(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon surrendered on Monday to law enforcement to begin his four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.
He entered the Federal Correctional Institute Danbury, in Danbury, Connecticut, shortly before noon to begin serving his sentence.
The Supreme Court had on Friday denied Bannon’s request to remain out of prison during the appeals process after he filed an emergency appeal on Friday with the high court.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in October 2022 after he was found guilty of defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Speaking to supporters before he entered the Danbury facility, Bannon said he was proud to begin his sentence.
“I am proud to go to prison,” Bannon said. “If this is what it takes the stand up to tyranny, if this way it takes the stand up to the Garland corrupt criminal DOJ, if this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, I’m proud to do it. “
Bannon, who was joined by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Senate candidate Royce White, former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, and a priest, spoke as supporters and counter protesters shouted over each other.
Asked by ABC News if he has any regrets about his conduct, Bannon stood by his actions.
“I have not only no regrets,” Bannon said, “I’m actually proud of what I did, I’d feel terrible if I didn’t do it. I don’t mind going to prison today.”
Bannon told supporters that he will continue to support former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from prison, adding that his War Room podcast will be “bigger and better than ever.”
“You don’t need my voice. We’re a populist movement,” Bannon said.
“Victory or death,” Bannon concluded. “It’s time for me to surrender up at Danbury.”
A U.S. district judge had ordered Bannon, 70, to report to prison by July 1 to begin serving his sentence.
Bannon is the second Trump adviser to be convicted and sent to prison for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 panel, after former Trump adviser Peter Navarro reported to prison in March.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Laura Romero and Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Donald Trump’s sweeping claim of “absolute” immunity from criminal prosecution for “unofficial acts” but granted some protections for former presidents for official acts taken while in the White House.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
“The President is not above the law,” the opinion read. “But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”
The ruling will affect whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped ruling whether Florida and Texas laws limiting how social media companies regulate content violate the First Amendment, sending the issue back to the lower courts for further review.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court justices will meet on Monday for a final day of opinions and are expected to issue a blockbuster decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump is claiming such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4 but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 6:41 AM 5 key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) makes a statement at the House Oversight and Accountability Committee meeting at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Court Accountability)
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said Sunday that Democrats are “having a serious conversation” about what to do after President Joe Biden’s debate performance — a contrast to comments from other high-ranking members of the party.
“Obviously, there was a big problem with Joe Biden’s debate performance, and there is also just a tremendous reservoir of affection and love for Joe Biden in our party,” Raskin said during an appearance on MSNBC weekend show Velshi, with host Ali Velshi. “So, this makes it a difficult situation for everybody, but there are very honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place at every level of our party because it is a political party, and we have differences in point of view.”
Raskin said that holding dialogue about a candidate is “what a real political party does,” and stands in contrast with the process of the Republican party.
“I mean, if you compare that to the nonexistent dialogue and conversation that took place in the Republican party after Donald Trump’s criminal conviction on 34 counts, it’s remarkable,” Raskin said. “And so, we’re having a serious conversation about what to do.”
Raskin said Democrats will be united at their upcoming Democratic National Convention.
“One thing I can tell you is that regardless of what President Biden decides, our party is going to be unified, and our party also needs him at the very center of our deliberations in our campaign,” Raskin said. “So, whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate, he is going to be the keynote speaker at our convention. He will be the figure that we rally around to move forward and beat the forces of authoritarianism and reaction in the country.”
Biden’s debate performance on Thursday has been widely acknowledged as a significant blow to his reelection campaign, with many raising alarm that he legitimized Republican attacks claiming the 81-year-old is too old and frail to be president. One unnamed House Democrat described it as a “f—— disaster.”
Although many Democrats acknowledged the debate did not go well for Biden, most have maintained that he should stay in the race.
In an interview with ABC News’ This Week, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. insisted that Biden is the only candidate who can beat Trump in November.
“The stakes of this race couldn’t be higher, and the only Democrat who’s ever beaten Donald Trump is Joe Biden. He is our candidate for November, and he has the best shot to beat him,” he said.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, said Sunday that Biden’s debate performance “was a setback.”
“But of course, I believe that a setback is nothing more than a setup for a comeback,” he said on MSNBC’s The Weekend. And the reality is, Joe Biden has confronted and had to come back from tragedy, trials, from tribulations throughout his entire life.”
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., took a similar stance Sunday.
“It’s not about performance in terms of a debate, it’s about performance in a presidency,” she told Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union, touting some of Biden’s accomplishments over the years.
At a rally in North Carolina on Friday, Biden admitted he performed poorly at the debate, but defended himself for staying in the race.
“Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but … I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job,” he told the roaring crowd. “I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.”
A senior campaign aide told ABC News that the president is “absolutely” not considering dropping out of the race.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court justices will meet on Monday for a final day of opinions and are expected to issue a blockbuster decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump is claiming such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4 but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 6:41 AM 5 key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., a top ally to President Joe Biden and the national co-chair of his reelection campaign, insisted the president is the only Democrat who can defeat former President Donald Trump later this year despite his debate performance Thursday.
Coons cited Biden’s 2020 victory to repeatedly dismiss concerns from editorial boards and other writers worrying about Biden’s ability to defeat Trump after concerns over the president’s age spiked during his halting debate delivery.
“It is always a bad bet to bet against Joe Biden. I was with him when he announced in Philadelphia in 2019, and most of my colleagues said, ‘Oh, he’s too centrist, he’s too white, he’s too moderate. And I was with him in New Hampshire when folks counted him out in the primaries, and I was with him when he was sworn in as president,” he told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl.
“The stakes of this race couldn’t be higher, and the only Democrat who’s ever beaten Donald Trump is Joe Biden. He is our candidate for November and he has the best shot to beat him,” he added.
When pressed by Karl on whether he truly believes Biden is the only Democrat who can win in November, Coons responded, “I think he’s the only Democrat who can beat Donald Trump.”
Coons’ boasts come as the chorus for Biden’s withdrawal from the race grows from Democrats and outside observers.
Biden’s halting performance Thursday, which included meandering answers and a slack-jawed appearance as he listened to Trump’s answers, underscored what polls show are significant voter worries about his age (he’s 81) and fitness for office, including from supporters.
“Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020,” The New York Times Editorial Board wrote. “That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year.”
“I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime,” columnist Thomas Friedman wrote, adding that Biden, a “a good man and a good president, has no business running for reelection.”
Biden’s campaign has vociferously pushed back on that pressure, insisting that Biden will remain in the race and that Trump, who spewed multiple falsehoods during the debate, had a worse showing.
To beef up its claims, the campaign is also releasing strong fundraising numbers as the days go on, including saying Sunday that it has raised more than $33 million since Thursday.
The president also gave a stronger defense of his record during a campaign rally in North Carolina on Friday, though that event drew significantly fewer eyeballs than a national debate simulcast across major television networks seen by more than 50 million viewers, according to Nielsen data.
The most prominent Democrats, though, have yet to defect. Multiple governors and Vice President Kamala Harris, all viewed as future presidential hopefuls, have come out in line behind Biden, which Coons contrasted with Trump, who has not won the support of many of his top aides from his administration.
When pressed on if Biden’s aides are to blame for his faulty performance, Coons did not shy away from how Biden came across but said nobody would be able to pressure the president out of the race.
“I think it was a weak debate performance by President Biden. He had a scratchy, rough voice. He answered a few questions in ways that were not the most forceful, but I think side by side, Donald Trump had a horrifying debate performance,” Coons said. “I do think it’s for Joe Biden to make any decision about his campaign, his debate prep, his path forward.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s campaign on Saturday night, in a fundraising appeal to supporters, said the president dropping out would only “lead to weeks of chaos” and leave the eventual replacement weakened ahead of a November faceoff with former President Donald Trump.
“The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to ‘drop out.’ That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose,” Biden deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty argued in the email to supporters.
“First of all: Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee, period. End of story. Voters voted. He won overwhelmingly,” Flaherty added. “And if he were to drop out, it would lead to weeks of chaos, internal foodfighting, and a bunch of candidates who limp into a brutal floor fight at the convention, all while Donald Trump has time to speak to American voters uncontested.”
He continued: “All of that would be in service of a nominee who would go into a general election in the weakest possible position with zero dollars in their bank account. You want a highway to losing? It’s that.”
Flaherty’s email was framed around seven responses to tell “your panicked aunt, your MAGA uncle, or some self-important Podcasters” following Biden’s poor debate showing, and amid calls for him to step aside.
Late Friday, the New York Times editorial board, which endorsed Biden in the 2020 general election matchup with Trump, said the president should drop out, saying his debate appearance was “the shadow of a great public servant.”
“Mr. Biden has been an admirable president… But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election,” the board wrote.
“The president’s performance cannot be written off as a bad night or blamed on a supposed cold, because it affirmed concerns that have been mounting for months or even years,” the board wrote.
By staying in the race, they argued Biden was “engaged in a reckless gamble.” The campaign swiftly brushed off the board.
“The last time Joe Biden lost the New York Times editorial board’s endorsement it turned out pretty well for him,” Biden campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond said in a statement shared with ABC News on Friday.
(In 2020, the Time’s editorial board endorsed both Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota for the Democratic nomination for president, which Biden later secured.)
At a string of fundraisers on Friday and Saturday, Biden sought to reassure donors he had what it took to stay in the race, vowing to fight harder.
Biden gave a forceful speech to supporters at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Friday, “Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but … I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job,” he told the roaring crowd. “I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.”
“It wasn’t my best debate ever as Barack pointed out,” Biden said at a fundraiser hosted in Red Bank, New Jersey, according to the pool reporters in the room, later adding, “I understand the concern after the debate. I get it. I didn’t have a great night, but I’m going to be fighting harder.”
And publicly, Democratic officials have circled the wagons around Biden. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday night after the debate that he “will never turn [his] back on President Biden,” while New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, who hosted the fundraiser in his state on Saturday, told Biden “We are all with you 1,000%,” and called him “America’s comeback kid.”
However, some discussions have been had privately among some party leaders about how to convince sitting senators to have a frank conversation with the president about bowing out.
Other than the argument that chaos would ensure with a Biden withdrawal, the note included asking supporters to tell friends that despite the “rough” start to the debate, “voters saw what a threat Donald Trump is” and that “the long-term impact of debates is overstated.”
“And lastly, but most importantly, you’ve got to keep the faith,” Flaherty said toward the end of his email, adding that the campaign was going to “keep our heads down and do the work.”
