to work to push Johnson out of the speakership if he brings Ukraine aid to the floor. Johnson has pledged to act on Ukraine aid when the House returns, as the country’s war rages on with Russia.

In the Fox News interview, Johnson said he expects to move a package including aid for Ukraine with “some important innovations” when the House returns. The speaker’s office has not shared a specific timeline for any supplemental package.

“…when it comes to the supplemental, we’ve been working to build that consensus. We’ve been talking to all the members, especially now over the district work period. When we return after this work period, we’ll be moving a product, but it’s going to I think, have some important innovations,” Johnson said.

Republicans are looking at the “loan” idea floated by former President Donald Trump, which would make aid available to Ukraine as a loan that is waivable with no interest.

Another option would be to allow for natural gas exports to continue after the Biden administration paused approvals of new liquefied natural gas export permits earlier this year to examine climate impacts. Climate advocacy groups and local activists called the move a major win after lobbying Biden to block new liquefied natural gas export terminals, saying the U.S. should not build new fossil fuel infrastructure. Johnson called Biden’s decision on natural gas exports “outrageous” and that blocking export terminals “prevents America’s economic growth.”

The Senate passed a $95 billion aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in February but Johnson has refused to take up the legislation and is not expected to do so.

It’s not clear when and if Greene will activate her resolution to oust Johnson, which would then force the House to vote on it within two legislative days.

The two were set to speak last Friday, but the details of that conversation have not yet been made public.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As Donald Trump’s lawyers on Monday afternoon attempted to convince an appellate judge that a fair jury selection could not happen in a Manhattan courtroom, the judge overseeing the former president’s criminal trial, Judge Juan Merchan, released the questionnaire he plans to use to oversee jury selection for the trial, which is scheduled to begin on April 15.

Prosecutive jurors will be asked if they have ever attended one of Trump’s rallies, if they belong to groups like the Proud Boys or Antifa, or if they volunteered with a political entity associated with the former president.

“Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in a state court?” one question asks. “Do you have any feelings about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case?”

Other questions ask if prosecutive jurors have read any of Trump’s books, can set aside their past knowledge of the case, or have opinions on the legal limits related to political contributions.

“Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump or the fact that he is a current candidate for president that would interfere with your ability to be a fair or impartial juror?” another question asked.

Jurors will also be asked standard preliminary questions, including their marital status, employment status, hobbies, criminal history and potential scheduling conflicts. Merchan, borrowing from an approach taken for the Trump Organization criminal trial, opted to excuse any jurors who self-identify as unfair or partial.

“This Court finds, after careful consideration of the circumstances of this case, that requiring individual inquiry of every prospective juror who has already self-identified that they cannot be fair and impartial, or that they are otherwise unable to serve, is unnecessary, time-consuming and of no benefit,” Merchan wrote.

Merchan also included the summary he intends to read to the prospective jurors next week, offering them a glimpse of the months-long trial.

“The allegations are in substance that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump made or concerned false business records to hide the true nature of payments to Michael Cohen, by characterizing them as payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement. The people allege that in fact, the payments were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen for money he paid to Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in the weeks before the presidential election to prevent her from publicly revealing details about a past sexual encounter with Donald Trump. Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies the allegations,” the summary said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The office of special counsel Jack Smith has just filed its brief urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s appeal claiming he should be immune from prosecution in his 2020 federal election subversion case.

In his brief to the Supreme Court, Special Counsel Smith argues that Trump has put forward a “novel and sweeping” theory of immunity that lacks any historical precedent and refutes the vision of the country that its founders intended.

“The effective functioning of the Presidency does not require that a former President be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” the brief reads. “To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law— including the President. Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations supports the absolute immunity that petitioner seeks.”

Smith’s argument seeks to counter accusations from former President Trump that his prosecution is politically motivated by pointing to “layered safeguards” already in the U.S. criminal justice system that serve to protect against such abuses.

“A criminal prosecution must be brought by the Executive, with strong institutional checks to ensure evenhanded and impartial enforcement of the law; a grand jury must find that an indictment is justified; the government must make its case and meet its burden of proof in a public trial; and the courts enforce due process protections to guard against politically motivated prosecutions,” the brief says.

The special counsel further accuses Trump of putting forward a “radical suggestion” that presidents, in general, should be assured they’re immune from prosecution for any criminal acts taken while in office, arguing that “would free the President from virtually all criminal law—even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition.”

“The absence of any prosecutions of former Presidents until this case does not reflect the understanding that Presidents are immune from criminal liability; it instead underscores the unprecedented nature of [Trump’s] alleged conduct,” they write. “And none of the dissimilar historical examples on which petitioner relies suggests otherwise.”

In the special counsel’s brief, Smith also requests that if the court does hold in its final ruling that a former president should be entitled to some immunity from prosecution, it shouldn’t prevent the government from bringing its specific case against Trump to trial.

“First, the specific form of criminal conduct charged here—efforts to subvert an election in violation of the term-of-office clause of Article II and the constitutional process for electing the President—does not justify any form of immunity. Second, the private conduct that the indictment alleges is sufficient to support the charges. Thus, even if liability could not be premised on official acts, the case should be remanded for trial, with the district court to make evidentiary and instructional rulings in accordance with this Court’s decision. Petitioner could seek appellate review of those rulings, if necessary, following final judgment,” the brief says.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the issue on April 25. Trump’s team will have the opportunity to address Smith’s arguments with its brief next week.

Trump filed a brief with the court last month making his formal argument for why he should be granted immunity.

“The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” his attorneys wrote.

The case presents novel legal questions for the judicial system, as Trump is the first current or former president ever to be criminally indicted.

Lower courts, though, have so far rejected his immunity arguments. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington warned of a “collapse our system of separated powers” if Trump’s stance on the matter were to be accepted.

Trump faces four felony charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction, in the indictment brought by Smith last year, in which prosecutors detailed what they said was his plot to remain in power after his electoral loss to President Joe Biden. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied any wrongdoing.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, is calling Trump’s latest statement on his abortion policies “a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020.”

“Today, too many Republican politicians are all too ready to wash their hands of the battle for life. Republicans win on life when we speak the truth boldly and stand on the principle that we all know to be true – human life begins at conception and should be defended from womb to tomb,” Pence wrote in a post on Monday on X, formerly Twitter.

Pence has long been to the right of the former president on the issue of reproductive rights.

During his unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign, Pence advocated for a 15-week abortion ban as a “minimum nationwide standard.”

In his statement on X, Pence — like Trump has — touted his role in the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade’s national protections for abortion access.

“By nominating and standing by the confirmation of conservative justices, the Trump-Pence Administration helped send Roe v. Wade to the ash heap of history where it belongs and gave the pro-life movement the opportunity to compassionately support women and unborn children,” Pence wrote.

Marc Short, Pence’s former chief of staff, also came out with a blistering statement rebuking Trump’s stance, pushing for the former president to “acknowledge life begins at conception.”

Short argued that Trump had made his announcement because of “a political calculation that tries to avoid confronting the fundamental evil of” abortion and “continues the former president’s drift away from the conservative achievements of his own Administration.”

In a video statement on Monday, Trump, after months of dodging questions about his abortion position, rejected calls to endorse a national abortion ban, saying he believes it should be a states’ rights issue.

“The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land in this case, the law of the state,” Trump said.

“At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people,” he continued. “You must follow your heart or in many cases, your religion or your faith. Do what’s right for your family and do what’s right for yourself. Do what’s right for your children, do what’s right for our country and vote. So important to vote. At the end of the day, it’s all about the will of the people.”

However, Trump’s position did not address some of the key questions that have come to define the debate over abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was overruled in 2022.

Trump did not say if he personally favors a certain number of weeks into pregnancy at which state-level bans should take effect, he did not say how he will vote on an upcoming ballot measure in his home state of Florida which would broaden abortion access there and though he specifically criticized that abortion policy had been decided at the federal level under Roe, he did not say what he would do as president if a nationwide ban passes Congress and makes it to his desk to be signed into law.

Trump also did not address his views on abortion medication, the use of which is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court by a group of anti-abortion doctors, and though he reiterated his support for three exceptions to abortion bans — in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman — he was not more specific on how those exceptions should be implemented.

His campaign did not respond to follow-up questions from ABC News.

He suggested in his latest statement that his views on abortion were tied to political concerns — something he has said before while boasting that he could find an electorally viable compromise.

“I think both sides are going to like me,” he said in September in an interview with NBC News.

“I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about this subject,” he said then.

“Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t — you’re not going to win on this issue. But you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks,” he told NBC News.

Trump echoed that on Monday: “Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks [for their ban] or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be.”

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican thought to be among Trump’s potential running mate choices, agreed with him in a social media post of her own.

And the conservative public policy organization Concerned Women for America said in a statement from its CEO that the 2024 election is a “stark choice” between Trump’s opposition to abortion and Biden.

Other conservatives split from Trump.

Sen. Lindsey Graham released a statement saying he “respectfully disagrees” with Trump’s position, a rare defection for the staunch Trump ally.

Graham has long advocated for a nationwide 15-week abortion ban and he said he will continue to advocate for such restrictions.

Trump responded to Graham with characteristic bluntness, saying that Graham is “doing a great disservice to the Republican Party, and to our Country.”

Democrats, Trump said, “love this Issue [abortion], and they want to keep it going for as long as Republicans will allow them to do so.”

More broadly, Trump maintained on social media that sending the abortion discussion back to the states was the “policy of the Republican Party and Conservatives for 50 years.”

One of the leading anti-abortion rights groups in the country separately said it was “deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position” about deferring to individual states.

“Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections and national advocacy from the brutality of the abortion industry. … Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement to ABC News.

Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly known as NARAL) reacted to Trump’s statement on abortion by claiming that the former president had “deployed dangerous disinformation about abortion in order to distract from the truth about what he will do if elected.”

The group insisted that despite what Trump said on Monday, he “will work to ban all abortion nationwide.”

President Joe Biden, Trump’s rival in the upcoming election, contended in his own statement that Trump was now “scrambling” to shore up support by being ambiguous on his true stance.

“Let there be no illusion. If Donald Trump is elected and the MAGA Republicans in Congress put a national abortion ban on the Resolute Desk, Trump will sign it into law,” Biden said.

He followed up later on Monday with another reaction to Trump’s views on abortion, saying in part that “Donald Trump just endorsed every single state ban on reproductive care nationwide. … Donald Trump is the reason Roe has ended. If you reelect me, I’ll be the reason why it’s restored.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A judge has denied former President Donald Trump’s last-minute attempt Monday to delay his criminal trial in New York and move the case out of Manhattan.

Judge Lizbeth Gonzalez denied it without explanation in a one-sentence order.

Trump’s attorneys asked an intermediary appellate court to stay the April 15 trial date, arguing overwhelming pretrial publicity made it impossible to find a fair and impartial jury even with a rigorous jury selection process.

“In terms of prejudicial pretrial publicity in this county, this case stands alone,” defense attorney Emil Bove said, arguing there had not been a case with so much attention since the 1999 police killing of Amadou Diallo.

In a brief argument before the Appellate Division First Department, the defense suggested that too many people in Manhattan have a negative opinion of Trump.

“When bias against the defendant is this engrained, has taken root to this extent, voir dire cannot be trusted to clear that up,” Bove said. “Jury selection cannot proceed in a fair manner next week in this county.”

A prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office said there’s nothing to suggest potential jurors in Manhattan were “uniquely susceptible” to negative pretrial publicity since Trump is a national, even global, figure.

“The idea of transferring venue here is misguided,” the prosecutor, Steven Wu, said. “The mere fact that they know about this case is not an indication of bias.”

Prosecutors also said Trump himself – either through social media postings, campaign speeches or courthouse remarks – was responsible for generating much of the publicity associated with the case charging him with falsifying business records to cover the true purpose of a hush payment to a porn actress.

“This is the defendant coming into this argument with unclean hands,” Wu said.

Trump’s attorneys are expected to return to the appellate division Tuesday in an attempt to loosen restrictions on what the former president can say about the people associated with his hush-money case.

The trial judge, Juan Merchan, imposed a limited gag order that stops Trump from speaking out about prosecutors, judicial staff, witnesses and others. Merchan recently expanded the order to cover his family and the family of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump is fighting the gag order under a provision of New York State law that allows a defendant to challenge an administrative decision. Trump is not personally suing the judge, but the case is captioned Trump v Merchan.

There is no time set as yet for oral arguments on Tuesday.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records after being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury in connection with a hush money payment his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to porn star Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty last April.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department informed House Republicans on Monday it has no plans to hand over an audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur, despite GOP threats to possibly hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for continuing to withhold the records.

“Our efforts at cooperation prove that we are, and continue to be, willing to do our part to show the American people that the officials who serve them can work together productively in the public interest while avoiding unnecessary conflict,” senior DOJ official Carlos Uriarte said in a letter Monday to House Judiciary and Oversight chairmen Jim Jordan and James Comer. “Yet the Committees have responded with escalation and threats of criminal contempt.”

Jordan and Comer subpoenaed the audio of Biden’s interview following the release of Hur’s report in February, which in addition to examining Biden’s handling of classified materials while out of office also included embarrassing details about his age and lack of recall.

Hur ultimately concluded after a yearlong investigation that no criminal charges were warranted in the case, a decision he defended in a hearing on Capitol Hill last month.

On the day Hur testified before Congress about his report, the administration released to the House Judiciary Committee the full transcript of Biden’s interview.

But Comer and Jordan continued to press DOJ for audio of the interview, as well as the transcript and audio recordings for Hur’s interview with Biden’s ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.

As part of their response Monday, the DOJ said it was providing transcripts of Zwonitzer’s interviews to the House but would continue to withhold the audio recordings, in part because they argue it could serve to deter future witnesses in special counsel investigations from providing the extensive cooperation provided by both Biden and Zwonitzer.

“The Committees have already received the extraordinary accommodation of the transcripts, which gives you the information you say you need,” Uriarte said. “To go further by producing the audio files would compound the likelihood that future prosecutors will be unable to secure this level of cooperation.”

“They might have a harder time obtaining consent to an interview at all. It is clearly not in the public interest to render such cooperation with prosecutors and investigators less likely in the future,” Uriarte continued.

It’s not immediately clear whether Jordan and Comer will now take the step of initiating contempt proceedings against Garland.

In his testimony last month, Hur did notably point to both the transcript and audio of his interview with Biden as instructive to his ultimate decision not to pursue criminal charges against the president. Though he would not specifically weigh in on whether or not Congress should have access to audio recordings related to his report when pressed by Rep. Jordan.

“Chairman, what I can tell you is that my assessment that went into my conclusions that I described, my report was based not solely on the transcript, it was based on all of the evidence, including the audio recordings,” Hur said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After voting in February to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, impeachment proceedings will head to the next stage on Wednesday, when the articles of impeachment are expected to be transmitted to the Senate.

One thing is clear: this is not going to look like the impeachments we’ve seen in the last few years since a full-scale trial on the Senate floor is not likely, according to senators and leadership aides — despite what many House Republicans want.

The House voted to impeach Mayorkas on Feb. 13 by a vote of 214-213 over what Republicans claimed was his failure to enforce border laws amid a “crisis” of high illegal immigration, allegations the secretary denied as “baseless.”

DHS has criticized the impeachment efforts.

“Without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds, and despite bipartisan opposition, House Republicans have falsely smeared a dedicated public servant who has spent more than 20 years enforcing our laws and serving our country,” DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said. “Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security will continue working every day to keep Americans safe.”

Even though there’s a slim chance of a Senate trial, exactly how the impeachment proceedings will play out is still a bit unclear: the Senate has the option to either dismiss the trial outright or to require a committee to hear it instead.

Here’s how things are expected to play out this week:

Wednesday’s ‘engrossment ceremony’
It’s not yet clear what time Wednesday’s impeachment proceedings will occur.

There is expected to be an “engrossment ceremony” in the Rayburn Room, during which Speaker Mike Johnson signs the articles. Typically, the speaker makes a short, on-camera speech after signing.

Immediately after, the articles will be walked across the Capitol building, led by the House clerk and the House sergeant-at-arms and followed by the impeachment managers. The articles will go from the doors of the House chamber through the rotunda and to the doors of the Senate.

The House impeachment managers are: Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, Reps. Andy Biggs, Ben Cline, Andrew Garbarino, Michael Guest, Harriet Hageman, Clay Higgins, Laurel Lee, August Pfluger and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The Sergeant at Arms will then announce the impeachment managers on the floor of the Senate, who — once received — will be escorted to the well of the Senate.

The articles will then be read aloud. Once the articles are read, whoever reads them will say: “The managers request that the Senate take order for the trial, the managers now request leave to withdraw.”

The Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray, D-Wash., will announce that the Senate will notify the House when it is ready to proceed with the trial.

Murray will preside over the Senate trial. Chief Justice John Roberts is not required to preside over this impeachment because it is not an impeachment of a sitting president.

The managers will then take a procedural walk back to the House.

Senators sworn in as jurors
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said senators will be sworn in as jurors on Thursday.

“After the House impeachment managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Senators will be sworn in as jurors in the trial the next day,” Schumer’s office said in a statement.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is expected to address a joint session of Congress on Thursday, which means impeachment-related events could being later Thursday afternoon.

Once the Senate is back in session, the oath is administered to the Senate as a group. The senators all stand in unison and raise their right hand.

Murray will read the oath: “Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, now pending you will do impartial justice according to the constitutions and laws so help you god?”

Senators then present to the dais in groups of four to sign the oath book.

Then the Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation: “Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States an article of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.”

The Senate then begins voting on the organizational rules of the impeachment, a process that could go a little off book.

This is not likely to be an impeachment like the previous ones; it will not consumer weeks of floor time. However, leadership has been tight-lipped about their precise plans.

Possibilities of how proceedings could play out
One possibility is that the Senate could move very quickly to dispense with the trial. In that scenario, Senate Democrats can make a motion to dismiss the impeachment — a move that would only take 51 votes.

If the vote is over 50, the impeachment would be tabled and that would be the end of it. Democrats control 51 seats in the Senate, so if they stick together, they can dismiss the trial without any GOP support if they so choose.

While senators have the authority to vote to dismiss the trial, don’t expect House Republicans to take kindly to this option.

In a letter to Schumer on March 28, Johnson, along with the impeachment managers, called upon Schumer to “fulfill your constitutional obligation to hold this trial.”

“To table articles of impeachment without ever hearing a single argument or reviewing a piece of evidence would be a violation of our constitutional order and an affront to the American people whom we all serve,” they wrote.

Another options: the Senate votes to send the trial to be heard by a committee.

When someone who is not the president of the United States is impeached, the Senate has within its rules the ability to have a special committee of senators hear the whole of the trial instead of the entire Senate.

The committee is called a “trial committee” and it is usually convened via an organizing resolution.

The Senate gets to set its own rules for a trial, so in most impeachments, there’s a debate over an “organizing resolution” — a proposed packet of rules governing the trial that the Senate must vote to approve. If the Senate were to try to kick this impeachment to a committee, instructions to do that would likely be in this organizing resolution.

That resolution would be brought up, debated and voted on. If it were approved, the articles would then be kicked to the committee and sent off the Senate floor. Leadership would appoint members (usually 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans) to sit on that committee.

Impeachment managers would then present their cases to the committee. Lawyers for Mayorkas would have time to present counter-arguments.

The committee would make footage of their hearings available to the public and to senators. At the end of the trial, they’d present a full report and recommendation to the whole of the Senate. The whole Senate would then vote on whether or not to convict.

The last impeachment to be heard by a trial committee with the impeachment of federal judge Thomas Porteous in 2010.

A final option is that the Senate has a regular trial.

Sources have signaled to ABC News that there will not be an impeachment trial like the ones we’ve come to know from impeachment proceedings of former President Donald Trump.

Though it’s unlikely that we’d see a weekslong trial on the floor of the Senate, it’s still technically possible for this to occur.

If it does, the Senate would adopt an organizing resolution and then managers would present their arguments.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump on Monday celebrated his role in ending national guarantees to abortion access and indicated that he believes the issue, which political experts of both parties believe could be influential in the 2024 race, should now remain in the hands of individual states.

Trump had long been teasing on the trail that he would make an announcement about abortion as he seeks another term in the White House.

But Monday’s position did not address some of the key questions that have come to define the debate over abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2022. Trump’s campaign did not respond to follow-up questions from ABC News.

In his video statement on Monday, Trump did not say if he personally favors a certain number of weeks into pregnancy at which state-level bans should take effect, though he has publicly criticized a six-week ban in Florida and, more recently, talked privately about the idea of a national 16-week ban with exceptions, sources told ABC News in February.

On Monday, Trump also did not say how he will vote on an upcoming ballot measure in his home state of Florida which would broaden abortion access there.

And though Trump specifically criticized that abortion policy had been decided at the federal level under Roe, he did not say in his statement what he would do as president if a nationwide ban passes Congress and makes it to his desk to be signed into law, as some other Republicans have urged.

“The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land in this case, the law of the state,” Trump said in his statement.

“Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks [for their ban] or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be,” he said.

“At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people,” he continued. “You must follow your heart or in many cases, your religion or your faith. Do what’s right for your family and do what’s right for yourself. Do what’s right for your children, do what’s right for our country and vote. So important to vote. At the end of the day, it’s all about the will of the people.”

Trump did not address his views on abortion medication, the use of which is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court by a group of anti-abortion doctors.

He did, however, specifically note his support for in vitro fertilization, which had been temporarily thrown into limbo in Alabama after the state Supreme Court ruled in February that stored embryos through IVF are children under the law.

Trump also reiterated his support for three exceptions to abortion bans — in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman — but was not more specific on how those exceptions should be implemented.

As ABC News has reported, even in states like Mississippi that provide narrow carve-outs to their bans, including for rape, confusion persists among those seeking abortions while doctors have trouble navigating the new laws.

In Texas, which has exceptions to its six-week abortion ban for medical emergencies and fatal fetal diagnoses, a woman sued late last year for an emergency abortion after she said her fetus was diagnosed with a severe anomaly that has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth and low survival rates.

But the state’s Supreme Court ruled that “[s]ome difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses.”

Such a determination requires a doctor and Cox’s physician didn’t attest to that, the court found.

Trump, in his statement on Monday, suggested that his views on abortion were tied to political concerns — something he has said before while boasting that he could find an electorally viable compromise. (“I think both sides are going to like me,” he said in September.)

Exit polling previously found that the issue of abortion access was a driving factor for some voters in key battlegrounds like Michigan in 2022 and voters across the country, in red and blue states, have uniformly backed abortion access in various ballot measures over the last two years.

“You must follow your heart on this issue. But remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture and, in fact, to save our country, which is currently and very sadly a nation in decline,” Trump said in his statement.

He attacked Democrats whom, he said, “are the radical ones on this position” for typically backing much broader abortion access.

One of the leading anti-abortion rights groups in the country soon said it was “deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position.”

“Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections and national advocacy from the brutality of the abortion industry. … Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement to ABC News.

Trump’s rival Joe Biden likewise slammed his latest abortion comments.

“Let there be no illusion. If Donald Trump is elected and the MAGA Republicans in Congress put a national abortion ban on the Resolute Desk, Trump will sign it into law,” President Biden argued in a statement issued by his reelection campaign.

Biden noted how Trump continues to tout his role in the end of Roe, through naming three Supreme Court justices who voted to overrule it.

But Biden claimed Trump is now “scrambling” to shore up support by being ambiguous on his true stance.

“He’s worried that since he’s the one responsible for overturning Roe the voters will hold him accountable in 2024,” Biden said. “Well, I have news for Donald. They will.”

ABC News’ Gabriella Abdul-Hakim, Libby Cathey, Nadine El-Bawab, Fritz Farrow, Mary Kekatos and Rachel Scott contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — When President Joe Biden hosts Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the White House for an official visit Wednesday, a senior administration official tells ABC News the two countries will make “historic” announcements that will take the U.S.-Japan alliance to “new heights.”

This official said the leaders will unveil more than 70 programs and initiatives. Many of the announcements will focus on deepening defense ties, furthering cooperation between Japan and other allies, and new updates on Japan’s efforts to acquire Tomahawk land attack missiles from the U.S.

The summit is also expected to include steps that would allow the countries to work on joint development — and potentially co-production — of vital military and defense equipment, according to Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell in remarks last week.

There will also be new cooperation in space, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and climate change, the official said.

Ukraine and Gaza on the agenda
The leaders are expected to discuss a wide range of topics, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

The visit underscores how the mutual threat from China, North Korea and Russia are driving these two allies even closer together. The two countries want to deter China and prepare for any conflict that could emerge. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made Japan more worried about China trying to move on Taiwan.

A state visit is a huge honor, and it signals to the world how close the relationship is and marks milestones in the relationship.

Philippines president to join summit
On Thursday, the Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. will join the two leaders for a summit.

The senior official said it’s important for these leaders to be standing “shoulder-to-shoulder” at a time when the Philippines is facing “extraordinary pressure” from China in the South China Sea, with China engaging in “really dangerous and unlawful tactics over the course of the last many months.”

How did the state visit come about?
Prime Minister Kishida and President Biden have met nearly a dozen times since Kishida took office about two and a half years ago. The official says they “have a very warm personal and working relationship.”

The official added that Biden and national security adviser Jake Sullivan expressed interest in hosting Kishida after the president saw him at Camp David for the historic trilateral summit last August with the U.S., Japan, and South Korea.

The president, the official said, felt “strongly” about wanting to “honor a friend” who has shown “courage” in resolving past tensions with North Korea, stepping up support to Ukraine, and someone who has been “bucking a lot of conventions” in Japanese politics and foreign policy, the official said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — After months of dodging questions about his abortion position, former president Donald Trump rejected calls to endorse a national abortion ban, saying he believes it should be a states’ rights issue, though he declined to say a specific number of weeks bans should be set at.

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land in this case, the law of the state,” Trump said Monday in a video message posted to his social media site, Truth Social. “Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others and that’s what they will be.”

“At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart or in many cases, your religion or your faith,” Trump said. “Do what’s right for your family and do what’s right for yourself. Do what’s right for your children, do what’s right for our country and vote. So important to vote. At the end of the day. It’s all about the will of the people.”

Trump ended his message by sharing the key point that seemed to be the basis for his position: This is how Republicans will be able to win elections.

“You must follow your heart on this issue but remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture and, in fact, to save our country, which is currently and very sadly, a nation in decline … Always go by your heart. But we must win. We have to win, we are a failing nation,” he said.

The former president, who will be voting on a Florida abortion referendum in November, did not say whether he supports or opposes a measure on the November ballot that would broaden abortion access in his home state and undo the current restrictions.

Trump’s latest statement comes after months of the former president dodging questions about his stance on the specifics of abortion restrictions, avoiding stating whether he supports or opposes a specific number of weeks when it comes to abortion bans.

He has insisted it’s “probably better” that the discussion be left up to the states as long as they uphold three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother.

In private conversations with allies and advisers, however, Trump has expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban with those same exceptions, ABC News reported in February, citing two sources. At the time, his campaign did not deny the reporting but issued a statement that said he would work to find middle ground on abortion, which has become a familiar refrain for him on the trail.

In an interview with NBC News in September, Trump made a point of criticizing Florida’s six-week ban, which is now on the verge of taking effect, as a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

In recent weeks, Trump had alluded to the possibility of some level of restriction at the federal level, repeatedly mentioning discussions about a 15-week or 16-week ban during media interviews, while still claiming he’s not committed to a specific number and praising himself for sending the rights back to the states.

“I’m hearing about 15 weeks and I haven’t decided yet,” Trump said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in February. “Also, we got it back to the states where it belongs. Now it’s in the states — a lot of states who are taking a vote of their citizens and votes are coming out both ways — but largely they’re coming in with a certain number of weeks, and the number 15 is mentioned.”

In his video message Monday, Trump made unfounded claims about Democrats pushing for late-term abortions as he claimed Republicans are the party on the side of life as he vouched his support for IVF procedures and certain abortion exceptions, including rape, incest and life of the mother.

“We want to make it easier for mothers and families [to] have babies, not harder,” Trump said. “That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.”

Trump also took credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade while praising the Supreme Court justices who voted for it, going on to claim that people on both sides of the aisle wanted it to fall.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.