(NEW YORK) — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg opposes former President Donald Trump’s request for Judge Juan Merchan to lift the gag order in his hush money case despite the conclusion of the criminal trial.
Trump argued the trial’s conclusion meant the gag order was no longer needed but prosecutors disagreed.
“The Court’s Orders, however, were based not only on the need to avoid threats to the fairness of the trial itself…but also on the Court’s broader ‘obligation to prevent actual harm to the integrity of the proceedings’; to protect ‘the orderly administration of this Court’; and to avoid ‘risk[s] to the administration of justice,'” prosecutors wrote in a letter to the judge Wednesday. “These interests have not abated.”
Bragg said Merchan should maintain the gag order “at least through the sentencing hearing and the resolution of any post-trial motions.”
Defense attorney Todd Blanche said in a letter to the court on Tuesday that the gag order is no longer warranted.
“Now that the trial is concluded, the concerns articulated by the government and the Court do not justify continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump — who remains the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election — and the American people,” the letter from Trump’s attorneys said.
Blanche’s letter references “continued public attacks” by prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, both of whom Trump has been restrained from verbally attacking. The letter also makes several arguments about politics and President Joe Biden, who has never been off-limits per the gag order.
A jury found Trump guilty last week on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a 2016 hush money payment to Daniels, an adult film actress, in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
It marks the first time in history that a former U.S. president has been convicted on criminal charges.
(WASHINGTON) — The National Republican Senatorial Committee released a memo on Tuesday that advises GOP Senate candidates to underscore their support for birth control.
The memo, which comes a day ahead of Wednesday’s vote on whether or not to advance the Right to Contraceptive Act — legislation that would codify the rights of individuals to access contraception and the right of doctors to provide it — urges candidates to voice their support for the bill.
“There is not a single Republican Senator or Senate candidate advocating for new restrictions on contraception. Democrats are trying to make this a campaign issue because their policies on the economy, the border, and global stability have completely failed,” NRSC Executive Director Jason Thielman wrote in the memo, obtained by ABC News.
“Republicans support access to birth control. Democrats are trying to make this a campaign issue and scare voters because they can’t talk about their failed policies on every other issue. Senator Ernst’s bill lays out commonsense solutions that Republicans should strongly consider embracing on the campaign trail,” the memo concludes.
The NRSC memo highlights that the bill, introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, “ultimately increases access to safe, effective birth control for women.”
The document also encourages candidates to call out Democrats for “lying” about their stances on things like IVF and contraception and push the message that “Republicans are putting forward real solutions that protect women and ensure all Americans have the support and resources they need to build a family.”
The Senate GOP campaign arm’s clear direction on birth control also comes after former President Donald Trump opened the door last month to restricting access to contraceptives, before later walking back his comments.
Just days earlier, Virginia’s Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed two bills that would have established the right to contraception in the state.
Democrats have sounded the alarm over the fact that access to birth control methods is in question across the GOP ideological spectrum — arguing that with Trump at its helm, the Republican Party is only further siphoning reproductive rights in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade in June 2002.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s executive action restricting asylum claims at the southern border — a dramatic move to address one of voters’ top concerns five months before the election — drew a range of reactions: applause from many Democrats but also disappointment from some progressives and scorn from Republicans who cast the action as a too-little, too-late attempt to score a political victory on an issue that has hampered Democrats.
Supportive Democrats praised Biden for acting to implement similar policies to the ones congressional Republicans blocked from moving through Congress earlier this year.
“As the president makes his announcement, let’s be very clear about one thing: legislation would have been the more effective way to go,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday.
“President Biden has been clear from the beginning he prefers legislation, but given how obstinate Republicans have become — turning down any real opportunity for strong border legislation — the president is left with little choice but to act on his own,” Schumer said.
Congressional Republicans came out in unison against Biden’s executive action, which will limit asylum applications at times of high traffic across the southern border.
“This is like turning a garden hose on a five-alarm fire, and the American people are not fools. They know that this play is too little too late,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said.
McConnell emphasized the surge in migration and the alarming rate of fentanyl-related deaths that have occurred under the Biden administration, and said Biden’s decision to act now is an effort to save face before the election.
Biden is also facing opposition from within his own party, especially progressives who likened the president’s executive actions to policies of former President Donald Trump, which Democrats excoriated at the time.
“By reviving Trump’s asylum ban, President Biden has undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence, and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.,” said Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat, in a statement.
Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, meanwhile, called the measures “extremely disappointing” in a post on X.
Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus called the move by Biden a “mistake.”
“I am disappointed that this is a direction the president has decided to take. We think it needs to be paired with positive actions and protections for undocumented folks that have been here for a long time,” she said.
The American Civil Liberties Union vowed legal action, arguing in a statement that the executive actions “would put thousands of lives at risk.”
“We intend to challenge this order in court. It was illegal when Trump did it, and it is no less illegal now,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in the statement.
Polls indicate Biden has struggled to earn the trust of voters when it comes to border policies. Only 30% of respondents in an ABC News/Ipsos poll last month said they trusted Biden to handle immigration at the southern border, compared to 47% who said the same of Trump.
There were signs Tuesday that Biden’s executive action could sway a key crop of voters: those who backed former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley in the Republican primary who have been hesitant to support Trump this fall.
In a statement, the Haley Voters Working Group said Tuesday’s news was “welcome.”
“Leadership means doing the right thing, even if its late … it’s the right thing,” Amanda Stewart Sprowls, a Haley voter from Arizona, said.
Tom Evslin, a Haley voter from Vermont, said that “as president, Biden gets judged by his actions and not his words.”
“Although it would’ve been better to have congressional action on the border, Biden deserves respect for listening to voters in the political middle,” Evslin said.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. House on Tuesday passed a Republican-led bill that would impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court after its top prosecutor recommended war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The legislation passed in a 247 to 155 vote. Forty-two Democrats crossed party lines to help Republicans pass the bill despite opposition from the White House.
The Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, led by Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, would require mandatory sanctions and visa restrictions on any foreign person working or providing funds for the ICC in prosecutions against the U.S., Israel or any other U.S. ally that is not party to the ICC.
The vote came weeks after the international court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, filed applications for warrants of arrest for Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Khan said in a statement their office had “reasonable grounds to believe” the two leaders bore responsibility for “war crimes and crimes against humanity” committed in Gaza. Khan said the alleged crimes included starvation of civilians, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population and more.
Khan also requested arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yehya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh. The prosecutor alleged the three were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians and included charges of taking hostages, rape, extermination and more.
Netanyahu told ABC News’ Good Morning America that the court’s plan was “absurd” and a “hit job.”
“These are fallacious charges,” Netanyahu said. “I think that they cast a terrible stain on the ICC.”
The ICC action prompted condemnation from both political parties. President Joe Biden specifically denounced the ICC’s request for warrants against Israeli leaders and said there was “no equivalence between Israel and Hamas.”
Sanctioning the court was initially designed to be bipartisan, Speaker Mike Johnson said weeks ago.
The White House said Monday it was “deeply concerned” about the ICC actions but that, ultimately, the Biden administration “strongly opposes” the legislation.
“There are more effective ways to defend Israel, preserve U.S. positions on the ICC, and promote international justice and accountability, and the Administration stands ready to work with Congress on those options,” a statement from the White House read, though it did not include a veto threat.
Speaker Johnson, at his weekly press conference earlier Tuesday, said they “cannot allow” the ICC action to stand.
“President Biden ought to recognize the danger of letting them pursue these illegitimate investigations and the need to sanction the ICC in response,” Johnson said.
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, and neither does Israel.
President Joe Biden speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, June 4, 2024. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced new executive actions aimed at addressing surges of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border unlawfully by placing new thresholds on those allowed to seek asylum.
Biden spoke from the White House about the new measure, which his administration said will accomplish immigration reform that lawmakers have been unable to deliver.
“I’ve come here today to do what the Republicans in Congress refuse to do: take the necessary steps to secure our border,” Biden said.
He was surrounded by various officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and local lawmakers dealing with border issues.
The decision comes as Biden continues to face political headwinds on immigration in the 2024 campaign, and just weeks before he is set to debate his election rival former President Donald Trump. The new actions are a policy shift for Biden, who told reporters earlier this year that he’d “done all I can do” unilaterally on the border.
The steps establish a rule that will turn away migrants who cross illegally between ports of entry and try to claim asylum after seven consecutive days of more than 2,500 encounters. That limit will then be lifted only if there have been 14 days of encounters at 1,500 or less, according to administration officials.
“If an individual chooses not to use our legal pathways, if they choose to come without permission and against the law, they’ll be restricted from receiving asylum and staying in the United States,” Biden said.
Migrants seeking asylum between ports of entry will begin to be turned away starting at midnight, according to a White House official.
The new rule is sure to face swift legal challenges, with the American Civil Liberties Union stating its intention to bring the administration to court.
For months, Republicans have called on Biden to use executive power to make changes at the border. But they were highly critical of the new actions ahead of his announcement.
Speaker Mike Johnson, at his weekly press conference with House Republican leadership earlier Tuesday, criticized Biden for not acting earlier and called the measure itself “weak.”
“It’s window dressing. Everybody knows it,” Johnson said. “If he was concerned about the border, he would have done this a long time ago.”
Across the Capitol, Senate Republicans offered a similar response in their own press conference specifically to address Biden’s action.
“It is a shell game. They are not serious about it,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said. “This is a conversion baked on the proximity of the next election and sinking poll numbers. And we think it deserves to be called out for what it is.”
Meanwhile, the White House is hitting Republicans for tanking a bipartisan bill that included more sweeping immigration and border security reforms at the direction of Trump — who is ratcheting up his anti-immigrant rhetoric this election cycle and making it a centerpiece of his agenda.
“Twice this year alone, congressional Republicans blocked the toughest, fairest bipartisan border security legislation in modern history, which President Biden was crucial to putting together and which the Border Patrol Union and the Chamber of Commerce endorsed,” senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said in a memo on Tuesday.
Democratic leadership echoed that sentiment in their weekly press conference.
“Republicans are more concerned about keeping this as a campaign issue than they are about governing and solutions,” House Democratic Caucus leader Pete Aguilar told reporters. “Bottom line is that House Democrats believe we can and should secure our border while opening up more legal pathways.”
But not all Democrats are on board with the administration’s new actions. Some have expressed disappointment, and others fear it could backfire on Biden.
“My concern about this executive order is it’s trying to be all tough on the border, and it’s not going to fix anything. And it confuses the message about what we stand for,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Rep. Nanette Barragán, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called the move a “mistake” and said it should be paired with “positive actions and protections for undocumented folks that have been here for a long time.”
Biden, in his White House remarks, addressed critics who said his policy goes too far.
“For those that say the steps I’ve taken are too strict, I say to you that be patient, and goodwill in the American people are wearing thin right now,” Biden said. “Doing nothing is not an option. We have to act.”
He also sought to emphasize the differences between his approach to immigration with that of Trump. The former president and presumptive GOP nominee has vowed to deport millions of undocumented migrants, reinstate travel bans and more if elected.
“I will never demonize immigrants,” Biden said. “I will never refer to immigrants as to poisoning the blood of a country. And further, I’ll never separate children from their families at the border. I will not ban people from this country because of their religious beliefs. I will not use the U.S. military to go into neighborhoods all across the country to pull millions of people out of their homes and away from their families to put detention camps while awaiting deportation, as my predecessor says he will do.”
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland is pushing back forcefully on “false” and “extremely dangerous” narratives he says are being spread about the Department of Justice in an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
The hearing comes as House GOP lawmakers threaten to hold Garland in contempt for withholding records they’ve subpoenaed from Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents following his vice presidency, including audio recordings of Hur’s interview.
“Certain members of this Committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining — for no legitimate purpose — sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations,” Garland said in his opening statements. “This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work.”
Garland’s appearance before the committee became contentious from the start as Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked off questioning for Republicans. He peppered Garland with a combination of hypotheticals that the attorney general declined to engage with while trying to tie the Justice Department to state-level investigations independent from the department.
Asked whether the Justice Department will provide any documents and correspondence between the department and the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose investigation into former President Donald Trump resulted in a jury convicting him on 34 felony counts last week, and Fulton County, Georgia’s District Attorney Fani Willis, the prosecutor who brought a sprawling racketeering case against Trump, Garland responded that both those offices are independent from the Justice Department and said any requests for correspondence from Congress would be referred to the Office of Legislative Affairs.
Gaetz then hit back arguing that by refusing to immediately hand over any such documents, the Justice Department is only fomenting more conspiracy theories.
During the back-and-forth, Garland repeated that the Justice Department had no involvement in Bragg’s investigation. In his opening remarks, Garland said that “conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself.”
“The case in New York is brought by the Manhattan district attorney independently on his own volition, as [his] own determination of what was, what he believed was a violation of state law,” Garland said to Gaetz.
Garland also rebuked “baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods … being spread about the FBI’s law enforcement operations,” he said, an apparent reference to conspiracy theories spread by Trump and his allies that President Joe Biden authorized the use of deadly force in the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Democrat, asked Garland what the impact is on the department when Trump and Republicans baselessly claim that Biden sought to assassinate Trump during the search of Mar-a-Lago. 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.
“This is dangerous,” Garland said. “It raises the threats of violence against prosecutors and career agents,” Garland said. “The allegation is false, as the FBI has explained, the document that’s being discussed is our standard use of force protocol, which is a limitation on the use of force, and which is routinely part of the package for search warrants, and was part of the package for the search of President Biden’s home as well.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican, pressed Garland over his appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel, leveling various suggestions that Smith was a political hit-man out to “get” Trump.
“I appointed somebody who was not a political appointee, somebody who was independent, non partisan, with a with a record of career experience as a prosecutor. That seemed to me the perfect resume,” Garland said.
Garland also answered directly when Jordan pressed whether he regretted picking Smith to oversee the investigations into Trump.
“No I do not regret picking him,” Garland said.
Garland defended the Justice Department’s recent decision to urge Biden to assert executive privilege over the remaining records from Hur’s investigation, arguing that handing over the materials could have the impact of jeopardizing future high-profile investigations.
“I view contempt as a serious matter. But I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations,” Garland said. “I will not be intimidated. And the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence. And we will not back down from defending our democracy.”
(WASHINGTON) — As former President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen from him, those rumored to be in the running to be his vice-presidential nominee have walked a tightrope when asked if they would accept the 2024 results and how they viewed the 2020 election.
On the question of whether one’s views on the 2020 results and possibly the 2024 elections are a litmus test for potentially being picked as a vice president, Trump told Time magazine he “wouldn’t feel good” hiring someone on his campaign who acknowledged President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
Trump has applied this strategy at the Republican National Committee, where the former president has filled the organization with his allies, including his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump. As ABC News reported, the RNC asked those seeking employment within the organization if they believed the 2020 election was stolen.
Now, Trump’s vice-presidential hopefuls are facing the same test.
While the former president hasn’t yet indicated who he will pick to be his vice president, he has said he plans to make his announcement closer to the Republican National Convention, which is less than six weeks away.
On CNN in May, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott was asked if he would certify the 2024 election regardless of who wins. The senator, who also certified the 2020 election results, said he expects Trump to be declared the winner.
“Well, certainly, we expect a fair and honest election and as a result of that expectation, we will certify the election and certify President Donald Trump as our 47th President,” Scott responded.
Asked by Dana Bash on CNN in May if he would accept the 2024 election results, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance said he would as long as the elections were “free and fair” — sharing thoughts similar to Scott’s that the results would show Trump as the victor.
“I totally plan to accept the results of 2024, I think that Donald Trump will be the [victor] and if it’s a free and fair election, Dana, I think every Republican will enthusiastically accept the results,” Vance said. “And again, I think those results will show that Donald Trump has been elected president, reelected president.”
Asked if he would accept the results if Biden were declared the winner, Vance said, “sure, if it’s a free and fair election.”
On NBC’s Meet the Press in May, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio refused to say whether he would accept the 2024 election results.
“I think you’re asking the wrong person. The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000,” Rubio said.
Unlike some of his colleagues in the Senate, Rubio did vote to certify the 2020 election.
During the 2024 GOP presidential primary debate in Milwaukee last August, North Dakota Gov. Doug Brugum said that former Vice President Mike Pence did the “right thing” on Jan. 6, 2021, when a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers sought to certify the 2020 election results. Pence rejected calls for him to either block or delay the certification.
In an interview with CNN in May, Burgum told Jake Tapper that he believes Biden won the 2020 election but that there were also “irregularities” in the voting process because of COVID.
“I believe that Joe Biden won the 2020 election but I also based on the number of votes in but I think that because of COVID there was a huge number of irregularities because we changed a bunch of rules in certain places and certain precincts in certain states,” he said.
New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who did not vote to certify the 2020 election results, didn’t commit to accepting the 2024 election when asked earlier this year.
“We will see if this is a legal and valid election,” Stefanik told NBC News.
Sen. Tom Cotton, who voted to certify the 2020 election, said last week that Americans should accept the 2024 results as long as they are “free and fair.”
“What I won’t do, and I don’t think what any candidate should do is renounce, in advance, the ability to challenge any kind of fraud or unfairness in the elections,” Cotton said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland is set to push back forcefully on “false” and “extremely dangerous” narratives he says are being spread about the Department of Justice in an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
The hearing comes as House GOP lawmakers threaten to hold Garland in contempt for withholding records they’ve subpoenaed from Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents following his vice presidency, including audio recordings of Hur’s interview.
“Certain members of this Committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining — for no legitimate purpose — sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations,” Garland will say, according to prepared remarks released by the Department of Justice. “This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work.”
Additionally, according to his remarks, Garland will directly dispute claims the department had any involvement in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into former President Donald Trump — that last week resulted in a jury convicting him on 34 felony counts.
“That conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself,” Garland will say, according to his remarks.
He will also rebuke “baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods … being spread about the FBI’s law enforcement operations,” he is expected to say, an apparent reference to conspiracy theories spread by Trump and his allies that Biden authorized the use of deadly force in the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022.
In late May, Garland called Trump’s accusation, which came after documents were unsealed 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,” Garland previously told reporters. “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.
“It comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have been singled out just for doing their jobs,” Garland will say. “And it comes at a time when we are seeing heinous threats of violence being directed at the Justice Department’s career public servants. These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented and unfounded.”
Garland is expected to further stand by the Justice Department’s recent decision to urge Biden to assert executive privilege over the remaining records from Hur’s investigation, arguing that handing over the materials could have the impact of jeopardizing future high-profile investigations.
“I view contempt as a serious matter. But I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations,” Garland will say. “I will not be intimidated. And the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence. And we will not back down from defending our democracy.”
(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%).
President Joe Biden announces a proposed ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza while delivering remarks at the White House in Washington, DC, May 31, 2024. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(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.”
