Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Voters in New Jersey, South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana and Washington, D.C., will cast ballots in presidential and down-ballot primary elections on Tuesday.

These are some of the last primary elections and caucuses of the 2024 cycle.

But with President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump the presumptive nominees of their respective parties, the most significant races to watch will be Senate primary contests in New Jersey and Montana, as well as a House race in New Jersey with a familiar family name mired in scandal.

Here are some of the key things to watch in the June 4 primaries:

Montana’s Senate primary

In Montana, Senate primary elections will take place ahead of what is expected to be one of the upper chamber’s marquee races that could determine the balance of power in the Senate come November.

Incumbent Sen. Jon Tester is one of two red-state senators aiming to hold onto their seats in places where Trump won the presidency in 2020. Tester is running against long-shot candidate, Navy veteran Michael Hummert in the Democratic primary.

On the GOP side, Tim Sheehy is expected to earn the nomination against former Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson and environmental contractor Charles Walking Child. Sheehy will not compete against Republican U.S. Rep. Matt Rosendale, the GOP Senate nominee in 2018, who dropped out in March, less than a week after his entrance.

New Jersey’s Democratic Senate primary

In New Jersey, the Democratic primary initially appeared action packed, as Rep. Andy Kim entered the race to take on indicted Sen. Bob Menendez — followed by the state’s first lady Tammy Murphy, who initially consolidated most Democratic support behind her.

When Murphy dropped out, Kim became the frontrunner and was seen as on a glide path to the Senate, but Menendez on Monday filed to run as an independent, which could alter the race in the fall.

Menendez’s entry as an independent will likely siphon votes from the Democratic nominee in the November general election, giving Republicans the glimmer of an opportunity to flip a seat Democrats must win to hold the Senate.

Menendez is the subject of an ongoing corruption trial, where he is accused of accepting cash, gold bars, luxury wristwatches and other perks from New Jersey businessmen in exchange for official favors to benefit the businessmen and the governments of Egypt and Qatar. Menendez has denied all wrongdoing and previously called the prosecution “overzealous.”

If Kim wins the race in November, he would be the first Korean American elected to the U.S. Senate.

New Jersey’s 8th congressional district race

In New Jersey’s heavily Democratic 8th congressional district, another Menendez faces a tough fight to keep his seat.

On Tuesday, Democratic voters will select their nominee — and, almost certainly, the district’s next representative — in a primary that pits first-term Rep. Robert Menendez Jr. against two challengers. Robert Menendez’s serious threat comes from Ravi Bhalla, a civil rights lawyer and two-term mayor of Hoboken, a modestly-sized but influential commuter city across the Hudson from Manhattan.

All eyes will be on if the elder Menendez’s independent bid weakens his son’s position in what appears to be a close race.

As Sen. Menendez faces criminal corruption charges, Bhalla has attacked the younger Menendez as a beneficiary of nepotism from the state’s influential Democratic party.

Also running in the Democratic primary is businessman Kyle Jasey.

First election after Trump’s conviction

Tuesday’s elections are the first since Trump’s guilty verdict on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial — although many votes were cast early or by mail before the jury’s decision last week.

While a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll shows half of Americans, 50%, think former Trump’s guilty verdict was correct, Tuesday will be the first time people respond with their ballots.

A Haley ‘protest vote?’

On Tuesday, withdrawn GOP candidate Nikki Haley will be on the Republican presidential primary ballot in New Mexico. Haley will not be on the ballot in New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana. D.C. had its Republican presidential primary in March, which Haley notably won.

Haley has often received a decent percentage of vote in some presidential primaries even since dropping out, although in some states she may have received early votes or voting by mail.

It may be notable how Haley performs in New Mexico given that this is the first election after Trump’s guilty verdict in his hush-money trial. Still, much of the vote she gets will likely be early vote or voting by mail cast before the verdict.

Recently, she received a large percentage of the vote in the Republican primary in Indiana (22%), Maryland (21%), Washington (19%), Nebraska (18%) and Arizona (18%).

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Since President Joe Biden’s extraordinary move to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding sensitive negotiations aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza — by detailing the terms of the deal on the table — U.S. officials have launched into a flurry of diplomatic activity to maximize pressure on Hamas to accept the deal and to ensure Israel would stand by it.

Despite the hard sell from the administration and Biden’s appeal to all sides, the many open questions about the long-term provisions of the proposal may jeopardize its future.

On Monday, Biden spoke by phone with the Emir of Qatar — another critical mediator in the negotiations — in order to confirm “Israel’s readiness to move forward with the terms that have now been offered to Hamas,” according to the White House.

During their conversation, Biden affirmed that “Hamas is now the only obstacle to a complete ceasefire and relief for the people of Gaza,” a readout of the call said.

The president’s latest engagement builds on calls Secretary of State Antony Blinken held over the weekend with half a dozen foreign ministers of Middle Eastern countries that regularly communicate with Hamas leaders and can exert considerable sway over the group.

Hamas leaders issued a statement reacting positively to Biden’s address covering the proposal on Friday but have yet to issue any response on the proposal itself, which was transmitted to the group days ago.

While the State Department has urged Hamas to take the deal outright, spokesperson Matthew Miller also suggested on Monday that there was still room for compromise.

“We think this is a serious enough proposal that Hamas should just accept it, but if there need to be further negotiations, we think those all imminently bridgeable — if, and this is the if — if Hamas wants a deal,” he said.

But across Washington, officials were peppered with questions about Israel’s willingness to lay down arms in exchange for the release of scores of hostages held inside Gaza.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby denied that Biden’s decision to convey information about the proposed deal was a play to ensure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would abide by the country’s commitments.

“This wasn’t about jamming the prime minister or the war cabinet,” Kirby said. “This was about laying bare for the public to see how well and how faithfully and how assertively the Israelis came up with a new proposal, how it shows how much they really want to get this done.”

Netanyahu’s conviction was called into question when his office reaffirmed Israel’s commitment to ensuring the “destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel” before the war ends.

“Under the proposal, Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place,” an Israeli statement reads. “The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.”

U.S. officials and the president himself have admitted that the proposed deal contains significant gray areas, particularly in the second and third phases of the agreement which call for “a permanent end to hostilities” and “the major reconstruction of Gaza” without imposing strict timetables.

Analysts say the ambiguity is intentional and that the framework is designed to allow both sides to interpret the terms as favorable enough to implement the agreement and gradually ease tension.

However, Hamas has spurned any offer that doesn’t ensure the group’s longtime survival inside Gaza — and Netanyahu’s comments are unlikely to persuade the militants that this proposal is any different.

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow on U.S. foreign policy at the Middle East Institute, argues that this latest chapter of negotiations reflects a change in approach rather than substance.

“The goal appears to be to spotlight stonewalling by Hamas and right-wing members of the current Israeli government as key roadblocks to a diplomatic settlement,” Katulis told ABC News.

Whether the strategy ultimately succeeds, he says, will depend on the Biden administration’s ability to apply significant, consistent pressure to both sides.

“For this Biden plan to work will require the U.S. to double down on diplomatic and political efforts in the Middle East, even more so than it already has in the past few months,” Kautilis said. “It is not enough to make one-time public statements and expect results.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial appears to have a majority of independents and “double haters,” those who have an unfavorable view of both Trump and President Joe Biden, feeling that the former president should end his bid for the White House, according to a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll — a number that could have a ripple effect on the election in November.

Among independents, 52% said they believed Trump should end his 2024 presidential campaign and within the even more specified group of “double haters,” 67% said they felt the same way, according to the ABC News/Ipsos poll published on Sunday. The poll was conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.

In an election year, the votes of independents as well as those aligned with neither candidate are highly sought after by both campaigns. The votes could make a significant impact on the 2024 presidential race that will likely be decided at the margins, especially within crucial battleground states.

Overall, 72% of Republicans, 6% of Democrats and 23% of independents have a favorable view of Trump following his conviction.

For Biden, 4% of Republicans have a favorable view of him after Trump’s conviction, while 72% of Democrats and 24% of independents do.

The poll also found that 50% of Americans think Trump’s verdict was correct; 27% said it was not and 23% responded that they don’t know.

Almost half — 49% — of the country said they think Trump should end his campaign based on just the verdict, the ABC News/Ipsos poll found. One in six Republicans — 16% — said Trump should end his campaign because of his conviction. More than three-quarters — 79% — of Democrats think he should suspend his bid, according to the poll.

Another poll from Reuters/Ipsos that came out Friday tracked the immediate political fallout of the verdict.

That poll found that more than half of registered voters said the verdict does not impact their likelihood of voting for Trump, but that around one in 10 Republican voters said it makes them much or somewhat less likely to vote for him.

Among independents, 16% said Trump’s guilty verdict makes them more likely to vote for him, but 26% said it made them less likely to vote for him. Fifty-eight percent said the conviction would not influence their likelihood of voting for Trump.

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 11% of Republicans said that the conviction would make them less likely to vote for Trump.

METHODOLOGY

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted using the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® May 31-June 1, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 781 U.S. adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.7 points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls. Partisan divisions are 31-29-32 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents. See the poll’s topline results and details on the methodology here.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s campaign on Monday slammed former President Donald Trump for comments he made in a recent Fox News interview where he suggested there could be a “breaking point” for his supporters, saying the public would not “stand for” it if he was put under house arrest as a result of his conviction in his New York criminal trial.

While saying he’d be “OK” with possible house arrest or even jail time as a sentence, Trump said, “I don’t think the public would stand for it. I think it’d be tough for the public to take … At a certain point, there’s a breaking point.”

Biden’s campaign called Trump’s comments “vows of violence.”

“Consumed by his own rage and thirst for revenge, convicted felon Donald Trump is teeing up political violence, threatening the Constitution, and pitting Americans against one another,” Biden-Harris spokesperson James Singer wrote in a statement.

After the 2020 election, Trump promoted a rally in D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, saying it would be “wild.” The House Select Committee on Jan 6 concluded that Trump’s rhetoric in advance of the rally and on the day of the rally contributed to the storming of the Capitol that day.

The Trump campaign did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

The Fox News interview over the weekend marked Trump’s first sit-down interview since he was found guilty in all 34 felony counts in the New York hush-money payments case last week. During the interview, Trump struggled to say whether he’d pursue revenge against his political opponents in his possible second administration, saying he wants to bring the country together, but also repeatedly calling his political opponents “evil people.”

“It’s a really tough question, in one way, because these are bad people — these people are sick and things that are so destructive,” Trump said, before eventually saying, “My revenge will be success, and I mean that.”

But he immediately added, “But it’s awfully hard when you see what they’ve done. These people are so evil. And at the same time, the country can come together.”

Trump has repeatedly played with the idea of “retribution” throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, at times suggesting he could go after his political opponents if he wins back the White House — stoking alarm among critics that a second Trump term could usher in a wave of authoritarian revenge. Other times, he has walked back on that sentiment, saying he’s “not going to have time for retribution” because his “ultimate retribution is success.”

Earlier this year, Trump faced backlash for downplaying, but not ruling out the possibility of political violence if he loses the November election.

“I think we’re gonna have a big victory and I think there will be no violence,” Trump told Time magazine in a cover story published in April. 

Pressed by the interviewer, “What if you don’t win, sir?” Trump said, “If we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

During his latest interview with Fox News, Trump repeatedly railed against his guilty verdict, complaining about the prosecution, the judge, the venue and even the jury — saying he had a jury that was from “a certain persuasion” and that it “would have been hard to [win] no matter what.”

Trump has previously been reprimanded by Judge Juan Merchan in the hush-money payment case for making similar comments about the jury — another possible violation of his gag order that bars him from commenting on the jury.

Reliving the moments when he heard his guilty verdict, Trump told Fox News he thought for a time that the trial was going to end with a hung jury.

“It looked like it was a hung jury for a while,” Trump said of the moment, saying it’s “the most you could hope for” as he appeared to complain about how it’s impossible for him to win “in the area.”

Trump also complained about his sentencing date being scheduled on July 11 — just four days before the Republican National Convention. Trump claimed the sentencing date was “part of the game,” even though it was Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche who advocated pushing the date to July while the judge suggested an earlier sentencing date. On social media on Sunday, Trump claimed the United States Supreme Court must weigh in on the sentencing date, saying the sentencing date is unfair.

Still, Trump touted his poll numbers and fundraising success following the guilty verdict, saying he has “set a record beyond all records” in fundraising. The Trump campaign said last week that it raised $53 million in the 24 hours following the verdict.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — The Georgia Court of Appeals has tentatively scheduled oral arguments on former President Donald Trump’s appeal of the Fani Willis disqualification ruling for October, making it almost certain that Trump will not see trial in his Georgia election interference case before the 2024 election.

The date for oral arguments on the issue is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 4, according to a docket notice that was sent to defense counsel in the case.

“A calendar will be sent to counsel of record confirming the exact date of oral argument,” the notice says.

The appeals court agreed last month to take up Trump’s appeal.

Trump and his codefendants are appealing the ruling that allowed Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, to remain on the election case after it was discovered she had a romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. He resigned from the case as a result of the ruling.

The judge in the case, Scott McAfee, has previously vowed to keep the case moving forward while the issue is on appeal.

ABC News contributor and former Georgia prosecutor Chris Timmons said the October hearing date means it is all but certain that Trump won’t go to trial before the 2024 election.

Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty last August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Defendants Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Scott Hall subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.

The former president has blasted the district attorney’s investigation as being politically motivated.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Dr. Anthony Fauci is facing intense scrutiny from House Republicans at a hearing on Monday as lawmakers continue to scrutinize his response to the COVID-19 pandemic and examine theories of the origin of the virus.

Fauci previously proclaimed that he has “nothing to hide” and is coming before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic voluntarily. It marks the first time he’s publicly testified since he left the federal government at the end of 2022 after five decades of service.

Fauci’s appearance on Capitol Hill comes amid a contentious election cycle, with Republicans continuing to hammer him on his response to the virus — everything from mask mandates to vaccine guidelines and origin possibilities.

“Americans were aggressively bullied, shamed and silenced for merely questioning or debating issues such as social distancing, masks, vaccines or the origins of COVID,” chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, said as the hearing kicked off. Wenstrup, who said he was seeking accountability in this hearing, accused Fauci of overseeing “one of the most invasive regimes of domestic policy the U.S. has ever seen.”

Fauci addressed those issues, and Republican attacks, in his opening statement, calling certain matters “seriously distorted.”

Fauci forcefully denied GOP accusations that he meddled in research about the pandemic’s origins, including claims that he tried to sway scientists away from concluding the virus came from a lab.

“The accusation being circulated that I influenced the scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false, and simply preposterous,” he said.

“The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite,” he added, proceeding to read an email in which he encouraged scientists to report their data to authorities.

Democrats, led by ranking member Raul Ruiz, sought to focus on moving forward — and accused Republicans of using Fauci as a scapegoat for mistakes made during the early days of the pandemic by former President Donald Trump.

“After 15 months, the select subcommittee does not possess a shred of evidence to substantiate these extreme allegations Republicans have levied against Dr. Fauci for nearly four years,” Ruiz said.

Tensions boiled over when Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Fauci’s most passionate detractors, said his license should be revoked and he should be imprisoned. She was stopped by chair Rep. Wenstrup, a fellow Republican, because of a lack of decorum. Democrats defended Fauci in the aftermath, with Rep. Robert Garcia calling Greene’s comments “completely irresponsible.”

The latest attack on Fauci comes from Republicans on the subcommittee who cite “new evidence” they say warrants further scrutiny: an email exchange between a former Fauci senior adviser and an executive of a virus research organization where the adviser claims Fauci’s private Gmail account could be utilized to evade Freedom of Information Act and future public scrutiny. Ahead of the hearing, Republicans requested access to Fauci’s personal email account and cellphone records.

Fauci denied suggestions he used his private email, and both denounced and distanced himself from the adviser’s actions.

“Let me state for the record that to the best of my knowledge I have never conducted official business via my personal email,” Fauci said.

Dr. David Morens, the Fauci aide, advised EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak that Fauci may accept printed copies of documents if Daszak didn’t want them tracked for the public record — although it’s not clear if Fauci ever had any involvement.

Records show that Morens himself used his private Gmail account to shield information from FOIA’s reach, including to send Daszak official government documents and a heads-up about information that would become public through a FOIA request pertaining to EcoHealth Alliance grant materials and COVID-19 research.

EcoHealth Alliance is a U.S.-based organization — described as a “virus-hunting group” — that conducts research and outreach programs and global health, conservation and international development, according to its website.

Republicans say the alliance facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, without proper oversight; willingly violated multiple requirements of its multi-million dollar National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant; and, apparently, made false statements to the NIH.

The House select subcommittee released a report alleging wrongdoing there and the formal debarment of EcoHealth and Daszak. Health and Human Services has subsequently suspended U.S. funding to the organization, which totaled about $2.6 million last year.

Morens testified behind closed doors for transcribed interviews before the subcommittee on Jan 18., and later produced an additional 30,000 pages of documents pursuant to a subpoena before testifying publicly on May 22.

Considering Morens was a close adviser to Fauci, Republicans on the subcommittee expressed concern that Fauci had knowledge of his conduct and questioned whether Fauci potentially engaged in any misconduct himself.

Fauci told lawmakers on Monday he “knew nothing” of Morens’ actions with Daszak or EcoHealth, and asserted Morens was not “an adviser to me on institute policy or other substantive issues.”

Fauci, 83, served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, serving as a scientific check to Trump during the pandemic and later as President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor before retiring in 2022.

Fauci previously spoke out about the death threats he received due to his outsized and public role from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. On Monday, he said those threats continue and became emotional while answering questions about the impact on his family.

“It is very troublesome to me. It is much more troublesome because they’ve involved my wife and my three daughters,” he said, his voice beginning to waver.

“At this moment, how do you feel?” pushed Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell.

“Terrible,” Fauci replied.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order on immigration as early as this week, according to sources familiar with the decision.

The long-awaited executive order would limit the number of migrants that would be allowed to claim asylum at the southern U.S. border. It would immediately send them back to Mexico to wait until the daily average goes down and, once it goes down, they would be able to claim asylum. The exact number that would trigger a pause on claiming asylum is still under deliberations, the sources said.

In recent days, members of Congress have been briefed on the executive action, according to sources familiar with the briefings.

Any executive order, administration officials caution, would be challenged in court.

“I anticipate that if the president would take executive action, and whatever that executive action would entail, it will be challenged in the court,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters last month at Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

Mayorkas and other members of the administration have urged Congress to pass the bipartisan border bill that was negotiated and proposed earlier this year.

A spokesperson for Brownsville, Texas, Mayor John Cowen confirmed to ABC News that the White House invited him to a meeting at the White House on Tuesday for an immigration-related announcement, and he will be attending.

El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser also confirmed he is attending. He told ABC News in a statement: “El Paso is a welcoming community, and that makes me very proud, but no community can continue the effort and resources we’ve expended on this humanitarian crisis endlessly. We are appreciative of the funding we have received from the federal government so that our efforts don’t fall on the backs of El Paso taxpayers, but our immigration system is broken, and it is critical that Congress work on a bipartisan long-term plan to work with other countries in order to create a more manageable, humane and sustainable immigration system for our country.

“I look forward to hearing more about the president’s plan on Tuesday, and we stand ready to work with our partners at the local, state and federal level on this effort,” he added.

ABC News’ Armando García contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) –ABC News has learned that New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez plans to file a petition by the end of the day Monday to get on the U.S. Senate ballot in the Garden State as an independent candidate.

The deadline to file signatures is 4 p.m. on Tuesday, which is also the date of New Jersey’s partisan primaries. Independent candidates need 800 signatures to get on the U.S. Senate general election ballot in New Jersey.

Menendez decided not to run in New Jersey’s Democratic Senate primary while under indictment. He said in March he wouldn’t seek another term as a Democrat but left open the possibility of running in November as an independent.

“I will not file for the Democratic primary this June,” he said in a video statement at the time. “I am hopeful that my exoneration will take place this summer and allow me to pursue my candidacy as an independent Democrat in the general election.”

ABC News reached out to Menendez’s campaign and office for comment.

In a statement to ABC News, Rep. Andy Kim, who is running in the Democratic Senate primary and entered the race last fall in response to Menendez’s indictment, wrote: “Americans are fed up with politicians putting their own personal benefit ahead of what’s right for the country. Everyone knows Bob Menendez isn’t running for the people of New Jersey, he’s doing it for himself. It’s beyond time for change and I’m stepping up to restore integrity back into the U.S. Senate.”

The New Jersey Globe was the first to report on Menendez’s plans.

Menendez’s corruption trial is currently underway. The New Jersey politician is accused of accepting cash, gold bars, luxury wristwatches and other perks from New Jersey businessmen in exchange for official favors to benefit the businessmen and the governments of Egypt and Qatar.

Menendez, 70, has denied all wrongdoing and called the prosecution “overzealous.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are poised to grill Dr. Anthony Fauci at a hearing on Monday as lawmakers continue to scrutinize his response to the COVID-19 pandemic and examine theories of the origin of the virus.

Ahead of the hearing, House Republicans requested access to Fauci’s personal email account and cellphone records after obtaining information they claim calls into question whether the nation’s former top infectious disease expert may have tried to keep some records out of the public eye.

Fauci previously proclaimed that he has “nothing to hide” and is coming before the panel voluntarily. It will mark the first time he’s publicly testified since he left the federal government at the end of 2022 after five decades of service.

Fauci’s appearance on Capitol Hill comes amid a contentious election cycle, with Republicans continuing to hammer him on his response to the virus — everything from mask mandates to vaccine guidelines and origin possibilities.

Despite Fauci’s outsized and public role from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, former President Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, is now contending Fauci “wasn’t a big player in my administration” as Fauci becomes a political lightning rod and a potential liability for Democrats ahead of this fall’s presidential contest.

The latest attack on Fauci comes from Republicans on the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, who cite “new evidence” they say warrants further scrutiny: an email exchange between a former Fauci senior adviser and an executive of a virus research organization where the adviser claims Fauci’s private Gmail account could be utilized to evade Freedom of Information Act and future public scrutiny.

Dr. David Morens, the Fauci aide, advised EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak that Fauci may accept printed copies of documents if Daszak didn’t want them tracked for the public record — although it’s not clear if Fauci ever had any involvement.

Records show that Morens himself used his private Gmail account to shield information from FOIA’s reach, including to send Daszak official government documents and a heads-up about information that would become public through a FOIA request pertaining to EcoHealth Alliance grant materials and COVID-19 research.

EcoHealth Alliance is a U.S.-based organization — described as a “virus-hunting group” — that conducts research and outreach programs and global health, conservation and international development, according to its website.

Republicans say the alliance facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, without proper oversight; willingly violated multiple requirements of its multi-million dollar National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant; and, apparently, made false statements to the NIH.

The House select subcommittee released a report alleging wrongdoing there and the formal debarment of EcoHealth and Daszak. Health and Human Services has subsequently suspended U.S. funding to the organization, which totaled about $2.6 million last year.

Morens testified behind closed doors for transcribed interviews before the subcommittee on Jan 18., and later produced an additional 30,000 pages of documents pursuant to a subpoena before testifying publicly on May 22.

The panel subsequently released a staff memorandum it argues “presents overwhelming evidence” from Morens’s email revealing misconduct and potentially illegal actions. The memo included previously unreleased emails, obtained by subpoena, that Republicans believe incriminates Morens by showing he undermined the operations of the U.S. government, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records and used personal email to avoid FOIA.

Considering Morens was a close adviser to Fauci, Republicans on the subcommittee expressed concern that Fauci had knowledge of his conduct and questioned whether Fauci potentially engaged in any misconduct himself.

The request pertaining to Fauci’s personal records specifies that the subcommittee is seeking access to all documents and communications related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth, and the origins of COVID-19 retained in Dr. Fauci’s personal email and cellphone records.

Fauci previously sat for closed-door, transcribed interviews with the panel for 14 hours on Jan. 8 and 9 — before the latest records from Morens were combed through by the panel.

Fauci served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, serving as a scientific check to Trump during the pandemic and later as President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor before retiring in 2022.

“Retirement from public service does not excuse Dr. Fauci from accountability to the American people,” chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, noted in a statement announcing the hearing. “On June 3, Americans will have an opportunity to hear directly from Dr. Fauci about his role in overseeing our nation’s pandemic response, shaping pandemic-era policies, and promoting singular, questionable narratives about the origins of COVID-19.”

Fauci, 83, is set to publish his memoir, entitled “ON CALL: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service,” on June 18. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush in 2008 for his work on AIDS relief in Africa.

In addition to hearing from Fauci, the Select Subcommittee announced former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky will publicly testify on June 13 as Republicans seek to learn about her knowledge of CDC policies and decisions during the pandemic.

Cheyenne Haslett and Lalee Ibsaa contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

White House national security communications adviser John Kirby said the United States expects that if Hamas agrees to a recent three-phase proposal from Israel to end fighting in Gaza, that Israel “would say yes.”

“It is an Israeli proposal, one that they arrived at after intense diplomacy with their own national security team and over at the State Department,” Kirby told “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “Where we are right now is that proposal, an Israeli proposal, has been given to Hamas. It was done on Thursday night our time. We’re waiting for an official response from Hamas. We would note that publicly, Hamas officials came out and welcomed this proposal.”

“We have every expectation that if Hamas agrees to the proposal, as was transmitted to them an Israeli proposal, that Israel would say yes,” Kirby said.

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

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.