Politics

(WASHINGTON) — As former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley continues on in her quest to try to take down former President Donald Trump in the Republican nominating race, after three straight losses so far, she is focusing on states where non-Republicans can vote — and targeting voters outside of a GOP base that still overwhelmingly favors her rival.

“We want to bring in as many people as we can,” Haley told ABC News. “I’m going to be serving everybody, so whoever cares enough about this election and wants to be involved? We want their support.”

Despite her repeated defeats, Haley has described her campaign against Trump as about building “momentum” on her way to South Carolina’s Feb. 24 primary and touted her increasing numbers from Iowa to New Hampshire, the first two states to vote for the 2024 Republican nomination.

After Haley placed a distant third in the Iowa caucuses in January, she got to 43% in New Hampshire about a week later.

Exit polls in New Hampshire showed her doing especially well with undeclared voters, who were able to vote in the Republican primary. She also got strong backing from self-described moderates, just as she did in the Iowa caucuses, where she won about one-third of self-described independents, exit polling found.

By contrast, Trump has so far handily beaten her with conservative and evangelical voters. For example, in Tuesday’s primary in Nevada, in which only registered Republicans can vote, Haley only got 30% of the vote and actually lost out to the quirky option “none of these candidates.”

And while South Carolina’s open primary means registered voters are able to cast their ballot in either the Democratic or GOP primaries regardless of their party — but not both — the state has many more active Republican voters than Democratic ones. And it doesn’t have New Hampshire’s tradition of independent voters swinging back and forth.

Polling still has Trump ahead of Haley in South Carolina by more than 30 points, according to 538.

The entrance and exit polling from Iowa and New Hampshire also shows Haley handily lost to Trump with purely Republican-identified voters.

Haley’s campaign is making it clear that her plan to keep competing against Trump includes attracting a wider range of voters — not just in South Carolina’s open primary but in the 10 more states with open and semi-open primaries coming up in the next month as well. (Unlike open primaries, semi-open primaries require voters to cast a party-specific ballot when they vote. In a third kind of primary, semi-closed, voters must affiliate with a party before casting their ballot.)

Although the Haley campaign is not outwardly saying they are targeting Democrats, it’s not stopping some of those voters from considering supporting her.

Dale Bowling and Georgia Koss, who said they have supported Democratic presidential candidates since the ’90s, told ABC News that they’re planning on voting for Haley in South Carolina’s GOP primary after attending a rally for her in Conway in late January.

The two women both voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 but are now undecided, they said. They’re concerned with the president’s age and believe it’s time for new blood in the White House.

“I think Biden’s a little too old, honestly,” Bowling told ABC News.

“I just think that we need somebody young and fresh, lots of new ideas,” Koss added.

After hearing Haley speak, the pair told ABC News that they would be voting for her in the state’s GOP primary.

Haley’s campaign insists they see opportunity in trying to persuade the many non-primary voters who identify as Republicans but may not identify as the highly engaged members of their party’s base, who reliably turn out for every vote.

Primaries have historically low turnouts, especially relative to general elections.

“We are looking primarily at independents who can participate in primaries and we are also looking at expanding the people who do participate in these primaries,” Haley’s campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, told reporters on Monday. “There are a lot of general election Republican voters who do not participate in primaries typically.”

Can that boost Haley’s chances? Some aren’t persuaded.

“The Trump phenomenon is still very much a thing in South Carolina,” Mark Sanford, a former South Carolina congressman and governor who preceded Haley in office, told ABC News. “The demographics of the base South Carolina Republican voter align well with the Trump voter and may be one and the same.”

Sanford lost the 2018 GOP primary for his Charleston-area congressional seat to a Trump-backed opponent, after he repeatedly criticized Trump’s fiscal policies.

“He’s become a proxy going against the system. And a lot of rank-and-file Republican types feel like the system has failed them,” Sanford added. “Never mind the fact that Trump didn’t do anything about the debt when he was there, they see him as someone who will fight for them and fight against a system rigged against them.”

Activists urge a vote for Haley is a vote against Trump

For some voters and activists, their goal for this election cycle is to ensure that Trump never returns to the White House, leading them to try to block his path to the Oval Office in the primary by putting all of their efforts behind Haley.

Primary Pivot, an anti-Trump group that describes itself as focused on democracy, has been encouraging voters across the political spectrum to vote for Haley in open and semi-open GOP primaries as the field has essentially narrowed to a two-person race.

Robert Schwartz, who leads Primary Pivot, told ABC News that although he’s wary of Haley’s chances of beating Trump in South Carolina, he hopes she “survives” so she can stay in the race to compete in more “favorable states.”

And Primary Pivot is still investing resources in South Carolina, including having staffers on the ground and reaching out to voters of different political ideologies to support Haley.

The group said they have sent out more than 200,000 text messages encouraging people to think about their options, suggesting that Biden would win the state’s Democratic primary and that the Republican race is more competitive.

“[Haley] is catching up in the polls. Please make your vote count,” the texts read.

Schwartz told ABC News they plan on setting aside resources for several states leading up to Super Tuesday on March 5, when many states will hold simultaneous primaries.

Kelley Johnson a Democrat from Summerville, South Carolina, said she thinks a general election without Trump would allow voters to focus on the issues.

“I think it’s good for the country, because it’ll be a much more civil election,” Johnson told ABC News. “It’ll be fought on the policies rather than who’s just listening to Trump and trying to figure out what is going to come out of his mouth next.”

But some Democrats who don’t want to see a Republican win the election are critical of this strategy, because of how recent polling shows Haley beating Biden in a hypothetical matchup in the general election.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll, for example, Haley would defeat Biden 47-42%.

“I very much hope that it is just a one-on-one match between Biden and Donald Trump. Because I feel like it gives Joe Biden the best chance to prevail,” said Waring Hewe Jr., a voter from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

Jaunita Miton from Summerville, South Carolina said that although Haley brings up some valid issues, she, too, would prefer Biden to face Trump.

“If I have to choose obviously, I’m gonna choose the weaker candidate and that’s Trump,” Miton said.

But 21-year-old student Lilli Taylor, of Columbia, South Carolina, who voted for Biden in 2020, said not everyone is thinking that way.

“I do have a lot of friends who identify as Democrats or liberals, but a lot of them do like Nikki and so it’s not necessarily just a vote against Trump,” Taylor said. “I think a lot of them generally do see a lot of potential in Nikki.”

‘I don’t know what state she can win’

Some major Democrats have played down the chance that Democratic voters could really sway the course of the Republican primary race against Trump.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a surrogate for Biden’s reelection campaign, told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl in a recent interview that he doesn’t believe Haley can win over enough non-Republican voters to win anywhere.

“We’ve seen that game played over and over and over and over again. … I just don’t think you’re going to stack enough votes in that — I don’t know what state she can win, including her own state,” Newsom said.

But, he suggested, Haley sticking in the race and going after Trump could have other ramifications.

“Watching her … take shots at Trump, that didn’t leave me wanting. I was enjoying that. Meaning, she was saying a lot of the same things I’ve been saying about Trump,” Newsom said, “and so I don’t think it’s unhealthy in that respect.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(DETROIT) — Record warm winter weather is having severe ramifications on the ice cover that typically engulfs the Great Lakes at this time of year.

Just 5.9% of the Great Lakes are currently covered with ice compared to an average of about 40% for this time of year, according to the latest Great Lakes ice analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Warmer winters increase the likelihood of ice-free lakes, and the upper Midwest has experienced some of the nation’s strongest winter warming trends, according to James Kessler, a physical scientists for NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab, and Alisa Young, a climate scientist for the lab.

When comparing the average wintertime temperatures of 2002 to 2021 with the first half of the century, it is clear that the upper Midwest has experienced some of the nation’s strongest warming trends, Kessler and Young told ABC News.

Despite year-to-year variability, long-term records show a 25% decrease in annual maxima of ice cover as well as a trend toward fewer frozen days across the Great Lakes since 1973, according to data compiled by the Fifth National Climate Assessment.

The Great Lakes aren’t alone. Across the Northern Hemisphere, lakes are freezing later in winter and thawing earlier in spring, research shows.

On Tuesday, Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change service, said this past January was the warmest January ever globally, continuing an eight-month trend of record-warmest months.

Declining lake ice can influence water levels and lake-effect snow and has cascading impacts on cultural heritage, ecosystems and recreation.

In January, the John Beargrease Sled Dog marathon, one of the most beloved dog sled competitions in the Midwest, was canceled due to lack of snow.

The race typically kicks off in Duluth, Minnesota, which sits adjacent to Lake Superior.

Last spring the Niagara Falls boat tour opened at the earliest date in history — in mid-March — due to the lack of buildup of ice on Lake Erie.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden addressed a harsh report from special counsel Robert Hur on his classified documents probe, highlighting differences between his case and that of former President Donald Trump.

“Bottom line is the special counsel in my case decided against moving forward with any charges,” he said. “And this matter is now closed.”

Trump was indicted last year over his handling of classified documents. He has pleaded not guilty to the 40 charges, which include counts of willful retention of national defense information and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Biden made the remarks less than two hours after the 388-page report was made public. In it, the special counsel said he would not be recommending charges against Biden despite evidence that he “willfully retained” materials.

Biden, speaking at the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Virginia, tried to put the best face on the politically damaging report that cited his advanced age and poor memory, saying he was “pleased” to see Hur reach his conclusion not to pursue charges after what Biden described as an “exhaustive” investigation spanning back to his time in the Senate in the 1970s.

“I was especially pleased to see the special counsel made clear the stark differences between this case and Donald Trump,” Biden said, going on to quote from the report itself.

Biden read aloud one portion of the special counsel report that read: “Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives, the Department of Justice, consented to a search of multiple locations, including his homes and sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.”

“That’s the distinction, among others,” Biden said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As the report of a special counsel investigation into classified documents found at locations associated with President Joe Biden became public Thursday, here’s what he has said about the matter before now.

Jan. 10, 2023 — President Biden said he was “surprised” to learn that there were any government records at his Penn Biden Center office in Washington, D.C., which he used after leaving as vice president, adding, “I don’t know what’s in the documents.”

Jan. 12, 2023 — Biden spoke about the documents found in the garage at his Wilmington, Delaware, home and said he was complying with the Department of Justice.

A reporter asked Biden about the documents:

Q: Mr. President, classified — classified material next to your Corvette. What were you thinking?

BIDEN: Let me — they’re — I’m going to get a chance to speak on all this, God willing, soon, but as I said earlier this week, people — and, by the way, my Corvette is in a locked garage. OK? So, it’s not like they’re sitting out in the street. But at any rate —

Q: So, the material was in a locked garage?

BIDEN: Yes, as well as my Corvette.

But as I said earlier this week, people know I take classified documents and classified material seriously. I also said we’re cooperating fully and completely with the Justice Department’s review.

As part of that process, my lawyers reviewed other places where documents might of — from my time as vice president were stored. And they finished the review last night.

They discovered a small number of documents with classified markings in storage areas and in file cabinets in my home and my — and my — in my personal library. This was done in the case of the Biden Penn — this was done in the case of the Biden Penn Center.

The Department of Justice was immediately — as was done, the Department of Justice was immediately … notified, and the lawyers arranged for the Department of Justice to take possession of the document.

Jan. 19, 2023 — At the end of remarks on extreme weather, in Aptos, California, reporters shouted questions at Biden, who said he had “no regrets” and that “there is no there there.”

Q: Mr. President, may I ask you a question about the classified documents, sir? Do you have any regret — regret, sir?

BIDEN: You know, the only — I will answer the question, but here’s the deal: You know, what quite frankly bugs me is that we have a serious problem here we’re talking about. We’re talking about what’s going on. And the American people don’t quite understand why you don’t ask me questions about that.But having said that, what’s your question?

Q: Do you have any regret, sir, that you did not reveal the existence of the documents back in November, before the midterms?

BIDEN: Just hang on, OK? Look, as we found — we found a handful of documents that were failed — were filed in the wrong place. We immediately turned them over to the Archives and the Justice Department. We’re fully cooperating and looking forward to getting this resolved quickly.I think you’re going to find there’s nothing there. I have no regrets. I’m following what the lawyers have told me they want me to do. It’s exactly what we’re doing. There is no there there.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.) — Donald Trump emerged in front of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida minutes after Supreme Court arguments concluded in a historic case challenging his ability to hold office again due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “insurrection clause” — over his actions related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election.

Watching the hearing play out was a “a very beautiful process,” he said, speaking with reporters.

“I hope that the democracy of this country will continue,” he said, going on to repeat many of his familiar campaign trail criticisms of President Joe Biden and to talk about the alleged “weaponization of politics,” which prosecutors and his legal challengers deny.

Multiple justices throughout the hearing had expressed concerns over ballot access and the potentially far-reaching consequences of allowing states to exclude candidates under the 14th Amendment.

Trump, afterward, sounded confident about the work of his legal team, calling their case “very strong.”

“I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received. I hope it was well received. You have millions of people that are out there wanting to vote, and they happen to want to vote for me or the Republican Party,” he said.

While the case has now been officially submitted for consideration, a ruling is not expected imminently.

Pressed about arguments from the challengers’ counsel regarding his well-documented initial inaction to quell the violence during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, Trump attempted to stop the reporter mid-question and said the blame was with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“I said peacefully and patriotically. The speech was called peacefully and patriotically. It’s peacefully and patriotically,” Trump said, referring to a speech he gave on the morning of Jan. 6 near the White House, in which he also said “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

“He said I said bad statements, it was the exact opposite,” Trump said on Thursday. “So I think you should take a look at the statements that I made before and after. And you’ll see a whole different dialogue.”

Trump’s Florida remarks came in lieu of him attending the Supreme Court hearing in person, though campaign officials had previously floated the idea that he would, just as he has with some of his other court proceedings. (He denies all wrongdoing.)

But Trump has generally been adamant about going to court, which has caused him to maintain a light campaign schedule compared to his other Republican challengers and even cancel trail appearances to appear at his trials.

However, with the Nevada caucuses taking place Thursday evening, Trump’s campaign and legal schedule are colliding once again.

After speaking at Mar-a-Lago, Trump plans to head to Las Vegas for a caucus night watch party.

Trump had used his recent campaign speeches to suggest that the Supreme Court — which includes three justices that he named — would side with him in the 14th Amendment case. Some of the liberal-leaning justices also sounded skeptical of the challenge on Thursday.

“All I want is fair,” Trump said last month at a campaign stop in Iowa. “I fought really hard to get three very, very good people and they’re great people, very smart people. And I just hope that they’re going to be fair.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday appeared highly critical of a Colorado Supreme Court decision that would ban former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 GOP primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

During more than two hours of oral argument in the historic case Trump v. Anderson, each of the court’s nine justices expressed skepticism that an individual state has the authority to deny a candidate for federal office from the ballot as an “insurrectionist.”

“It just doesn’t seem like a state call,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” said Justice Elena Kagan.

While the court’s ultimate decision is not always clear based on the questions raised during a hearing, it appeared likely that a majority of the court is ready to reverse the Colorado decision and put an end to efforts nationwide seeking to disqualify Trump under the rarely used, 150-year-old constitutional provision.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from holding positions across government. It reads no person who took an oath as an “officer of the United States” who then “engaged in insurrection” can hold an office “under the United States” in the future.

Only Congress, it adds, can remove the disqualification by two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. It does not spell out who gets to decide when someone has “engaged in insurrection” or how. The nation’s highest court has never before examined the issue.

“Well, when you look at Section 3, the term insurrection jumps out. And the questions are: What does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides? Who decides whether someone engaged in it? What processes– as justice, what processes are appropriate for figuring out whether someone did engage in that?”Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

The justices spent nearly the entire argument before a packed courtroom grappling with who enforces Section 3 and whether states have any authority to do so on their own.

“In this situation, a ruling from this court that affirms the decision below would not only violate term limits but take away votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans,” said Trump’s attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell.

While the counsel for Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility repeatedly raised details of the former president’s efforts to overturn results of the 2020 election, the justices largely refrained from engaging with those facts or the merits of the Colorado ruling.

Instead, they zeroed in on the practical consequences of allowing each state to decide a presidential candidate’s eligibility under Section 3 and the unique role that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress in that amendment — namely, the right to remove an insurrectionist’s disability with a vote.

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether Section 3 was the only type of disqualification that could be removed by Congress.

“It’s the only one like that, right?” He asked.

Several justices voiced concern that chaos would ensue if each state could develop its own standard for “engaging in insurrection.”

“The question of who can enforce Section 3, with respect to a presidential candidate — the consequences of what the Colorado Supreme Court did, as some people claim, would be quite severe,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

“It would seem to me … if the Colorado position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. Some of those succeed. Some of them will have different standards of proof. Some of them will have different views about evidence,” Chief Justice Roberts said.

On several occasions, the justices questioned whether the framers of the 14th Amendment had truly intended to give states more power in the aftermath of the Civil War when the federal government was trying to rein in former Confederate states.

History factored prominently in the debate, with even some of the court’s most liberal members referencing founding-era records to cast doubt on the idea that presidents and potential presidents were covered under Section 3.

“I guess my question is why the framers would have designed a system that would could result in this uniformity in this way when we have elections pending, different states suddenly saying you were eligible…,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The argument played out inside a court chamber shrouded in layers of extra security given the magnitude of the case. Outside the court, the scene was relatively quiet with little sign of widespread demonstrations or disruption.

The former president was not present in the chamber. But given the historic nature of the day, the wives of many of the justices were in attendance, as per tradition, as well as the Solicitor General of the United States Elizabeth Prelogar.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Robert Hur has released to members of Congress his report summarizing his yearlong probe into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents while out of office.

It’s one of the final steps before the report is made public.

Earlier Thursday, the White House reviewed a draft of the report and said it would not seek to censor any information gathered by Hur.

Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House counsel’s office, said in a statement that the president’s legal team had completed a review of the report and that “in keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency,” the president would not assert executive privilege over any portion of the report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this week informed key lawmakers that Hur had concluded his investigation, which examined how approximately two dozen classified documents wound up at Biden’s personal home and office.

The records in question date back to Biden’s time as vice president, and at least some include “top secret” markings, the highest level of classification.

Garland appointed Hur as special counsel in January of 2023, after aides to the president discovered a batch of ten documents at the Penn-Biden Center in Washington, D.C., where Biden kept an office after his vice presidency.

A second discovery of additional records in the garage of Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home precipitated Garland’s decision to assign Hur as special counsel, ABC News reported at the time.

Investigators interviewed as many as 100 current and former officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, and Hunter Biden, the president’s son. In October, Hur’s team spent two days interviewing Biden himself.

ABC News previously reported that sources who were present for some of the interviews, including witnesses, said that authorities had apparently uncovered instances of carelessness from Biden’s vice presidency, but that — based on what was said in the interviews — the improper removal of classified documents from Biden’s office when he left the White House in 2017 seemed to be more likely a mistake than a criminal act.

The White House had emphasized from the beginning that it would cooperate with investigators. Biden himself repeatedly denied any personal wrongdoing and said he was “surprised” to learn of the documents’ existence.

The Hur investigation has played out quietly against the backdrop of special counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified records, which culminated last year in a 40-count indictment, to which Trump has pleaded not guilty.

Trump has sought to link his circumstances to Biden’s by trying to draw an equivalence between their conduct and calling his prosecution the result of a justice system improperly targeting Republicans.

But records subsequently released by the National Archives indicate that Biden’s legal team cooperated with National Archives officials, whereas federal prosecutors have accused Trump of deliberately withholding records he knew to be classified from investigators with the National Archives and, later, the FBI.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Both Nevada and the U.S. Virgin Islands are holding their 2024 Republican presidential caucuses on Thursday.

Here’s what to know:

Nevada caucuses

Former President Donald Trump is the only major candidate running in the caucuses and is expected to sweep all 26 party delegates.

Trump’s remaining notable rival for the Republican nomination, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, is not competing in the caucuses — claiming it was “rigged,” which Nevada Republicans deny.

Instead, Haley ran in the state’s new Republican primary but lost by a huge margin to the quirky option “none of these candidates.”

Because of a dispute over keeping the caucuses rather than switching to the new primary, no delegates were awarded in the latter contest.

Thursday’s Republican caucuses will be held between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. local time across more than 1,500 precincts.

Voters can simply cast their vote and leave instead of listening or participating in speeches or other party matters. Only members of the Republican Party can participate.

Trump and pastor Ryan Binkley are the only ones competing, after Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Chris Christie and Doug Burgum all ended their own campaigns.

U.S. Virgin Islands caucuses

The U.S. Virgin Islands, as a territory, doesn’t get to vote in the 2024 presidential election but its residents do get to help decide the presidential nominees.

The presidential caucuses will be held on Thursday for Republicans and then on June 8 for Democrats.

Virgin Island Republicans will use ranked-choice voting, and a candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote will receive all of the available delegates.

Both Haley and Trump are on the ballot on Thursday, and Haley has made a point of speaking virtually with Republicans there.

The Virgin Islands have 12 delegate votes to award to Democrats and four to award to Republicans.

The GOP’s caucus date was moved up and cut into the early nominating calendar set by the national party, triggering a penalty — reducing the number of delegates from nine to four.

However, according to Virgin Islands GOP Executive Director Dennis Lennox, the local party plans to allocate nine delegates on Thursday night and hopes they will be seated at the Republican National Convention this summer.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a historic case challenging Donald Trump’s ability to hold office again over his role in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump is asking the justices to overturn an unprecedented Colorado Supreme Court decision deeming him ineligible to appear on the state’s GOP primary ballot because, it said, he “engaged in insurrection.” Trump has long denied any wrongdoing.

The legal battle centers on a previously obscure provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment — Section 3 — ratified shortly after the Civil War.

The case is casting a political shadow over the nation’s highest court not has not been seen since the 2000 election with Bush v. Gore.

Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:

Feb 08, 12:37 PM
Trump speaks after arguments conclude

Donald Trump spoke from Mar-a-Lago in Florida moments after the arguments concluded at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

The former president largely focused his criticism on President Joe Biden, but briefly addressed what transpired at the nation’s high court.

“In watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process,” he said. “I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of these radical left ideas.”

Feb 08, 12:29 PM
Justice Alito expresses concern about states retaliating

Justice Samuel Alito, questioning the Colorado solicitor general, brought up the possibility of other states retaliating and excluding another candidate from their ballot.

Shannon Stevenson sought to downplay those concerns.

“I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately,” she said. “That they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment. Courts will review those decisions. This court may review some of them. But I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case.”

Feb 08, 12:12 PM
Attorney for Colorado secretary of state begins argument

Shannon Stevenson, the Colorado solicitor general, is now representing Secretary of State Jena Griswold. She is making the case that Colorado has the power, under state election code, to disqualify candidates who are ineligible to assume the office they’re seeking.

“Nothing in the Constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this way,” she said in her opening. “This case was handled capably and efficiently by the Colorado courts under a process that we’ve used to decide ballot changes for more than century. And as everyone agrees, the court now has the record that needs to to resolve these important issues.”

Feb 08, 12:07 PM
Challengers’ counsel argues this case is about ‘protecting democracy’

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the high court should think about democracy when interpreting Section 3, specifically the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice.

Murray, in a lengthy answer, gave an impassioned argument that this case is at the heart of protecting democracy.

“Constitutional safeguards are for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come,” he said. “And second, Section 3 is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. The framers of Section 3 knew from painful experience that those who had violently broken their oaths to the Constitution couldn’t be trusted to hold power again again because they could dismantle our Constitution democracy from within.”

“President Trump can go ask Congress to give him amnesty by a two-thirds vote but, unless he does that, our Constitution protects us from insurrectionists,” he continued. “This case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply section as written because the reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him and the constitution doesn’t require that he be given another chance.”

Feb 08, 11:49 AM
Justice Alito: ‘Would we have to have our own trial?’

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Murray on what the U.S. Supreme Court should do if different states adjudicate Trump’s conduct differently based on different sets of evidence or standards of proof.

“Would we have to decide what is appropriate standard of proof?” Alito asked. “Would we give any deference to these findings by state court judges, some of whom may be elected? Would we have to have our own trial?”

“No, your honor, this court takes the evidentiary record as it’s given,” Murray said. “And here we have an evidentiary record that all the parties agree is sufficient for a decision in this case.”

Feb 08, 11:37 AM
Chief Justice Roberts says Colorado case could mean disqualification efforts against Dems

“It would seem to me to be plain if Colorado position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those succeed,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

“The fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn’t a reason to …,” Murray began to respond before Roberts cut him off.

“You might think they’re frivolous, I think people who are bringing them may not think they’re frivolous,” Roberts said. “Insurrection is a broad, broad term and there’s some debate about it.”

“There’s a reason Section 3 has been dormant for 150 and it’s because we haven’t seen anything like Jan. 6 since Reconstruction,” Murray countered.

Feb 08, 11:27 AM
Attorney for Trump challengers says US Supreme Court must ‘settle this issue for the nation’

Justice Elena Kagan asked Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters, why a single state should be able to decide who gets to be president of the United States.

“That seems quite extraordinary doesn’t it?” she asked.

“No, because ultimately it’s this court that’s going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle issue for the nation,” Murray replied.

Feb 08, 11:14 AM
Attorney for Colorado voters begins argument: ‘Trump disqualified himself’

Jason Murray, arguing the case for the Colorado voters seeking to bar Trump from the state’s GOP primary ballot, opened by noting the unprecedented nature of the case.

“We are here because for the first time since the War of 1812 our nation came under violent assault,” he said. “For the first time in history, a sitting president of the United States tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power by engaging in insurrection against the Constitution.”

“President Trump disqualified himself,” Murray said.

Feb 08, 11:11 AM
Justice Jackson asks Trump lawyer what constitutes an insurrection

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Mitchell on the Colorado Supreme Court’s finding that the violent attempts by Trump supporters to halt the electoral count on Jan. 6 qualified as an “insurrection” under Section 3.

“Why would this not be an insurrection?” Jackson asked. “What’s your argument that it’s not?”

“For an insurrection there needs to an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. And this riot that occurred …” Mitchell began.

Jackson interrupted, “So, the point that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?”

“We didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either Justice Jackson, right?” Mitchell continued. “None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, violent, all those things. It was not an insurrection as that term is used in Section 3.”

Feb 08, 11:01 AM
Arguments largely centered on text of Section 3: Here’s what it says

The justices, so far, are avoiding thornier questions around Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 and instead focusing on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The provision reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State …”

Key in the debate is whether Trump is an “officer of the United States” as described by Section 3 and whether or not it is self-executing.

Feb 08, 10:56 AM
Trump attorney: State officials can’t disqualify even if candidate is ‘admitted insurrectionist’

Mitchell, continuing to argue Congress must enforce Section 3, argued state officials can’t take action even if a candidate were to openly acknowledge they participated in an insurrection against the United States.

“Because even if candidate is an admitted insurrectionist, Section 3 still allows the candidate to run for office and even win election to office and then see whether Congress lifts that disability after the election,” Mitchell said.

“This happened frequently in the wake of the 14th Amendment, where confederate insurrectionists were elected to Congress, and sometimes they obtained a waiver, sometimes they did not,” he continued.

Feb 08, 10:36 AM
Justice Alito questions impact of Colorado decision on other states

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Mitchell on the impact the Colorado decision may have on other states.

Mitchell warned about the possibility of national disuniformity.

“Your question gives rise to an even greater concern because if the decision does not have conclusive effect on other lawsuits, it opens the possibility that a different factual record could be developed in some of the litigation that occurs in different states and different factual findings could be entered by state trial judges,” he said. “They might conclude, in fact, that President Trump did not have any intent to engage in incitement or make a finding that differs from what this trial court found.”

Feb 08, 10:20 AM
First question comes from Justice Thomas, who faced calls for recusal

The first question to Mitchell came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been in the spotlight due to his wife Ginni’s role in Jan. 6.

Some called on Thomas to recuse himself from this case.

Thomas asked Mitchell if Section 3 is self-executing — a key issue in this case. Mitchell said the provision needs congressional enforcement.

Feb 08, 10:18 AM
Trump attorney kicks off oral arguments

Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s attorney, in his opening statement, asserted that the Colorado Supreme Court decision is “wrong and should be reversed for numerous independent reasons.”

Mitchell argued that Trump is not covered under Section 3 as an elected official and claiming he is not an “officer” of the United States. He also said that Section 3 cannot apply to a candidate, only those who hold office.

He said that if the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, it would “take away votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.”

Feb 08, 10:02 AM
Scenes from outside the U.S. Supreme Court

Ahead of the historic arguments, some anti-Trump demonstrators gathered outside the front of the building with banners and signs disparaging the former president.

Police also took steps to ramp up security by placing fencing around the court.

Feb 08, 9:38 AM
What Americans think SCOTUS should do with Trump ballot challenges

An ABC News/Ipsos poll found a majority of Americans (56%) were willing to see Trump disqualified in all or some states: 30% said the U.S. Supreme Court should bar him completely and 26% said it should let each state decide.

Thirty-nine percent said the U.S. Supreme Court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.

Americans were split on the decisions out of Maine and Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot: 49% supported them while 46% were opposed.

Feb 08, 9:52 AM
What to know about the arguments

There are 80 minutes total allotted for arguments but the court is expected to go over that timeframe.

A number of questions are likely to be debated: Is Trump an “officer” of the United States to whom Section 3 applies; who can enforce Section 3; and did Trump engage in an insurrection?

Trump is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. The Colorado voters are being represented by Jason Murray, a former clerk to Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House says it will not seek to censor any information gathered by special counsel Robert Hur in his report on his investigation into classified documents found at residences associated with President Joe Biden.

Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House counsel’s office, said in a statement on Thursday that the president’s legal team had completed a review of the report and that “in keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency,” the president would not assert executive privilege over any portion of the report.

The completion of the White House review paves the way for the Justice Department to release the report to Congress and the public in the coming days.

Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this week informed key lawmakers that Hur had concluded his investigation, which examined how approximately two dozen classified documents wound up at Biden’s personal home and office.

The records in question date back to Biden’s time as vice president, and at least some include “top secret” markings, the highest level of classification.

Garland appointed Hur as special counsel in January of 2023, after aides to the president discovered a batch of ten documents at the Penn-Biden Center in Washington, D.C., where Biden kept an office after his vice presidency.

Investigators spent more than a year interviewing as many as 100 witnesses, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Hunter Biden, the president’s son.

ABC News has previously reported that sources who were present for some of the interviews, including witnesses, said that authorities had apparently uncovered instances of carelessness from Biden’s vice presidency, but that — based on what was said in the interviews — the improper removal of classified documents from Biden’s office when he left the White House in 2017 seemed to be more likely a mistake than a criminal act.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.