Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Both the White House and President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign are seeking to highlight his outreach to and support of Muslim and Arab communities in the U.S. as he faces increased pressure from some Muslim leaders to call for a cease-fire to the Israel-Hamas war, which Israel launched in the wake of a Hamas terror attack on Oct. 7.

“President Biden knows the importance of earning the trust of every community, of upholding the sacred dignity and rights of all Americans,” campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said in a statement on Wednesday to ABC News.

Moussa added: “President Biden continues to work closely and proudly with leaders in the Muslim and Palestinian communities in America, to listen to them, stand up for them, and fight back against hate.”

In an open letter, Muslim leaders from around the country last week urged Biden to back a cease-fire in the conflict — or else: They promised to not support Biden’s 2024 bid and instead actively campaign against him should he not comply by Tuesday, which they would take as an endorsement of the fighting.

Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement that the Muslim community was “tired of being ignored, disrespected. … We believe that we have no option but not to vote for President Biden.”

Minnesota has a notable Muslim community, as does Michigan — both of which have been closely contested in recent presidential elections, underscoring the importance of voters there.

“We understand the impact that it has,” Hussein said, “and we’re going to do everything possible to make this happen.”

During Biden’s trip to Minnesota on Wednesday, protesters gathered at some events calling for a stop to the war.

While Biden has repeatedly reiterated American support for Israel’s government and military in the wake of Hamas’ attack, including attesting to the country’s right to self-defense, he has stressed that the Israelis should follow international law and seek to avoid civilian casualties in the war on Gaza, the blockaded Palestinian territory controlled by Hamas, which the U.S. has designated as a terrorist organization.

The U.N. and outside humanitarian groups have warned of a “crisis” if aid is not allowed into Gaza and civilians aren’t protected in the conflict.

Israeli officials have said Hamas’ attack killed 1,400 in Israel. More than 8,700 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

Rather than a wider cease-fire, administration officials have expressed support for a more limited “humanitarian pause,” including to get aid to civilians in Gaza and help Americans and other nationals there leave.

Biden said last week that “Israelis and Palestinians equally deserve to live side by side in safety, dignity and peace.”

During a campaign fundraiser in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Biden was interrupted by a heckler pressing him about his response to the Israel-Hamas war and urging a cease-fire, according to reporters traveling with the president.

“I think we need a pause,” Biden said back, as the heckler, later identified as an activist rabbi, asked what he meant by that. “A pause means give time to get the prisoners out. Give time.” (Israeli officials have said Hamas is believed to have taken more than 200 captives after its terror attack.)

“This is incredibly complicated for the Israelis. It’s incredibly complicated for the Muslim world as well,” Biden went on to say before reiterating that he wanted a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

The president’s handling of the conflict has been criticized by some members of the Democrats’ progressive wing, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

“I cannot believe I have to beg our country to value every human life, no matter their faith or ethnicity. We cannot lose sight of the humanity in each other,” Tlaib said in a statement earlier this month.

On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Emilie Simons acknowledged the Muslim-led protest against Biden when speaking with reporters on Air Force One the way to Minnesota.

“We know that for millions of Muslim and Arab and Palestinian Americans here in America, there’s a deep pain and people are really hurting,” Simons said, “and we hear that.”

Later on Wednesday, the administration announced the “first-ever” national strategy to counter Islamophobia.

“For too long, Muslims in America, and those perceived to be Muslim, such as Arabs and Sikhs, have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks and other discriminatory incidents,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

The effort will be led by the White House’s Domestic Policy Council and the National Security Council to “counter the scourge of Islamophobia and hate in all its forms,” Jean-Pierre said.

The Biden campaign on Wednesday also took a shot at rival Donald Trump for recently saying he would “reimpose the travel ban on terror-afflicted countries” — a previous campaign pledge that led to a huge legal battle when Trump enacted it after taking office in 2017.

“The President and this administration have been unequivocal: there is no place for Islamophobia, xenophobia, or any of the vile racism we have seen in recent weeks,” Moussa, Biden’s campaign spokesperson said, adding: “The stakes of next year’s election could not be more consequential.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A Republican-led resolution to expel embattled Rep. George Santos failed in the House on Wednesday night.

The push to try to oust Santos came from fellow GOP lawmakers in the New York delegation, who argue his past lies and embellishments about his personal history and his various legal entanglements make him unfit for office. Santos maintains his innocence after being indicted on a slew of federal charges.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito on Thursday formally filed the expulsion resolution as privileged — which forced the House to move quickly on Santos’ possible removal. D’Esposito was joined by Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, Marc Molinaro and Brandon Williams.

The resolution needed a two-thirds majority to succeed, but fell well short. The final vote was 179 to 213 with 19 members voting present.

Santos defended himself on the House floor ahead of the vote, saying his colleagues were “prioritizing petty politics.”

“The loss of the presumption of innocence establishes a dangerous precedent that threatens the very foundation of our legal system, and we risk losing the trust that the American people placed in us by passing judgement without due process,” Santos said. “If we work together, we can protect the integrity of our system and the rights of all citizens.”

“I’m fighting tooth and nail to clear my name in front of the entire world, Mr. Speaker. It hasn’t been easy, but I’m fighting by God’s grace,” he added.

D’Esposito sent a letter from the group to colleagues on Wednesday urging them to back the resolution to force Santos out.

“We strongly urge you to vote in favor of this resolution and encourage you to contact any one of us should you have any doubts about expelling George Santos from this body,” they wrote.

Only five members in U.S. history have been expelled from the House. The last time an expulsion occurred was in 2002, when Ohio Democrat James Traficant was removed after being convicted of 10 felony counts of racketeering, bribery and fraud.

Santos hasn’t been convicted but is charged with 23 counts as prosecutors allege he stole people’s identities, made charges on his campaign donors’ credit cards and lied to federal election officials.

The congressman pleaded not guilty last week and has repeatedly said he won’t step down. His trial is set for 2024.

“I’m strong in my convictions that I can prove my innocence,” he told reporters last month.

Republicans often count on Santos, who represents a swing district on Long Island, to help pass legislation in the House because of the party’s single-digit majority. Newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled concern that expelling him could endanger that.

It wasn’t the first time that Santos has been threatened with an expulsion vote.

Democrats tried to force the House to consider an expulsion resolution back in May, when the first set of charges came down against Santos. Republicans avoided that vote, instead choosing to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee — which released a rare statement Monday saying they’ll announce next steps for their Santos investigation on or before Nov. 17.

The committee’s investigative subcommittee, which has been reviewing allegations involving Santos, said it “has contacted 40 witnesses, reviewed more than 170,000 pages of documents and authorized 37 subpoenas.”

Santos has said he intended to cooperate with the committee.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Democrats on Wednesday, aided by some Republicans, killed a move to censure Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib for her criticism of Israel over its response to the deadly Hamas terror attack.

The House voted to table — or kill — the censure resolution 222-186 with 23 Republicans voting with Democrats.

Shortly afterward, because the motion to table Tlaib resolution was successful, House Democrats pulled a resolution to censure Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who had proposed the Tlaib censure.

Last month, Tlaib drew the ire of colleagues, including some Democrats, after she refused to apologize for blaming Israel for a deadly hospital blast in Gaza in the early days of the Israel-Hamas conflict. U.S. officials said the initial evidence suggests the blast came from an errant Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, not Israel.

The resolution to censure Tlaib, brought by Greene, cited several of her comments dating back to 2019 and her recent participation in a demonstration at the Capitol calling for an end to the war.

Greene accused Tlaib, who is the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress, of “anti-semitic activity” and “sympathizing with terrorist organizations.” The U.S. has designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

Before Wednesday night’s vote, the Michigan Democrat had slammed Greene’s measure as “unhinged” and “deeply Islamophobic.”

“I am proud to stand in solidarity with Jewish peace advocates calling for a ceasefire and an end to the violence,” Tlaib wrote in a statement. “I will not be bullied, I will not be dehumanized, and I will not be silenced. I will continue to call for ceasefire, for the immediate delivery of humanitarian aid, for the release of hostages and those arbitrarily detained, and for every American to be brought home.”

Greene’s resolution went far as to falsely allege Tlaib led an “insurrection” at the Capitol complex on Oct. 18 when thousands of people gathered in the Cannon Office Building rotunda and outside on the National Mall calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.

The protest was sponsored by the Jewish Voice for Peace, a progressive Jewish group that has organized several demonstrations demanding a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.

More than 300 people were arrested for demonstrating in the Capitol complex but the protest never turned violent in the way the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack did.

Tlaib spoke to demonstrators outside the National Mall. She became emotional as she called for a cease-fire and criticized President Joe Biden for what she called his unwavering support of Israel, which she alleged was committing genocide.

“President Biden, not all Americans are with you on this one and you need to understand that. We are literally watching people commit genocide and killing the vast majority just like this, and we still stand by and say nothing. We will remember this,” Tlaib said.

Hours after Greene introduced her resolution against Tlaib, Democratic Rep. Becca Balint fired back by offering her own against the Georgia congresswoman — who has her own history of inflammatory rhetoric.

Balint claimed Greene has “repeatedly fanned the flames of racism, antisemitism, LGBTQ hate speech, Islamophobia, anti-Asian hate, xenophobia and other forms of hatred.”

A vote to censure a member of Congress does not hold power beyond a public condemnation of the member’s behavior. It does not deny privileges in Congress or expel the member. A simple majority is all that is needed for a censure resolution to pass.

Newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, when asked about the resolutions earlier this week, told reporters, “We got a lot of discussions this week, we’ll see what happens.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump’s legal battles continue to mount as oral arguments begin on Thursday in Minnesota, where the state’s Supreme Court will decide whether or not the case to prevent him from appearing on the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should proceed because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

This will be the second time this week that a case challenging Trump’s eligibility for office will be heard in a courtroom.

There are two likely avenues the justices could take following oral arguments. The justices could dismiss the lawsuit and allow Trump on the ballots (the petitioners would most likely appeal the decision).

If the justices decide the case against Trump should move forward, they could appoint a special master to oversee oral arguments where evidence can be presented and witnesses are called to testify. The special master would then provide the findings and facts of the case to the justices. From there, the justices would decide if Trump should be allowed on Minnesota’s ballot.

Voters alleged that Trump’s actions and remarks on Jan. 6 disqualify him from holding office under Section 3.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that someone isn’t eligible for future office if, while they were in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Free Speech For People, a nonprofit organization, represents the state voters hoping to keep Trump off the ballot, including a former state secretary and a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice. The petitioners in the case are suing Minnesota’s Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon, asking the Supreme Court to have him not allow the former president on the state’s ballot.

FSFP had unsuccessfully challenged the candidacies of several members of Congress in 2022, citing Section 3. In one notable case against Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the judge found the plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence.

Although Simon is the respondent in the case, he told ABC News in an interview that his office will remain neutral throughout this process and their main concern is assuring that voters in Minnesota know in a timely manner whether or not Trump will be allowed on the ballot.

“They deserve to know as soon as possible what their options are and what they will be for the presidential nominating primary and perhaps beyond that, depending on the performance of this particular candidate,” Simon said. “From a scheduling standpoint, we will be at various points, if necessary, urging the court to act sooner rather than later. But we are not taking a position on the underlying legal issues and to that extent, we are bystanders in a sense to the litigation.”

Trump’s legal team responded to the petitioners’ request to remove Trump from the ballot, writing that the “petitioners have no evidence that President Trump intended or supported any violent or unlawful activity seeking to overthrow the government of the United States, either on Jan. 6 or at any other time.”

Nick Nelson will be representing Trump in court and presenting their case to the justices on why the former president should be allowed on the ballot.

The Minnesota Republican Party filed a motion to intervene and be a respondent in the case, which was granted. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the motion to intervene from the Trump campaign.

Some topics that will be discussed at the hearing include the legal construction of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, including if it’s self-executing and if it’s meant to preclude a person from being president of the United States.

The oral arguments in Minnesota will coincide with a similar hearing that started on Monday in Colorado, where six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are suing to prevent Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot.

The core arguments of the cases will be similar, but how they move up the ladder will differ. Since this lawsuit in Minnesota is already starting at the state’s Supreme Court, legal scholars have told ABC News it is likely the case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court first over Colorado as that case is taking place in a state court and would still need to be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

As questions still loom on the possibility of when the U.S. Supreme Court could get involved in the larger legal question of Trump’s eligibility to appear on the 2024 ballot, Simon said that if any legal jurisdiction in the country adopts parts or all of the disqualification clause, it would most definitely go to the country’s highest court.

“Donald Trump will either be on the ballot, everywhere or nowhere,” Simon said.

“There will be a blanket rule for the country. The Supreme Court will ensure that, so there’s no danger that you’ll have some pocket of states that disqualify him and others don’t. The Supreme Court will make sure whatever the outcome is, it’s a uniform outcome,” he added.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden said Wednesday night he believes there should be a “pause” in the Israel-Gaza conflict to get the hostages out after he was interrupted by a heckler at a campaign fundraiser, according to a pool report from the event.

“I think we need a pause,” Biden told the heckler, who had interrupted a speech to call for a cease-fire in the conflict.

The heckler asked what Biden meant by his comment and the president replied, “A pause means give time to get the [hostages] out. Give time.”

“I’m the guy that convinced Bibi to call for a cease-fire to let the [hostages] out. I’m the guy that talked to Sisi to convince him to open the door,” Biden said of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, the latter remark seemingly a reference to the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza.

Biden’s comment Wednesday night is different from the position the White House has pushed since the conflict began: That they would not tell Israel how to respond to Hamas’ deadly terror attack.

“The fact of the matter is that Hamas is a terrorist organization — a flat-out terrorist organization,” Biden said Wednesday evening.

A White House official told ABC News Wednesday evening that Biden did not misspeak when he said that he convinced Netanyahu to call for a “cease-fire.” The official suggested the president was talking about the temporary pause to free the two American hostages last month, arguing that the term has multiple meanings and that it could be interchangeable with “humanitarian pause.”

The U.S. had called for a humanitarian pause in recent days to get aid to civilians stuck in Gaza.

“In a tactical sense, as Secretary [of State Antony] Blinken said, we do think that there should be consideration made right now for humanitarian pauses,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told ABC News last week.

“These are localized, temporary specific pauses on the battlefield so that humanitarian assistance can get in to … people that need it or … people can get out of that area in relative safety. That’s what a humanitarian pause is, and we think it’s an idea worth exploring,” Kirby added.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House on Wednesday will weigh two censure resolutions, one of which is against Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib for her criticism of Israel over its response to the deadly Hamas terror attack.

Tlaib last month drew the ire of colleagues, including some Democrats, after she refused to apologize for blaming Israel for a deadly hospital blast in Gaza in the early days of the Israel-Hamas conflict. U.S. officials said the initial evidence suggests the blast came from an errant Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, not Israel.

The resolution to censure Tlaib, brought by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, cites several of her comments dating back to 2019 and her recent participation in a demonstration at the Capitol calling for an end to the war.

Greene has accused Tlaib, who is the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress, of “anti-semitic activity” and “sympathizing with terrorist organizations.” The U.S. has designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

The Michigan Democrat slammed Greene’s measure as “unhinged” and “deeply Islamophobic.”

“I am proud to stand in solidarity with Jewish peace advocates calling for a ceasefire and an end to the violence,” Tlaib wrote in a statement. “I will not be bullied, I will not be dehumanized, and I will not be silenced. I will continue to call for ceasefire, for the immediate delivery of humanitarian aid, for the release of hostages and those arbitrarily detained, and for every American to be brought home.”

Greene’s resolution goes so far as to falsely allege Tlaib led an “insurrection” at the Capitol complex on Oct. 18 when thousands of people gathered both in the rotunda of the Cannon Office Building and outside on the National Mall calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.

The protest, which was organized by the Jewish Voice for Peace, a progressive Jewish group that has organized several demonstrations demanding a cease fire in the Israel-Hamas war. The D.C protest led to more than 300 people being arrested for demonstrating in the Capitol but it never turned violent in the way the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection did.

Tlaib spoke to demonstrators outside the National Mall. She became emotional as she called for a cease-fire and criticized President Joe Biden for what she called his unwavering support of Israel, which she alleged was committing genocide.

“President Biden, not all Americans are with you on this one and you need to understand that. We are literally watching people commit genocide and killing the vast majority just like this, and we still stand by and say nothing. We will remember this,” Tlaib said.

Hours after Greene introduced her resolution against Tlaib, Democratic Rep. Becca Balint fired back by offering her own against the Georgia congresswoman — who has her own history of inflammatory rhetoric.

Balint claimed Greene has “repeatedly fanned the flames of racism, antisemitism, LGBTQ hate speech, Islamophobia, anti-Asian hate, xenophobia and other forms of hatred.”

A vote to censure a member of Congress does not hold power beyond a public condemnation of the member’s behavior. It does not deny privileges in Congress or expel the member. A simple majority is all that is needed for a censure resolution to pass.

Newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, when asked about the resolutions earlier this week, told reporters, “We got a lot of discussions this week, we’ll see what happens.”

The House on Wednesday will hold its first votes of the week on efforts by party leaders to table, or effectively kill, the resolutions.

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MIAMI) — The judge overseeing the probe into former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents suggested Wednesday that she would move some of the deadlines in the case, acknowledging that the trial could collide with the trial date set in Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon did not explicitly say whether she would move the trial from its current date of May 20, but said she would make “adjustments” to the schedule — something that attorneys for special counsel Jack Smith acknowledged needs to be done, after Cannon recently paused any litigation involving the handling of the classified materials at the center of the probe.

Cannon said she was having “a hard time seeing how, realistically, this work can be accomplished in a compressed period of time” given that Trump’s court schedule in the election interference trial — which is scheduled to begin March 4 — could consume March, April and possibly May.

Jay Bratt, the head of Justice Department’s counterintelligence division, said Trump’s position in both of the special counsel’s probes has been “to delay it as long as they can.”

“The court should not let the D.C. case drive the schedule here,” Bratt told the judge.

Cannon then asked if the special counsel is aware of any other case, with the same defendant in multiple jurisdictions, where no consideration was given to the defendant assisting in his defense for the various different legal matters.

Bratt acknowledged that the trial scheduled in the election interference case could potentially collide with the documents trial — but said that’s something they don’t know at this point, given the various different potential avenues for pretrial litigation.

Trump pleaded not guilty in June to 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials, 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, along with longtime aide Walt Nauta and staffer Carlos De Oliveira also pleaded not guilty in a superseding indictment to allegedly attempting to delete surveillance footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Trump’s attorneys also raised concerns about the amount of discovery they have to review, including the Mar-a-Lago security footage and troves of classified and unclassified documents.

Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, said the discovery provided to the legal team has been “complicated” and “voluminous” and said that the security footage is “cumbersome if not impossible” to view because it cannot be loaded effectively on their computers.

Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, raised the same concerns, adding that he still does not have the clearance needed to review some of the classified documents.

The defense estimated it would take 10 years to review the entirety of the discovery provided by the government.

A day after Trump joined his attorneys in Miami to review the case’s classified evidence in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or SCIF — a specially-equipped secure room for viewing highly classified materials — Judge Cannon expressed concern about the lack of a SCIF in Fort Pierce, Florida, where her chambers are located.

Saying the lack of such a facility does “impact the court’s ability” as well, the judge noted that a SCIF could be established by early next year, but said that was an optimistic assessment.

The judge said she also had concerns about the timing of the trial given the nature of the superseding indictment and issues surrounding security clearances with some of the defense lawyers.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House has scheduled a Wednesday night vote on a Republican-led resolution to expel embattled Rep. George Santos, who maintains his innocence after being indicted on a slew of federal charges.

The push to try and oust Santos is coming from fellow GOP lawmakers in the New York delegation, who argue his past lies and embellishments about his personal history and his various legal entanglements make him unfit for office.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito on Thursday formally filed the expulsion resolution as privileged — which forced the House to move quickly on Santos’ possible removal. D’Esposito was joined by Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, Marc Molinaro and Brandon Williams.

The resolution would need a two-thirds majority to succeed, or 289 votes if all 433 members are present — a high bar for passage.

D’Esposito sent a letter from the group to colleagues on Wednesday urging them to back the resolution to force Santos out.

“We strongly urge you to vote in favor of this resolution and encourage you to contact any one of us should you have any doubts about expelling George Santos from this body,” they wrote.

Only five members in U.S. history have been expelled from the House. If this resolution passes, Santos would be the first expulsion since 2002, when Ohio Democrat James Traficant was removed after being convicted of 10 felony counts of racketeering, bribery and fraud.

Santos hasn’t been convicted but is charged with 23 counts as prosecutors allege he stole people’s identities, made charges on his campaign donors’ credit cards and lied to federal election officials.

The congressman pleaded not guilty last week and has repeatedly said he won’t step down. His trial is set for 2024.

“I’m strong in my convictions that I can prove my innocence,” he told reporters last month.

Republicans often count on Santos, who represents a swing district on Long Island, to help pass legislation in the House because of the party’s single-digit majority. Newly-elected Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled concern that expelling him could endanger that.

It’s not the first time that Santos has been threatened with an expulsion vote.

Democrats tried to force the House to consider an expulsion resolution back in May, when the first set of charges came down against Santos. Republicans avoided that vote, instead choosing to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee — which released a rare statement Monday saying they’ll announce next steps for their Santos investigation on or before Nov. 17.

The committee’s investigative subcommittee, which has been reviewing allegations involving Santos, said it “has contacted 40 witnesses, reviewed more than 170,000 pages of documents and authorized 37 subpoenas.”

Santos has said he intended to cooperate with the committee.

ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Colorado Rep. Ken Buck on Wednesday announced he won’t be seeking reelection and, in a sharply worded statement explaining his decision, he blamed the election denialism that has been embraced by some fellow conservatives in the House.

“Too many Republican leaders are lying to America,” Buck said in a video released on social media, “claiming that the 2020 election was stolen, describing Jan. 6 as an unguided tour of the Capitol and asserting that the ensuing prosecutions are a weaponization of our justice system.”

“These insidious narratives breed widespread cynicism and erode Americans’ confidence in the rule of law,” Buck said.

He continued: “It is impossible for the Republican Party to confront our problems and offer a course correction for the future while being obsessively fixated on retribution and vengeance for contrived injustices of the past.”

Even before his announcement, Buck had broken with some of his colleagues over Jan. 6 and the 2020 election — a position that, polling shows, also put him at odds with how many Republican voters have said they feel — and became a notable dissenter in the party’s recent speakership fight, which consumed the House for several weeks.

Buck helped block Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, from winning the speakership in the leadership scramble after Kevin McCarthy was deposed from the top spot.

Buck was also one of the eight Republicans who, along with the Democratic minority, voted to “vacate” McCarthy’s speakership in early October.

He has said he took issue with how the budget process was handled under McCarthy.

Of Jordan, he told ABC News last month, “Jim at some point, if he’s going to lead this conference during the presidential election cycle … is going to have to be strong and say Donald Trump didn’t win the election.”

In his statement on Wednesday, however, Buck spoke more broadly.

Rather than a party that built on the tradition of leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, continuing to center principles of liberty and “economic freedom,” “The Republican Party of today … is ignoring self-evident truths about the rule of law and limited government in exchange for self-serving lies,” he argued.

The five-term congressman and former prosecutor said that while he was grateful for his time in office, and for voters’ support to fight “against the left’s policies,” he said he worried the GOP in its current state was not a sufficient alternative.

“Americans are rightfully concerned about our nation’s future and are looking to Republicans in Washington for a course correction. But their hope for Republicans to take decisive action may be in vain,” he said.

“Our nation is on a collision course with reality,” he said, “and a steadfast commitment to truth — even uncomfortable truths — is the only way forward.”

“I made the decision to leave Congress because tough votes are being replaced by social media status,” he said, going on to add: “It’s time to stop feeding popular narratives and start addressing the long-term solutions.”

Buck was not the only notable Republican to announce their plans to leave the House this week. Texas Rep. Kay Granger, chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, said in her own statement that she would be leaving Congress after the current term, her 14th.

Granger’s vote also drew attention during the speakership fight when she, along with some other moderate and establishment members of the party, blocked Jordan’s ascent.

“I have been able to accomplish more in this life than I could have imagined, and I owe it all to my incredible family, staff, friends, and supporters,” Granger said in her statement. “The United States of America is the greatest country in the world because of our people and the vision of our Founding Fathers who created a nation that ensures every man, woman and child has the opportunity to succeed.”

“I am encouraged by the next generation of leaders in my district,” she said. “It’s time for the next generation to step up and take the mantle and be a strong and fierce representative for the people.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(DENVER) — A watchdog group and a handful of Colorado voters on Wednesday continued to make their case for why the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol while Congress was gathering to certify the 2020 election results.

Among the witnesses called so far during the historic five-day hearing in Denver were two police officers who were at the Capitol as well as experts on extremism and the history and context of the 14th Amendment itself — and how it might apply to Trump.

The former president and his attorneys have rejected the 14th Amendment argument outright.

The lawsuit against Trump, filed by six Republican and unaffiliated voters represented by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), accuses him of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.

Over the past few months, efforts to bar Trump from the Republican primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was first enacted after the Civil War, have gained traction in a few states. A hearing is set for Thursday in Minnesota on a similar 14th Amendment complaint against Trump.

Section 3 of the amendment states that someone isn’t eligible for future office if, while they were in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Supporters of this theory argue it applies to Trump because of his conduct after he lost the 2020 election but sought to reverse the results, including on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021. Trump maintains he did nothing wrong.

Trump’s attorney Scott Gessler, a former secretary of state for Colorado, said in his own opening remarks for the hearing, on Monday, that the suit is “anti-democratic.”

“It looks to extinguish the opportunity … for millions of Coloradans, Colorado Republicans and unaffiliated voters, to be able to choose and vote for the presidential candidate they want,” Gessler said.

Rep. Troy Nehls, a Republican from Texas, announced on social media on Tuesday that he will testify in Trump’s disqualification trial on behalf of the former president. Nehls claimed that there was “no insurrection” and that the trial was a “sham.” It’s unclear when he will be called as a witness.

CREW began its case by calling two police officers who were at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 rioting and California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, who was inside.

“The events on Jan. 6, 2021, in the United States Capitol were horrific. It was a terrorist attack on the United States of America, an assault on democracy and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” one of the officers, Danny Hodges, testified on Monday.

On Tuesday, CREW called Dr. Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University, to discuss political extremism.

Simi — who had also testified in a trial against organizers of the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 — spoke about some of the groups involved in the Jan. 6 riot, such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and said that their invocation of the term “1776” in plans for that day was a violent call for revolution.

Simi has done 217 interviews with right-wing extremists throughout his career, including with some with members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, he said.

A significant portion of Simi’s testimony, which lasted most of the second day, was used reviewing video footage of Trump’s past speeches.

The professor argued that Trump had endorsed political violence through “double speak”– suggestions used as empty gestures designed to support deniability of his true intentions.

During cross-examination with Gessler, Trump’s lawyer, more clips of the former president were played, including when he condemned Nazis and white supremacists after the Charlottesville rally.

Trump, however, infamously also said in the wake of the rally that “I think there is blame on both sides” and while “you had some very bad people” who attended the rally, “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” (In subsequent years, Trump has repeatedly defended those comments, including telling ABC News in 2019 that he “answered perfectly.”)

During the last leg of Simi’s testimony, on Tuesday, Gessler showed a video montage of various leading Democrats, like Vice President Kamala Harris, using the word “fight” in political speeches.

Simi said they were not invoking violence among far-right extremists.

After his testimony, Bill Banks, the founding director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University and a professor emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law, appeared as a witness.

Wednesday began with CREW presenting its remaining witnesses.

Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, testified about the phrase “insurrection” and the history and meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Ahead of the hearing, presiding District Judge Sarah Wallace had outlined that as a key topic to examine.

During the post-Civil War period in which the 14th Amendment was adopted, engaging in insurrection was understood broadly to include any voluntary act in furtherance of an insurrection against the Constitution, including words of incitement, Magliocca testified.

The U.S. attorney general at the time language had described engaging in insurrection as some direct overt act done with the intent to further the rebellion, Magliocca said.

After his appearance, Hillary Rudy, an elections official with the Colorado Department of State, took the stand.

Trump’s team is expected to begin their presentation later on Wednesday.

Gessler, his attorney, told reporters this week that they have about nine witnesses.

“Their case is incredibly weak,” he said on Monday.

He has contended that Trump did not engage in the violence on Jan. 6 and noted that Trump encouraged supporters to protest peacefully at the Capitol that day.

During a speech near the White House earlier on Jan. 6, Trump also repeated his baseless allegations that the 2020 election was fraudulent and said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Simi cited Trump’s comments that day in his testimony on Tuesday: “For far-right extremists, there’s a clear message that fighting was the clear message. Not being peaceful.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.