Politics

(NEW YORK) — United States Sen. Bob Menendez is set to go on trial starting Monday in his federal bribery case.

The New Jersey Democrat 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.

He is the first sitting member of Congress to be charged with conspiracy by a public official to act as a foreign agent.

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

Here’s what to know about the case:

Menendez indicted on bribery, extortion and more

A federal grand jury in New York returned a sweeping indictment against Menendez in September 2023 that accused him and his wife, Nadine Menendez, of having a corrupt relationship with three New Jersey businessmen.

The indictment on bribery and extortion charges alleged that he and his wife accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from Wael Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daides between 2018 and 2022 in exchange for using the senator’s power and influence to seek to protect and enrich the businessmen and benefit the government of Egypt.

In June 2022, federal agents searched Menendez’s New Jersey home and found “fruits” of the pair’s “corrupt bribery agreement” with the three businessmen, according to the indictment. Investigators found over $480,000 in cash, some stuffed in envelopes and hidden in clothing, as well as $70,000 in Nadine Menendez’s safe deposit box, according to the indictment.

Also found in the home were over $100,000 worth of gold bars, “provided by either Hana or Daibes,” according to the indictment.

In exchange for bribe payments, Menendez was meant to help lift a block on U.S. military aid to Egypt and “improperly advised and pressured” a U.S. agricultural official to protect an exclusive contract for Hana to be the exclusive purveyor of halal meat to Egypt, according to the indictment. The senator is also accused of seeking to disrupt criminal investigations into Uribe and Daibes.

In October 2023, federal prosecutors filed a new charge against Menendez accusing him of violating a prohibition on members of Congress from acting as an agent of a foreign principal. The superseding indictment alleged that the senator “made multiple requests for the U.S. Department of Justice to commence an investigation against another person for allegedly failing to register under FARA [the Foreign Agents Registration Act].”

A superseding indictment filed in January accused Menendez of making positive comments about Qatar in exchange for items of value, including luxury wristwatches valued between $10,000 and $24,000.

Another superseding indictment filed in March charged Menendez and his wife with new counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice related to their alleged attempts to cover up the bribe payments when the couple learned of the federal investigation in 2022.

The pair allegedly instructed their attorneys at the time to tell federal investigators they thought a mortgage payment on Nadine Menendez’s house and a payment for her Mercedes-Benz were loans when, in fact, prosecutors said they knew the payments were bribes.

With the latest superseding indictment, Menendez faces 16 total charges in the case while his wife faces 15. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Menendez: ‘I intend to prove my innocence’

Menendez has vehemently denied any wrongdoing in the months following the initial indictment.

“I’m innocent — and I intend to prove my innocence, not just for me, but for the precedent this case will set for you and future members of the Senate,” Menendez said on the Senate floor in January.

He complained bitterly about federal prosecutors filing multiple superseding indictments, saying it “allows the government to keep the sensational story in the press. It poisons the jury pool and it seeks to convict me in the court of public opinion.”

He also said that “prosecutors sometimes shoot first before they even know all the facts.”

“The government seeks to use baseless conjecture, not facts, to create the connective tissue to substantiate the allegations,” Menedez said. “They show a picture of watches but not proof of receiving any such gifts.”

Menendez has said the wads of cash found in his jacket, his closet and in other parts of his home were the results of legitimate withdrawals he makes from his savings account, what he likened to “old fashioned” paranoia of the son of a Cuban immigrant worried about confiscation.

Following the most recent indictment in March, Menendez denied all wrongdoing and called the prosecution “overzealous” and the superseding indictment “a flagrant abuse of power.”

“The government has long known that I learned of and helped repay loans — not bribes — that had been provided to my wife,” the statement said.

Menendez and wife to be tried separately

Menendez and his wife are being tried separately due to Nadine Menendez’s undisclosed medical condition. Her trial is scheduled to start on July 8.

An attorney representing Menendez’s wife previously told ABC News that she “denies any wrongdoing and will vigorously defend against these allegations in court.”

Menendez may seek to blame his wife when he stands trial, according to a court document unsealed last month.

The potential line of defense was filed secretly earlier this year, before the judge ruled in April that Menendez and his wife would be tried separately. Defense attorneys said Menendez could take the stand in his own defense and implicate his wife by suggesting she kept information from him and he was unaware of her allegedly illegal activities, according to the filing.

Co-defendant pleads guilty

One of the three businessmen charged in the case has since pleaded guilty.

Uribe agreed to cooperate as part of his plea and to “truthfully and completely disclose all information with respect to the activities of himself and others,” according to court records filed in March.

Uribe pleaded guilty to seven counts including bribery, conspiracy and obstruction. He admitted to giving the luxury car to Nadine Menendez in exchange for the senator’s help, prosecutors said.

The recent obstruction accusations in the superseding indictment filed in March appear to result from this guilty plea.

The other two businessmen charged in the case have pleaded not guilty to their respective charges and are also set to go on trial in Manhattan federal court along with Menendez.

Menendez does not resign

Menendez has served as senator for New Jersey since 2006. He stepped down as the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee following the initial indictment in September 2023 though has refused to resign despite calls to do so from a majority of his Democratic Senate colleagues.

In March, Menendez announced that will not seek another term as a Democrat but he 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. “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.”

Prior corruption case ended in mistrial

This is the second time the senator has been charged with corruption. A 2015 indictment ended in a mistrial in 2018 after a jury failed to reach a verdict on all counts and a judge acquitted him on some charges.

The previous charges against Menendez centered on his relationship with Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, a close ally of the senator. Menendez allegedly accepted gifts from Melgen in exchange for using the power of his senate office to benefit the doctor’s financial and personal interests.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a pioneering measure to hold companies responsible for environmental damage, Vermont is poised to make oil and gas giants shell out billions in climate change cleanup.

Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, which parallels the Environmental Protection Agency’s superfund program, would mandate high-emission corporations — such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron — to be financially accountable for a portion of the costs of extreme weather damage in the state.

“For decades, fossil fuel corporations knowingly destroyed our planet for short-term profits,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told ABC News.

If approved, companies responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution in the state would make payments calculated based on each corporation’s emissions from 1995 to 2024, according to the legislation.

The bill would use data from the Carbon Majors database, which analyzes historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal and cement producers, to litigate the climate liability claims.

Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources would then allocate the funding for the Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program Fund to enhance infrastructure, weatherproof public buildings and address the health impacts of climate change, the bill states.

The groundbreaking measure would make Vermont the first state in the country to enact a bill of this kind, with New York, California, Maryland and Massachusetts attempting to push similar policies.

“I am proud that Vermont will go further than any other state in forcing the fossil fuel industry to pay for the destruction caused by the crisis of climate change,” Sanders said.

Marking a bipartisan victory, the bill passed in both Vermont’s Senate and House with an overwhelming majority and is headed to Republican Governor Phil Scott’s desk to sign or veto.

If vetoed, Vermont’s General Assembly is prepared to reconvene next month to consider an override vote, according to Vermont Public.

Proponents of the bill say the Superfund Act is the first legal step in a decades-long environmental crusade to hold polluting companies responsible for damaging waste.

“This effort comes down to a simple lesson that we all learn as kids: If you make a mess, you have to clean it up,” Elena Mihaly, vice president of the Vermont chapter of the Conservation Law Foundation, told ABC News.

In July 2023, catastrophic flooding drenched communities across Vermont, leaving two people dead, bridges and roads decimated and over a billion dollars in property damage in its wake, according to Mihaly.

“Last year’s devastating floods showed just how vulnerable Vermonters are to the climate chaos spurred by the fossil fuel industry,” Mihaly said, adding, “It’s Vermonters who bear the full burden of that chaos on our physical, mental and financial well-being.”

Adversaries of the bill warn the legislation would pit the state against billion-dollar corporations in a legal battle that could never make it out of the courtroom.

“A decision was made to go to war with corporations that probably have as many attorneys as we do citizens,” Vermont Sen. Russ Ingalls, who cast one of the three votes against the bill, told ABC News, adding, “We will be squashed like a bug.”

Ingalls contends the Superfund Act would “cause our property taxes to rise by nearly 15%,” arguing that the potential “millions” spent in litigation could be better spent.

A spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute (API), the largest U.S. trade association for the oil and natural gas industry, argued the Superfund Act would “stall” corporation’s progress to create “low-carbon solutions.”

“America’s natural gas and oil industry is working to address climate change and build a lower carbon future, while simultaneously meeting the world’s growing energy needs,” API’s Scott Lauermann told ABC News.

“This proposal is nothing more than an unnecessary new fee on American energy that would only stall the innovative progress underway to accelerate low-carbon solutions while delivering the energy communities need,” Lauermann said.

Environmental experts fear that promises of a sustainable future are not pushing the needle far enough when extreme weather damage has left communities displaced, and a state scrambling to respond.

“The reality is, the climate crisis is here,” Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, told ABC News. “It’s already costing even little Vermont hundreds of millions of dollars — so, we have to do right by our citizens and invest more in resiliency and adaptation.”

Infrastructure projects funded by corporations would include flood protections such as upgrading stormwater drainage systems, making defensive upgrades to roads, bridges, railroads and transit systems, retrofitting sewage treatment plants and other infrastructure sites vulnerable to flooding and more, according to the bill.

Mihaly believes “the Climate Superfund bill is a rational, lawful and necessary means of holding the fossil fuel industry accountable to pay their fair share of those burdens.”

“The global fossil fuel industry has contributed to making a mess in Vermont – and it’s time for them to help clean it up,” Mihaly said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SAN FRANCISCO) — Federal prosecutors are seeking a maximum sentence for the man who was convicted of breaking into former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home and attacking her husband Paul with a hammer in 2022.

The Department of Justice filed a sentencing memorandum Friday in anticipation of next week’s sentencing of David DePape, saying he should be held in prison for 40 years for his crimes.

DePape was convicted in November for the Oct. 28, 2022, break-in and attack of Paul Pelosi.

Paul Pelosi, 84, suffered a skull fracture and was hospitalized for six days. The attack was captured on police body camera footage by officers who responded to the scene.

Federal prosecutors contend that the crime was an act of terrorism and that DePape should get more than the guidelines.

“The defendant planned a violent hostage-taking of the Speaker Emerita, and then nearly killed her husband. The defendant planned and unleashed violence and has stayed true to his belief that the actions were necessary,” prosecutors said in the sentencing memorandum.

The attempted kidnapping charge carries a maximum of 20 years in prison while DePape’s second charge carries a maximum of 30 years in prison. Federal prosecutors asked that 20 years of the second charge run consecutively with the first count instead of concurrently.

DePape admitted on the stand that he broke into the home because he wanted to speak with Rep. Pelosi about what he claimed was Russian interference in the 2020 election. He claimed that Paul Pelosi was not his target.

DePape told investigators if she told the truth, he said he “would let her go, and if she ‘lied’ he was going to break ‘her kneecaps,'” according to the criminal complaint.

“The violent lessons that the defendant wanted to teach are not permitted in this country, and the sentence that this court imposes must reflect the nature and circumstances of the offense,” federal prosecutors said in the memorandum.
In addition to the 40-year prison sentence, federal prosecutors want eight years of supervised release when DePape does get out of prison.

DePape’s attorney did not immediately comment on the government’s recommendations.

DePape is also facing state charges in connection with the attack including attempted murder. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Although congressional Republicans have been slamming President Joe Biden over his decision to withhold certain bomb shipments to Israel, such a move is not unprecedented, as they’ve claimed.

Previous presidents, including Republican ones, have withheld aid to send a clear message to Israel and other allies, a foreign policy expert told ABC News.

However, given Biden’s dispute with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over a planned major invasion of Rafah and the risk of civilian casualties — combined with political unrest in the U.S. – his move carries a heavier risk, said Michael Sullivan, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

“This is all part of security cooperation,” Sullivan said. “At the end of the day, the president has the right to use every tool he can in his toolbox.”

Sullivan, a retired U.S. Army colonel who was involved with U.S. arms transfers, noted that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both halted key aid to Israel during their terms over concerns about Israeli actions.

In the summer of 1981, President Reagan held back the delivery of U.S. fighter jets to Israel for two months after it bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq.

In July 1982, he halted a shipment of cluster shells to Israel over how Israel used the weapons during its invasion of Lebanon. American officials at the time were reviewing if the use of the weapons violated an agreement between the U.S. and Israel.

In March 1992, President Bush delayed a $10 billion loan to Israel over concerns about Israel going forward with settlements in the West Bank.

Sullivan said that there wasn’t much political criticism of Reagan or Bush’s aid pauses both domestically and internationally because the conflict in the Middle East was not at the front and center of foreign policy as it is today.

“Even when you had that rift there was still a clear understanding of U.S.-Israeli foreign policy and everybody moved on,” he said.

Numerous factors involving the current conflict, including the increased political polarization in Washington, have created a different environment for the president creating more scrutiny, according to Sullivan.

The Biden administration told Israel last week that it would withhold the shipment of 3,500 bombs due to its concerns over an offensive into Rafah and the threat that posed to more than one million Palestinian civilians seeking refuge there.

Biden told CNN Wednesday that Israel has used those American weapons to kill civilians in its war on Hamas in Gaza.

“I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities,” Biden said.

The president and other White House officials have stressed their commitment to support Israel.

“And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, the security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad, even when we disagree,” Biden said Tuesday in the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s Days of Remembrance speech.

Several Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, have blasted Biden’s move.

Graham said Israel is fighting a “just war” and making efforts to warn civilians before attacks.

“I think Israel is in a fight for its life that the reason so many Palestinians have been killed is because Hamas has command centers under hospitals. Don’t reward their behavior,” the South Carolina senator said at a news conference along with nine GOP colleagues.

Sullivan said the Republicans’ objections not only ignored the precedent set by previous administrations when it comes to U.S-Israel policy, but also the fundamental understanding of the powers of the president when it comes to foreign relations.

“What I really think is that it’s the politics of it, and everyone is looking for an advantage in an election year, but at the end of the day, President Biden is the commander-in-chief and he has the legal right to pause a military shipment,” he said.

McConnell and other Republicans also accused Biden of caving into the pressure from pro-Palestinian protesters from around the country who have called for a cease-fire and colleges and universities to divest from Israel because of civilian deaths.

Sullivan said it’s unclear how much the protests played into Biden’s decision and it was more likely driven by the escalating concerns specifically about Rafah.

“We were getting closer to a cease-fire, and we have repeatedly urged Israel not to go into Rafah because of the humanitarian crisis. At this point it is, timing-wise, the right time to send that message,” he said.

Sullivan emphasized that Biden’s move did not end military aid to Israel and the nation still has enough firepower to defend itself or launch an attack on Rafah.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby did not have a timeline on how long the hold on the shipment will last, stating Thursday he believed “a lot is going to depend on what we see in Israel do in Rafah and in their planning for Rafah.”

Sullivan said it is hard to predict the short-term outcome of Biden’s action given the volatility of the situation.

“[Biden] and his administration has to know there will be costs to that decision whether it’s politically or militarily,” he said.

Netanyahu said in a statement that Israeli forces are still committed to a Rafah invasion.

However, Sullivan said that the U.S. weapons halt will still have an influence on Israeli operations and predicted other such pauses are on the table.

“Right now, Benjamin Netanyahu has every right to disagree and do what he wants to do, but now he has the understanding that if the U.S. doesn’t agree, there are sticks as well as carrots,” he said.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Conor Finnegan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — While President Joe Biden’s slim victory over former President Donald Trump in Georgia last election cycle broke a nearly 30-year losing streak for Democratic presidential candidates in the state, his win also sparked Trump’s attack against the legitimacy of the election itself.

While many issues — from the economy to immigration — are animating voters in the state, 2020 election denial still looms over the 2024 race in Georgia, where Trump has pleaded not guilty to 10 criminal counts over his alleged efforts to overturn the election there nearly four years ago.

But Biden’s lackluster approval, and charges he hasn’t lived up to some campaign promises, call into question whether the president can reassemble the coalition that delivered him his slimmest margin of victory — less than a quarter of a percentage point — over Trump in 2020.

“There’s no question that this is going to be a close election,” Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, a top Biden ally in the state, told ABC News senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott.

Trump currently leads Biden in Georgia by an average of 5.5 percentage points, according to 538’s polling average.

Warnock — who has been on the ballot five times over a two-year span — knows Georgia voters well. His advice to the president this election: “Keep telling the story about the work that we are doing.”

To win in November, Biden needs to turn out voters — and in particular, Black voters — in metro Atlanta’s densely populated Democratic strongholds. That includes the state’s most populous county — Fulton — where Cascade Skating roller rink, a mainstay in Atlanta’s Black community, is located.

Cascade owner Greg Alexander, who is planning to vote for Biden, said he “cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump,” but he also said that Biden needs to do a better job selling his record.

“What I’m hearing is, what has Biden done for the country? What has been done for Black people?” Alexander told Scott. “I think if he’s going to be successful in this go around, he has to really focus on getting the word out on, ‘This is what I’ve done, this is what I stand for.'”

Navy veteran Bucky Bassette, a skater ABC News spoke to at Cascade, said he is still undecided about who he will support in November.

“What frustrates you most with President Biden?” Scott asked Bassette.

“I don’t like to be pandered to,” he said. “I don’t like anyone to tell me who, who I should vote for. And I feel like a lot of times, you know, the Democratic Party at times does do that.”

Bassette said he may sit out the election altogether — and he’s not alone. A January poll from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that 1 in 10 Black Georgia voters do not plan to vote in the presidential election this year.

Warnock said he believes Georgia voters, including Black voters, will “show up” for the president.

“Not to vote is to vote — it is to push Donald Trump a little bit closer to the White House. And that is a dangerous proposition,” he said.

A Trump victory, however, is what several voters ABC News met in Georgia are hoping for.

Tommy Thomas, the owner of Thomas Barber Shop in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta, supports Trump and is optimistic about his prospects in November, telling Scott, “I think if people look at their pocketbooks, I think they’re gonna change your mind this time.”

But to retake the state, Trump will also have to win back voters who have soured on him since the last election, voters like Lynn Dinkins, a self-described “big Nikki Haley supporter.”

While Dinkins supported Trump in 2020, this time, she says his priorities are off.

“I feel like there’s just so much drama associated with him at the moment, and I’m not convinced that he is necessarily focused on the issues at hand right now,” she told Scott.

Out in Rockmart, Georgia, a city of about 5,000 people in Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s congressional district, support for the former president was strong.

“I like his vibe,” said Bill Sportiello, the owner of local bar and grill, The Rails at Rockmart.

He said life was better for him during the Trump administration, and that Trump’s legal issues are not a concern for him.

“I’m a businessman myself, and I feel it’s more of a witch hunt than anything,” he told Scott.

Sharon Capes, a patron at The Rails, told Scott that Trump’s legal issues make her support the former president even more, and that she would “absolutely” still support Trump if he were convicted of a crime.

“No questions asked, no questions asked,” she said. “I would bail him out if I could afford it.”

Capes echoed Trump’s false claims that the last election was stolen. Asked by Scott what would make her trust the election this time, Capes said she would probably trust it “if Trump wins.”

Gabriel Sterling, the chief operations officer in the Georgia secretary of state’s office, said that position undermines American democracy.

“What happens if he wins Georgia, but loses the country. Do you accept it then? What happens if he loses Georgia, but wins the country — do you accept it then?” Sterling told Scott in an interview. “I mean, you can’t base your belief in the outcome based on whether your side wins or not. That’s just not logical.”

A lifelong Republican, Sterling supported Trump in 2020. But when Trump refused to accept that he lost the election, Sterling became one of the loudest voices defending Georgia’s election.

His plea to voters this cycle: Have faith in the system.

“Anybody saying, ‘I feel safe about my vote here, but I don’t know about those guys over there — we do know about those guys over there.’ It’s a little bit different, but it’s safe and secure everywhere in America,” he said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Department of Veterans Affairs officials improperly approved nearly $11 million in bonuses to senior executives intended for other workers, a department watchdog said in a new report.

The money was recently allocated by Congress and intended to be used to recruit “critical skill” employees but ended up in the hands of senior executives in the VA’s central Washington office, according to an inspector general’s report posted Thursday.

The funds, authorized by the Pact Act, were meant to be incentives in hiring and retaining specialists needed to process billion in new benefits for veterans dealing with health issues from being exposed to burn pits. Agent Orange and other toxic hazards.

The IG report said the money was paid instead as bonuses to more than 180 senior executives last year, with several taking home more than $100,000.

The average bonus paid out was over $55,000, the report said.

The Washington Post first reported the results of the inspector general’s investigation.

The IG said the improperly approved bonuses were due, in part, to breakdowns in leadership and controls at multiple levels of the VA.

The IG recommended the “Secretary of Veterans Affairs or his designee takes appropriate action to determine whether individuals involved in the decision-making process … had any actual or apparent conflicts of interest and develop a process to ensure all decision-makers are free from conflicts when awarding future incentives.”

When Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough in September ordered the executives to return the money, most did or agreed to do so, but 19 have challenged having to repay the bonuses, the IG report said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(BALTIMORE) — Maryland’s Democratic Senate primary is careening toward a bitter finish as voters decide who to nominate in an unexpectedly competitive race in the deep blue bastion.

Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks and Rep. David Trone are the two main contenders in a primary that has sparked debates over everything from money in politics to electability to Democrats’ commitment to diversity to Senate control.

Trone, the wealthy founder of Total Wine & More and two-term congressman, has dumped more than $50 million of his own money into the race, has racked up endorsements from congressional colleagues and has insinuated that Alsobrooks isn’t ready for the major leagues of federal politics.

Alsobrooks, a Black woman who oversees one of Maryland’s largest counties in the suburbs of the nation’s capital (which is also one of the country’s richest majority Black counties) has consolidated support from local politicos while casting herself as an above-the-fray, grassroots contender.

Polling shows the candidates locked in a close race. According to 538’s polling average in the Maryland Democratic primary as of May 10, Trone is polling at 44.3%, while Alsobrooks follows with 38.7%.

The victor will likely face popular former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, whose 11th-hour candidacy turned the race from a sleepy affair safely in Democrats’ column to a race Democrats have to sweat in one of the country’s bluest states — with nothing short of Senate control at stake.

“The race is very fluid. If we were having this conversation a month ago, I’d say that there’s a clear advance for David Trone. But County Executive Alsobrooks has had a good run here as of late,” said longtime Maryland Democratic strategist Len Foxwell. “I think it’s a toss-up right now.”

Trone burst onto the scene with a war chest that would prove hard for Alsobrooks to match and for virtually any candidate anywhere to replicate, blitzing the airways with advertisements as part of a nine-to-one spending advantage over his opponent. Trone and groups supporting him have spent at least $45 million on advertising in the race, rapidly eclipsing Alsobrooks and groups supporting her, who put in at least $5.6 million on advertising, per nonpartisan ad tracking firm Ad Impact.

On top of that, Trone has the backing of congressional heavy hitters such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

However, he has been tripped up in the past few weeks. A verbal slip up in which he uttered a racial slur instead of the word “bugaboo” sparked a wave of negative headlines and ushered more endorsements to Alsobrooks. Also, a recent ad supporting Trone featured one supporter saying the Senate is not a place for those who need “training wheels” — a swipe at Alsobrooks that critics said was a punch below the belt.

Trone apologized for the verbal slip, saying he didn’t know the word was a racial slur. On Tuesday night, Trone said that the “training wheels” comment is one the supporter stands by, not one he made.

“And frankly, [Alsobrooks] doesn’t have the experience at the federal level,” Trone added — a mea culpa Alsobrooks’ supporters panned as inadequate.

Asked about the Trone’s attacks on her experience level in Riverdale Park, Maryland, on Thursday, Alsobrooks told ABC News that the tightening of the race triggered his remarks.

“The truth of the matter is because we are on course to win the race, he’s now turned to negative attacks,” Alsobrooks said to reporters.

“My opponent has spent $62 million trying to buy this race — after hearing about my experience, hearing about my record and about my vision for the state,” Alsobrooks added.

Alsobrooks is facing the daunting task of matching up against one of Congress’ wealthiest members by building support among popular lawmakers such as Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and members of what Foxwell called the state Democratic machine.

“[Alsobrooks] is the consummate insider [with] deep relationships inside the Annapolis clubhouse,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the Democratic political class and all these ads from the entire constellation of Democratic leaders in Maryland coming together behind [Alsobrooks].”

Alsobrooks’ candidacy has clear historic significance, especially in a state where more than 30% of the population is Black. No Black women currently serve in the Senate, after their already minuscule ranks dwindled from one to zero, after Vice President Kamala Harris departed for the White House.

“Black women deserve to be in all spaces where decisions are being made. It is shameful that in 2024, we do not currently have a Black woman serving in the United States Senate,” Dominik Whitehead, NAACP Vice President of Campaigns said in a statement to ABC News.

Taken together, the clashing appeals of the two candidates have set the stage for a race that observers said either Alsobrooks or Trone could win.

Towering over the race is Hogan, who hasn’t run in a presidential year or for federal office before, but has a track record of winning over Democratic voters, making electability against the two-term former governor the heartbeat of the race rather than any of the minimal policy disagreements between Alsobrooks and Trone.

“A big part of the process for them is figuring out who has the best chance to win in November because it’s likely that the Senate is going to be chipped by a few seats one way or the other,” said Michael Hanmer, the director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement.

At a Tuesday night rally at a movie theater in Silver Spring, Maryland, Trone led a “beat Hogan!” chant and said that his record and experience means he has what it takes to win in the general election, even as he struggled to differentiate himself from Alsobrooks.

“This election, the U.S. Senate is at stake. Our democracy could be at stake,” Trone told the crowd.

Interviews with voters revealed a particular attention to party control of the Senate next year and who could give Hogan a tougher challenge.

“I think right now, it’s really hard for me to support Republican candidates in general,” said Potomac, Maryland, voter Elizabeth Miller, who voiced worries about the “greater composition of our political sphere” and said she voted for Trone in the primary.

“I’m for sure voting Democrat just because having control in the Senate is such a big deal for me,” added 18-year-old first-time voter Mackenzie Kinol, who was still deciding who to support when asked by ABC News on Tuesday.

Amid the Democratic infighting, Republicans are chomping at the bit to have Hogan on their general election ballot this November.

Sen. Steve Daines R-Mont., head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said last week that Hogan’s favorable polling and posture as a “maverick” who breaks with both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden would make him competitive in November.

“He has a maverick kind of brand as a popular two-term Republican governor in a blue state. Marylanders — they trust him. He’s got a proven track record. And Larry Hogan is just a terrific candidate,” Daines said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast in Washington, D.C.

Daines echoed Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, who told Politico last week that he thought Maryland was in play for Republicans this cycle, along with Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania.

But Nathaniel Rakich, senior elections analyst at 538, threw some cold water on Republican’s Maryland pickup prospects.

“In 2020, only one state voted for different parties for president and Senate. In 2016, none did. Perhaps it could happen this year in a swing state, but Maryland voted for Biden by 33 percentage points in 2020, and he will probably win it by a similar margin in 2024. A Senate candidate overperforming his party’s presidential candidate by that much is virtually unheard of,” Rakich said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court upheld the criminal conviction of ex-Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison for contempt in October 2022, but U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols agreed to postpone the jail term while Bannon appealed the decision.

“We conclude that none of the information sought in the trial subpoenas was relevant to the elements of the contempt offense, nor to any affirmative defense Bannon was entitled to present at trial,” the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its opinion Friday.

“The judgment of conviction and sentence [is] affirmed,” the judges concluded.

Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro is currently serving a four-month sentence in prison after he was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress.

Prosecutors had been seeking a six-month sentence for Bannon, though he could’ve faced up to two years in prison.

Bannon was also ordered to pay a $6,500 fine, much less than the $200,000 the government had been seeking.

Prosecutors blasted Bannon’s reason for skipping the subpoena, writing in their sentencing request, “From the time he was initially subpoenaed, the Defendant has shown that his true reasons for total noncompliance have nothing to do with his purported respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, or executive privilege, and everything to do with his personal disdain for the members of Congress sitting on the Committee and their effort to investigate the attack on our country’s peaceful transfer of power.”

Bannon is facing an unrelated trial on fraud charges connected to the “We Build the Wall” online fundraising campaign, which was supposed to raise money for Trump’s signature domestic project. Instead, prosecutors allege Bannon defrauded donors by falsely promising that none of the money they donated would be used to pay the salary of “We Build the Wall” president Brian Kolfage — while Bannon secretly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage by laundering it through third-party entities.

Bannon has pleaded not guilty. The trial was scheduled for May, but has been postponed to later in the year since Judge Juan Merchan is currently overseeing the hush money trial for Bannon’s former boss, Trump.

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Alexander Mallin and Aaron Katersky contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — As the largest growing group of eligible voters in the United States, the Asian American Pacific Islanders vote will be crucial in the upcoming election. In an effort to harness that vote, several organizations are launching campaigns with influencers who have large AAPI followings to mobilize voters ahead of November.

Ameya Okamoto, a New York-based nail artist who specializes in bold, concept-driven sculpture nail art, is one of those influencers.

“I did nail art, kind of inspiring and calling to the Asian American community to kind of turn up for the midterms, which I think a lot of people don’t think enough about,” Okamoto said about one of her videos created for a campaign run by Run AAPI, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization.

Campaigns from groups such as Run AAPI and Asian American Futures are seeking to take advantage of the growing Asian American Native-Hawaiian Pacific Islander population in the U.S., which has grown 81% from 2000 to 2019. About 15 million Asian Americans are projected to be eligible to vote in 2024 — a number that has ballooned by 15%, or roughly 2 million voters, in the last four years, according to Pew Research Center. About 15 million Asian Americans are projected to be eligible to vote in 2024, Pew Research Center found.

This summer, these campaigns will especially look to recruit influencers with large AAPI followings in battleground states. Thao Nguyen, a Georgia-based TikToker with more than 400,000 followers, was recruited for a pilot version of Run AAPI’s summer campaign in 2022.

She used a “red flags” trend — describing a list of turnoffs — to bring up the topic of voting.

“No. 3: people who don’t care about politics. I don’t understand why people sit at home and complain about things that were different in their community when they could just go vote for somebody that stands for that,” she said in the video, which has more than 14,000 views.

Run AAPI Executive Director Linh Nguyen said the organization — as well as other similar organizations — are looking for influencers in areas with multiple AAPI candidates as well. She said they are looking to target areas such as Orange County, California, where Reps. Young Kim and Michelle Steel are both fighting to keep their seats and State Sen. Dave Min is looking to replace Rep. Katie Porter.

The hope, Linh Nguyen said, is to signal something bigger within the young AAPI community.

“Generally the younger Asian American community, like we are shaping everyday life, right?” she said. “And whether that’s shaping political life, political representation, how we see ourselves in entertainment, on the news, how we’re represented in so many other facets of life.”

For the 2023 midterm election, Linh Nguyen reached out to Okamoto, who lives near New York’s 3rd Congressional District. Asian American voters make up more than 20% of voters in the area, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

This February, Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, won that district’s congressional seat in a special election to replace ousted Republican Rep. George Santos. Souzzi’s campaign dedicated resources to reaching the AAPI community, which, Linh Nguyen said, highlights how candidates should be targeting growing, young diverse communities.

“They are the next generation of political thought leaders. They’re the ones who are going to change the whole policy landscape, how we think of governance,” Linh Nguyen said. “But it really does live online. And it’s exciting to see that come into play.”

Okamoto said she was grateful for the chance to be part of “something bigger” with her posts. She said she’s glad to use her platform to get out the AAPI vote, especially at a time when she’s finally feeling more proud of her Japanese heritage.

“A lot of my clientele are young Asian American girls and a lot of them find me through social media. And a lot of our conversations are about family and identity, and how we show up in the world physically, because that has kind of become a big part of my art practice,” Okamoto said. “What are the choices that you are allowed to make that feel empowering to you? Because we all deserve that.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice and civil rights groups filed two separate lawsuits on Thursday aiming to block a controversial immigration law — known as SF 2340 — from going into effect in Iowa.

SF 2340 authorizes local law enforcement officials to arrest migrants who have previously been deported or removed from the country, or who have been denied entry in the past. It also gives judges the power to order a person to be sent back to the country from which the person entered the United States.

The law also does not prohibit children from being charged.

The DOJ’s lawsuit comes just one week after Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton penned a letter to Gov. Kim Reynolds, obtained by ABC News, urging her to strike down the law by May 7 or face legal action.

The state lawmakers passed the law last month and Gov. Kim Reynolds signed it, it’s scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

“Iowa cannot disregard the U.S. Constitution and settled Supreme Court precedent,” said Boynton in a statement. “We have brought this action to ensure that Iowa adheres to the framework adopted by Congress and the Constitution for regulation of immigration.”

The law was largely shaped after a similar law in Texas — Senate Bill 4, also known as SB 4 — which is currently blocked from going into effect while its constitutionality is decided by the courts. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against that law as well, which allows local law enforcement officials to arrest migrants they suspect of entering the country illegally. Like the Iowa law, it authorizes a judge to order a person’s removal from the country.

Early on Thursday, the American Immigration Council, American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Iowa filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice and two people the immigrant rights organization represents.

In the lawsuit, lawyers for the group said the law does not create exceptions for people who have previously been deported or denied admission, but who were later given authorization to be in the country. The groups said this means even people who have been granted asylum, are part of a protected class, or have green cards could be arrested and imprisoned.

One story highlighted in the lawsuit is that of an 18-year-old Honduran migrant whose father was murdered and sister was kidnapped in her home country. She came to the U.S. when she was 14, but was deported, according to the ACLU. She later came back to the U.S. on her own and was granted asylum.

The groups allege she’d be eligible for arrest and imprisonment under the law. 
A conviction under the law would carry anywhere from a 2-10 year prison sentence. Some offenders could face up to 5 years in prison, under a Class D felony, if their removal was “subsequent to a conviction for commission of two or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against a person, or both,” the law states.

Others could be charged with a Class C felony and face up to 10 years in prison if they were previously removed due to a felony conviction. All convicted people would face a removal order although some would get the opportunity to opt for removal instead of further prosecution.

“This ugly law is deeply harmful to Iowa families and communities. Iowa lawmakers knowingly targeted people who are protected by federal immigration laws and who are legally allowed to be here, like people granted asylum, or special visas given to survivors of domestic violence or other crimes,” ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said in a statement. “And there are lots of good reasons — related to foreign relations, national security, humanitarian interests, and our constitutional system — why the federal government enforces our immigration law, instead of all 50 states going out and doing their own thing to enforce their own separate immigration schemes. It’s hard to overstate how awful and bizarre this law is.”

In a post on X, Gov. Reynolds accused President Joe Biden of refusing to enforce existing immigration laws.

“The DOJ and ACLU are suing lowa for protecting our citizens, all while Joe Biden refuses to enforce immigration laws already on the books. If he won’t stand for the rule of law, lowa will!” the governor wrote.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.