Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday slammed former President Donald Trump for insinuating President Joe Biden authorized his potential assassination during the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago resort in August 2022 for confidential government material, pointing out that a similar Justice Department memo on the use of deadly force was also used in the FBI search of Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home in January 2023.

Garland called Trump’s accusation, which came after documents were unsealed Tuesday by the special counsel investigating the ongoing federal probe into those missing documents, “false and extremely dangerous.”

“The document that has been referred to in the allegation is the Justice Department’s standard policy, limiting the use of force as the FBI advises it as part of the standard operations plan for searches,” he told reporters at an unrelated news conference. “And in fact, it was even used in the consensual search of President Biden’s home.”

As part of the Aug. 8, 2022, operation at Mar-a-Lago, FBI agents were given a standard policy document that limited the use of deadly force, according to the unsealed memo.

The FBI echoed Garland’s comments in a updated statement Thursday, noting that its use of a “deadly force” policy statement was included when agents searched Biden’s Delaware home a few months later over the same issue, “as is standard practice for all FBI operations orders.”

“No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter,” the agency said in a statement.

This was the FBI’s second response this week over Trump’s false claims, which he made in a Truth Social post and fundraising letter Tuesday.

Trump falsely claimed Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out,” in the letter. In the Truth Social post, the former president claimed he was “shown Reports” that Biden’s DOJ “AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE” in their search of the property for classified documents.

The memo was part of a ‘Law Enforcement Operations Order’ drawn up by agents preparing to carry out the search of Mar-a-Lago, after a magistrate judge agreed the government had shown probable cause that agents would find evidence of unlawfully retained national defense information and obstruction of justice on the premises.

Agents ultimately recovered around 100 documents with classification markings — months after the government subpoenaed Trump for any remaining in his possession, and after the government said it gathered evidence Trump had misled his own lawyers to sign a false certification asserting all such documents had been returned.

“The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force,” the FBI said in a statement Tuesday. “No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”

Multiple former FBI and DOJ officials also confirmed the standard nature of the inclusion of the deadly force policy.

“Anytime the [FBI] takes an adversarial action like executing a search warrant, there is a deadly force policy,” former DOJ official and ABC News contributor Sarah Isgur tweeted. “If there is danger to you or public and there’s no alternatives, you are authorized to use deadly force. This is standard policy.”

Trump and two co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges against them and denied wrongdoing.

Trump’s attorneys in their filing Tuesday made no such accusation that the inclusion of the policy showed Biden was preparing to assassinate Trump, and it’s not immediately clear whether they had shared the information — part of a vast trove of discovery in his case — with Trump before it being unsealed.

While Trump said he first learned of the filing after being “shown Reports” about it after court proceedings were finished in his New York state criminal hush money case, Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene later posted on X that she “made sure” Trump knew about the false claim the “Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate” him.

The operations order further indicated how agents were well aware Trump would not be present at the property during the search, as it was carried out during Mar-a-Lago’s off-season when Trump normally resides at his property in Bedminster, New Jersey.

They did, however, include a contingency plan in the event Trump showed up at the property mid-search, at which time they said FBI personnel on site would be prepared “to engage with” him and his Secret Service security detail. The full context shows there’s no suggestion of the situation escalating into violence, and that it was more about assigning points of contact responsible for speaking with members of Trump’s detail.

The order also further bolsters testimony from the former director of the FBI’s Washington, D.C., field office Steve D’Antuono, who previously testified to Congress he was “adamant” agents executing the warrant “didn’t do a show of force.”

“It wasn’t even a show of force, right, because we were all in agreement,” D’Antuono said in an exchange with Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “No raid jackets, no blazed FBI … We weren’t bringing any like FBI vehicles, everything that was reported about helicopters and a hundred people descending on, like, a ‘Die Hard’ movie, was completely untrue, right? That is not how we played it.”

The operation order shows case agents on scene were instructed to dress “business casual” with “unmarked polo or collared shirts” and other law enforcement equipment concealed.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign held a call with a group of supporters of former presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Wednesday night — after Haley said she would vote for former President Donald Trump in November.

ABC News has confirmed that Juan Peñalosa, the deputy political director of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, spoke with about 15 Haley supporters.

It’s the latest example of the Biden campaign reaching out to woo Haley voters, a group that could prove critical in this election cycle.

Those who met with Peñalosa included former members of Haley’s campaign leadership team for some states, Women for Haley and other voters who supported the former United Nations ambassador’s presidential run.

Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Haley Voters Working Group and co-founder of Primary Pivot, organized the call.

Schwartz also told ABC News that this call was already planned before Haley shared that she would vote for Trump.

Schwartz told ABC News that voters who appeared on the call were from several states, including Massachusetts, Virginia, Vermont, and the battleground states of Arizona and Georgia.

On the call, voters shared policy issues that were important to them heading into November. Schwartz told ABC News that the issues voters brought up most frequently were the border and immigration.

Schwartz also shared that a voter on the call who was open to voting for Biden expressed concern over the president halting weapon delivery to Israel.

The Biden campaign has made an effort to reach out to the Haley coalition through digital ads and recruiting her former donors.

ABC News has spoked to Haley supporters following the March suspension of her campaign and as they decided who they will vote for in the 2024 general election.

Jack LaFrankie, a 25-year-old who lives in Nashville, Tennessee, told ABC News that he respects Haley’s decision to vote for Trump in November.

“I respect her opinion a lot and will consider what she said, but ultimately she is a politician who is going to make decisions based on future political viability,” LaFrankie told ABC News.

LaFrankie, who is still undecided about who he’ll support in November, said that Haley’s decision to support Trump did “not immediately” move him in the direction of the former president, but said that he may use it as a factor as the election nears.

“So much can happen in the next six months,” LaFrankie said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump is set to hold a rally in deep-blue South Bronx, New York, on Thursday evening as he looks to court the Hispanic and Black voters that make up a majority of the area’s population.

Several thousand Trump supporters are expected to head to Crotona Park in the South Bronx for the former president’s rally — on a day off from his New York hush-money trial. Trump is expected to speak to the diverse voter base about crime — a key issue for voters in the area.

With his New York criminal trial coming to a near close, the state has been top of mind for the former New York business mogul, who has spent the last six weeks residing in Trump Tower and going to his trial in New York County Criminal Court.

“I love this state. I love the people of this state. I’m running hard in New York. I think we’re gonna win New York,” Trump said before entering the courtroom on Monday.

It would be a challenge for Trump to take New York — a state that has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election since 1988.

Ahead of his visit, Trump projected confidence that he could win New York, pointing to crime and immigration in the area.

“Well, my message is we have to make it better. We have to heal, it’s never been like this and you have hundreds of thousands of migrants taking up your schools and taking up your hospitals and your parks,” Trump said on New York radio station 77 WABC on Wednesday.

“Man, I think it’s really time for New York to go Republican. We’re going to rebuild the state. We’re going to rebuild the city and we’re going to spend the money that’s necessary. We’re going to make it great again, and we’re gonna have to get the illegals out of New York because no place can sustain it.”

Trump’s visit on Thursday marks his fourth campaign stop in New York City during his criminal trial. In the past couple weeks, Trump has visited a Harlem bodega, Manhattan construction site and paid tribute to first responders in midtown Manhattan.

Trump is hoping to capitalize on Black and Hispanic voters — a key demographic that the candidates need to harness for a November win.

Trump’s rally is taking place in New York’s 15th congressional district, a diverse and Democratic area. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, more than 50% of the population in the district is Hispanic, 30% is Black or African American, and less than 10% is white.

“I’m going to make a play for New Yorkers,” Trump told reporters outside the construction site of the new JP Morgan Chase Building in Midtown, Manhattan last month. “Normally, a Democrat will win New York. Biden is the worst president in history. We have some very bad people here, but we have the greatest people and they’re right behind me. They all want us to run, and we’re going to run very hard in New York.”

President Joe Biden’s campaign on Thursday launched a series of new TV and radio ads that challenge Trump’s claims about his accomplishments for the Black community.

“Every halfhearted attempt by the Trump campaign to pander for Black and Latino votes is another reminder that the candidate who stepped into public life falsely accusing the Central Park 5, who stepped into political life by taking the racist birther movement mainstream, who consistently demonizes and dehumanizes Black and Latino communities has one true interest: regaining power so he can enact revenge on his enemies,” said Jasmine Harris, the Biden campaign’s Black media outreach director.

The New York Young Republicans are behind Trump’s visit and are organizing outreach, billboards and flyers promoting his event. Members of the group said they distributed nearly 2,000 flyers around the city Wednesday.

“We’re very excited because not only has this been well received, but it’s been encouraged by local people and local constituents,” said Adam Solis, chairman of the New York Young Republican Black Caucus and co-chairman of the New York Young Republican Hispanic Caucus.

Solis said he views Trump as a prominent New York fixture and that he hope to galvanize several of his community members and neighbors.

“Every single human, warm-blooded American in this country, understood that he was the epitome of success,” Solis said of Trump. “He was an incredible businessman. He was business savvy. And if there was something that needed to get done, he could get it done.”

Crotona Park is located a few blocks away from Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s home district. Trump’s visit is anticipated to be met with a counter-demonstration led by Bronx Democrats and liberal activists at the other end of Crotona Park.

Democratic Assemblywoman Amanda Septimo, who represents the Bronx, said people “will not stand by as Donald Trump tries to distort what our community and its residents represent. Instead, we will come together and tell our own story.”

New York is a Democratic stronghold – joining California and Illinois – with the plurality of voters in New York State registered with the Democratic Party.

In another layer of drama to Thursday evening, thunderstorms are expected in New York while both events are taking place in the Bronx.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Republican-drawn South Carolina congressional district, reversing lower court rulings that had struck it down as a product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering that excluded Black voters.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court in a 6-3 ruling from which the liberal justices dissented, said the lower court’s decision that race was unconstitutionally used to diminish the influence of Black voters was “clearly erroneous” because it had not properly analyzed the facts.

“A party challenging a map’s constitutionality must disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship. Second, in assessing a legislature’s work, we start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” Alito wrote. “In this case…the three-judge District Court paid only lip service to these propositions.”

At issue in the case was South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, which stretches from Savannah and Hilton Head up to Charleston and is represented by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace.

When the district was redrawn after the 2020 census, it moved several predominately Black neighborhoods to the neighboring 6th district. As a result, it was met with a challenge from the South Carolina NAACP and resident Taiwan Scott.

Scott, the only individual plaintiff and a member of the native Gullah community, told ABC News he believed how the new district was drawn was “deliberate” and was “taking our opportunity to elect a representative away from us.”

But Justice Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the “Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.”

The ruling ensures that the district will remain solidly Republican in the 2024 election. Under an earlier version of the map, the district had been more evenly divided; a Democrat held the seat as recently as 2018.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, wrote that the Supreme Court showed little respect for the intensive fact-finding of the lower court and its conclusion that removing 30,000 black voters from the district amounted to “bleaching”.

“What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering,” Kagan wrote. “Those actors will often have an incentive to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends. And occasionally they might want to straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters.”

“This odious practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue,” she continued. “In the electoral sphere especially, where ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination have so long governed, we should demand better — of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this Court. Respectfully, I dissent.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The GOP-led House Education Committee on Thursday called on more university leaders to defend their handling of pro-Palestinian protests and respond to allegations of antisemitism on campus.

Leaders from Northwestern, Rutgers and UCLA testified as the committee’s main witnesses, joining the presidents of Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia University amid a monthslong committee probe it says is aimed at rooting out antisemitism.

Before the first two committee hearings and at other House events, Jewish students from the aforementioned schools have participated in press conferences and roundtables detailing their fears and frustrations with campus leadership.

Last month, as college protests over the Israel-Hamas war boiled over, House Education Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx said her panel had a “clear message for mealy-mouthed, spineless college leaders: Congress will not tolerate your dereliction of your duty to your Jewish students.”

She has complained that UCLA did not act quickly enough to remove protesters and that Rutgers and Northwestern officials negotiate with them.

During the same news conference, Speaker Mike Johnson expanded the Education Committee’s antisemitism probe into a House-wide investigation after weeks of college campus protests, which included encampments at schools like Columbia University.

Thursday’s hearing comes after the cancellation of Columbia’s main graduation ceremony and the clearing of several pro-Palestinian demonstrations at universities around the country.

UCLA became a flashpoint of the nationwide campus protests when violent clashes broke out between protesters and counterprotesters as police allegedly stood by.

Earlier this week, former UCLA Police Chief John Thomas was reassigned temporarily, pending an examination of the school’s security processes, the school said in a statement to ABC News.

Foxx has insisted to ABC News that the Education Committee is not out to get [college] presidents, saying it has been the committee’s goal to hold them accountable and maintain safe learning environments for students at school.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a newly-drawn South Carolina congressional district, reversing a lower court decision that had struck it down as product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court in a 6-3 ruling from which the liberal justices dissented, said, “The District Court clearly erred because the Challengers did not satisfy the demanding burden of showing that the ‘legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles . . . to racial considerations.'”

“The Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander and their circumstantial evidence is very weak,” he added.

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

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate will vote Thursday for the second time in three months on a border security measure negotiated earlier this year by a bipartisan group of senators after Republicans blocked the bill from advancing earlier this year at the direction of former President Donald Trump.

Both political parties’ elbows are trying to establish themselves as tough on border security ahead of the 2024 election.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced over the weekend plans to bring the legislation back up for a stand-alone vote, after the measure earlier had been tied to aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Schumer said in floor remarks Wednesday that the bill will present his colleagues on both sides of the aisle with a chance to demonstrate whether they’re serious about fixing the challenges on the southern border.

“Senators face an important decision: will both sides come together to advance a bipartisan border security bill, or will partisanship get in the way yet again?” he said.

The vote Thursday, which would require at least 60 senators to support moving forward with the legislation, will almost certainly fail. Republicans are expected to vote against as a bloc, as many, including the Republican who helped draft it, have alleged that the vote is a purely political effort by Democrats to distract from President Joe Biden’s record on the border.

“The bill is no longer a bill and now it’s just a prop,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who co-wrote the bill alongside Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. “And that’s been my frustration. We wrote it to be a bill to try to actually solve the problem.”

Lankford said Wednesday this latest push to pass the legislation he once championed has become all about “messaging” for Democrats.

“No one really seems to want to have a serious conversation on it. At some point we’ve got to be able to do the basics,” Lankford said, signaling willingness to renegotiate a paired down version of the bill. “But no one seems to want to sit down and really be able to work it out right now,”

How did we get here?

Serious discussions about a bipartisan border security package first began in the late fall of 2023 after Senate Republicans, looking to capitalize on interest in securing additional foreign aid to Ukraine, said they would not support advancing a foreign aid package unless Congress passed serious legislation to regulate the Southern border.

Murphy, Sinema and Lankford huddled behind the scenes for months before ultimately unveiling their $20 billion proposal for the border that increased immigration restrictions and enforcement and implemented new migrant policy.

That package was originally meant to be tied to a broader national security supplemental that included aid to foreign allies Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in an effort to secure the necessary Republican votes to pass foreign aid.

Though bipartisan talks were initially championed by Republicans, things began to falter after Trump, flexing his grip on the party ahead of the 2024 election, urged Republicans to block the legislation if it was anything less than perfect.

During a campaign rally in January, Trump told senators to “blame it on me” if the bill failed.

Republicans quickly fell in line with Trump, and by the time the bipartisan group unveiled their product, its fate was all but sealed.

During a vote to advance the legislation, all but four Republicans voted against moving forward with the combined border and foreign aid package.

Democrats fiercely accused Republicans of cow tailing to their presumptive presidential nominee who they alleged wanted to preserve the crisis at the border to use as a campaign issue. Republicans meanwhile said the bill did not go nearly far enough to address the border crisis.

In floor remarks Wednesday, Murphy, the top Democratic negotiator, offered curt analysis of why the bill failed.

“Donald Trump killed it,” Murphy said. “Donald Trump told Republicans their party would be better off if the border was a mess.”

The Senate did eventually rubber stamp billions in foreign aid to Ukraine and other foreign allies in the weeks that followed, but the painstakingly negotiated bipartisan border provisions languished.

That is until now.

Political finger pointing on both sides ahead of current vote

Schumer’s move to once again attempt passage of a border bill comes in late May of an election year when immigration and border security are top issue for voters on both sides of the aisle.

The fraught political environment has done little to warm bipartisan negotiations over the border, and in the lead up to Thursday’s vote, each party has accused the other of playing politics.

Democrats for their part say that the bipartisan bill is a serious proposal crafted with Republican input, and that Republicans are too easily swayed by Trump.

During a press conference Wednesday Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said Republicans ought to “spare us the crocodile tears” on the border and quit refusing to work in a bipartisan way to advance provisions they insisted be negotiated.

“It is the bill that they demanded, that we negotiate. It is a bill that it is fair to characterize as the toughest bipartisan border bill in generations, and so if any Republican votes no tomorrow then they forfeit their right to discuss the border and to turn it into a partisan political issue,” Schatz said. “We stand ready to actually fix this thing, we stand ready to work on bipartisan basis we did work on a bipartisan basis.”

The White House has been in communication with all four Congressional leaders, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson, ahead of the vote.

“In these calls, President Biden reiterated that Congressional Republicans should stop playing politics and act quickly to pass this bipartisan border legislation that would add thousands of Border Patrol agents and personnel, invest in technology to catch fentanyl and combat drug trafficking, and make our country safer,” the White House said in a statement earlier this week.

Despite the push from Democratic leadership, the bill will likely be rejected by even some in the Senate Democratic caucus, especially by some progressives. Schumer has acknowledged as much, which is why he said the bill needs bipartisan support.

But Republicans take a less rosy view, and say Schumer is holding a vote on a bill he knows will not pass to try to distract from Biden’s border record.

“He’s [Schumer] gonna do these sort of political messaging bills because he knows he’s underwater in a couple of states and he’s trying to create a political foothold for some of his incumbents,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, said Wednesday.

The vote may indeed provide cover for several moderate Democrats up for reelection this cycle in increasingly conservative states, including Montana Sen. Jon Tester, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who will likely vote in favor of the bill.

Tillis called it a “miscalculation” on Schumer’s part to try to advance the bill, which House Speaker Mike Johnson has already said would go nowhere in the House if the Senate were to vote to move forward on Thursday.

And some Republicans had even harsher words.

“This is an election-year political stunt designed to give our Democratic colleagues the appearance of doing something about the problem without doing anything at all,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Rick Scott has officially thrown his hat in the ring to become the next Senate Republican leader.

Scott announced his plans to seek the top party leadership position in a letter to his Republican colleagues Wednesday afternoon.

“I believe that our voters want us to use this leadership election to make a choice to upend the status quo in Washington,” Scott said in the letter, obtained by ABC News. “If you also believe this to be true and want a leader dedicated to that principle, I would be honored to have the opportunity to earn your support.”

News of Scott’s announcement was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Scott’s entrance to the race makes him the third Senate Republican to announce they’re seeking the role since current Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced in late February that he would step down from his position atop the conference at the end of the year. McConnell has held the role for about 17 years.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the current Republican whip, and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who previously held the No. 2 role before terming out, have both also announced their intent to run.

Scott previously sought the GOP leadership role in 2022, when he challenged McConnell for the top role during a closed-door leadership election. McConnell easily defeated him, but Scott did earn a groundswell of support from members on the right of the conference eager to see a major shake-up to the way the conference functions.

His disagreements with McConnell have played out publicly in recent years, especially when Scott released his own 11-point plan outlining a number of conservative approaches on a range of topics that at times broke with the official positions of the party. Scott was then the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee but released the plan in his personal capacity, not as head of the committee.

Still, those positions were backed by some Republican colleagues. And in his letter Wednesday, Scott promised to continue to usher in substantial changes to the regular order if elected party leader.

“This is not a time to make small adjustments,” Scott said. “I believe we need a dramatic sea change to save our country and that’s why I’m running to be Republican leader.”

The Senate leadership race will take place behind closed doors and by secret ballot sometime in the late fall or early winter, after the November election determines whether Republicans retake the White House or the Senate.

It’s unclear how much of a sway former President Donald Trump will ultimately have on the outcome of the leadership race, but many Republicans have said they’ll consider him as a factor in their vote.

Scott is a longtime loyalist of Trump. Earlier this month, he traveled to New York to act as a surrogate for Trump at the former president’s criminal trial.

In his letter to colleagues Wednesday, Scott put Trump front and center.

“Come January 20, to turn this country around, we will need to work closely with President Trump,” Scott wrote. “I have known President Trump since before either of us ran for any political office. As Republican leader, I will protect senators’ interest while helping President Trump accomplish his goals. Our country’s success and our Conference’s success will be dependent on President Trump’s success.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Wednesday she will vote for former President Donald Trump in November — despite her disappointments with him.

During a question and answer session after delivering a speech at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Haley was asked who she thinks would do a better job in the White House with national security issues: Joe Biden or Donald Trump,

The former United Nations ambassador said she prioritizes a president who will hold enemies to account, secure the border and support “capitalism and freedom” — and that while “Trump has not been perfect on these policies,” that “Biden has been a catastrophe.”

“So I will be voting for Trump,” Haley said.

Haley, who suspended her campaign in March, has yet to endorse Trump.

During a speech announcing her campaign suspension — the day after suffering considerable losses on Super Tuesday, the former South Carolina governor said Trump had to “earn the votes.”

“It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it, who did not support him,” she said in March. “And I hope he does that. At its best politics is about bringing people into your cause, not turning them away. And our conservative cause badly needs more people.”

Many of the Republicans who once challenged Trump for the nomination quickly fell into line behind him after exiting the race.

The decision not to endorse Trump has been one that has loomed large over her public persona, fueling speculation as to what the former South Carolina governor’s next steps may be.

The Biden campaign has tried to court Haley voters, some of whom have told ABC News they remain undecided.

Recent primaries have also shown Haley with a decent amount of support among Republican primary voters, with the former ambassador picking up much support in primaries in Maryland, Indiana, Wisconsin and other states.

According to ABC News’ current pledged delegate estimates, Haley has netted 94 delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House of Representatives came to standstill on Wednesday as lawmakers quibbled about criticism of Donald Trump and his legal woes.

Legislative business was paused on the floor for an hour as Republicans demanded the words of Rep. Jim McGovern, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, be taken down from the congressional record.

McGovern’s statements were focused on the four criminal cases against Trump. The former president denies any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Trump and his allies have cast the indictments as politically-motivated efforts to keep him off the 2024 campaign trail.

Republican Rep. Jerry Carl was presiding over debate and ultimately read a ruling that struck McGovern’s comments from the record. Carl called the remarks “offensive words” that “accused the presumed nominee of the office of the president in engaging in illegal activities.”

“Although remarks in debate may include criticism of such candidates’ official positions as a candidate, it is a breach of order to refer to the candidate in terms personally offensive, whether by actually accusing or by merely insulting,” he said as he made his ruling.

The move to strike McGovern’s words is not without precedent. In 2019, criticism from House Democrats suggesting Trump was a racist were stripped from the record. At the time, the House chair said the speech violated rules forbidding personal attacks on the floor against the president.

The following is the exchange involving McGovern that transpired on Wednesday.

Rep. McGovern: “Donald Trump might want to be a king. But he is not a king. He is not a presumptive king. He’s not even a president. He’s a presumptive nominee. And I know you’re trying to do your job and follow precedent but, frankly, at some point it’s time for this body to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation. We have a presumptive nominee for president facing 88 felony counts and we are being prevented from even acknowledging it. These are not alternative facts. There are real facts. A candidate for president of the United States is on trial for sending a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign, and then fraudulently disguising those payments in violation of the law. He is also charged with conspiring to overturn the election. He is also charged with stealing classified information. And a jury has already found him liable for rape in a civil court. And yet, in this Republican-controlled House, it’s okay to talk about the trial but you have to call it a sham.”

Republican Rep. Erin Houchin: “We take down his words.”

Rep. McGovern: “It’s okay to say the jury is rigged, but not that Trump should be held accountable.”

Rep. Houchin: “Mr. Speaker, I demand that his words be taken down.”

Rep. McGovern: “It’s okay to say the court is corrupt, but not Trump corrupting the rule of law.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.