Politics

(WASHINGTON) — On the heels of the Florida Supreme Court upholding the state’s 15-week abortion ban and paving the way for a six-week ban with few exceptions, former President Donald Trump on Tuesday teased that he will announce his own abortion plan “next week” — but offered no further details on an issue that could shape the 2024 race.

Trump’s brief comment, answering a shouted question about the Florida abortion ban at the end of a press conference-style campaign event in Michigan, comes after months of the former president dodging questions about his stance on the specifics of abortion restrictions.

At the same time, he has championed his role in the end of Roe v. Wade, which he has celebrated for preventing abortions while saying it boosted states’ rights.

Tuesday was not the first time Trump teased an update on abortion, telling Fox News’ Howard Kurtz just last month that he’ll be making a decision “pretty soon” and that “there will be a certain spot” and he wants to “make both sides happy.”

Walking out of a polling location in Florida last month after voting for himself in the state’s Republican primary, Trump again said he’ll be “talking about that soon,” while not saying when.

The Trump campaign has also declined to say if he supports or opposes a measure on the November ballot that would broaden abortion access in Florida and undo the current restrictions.

On the campaign trail so far this election cycle, Trump has mainly avoided stating whether he supports or opposes a specific number of weeks when it comes to abortion bans, insisting it’s “probably better” that the discussion be left up to the states as long as they uphold three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother.

In private conversations with allies and advisers, however, Trump has expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban with those same exceptions, ABC News reported in February, citing two sources. At the time, his campaign did not deny the reporting but issued a statement that said he would work to find middle ground on abortion, which has become a familiar refrain for him on the trail.

In an interview with NBC News in September, Trump made a point of criticizing Florida’s six-week ban, which is now on the verge of taking effect, as a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

“I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about this subject,” he said then, contending then that there would be some kind of politically viable compromise.

“Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t — you’re not going to win on this issue. But you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks,” he said.

He’s also been repeating a broad rhetoric about his support for abortion opponents, touting his role in the end of Roe through his three Supreme Court justice appointments as the evidence that he’s a champion of the anti-abortion cause.

“We did something that was a miracle,” he said during a town hall in January, suggesting that the lack of abortions since the court ruling two years ago had “saved” millions of lives.

“Nobody has done more in that regard than me,” he said.

On the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday, Trump campaign senior adviser Brian Hughes sought to stress his support for states’ rights to their own abortion laws — while rival Joe Biden’s campaign tried to tie Trump to the “extreme” Florida restrictions to argue that the issue would boost him at the ballot box.

“Protecting abortion rights is mobilizing a diverse and growing segment of voters to help buoy Democrats,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez wrote in a strategy memo, in part.

Trump’s adviser pushed back, slamming what he called Democrats’ far more permissive abortion policies.

“President Trump supports preserving life but has also made clear that he supports states’ rights because he supports the voters’ right to make decisions for themselves,” Hughes said in a statement to ABC News.

In recent weeks, however, Trump has alluded to the possibility of some level of restriction at the federal level, repeatedly mentioning discussions about a 15-week or 16-week ban during media interviews, while still claiming he’s not committed to a specific number and praising himself for sending the rights back to the states.

“I’m hearing about 15 weeks and I haven’t decided yet,” Trump said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in February. “Also, we got it back to the states where it belongs,”

“Now it’s in the states — a lot of states who are taking a vote of their citizens and votes are coming out both ways — but largely they’re coming in with a certain number of weeks, and the number 15 is mentioned,” Trump continued.

“I haven’t agreed to any number. I’m going to see — we want to take an issue that was very polarizing and get it settled and solved so everybody can be happy,” he told Hannity.

Trump similarly floated 15 weeks during an interview with WABC-TV last month, claiming “even hard-liners” seem to be agreeing that “15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing.”

Then he promised: “I’ll make that announcement at the appropriate time.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.) — Kari Lake, the Senate candidate backed by former President Donald Trump in Arizona, has raised just over $1 million at a fundraiser for her campaign underway at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate Wednesday, two campaign officials told ABC News.

The single-night haul is significant for Lake and gives her a financial boost as she seeks to fill the seat of outgoing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in November.

Lake, who is expected to be the GOP nominee, is likely to face Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego in a closely-watched matchup that could help determine which party controls the narrowly divided Senate.

Lake has been a longtime ally and staunch supporter of Trump.

Lake, a former local news anchor who has never held public office, has become known in part for her outspoken support of Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. Her Senate campaign comes after she narrowly lost her bid for governor to Democrat Katie Hobbs in 2022, after which she refused to accept the results of the race and has since continued her failed legal effort seeking to overturn that loss.

As she campaigns for office in 2024, however, Lake has noticeably softened her stance on mail-in voting — which was attacked by Trump after he lost the 2020 presidential election.

Sources familiar with Wednesday’s event said it marks a new fundraising record at Mar-a-Lago for a non-incumbent Senate candidate. Earlier this year, for example, Trump-backed candidate Bernie Moreno in Ohio raised $350,000 at his Mar-a-Lago fundraiser, according to Axios.

The fundraiser on Wednesday evening comes after Lake entered the year trailing financially behind Gallego, who entered the race nearly a year before Lake did.

Tickets to the reception cost $1,000 per person, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by ABC News. Some packages cost as much as $100,000 per couple, according to the invite, which included a two-night stay at Mar-a-Lago and a dinner with Lake following the event.

Among the donors in attendance at Wednesday’s event were Adam Kidan, a longtime Republican donor who has donated to numerous candidates, a source said. Kidan previously donated just over $13,000 to Lake’s fundraising committee in November, according to federal election records.

At the end of 2023, Lake reported raising $2.1 million in the 12 weeks since announcing her bid in October, trailing behind Gallego’s $3.3 million for the quarter.

Earlier this week, Gallego’s campaign announced it had raised $7.5 million in the first quarter of 2024. Lake’s campaign has not yet released its first-quarter fundraising numbers.

The Wednesday event also came on the heels of a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., by the National Republican Senatorial Committee that raised $330,000 for Lake, according to Politico, after she secured the endorsement from chair Steve Daines in February.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden was joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders at the White House Wednesday to highlight the administration’s efforts to lower health care costs for Americans.

The remarks were at an official event, but came as Biden makes cracking down on corporate greed and relieving financial burdens for American families a key pillar of his 2024 reelection campaign.

“You and I have been fighting this for 25 years,” Biden said to Sanders. “Finally, we beat Big Pharma, finally.”

The support from Sanders, Biden’s rival for the Democratic nomination in 2020, comes as Biden faces mounting anger from the party’s progressive wing over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war. Reporters attempted to shout questions at Biden about Gaza and the Israeli strike that killed World Central Kitchen aid workers in the strip, but he did not take any questions.

Sanders opened his remarks Wednesday by saying Americans are united, regardless of political affiliation, in being “sick and tired of paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”

“Here is some good news, despite all of the incredible wealth and political power of the pharmaceutical industry … despite all of that, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress are beginning to make some progress,” the independent senator said.

Among the accomplishments highlighted by Biden and Sanders were the Inflation Reduction Act provisions capping insulin costs at $35 for Medicare patients and out-of-pocket spending on brand-name drugs for Medicare beneficiaries to $2,000 yearly.

They also touted the ability of Medicare, for the first time, to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on the price of certain prescription drugs.

“Not one Republican in the entire Congress — it surprised me, I have to admit to you — not one single Republican voted for it,” Biden said of the Inflation Reduction Act. “Not one single one to give us authority to take on and beat Big Pharma.”

He also took several swipes at congressional Republicans and his “predecessor” for their views on Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, the national deficit, abortion access and more. Without saying Donald Trump’s name, he criticized him for his “brags” on striking down Roe v. Wade.

“I promise you with a Democratic Congress, Kamala and I will make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again,” he said. “I promise you.”

Another point of celebration between Biden and Sanders was their work to lower the costs of inhalers. Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension, led the charge in launching an investigation into the prices of the widely used products. Since then, three of the four major companies (GSK, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim) have limited out-of-pocket costs for their inhalers to $35.

“My impression is that these companies as well as many others in the pharmaceutical industry are beginning to catch onto the fact that the American people are tired of being ripped off and paying astronomical prices for the prescription drugs they need to stay alive or ease their pain,” Sanders said.

Biden noted while Americans were paying as much as $600 for inhalers, the same product and medication were available in the United Kingdom for $49.

“It’s outrageous, but we’re doing something about it finally,” he said.

Still, both Biden and Sanders said more work needs to be done. They advocated for expanding Medicare’s price negotiations to 50 drugs (the first 10 drugs subject to negotiations were unveiled last year) and for capping out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs to $2,000 for all Americans.

“With Bernie’s help we are showing how health care should be a right, not a privilege, in America,” Biden said.

ABC News’ Molly Nagle and Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republicans – including former President Donald Trump – who disagree with President Joe Biden’s immigration policies paint a dire picture of America as a country ruined by crime committed by migrants living illegally in the U.S.

It is true that some people who have committed the misdemeanor of crossing the border illegally have gone on to commit much more serious crimes. Trump has repeatedly attempted to put a national spotlight on these cases, including some gruesome murders.

However, like other claims the former president makes, his stories of what he calls “migrant crime” can be heavily skewed, exaggerated and fuel a baseless narrative.

Trump’s anecdotal accounts do not acknowledge the fact that U.S. citizens commit crimes at higher rates than undocumented immigrants.

“Relative to undocumented immigrants, U.S.-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes,” according to a 2020 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Overall, nationwide crime declined in 2023, according to the FBI. Homicide declined by 13% compared to 2022, the data show. The declining crime rate followed an unprecedented spike in homicides from 2019 to 2020.

While it is unclear how crime rates in 2024 will ultimately pan out, early data shows murder is down 20% his year, according to Jeff Asher, a data analyst and co-founder of the firm AH Datalytics.

Further research shows Trump’s presidency did not result in more arrests of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

A December 2023 study in the journal Crime and Delinquency found Trump ultimately did not make his crime reduction pledge a reality.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LINCOLN, Neb.) — Multiple key lawmakers in Nebraska are pouring cold water on the prospect of passing a long gestating bill newly endorsed by former President Donald Trump and Gov. Jim Pillen that would change the state’s system of awarding Electoral College votes.

The proposed change, to a winner-take-all model, could have major implications for both Trump’s and President Joe Biden’s paths to victory in the 2024 election, observers say.

Nebraska currently awards three of its five Electoral College votes based on the results of its three congressional districts; the other two votes are awarded based on whomever wins the state overall.

In 2020, Biden won one of those districts and earned one Electoral College vote while Trump got the other four.

Candidates need at least 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency.

Analysts say that there are various scenarios in November’s general election where Biden may need that singular vote to make it to 270 and beat Trump.

Likewise, without that possibility, it could be easier for Trump to keep Biden to no more than 269 Electoral College votes — which would mean Biden loses.

The proposed bill would reapportion the three electors awarded to the winner of each of the state’s three congressional districts, instead awarding all five of them to the overall victor of the state, which leans Republican.

But despite the last-minute campaign by Pillen and national Republicans to codify the change, the legislation — initially introduced 16 months ago by state Sen. Loren Lippincott, a Republican — faces a severe time crunch to reach the governor’s desk.

As of Wednesday, Nebraska’s Senate is already 54 days into its 60-day legislative calendar and will adjourn for the year on April 18, with no hearings for the bill currently scheduled.

Speaking on Wednesday to The Lincoln Journal Star, Lippincott said that the bill is “probably stalled” in the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, where it has lingered since it was first introduced in January 2023.

The last hearing on it was in March 2023.

In order for the proposal to become law, it must pass through committee and at least two rounds of floor debate before advancing to a final vote.

Lippincott said in a statement to ABC News, however, in part: “My staff and I are doing everything we can to seek options for getting this to the finish line. However, the harsh reality of a 2-day time frame is limiting.”

“I stand in support of this bill and will continue to fight for this in the Nebraska Legislature,” he said.

Sen. Tom Brewer, chair of the committee, told the Journal Star that he was “blindsided” by Trump and Pillen’s calls to pass the legislation.

“It’s past the 11th hour with this. We just don’t have a way of making it fit,” Brewer said, a sentiment echoed by Republican Speaker of the Legislature Sen. John Arch, who told the Journal Star he does not see a path for the bill either.

Sen. Megan Hunt, an independent in the chamber who has supported Biden, wrote in a post on X that “legislatively there’s just no time” to pass it.

“Nothing to worry about this year,” she wrote.

Even if the bill were to leave committee or see its provisions added onto another bill with enough support to reach Pillen’s desk before lawmakers adjourn this month, Lippincott suggested to the Journal Star that the proposal would face almost certain death in the face of a filibuster from Democrats.

“I have personally checked the body for 33 votes,” Lippincott told the paper, referring to the number of votes needed for legislation to enter cloture and avoid a filibuster. “Don’t have 33 votes.”

Pillen is separately able to call for a special session of the Legislature to convene to take up the legislation if it does not pass. He has not yet signaled such an option is on the table.

Arch, Brewer and Pillen’s offices have not yet responded to ABC News’ requests for comment.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden is showing no signs of trying to restrict or withhold the billions the U.S. spends each year in military aid to Israel, despite growing concerns that some of those weapons are being used in bombings that kill civilians.

The U.S. has sent more military and foreign aid to Israel than any other country, including a 10-year, $38 billion program that supplies some $3.3 billion in foreign military sales to Israel each year.

U.S. officials insist that most weapons transfers since the Israeli-Hamas war began were approved long before it started and would be legally challenging to stop.

But some experts say the U.S. has the power to reverse course if it wanted to.

“There are all kinds of ways to speed up or slow down arms transfers,” said retired Col. Steve Ganyard, an ABC News contributor and former deputy assistant secretary at the State Department’s Bureau for Military-Political Affairs, which oversees foreign weapons sales.

“You can slow the system down to a crawl,” Ganyard added. “If the administration or the Congress wanted to shut things down, they could. But it’s a matter of political will.”

Top Biden administration officials this week defended the approach as in line with decades of U.S. policy that’s stretched across Republican and Democratic administrations. And they warned that to reverse the hundreds of open military contracts with Israel would reverse decades of U.S. policy and leave Israel vulnerable to attack from Iran.

“The security relationship we have with Israel is not just about Gaza” and the Hamas attack in Israel on Oct. 7,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken. “It’s also about the threats posed Israel, by Hezbollah, by Iran, by various other actors in the region — each one of which has vowed one way or another, to try to destroy Israel.”

The question of restricting military sales grew increasingly urgent this week after an Israeli airstrike killed seven aid workers delivering food to Gaza amid a worsening humanitarian crisis. Israel said it was investigating the incident and calling it a grave mistake.

The Pentagon said it couldn’t say if the weapons in the strike were American-made, but noted that Israel was expected to honor its promise to use weapons in accordance with international law.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the administration was “outraged” by the strike and insists that Israel be more careful in its operations against Hamas. At the same time, Kirby made clear the U.S. wouldn’t use military aid as leverage and “hang some sort of condition” around Israel’s “neck.”

“We’re still gonna make sure that they can defend themselves,” Kirby told reporters Tuesday.

Democrats though are split on that approach, with several close Biden allies on Capitol Hill calling for the U.S. to put more restrictions on U.S. aid even before the latest strike that killed the aid workers.

“We have a situation where the Netanyahu government continues to rebuff the president of the United States time and time again, ignores reasonable requests,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, in an interview Sunday with ABC’s “This Week.”

“And what do we do? We say we’re going to send more bombs,” Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen and other Democrats have been investigating legislation on the matter, although it’s not clear such a measure would gather enough support to pass or overcome a presidential veto.

Josh Paul, a former senior State Department official and outspoken critic of Biden’s policy toward Israel, told ABC News that there was consensus among an internal working group before he resigned from the State Department that found Israel violated legal requirements to receive U.S. aid.

Under the law, the U.S. can’t supply military aid or training to countries that violate human rights. Biden has also specified that aid shouldn’t go to countries that “more likely than not” are used to commit or facilitate genocide or break international law.

“We could never get anyone from the political level of the department to move the paperwork — because it would have consequences for their careers,” said Paul, former director of congressional and public affairs for the State Department’s Bureau of Military Affairs.

“There is a willingness and ability to take this on the working level but at the political level it gets killed,” he said.

Paul said he understands the U.S. is having tough conversations with Israel behind closed doors.

But “at the same time we are having those conversations we are authorizing billions of dollars in military aid and I’m not sure the message is coming across,” he said.

The decades-long unequivocal support in U.S. military aid for Israel seemed like it was on shaky ground last November when Biden called the idea of conditions a “worthwhile thought.”

Biden noted at the time that putting restrictions on Israel’s military capabilities could make it more difficult to secure the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas.

Since then, Biden approved two emergency transfers of military aid totaling some $254 million – bypassing Congress to rush tank munitions and related equipment to Israel.

More recently, the U.S. is considering the sale of 50 new F-15 fighter jets to Israel, according to Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The first fighter jets wouldn’t arrive until 2029 at the earliest.

Cardin said the proposal was aimed at helping Israel upgrade its fleet and noted the arms package — if it happens — would go through the usual procedures before approval.

“It has nothing to do with the current conflict in Gaza,” Cardin said.

ABC News’ Selina Wang, Luis Martinez and Shannon Crawford contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland visited Chicago Wednesday to highlight decreases in violent crime around the country, and announced a surge of investments and resources that he said will be aimed at “doubling down” on recent progress by law enforcement and their local partners.

“These declines are not just abstract statistics,” Garland said. “As you know so well, they represent people — people who are still here to see their children grow up, to work toward fulfilling their dreams, and to contribute to their communities.”

Garland’s comments come in an election year when violent crime is a major campaign issue, and one that Biden’s opponent, former President Donald Trump has attacked him on. While violent crime is dramatically falling, Trump and other Republicans have criticized the president over his handling of crime — often mentioning several high-profile crimes that are alleged to have been committed by immigrants who crossed the southern border illegally.

In remarks at a conference for federal grantees, Garland pointed to statistics showing that last year, the U.S. saw the largest one-year decline in homicides in half a century, including a 13% decrease last year in Chicago.

He credited the progress, in part, to the Biden administration’s implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which included new statutes that federal prosecutors have used to charge gun traffickers and individuals who straw purchase firearms. The law also provided $250 million in grants for the department to invest in community-based violent prevention initiatives over a five-year period.

In his speech Wednesday, Garland said $78 million of those funds would be made available to applicants beginning Wednesday.

“Those funds will go directly to organizations, like those represented in this room, that are making strides in driving down violent crime and building community trust across the country,” Garland said.

Garland’s remarks come amid a full-court press in the Biden administration to counter the narrative that violent crime remains rampant around the country.

President Biden similarly highlighted recent progress in combating crime in his State of the Union speech last month, looking to counter claims by former President Donald Trump who has sought to put the issue — along with immigration — at the forefront of the 2024 election.

“I want to be very clear about something: there is no acceptable level of violent crime,” Garland said. “Too many communities are still struggling and people are still scared. The hard-fought progress we saw last year can easily slip away. So we must remain focused and vigilant.”

Garland also announced in his remarks that the department would be deploying a surge of federal resources and prosecutors to St. Louis, Missouri, Jackson, Mississippi and Hartford, Connecticut, following similar targeted efforts in Houston, Memphis and Washington, D.C., which in recent years experienced record rises in violent crime.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Despite what Donald Trump said at a Michigan event on Tuesday, the family of homicide victim Ruby Garcia told ABC News that the former president has not spoken to them.

“I can confirm and assure you he did not speak with me or my immediate family,” Mavi Garcia, Ruby Garcia’s sister, told ABC’s Rachel Scott.

The Trump campaign declined to comment on the record about the contradiction, but sources insisted they don’t share details of who they spoke with and what was said during private meetings unless given explicit permission by the families involved.
Trump on Tuesday in Grand Rapids used his speech to highlight Garcia’s recent death as he attacked immigrants who enter the country illegally.

The suspected killer entered the country illegally from Mexico, according to border officials.

Trump called Garcia, who was 25, a “beautiful young woman [who] was savagely murdered by an illegal alien criminal.”

He directly blamed President Joe Biden for the death of Garcia, claiming the suspect was deported under his administration but then was let back into the country under Biden.

But an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson said in a statement that the suspect actually re-entered the U.S. after deportation “at an unknown date and location.”

Trump also said on Tuesday that he had spoken with some of Garcia’s family: “They said she had just the most contagious laughter and when she walked into a room, she lit up that room, and I’ve heard that from so many people.”

Oddly, Trump appeared to be going back and forth between saying Garcia was 25 years old and 17 years old.

ABC News’ Quinn Owen contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith, responding on Tuesday to the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, urged her to reverse course on entertaining the idea that Trump had any personal ownership over the classified materials he has been charged with unlawfully possessing.

In a late-night filing replying to an order last month from Judge Aileen Cannon requesting proposed jury instructions that appeared to accept at face value what legal experts have argued is one of Trump’s most fringe defenses — that the former president had unchecked ability to claim all classified records as his personal property — Smith argued that accepting such an argument would not only be “pure fiction,” but “meritless and fatally undermined” by all the evidence gathered by the government as part of their case.

Among that evidence, according to Smith, are interviews with Trump’s own Presidential Records Act representatives and “numerous” high-ranking officials from the White House, none of which “had heard Trump say that he was designating records as personal,”

“To the contrary, every witness who was asked this question had never heard such a thing,” Smith’s office said.

Smith’s office repeatedly urged Cannon that if she continued to entertain such an interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, she “must inform the parties of that decision well in advance of trial” — suggesting they’d seek relief from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already overturned her rulings twice in the case.

“The Government must have the opportunity to consider appellate review well before jeopardy attaches,” the filing said.

Trump last year pleaded not guilty to all charges related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from U.S. nuclear secrets to the nation’s defense capabilities, and took steps to thwart the government’s efforts to get the documents back. The former president has denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.

In their filing, the special counsel’s office cited the 11th Circuit’s previous opinion that they argued should make clear to Cannon that Trump had no personal interest over the documents seized in the FBI’s 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. 

“Plaintiff does not have a possessory interest in the documents at issue, so he does not suffer a cognizable harm if the United States reviews documents he neither owns nor has a personal interest in,” the filing said.

As part of the filing, Smith’s office also revealed a series of communications between Trump’s team and the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, which they argued showed his acknowledgment as early as February of 2022 that “the classified records at issue in this case were presidential rather than personal.”

According to the filing, even as Fitton was advising an unnamed Trump employee that the records Trump possessed at Mar-a-Lago “should have been characterized as personal,” another employee urged Trump to reject such an argument and explained to him why.

“Nevertheless, on February 10, 2022, Trump released a statement claiming in part, “I have been told I was under no obligation to give the material based on various legal rulings that have been made over the years,” the filing said. “Before this time, the second employee had never heard this theory from Trump. No other witness recalled Trump espousing this theory until after the Judicial Watch president conveyed it to him in February 2022.”

Later in their filing, the special counsel includes drafts of what they argue would amount to “incorrect” jury instructions that present hypotheticals of what Judge Cannon’s order would permit former presidents to do:

Among the examples:

“I instruct you, however, that, as to a former President, even if he lacks a security clearance, lacks a need to know classified information, and stores information outside of a secure facility, he is authorized to do so if the classified information is contained within a ‘personal record,’ as that term is defined by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a statute that establishes the public ownership of presidential records and ensures the preservation of presidential records for public access after the termination of a President’s term in office.”

“I further instruct you that a President has unreviewable authority to designate any record whatsoever as personal, regardless of whether it meets the statutory definitions I have just provided. I further instruct you that, if, before the end of his term in office, a President transfers records from the White House to any location other than the National Archives and Records Administration, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, he has necessarily exercised his unreviewable authority to designate those records as personal and, as a matter of law, he is authorized to possess them and you may not find him guilty.”

In their own filing responding to Judge Cannon’s order, Trump’s team put forward a variety of hypothetical jury instructions that would essentially guarantee Trump an immediate jury acquittal.

Among them:

“As President of the United States, President Trump was what is called an ‘original classification authority’ based on his power under the Constitution and related laws, which means that it was his authority that was used, by himself and others that he delegated it to, to classify information … As President of the United States, President Trump also had absolute and unreviewable authority to declassify documents and information … You heard evidence during the trial that President Trump exercised that authority, at times verbally and at times without using formal procedures, while he was President. I instruct you that those declassification decisions are examples of valid and legally appropriate uses of President Trump’s declassification authority while he was President of the United States.”

Trump’s classified documents trial is currently scheduled to get underway on May 20, but Judge Cannon is expected to delay that date following recent arguments from both sides.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith has filed his response to an order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that could have far-reaching implications in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

Judge Cannon last month asked attorneys for both Trump and the special counsel to submit proposed jury instructions on topics relating to Trump’s motions to dismiss the case, specifically involving the Presidential Records Act.

Trump last year pleaded not guilty to all charges related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from U.S. nuclear secrets to the nation’s defense capabilities, and took steps to thwart the government’s efforts to get the documents back.

The former president has denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.

The trial is currently scheduled to get underway on May 20, but Judge Cannon is expected to delay that date following recent arguments from both sides.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
There’s an effort in Wisconsin on Tuesday by anti-Biden protesters to encourage people in the Democratic primary to pick the “uninstructed” option in opposition to Biden’s policies on the Israel-Hamas war.

Anti-Trump voters could also get some attention if they manage to crack double-digits by choosing any of his former rivals, like Nikki Haley, as has happened in a few recent primaries.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that both the GOP and Democratic contests in Delaware have been called off.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.