Politics

(WASHINGTON) — In a new interview, former President Donald Trump refused or avoided answering many specific questions about his conduct on Jan. 6 — but maintained that it was his decision to challenge the 2020 election, the manner of which is now at the center of two of the four indictments he faces.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the prosecutions as politically motivated.

In the interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker, which aired Sunday on “Meet the Press” after portions were released last week, Trump agreed that he was calling the shots when it came to falsely claiming that the last presidential election was illegitimate.

“As to whether or not I believe it was rigged? Sure. It was my decision. But I listened to some people. Some people said that,” he said.

Trump, who is seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, at times grew angry when being interviewed by Welker, refusing to answer whether he called law enforcement on Jan. 6, 2021, who he called that day and how he watched the chaos unfold, claiming he “behaved so well.”

“I’m not going to tell you. I’ll tell people later at an appropriate time,” he said.

He insisted that he wanted to go down to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically,” echoing the speech he gave outside the White House earlier on Jan. 6.

However, in those same remarks, he also encouraged supporters to march to Congress where lawmakers were certifying the 2020 election results. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he said then.

In his NBC News interview, Trump said he was “going to look” when asked if he would pardon the people convicted of crimes on Jan. 6: “I certainly might if I think it’s appropriate.”

According to the Department of Justice, more than 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with the government’s Jan. 6 investigation.

More than 300 people have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees that day, the DOJ has said, and more than 100 defendants have been accused of using deadly weapons.

About 140 police were attacked on Jan. 6, according to the DOJ.

On the subject of potentially pardoning himself if he is reelected president — which would be an unprecedented move under the Constitution, undertaken by no other commander in chief — Trump told Welker in another excerpt from the interview that it was “very unlikely.”

“What did I do wrong? I didn’t do anything. Well, you mean because I challenged an election, they want to put me in jail,” he said.

“The last thing I’d ever do is give myself a pardon,” he said.

He said, again, that he planned to testify under oath at trial to push back on the government’s allegation that he ordered a staffer to delete security footage at his Mar-a-Lago estate in order to obstruct the investigation into his handling of government secrets while out of office.

Trump called it a “fake charge.”

Trump is charged in four criminal cases: two at the federal level, brought by special counsel Jack Smith, in Washington and Florida; one in New York state court; and one in Georgia state court.

The Washington and Georgia indictments are related to the campaign to overturn the 2020 election results. The Florida indictment is related to Trump’s handling of classified material after leaving the White House and the New York charges are related to the hush money he paid to an adult film actress before the 2016 election, which his attorneys previously likened to blackmail.

In the Washington indictment, Trump is accused of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to remain in power.

Prosecutors claim the plot involved six unnamed co-conspirators, included enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors” targeting several states; using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations”; and trying to enlist then-Vice President Mike Pence to “alter the election results,” which Pence declined to do.

Trump has denied all wrongdoing and said that he is being charged because of his politics, not the law. Prosecutors dispute that.

“President Trump has always followed the law and the Constitution, with advice from many highly accomplished attorneys,” his campaign said in a statement after he was indicted in Washington.

In his interview with Welker, Trump said he doesn’t worry about going to prison and he doesn’t think about it.

“No, I don’t really,” he said. “I don’t even think about it. I’m built a little differently I guess, because I have had people come up to me and say, ‘How do you do it, sir? How do you do it?’ I don’t even think about it … All I think about is making the country great.”

Welker asked what he means when he says in his campaign that he is “retribution” for his supporters. He said it was about restoring law and order to the country, as he saw it, and he said he would “never” seek to use law enforcement to target his opponents.

On abortion rights, Taiwan and his wife

On abortion, Trump, whose Supreme Court appointees were crucial in scrapping the constitutional guarantee to abortion access last year, would not say whether he would sign federal legislation that would ban abortion at 15 weeks.

Abortion opponents have pushed for strict restrictions nationwide.

“I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something,” he said, repeating a common part of his pitch — that he is a deal-maker.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022, voters have directly weighed in on abortion in both conservative and liberal states and in each case they have voted to protect abortion access.

Exit polling in last year’s midterms showed the issue was important in swing states like Michigan.

Trump remained noncommittal on an abortion ban at the federal level, saying it was “probably better” to leave it to the states.

Trump also refused to answer the question of whether he’d send U.S. troops if China invaded Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing regards as a breakaway province.

“Only stupid people are going” to answer that, he said.

Separately, the former president addressed former first lady Melania Trump’s lack of a presence on the trail so far — something that has been called out by critics during the campaign.

“She’s a private person, a great person, very confident person,” he said of his wife.

“She’ll be out there,” he said, “and, honestly, I like to keep her away from it. It’s so nasty and so mean.”

ABC News’ Lucien Bruggeman, Katherine Faulders and Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries argued on Sunday that his Republicans colleagues are “in the middle of a civil war” over the best way forward amid a newly launched impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, an ongoing spending fight and another looming shutdown of the federal government.

“Civil war has the following attributes: chaos, dysfunction and extremism. The House Republican civil war is hurting hardworking American taxpayers and limiting our ability to be able to solve problems on their behalf,” Jeffries told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl, in an exclusive interview.

“It’s unfortunate. But as House Democrats, we’re going to continue to try to find common ground with the other side of the aisle,” Jeffries said, adding: “Hopefully the House Republicans will come along so that we can work to make sure we are funding the government.”

Jeffries also said the White House “will continue to cooperate” with the impeachment inquiry “because there is nothing to hide.”

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., appeared on “This Week” after Jeffries and acknowledged the GOP has its issues with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy but shot back: “I find it a little bit hypocritical that that is the divisive language that he used in his interview and talking about people over politics.”

Referring to an earlier agreement on raising the nation’s debt ceiling, Mace added, “If Democrats and, quite frankly, Republicans wanted to put people over politics, they would not have joined hands earlier this year to add $18.8 trillion to the debt.”

Jeffries, in his own interview, laid the blame with the House’s conservative majority, contending that Democrats want to “end the partisan, political gamesmanship that right now has captured House Republicans.”

As Mace suggested, a major sticking point is on whether — and where — to cut government spending.

The House has only cleared one of 12 appropriations bills. So far, House Democrats have voted against the GOP funding bills since the conference marked the bills at levels lower than the spending caps agreed to by McCarthy and Biden in the debt-limit deal in June.

Asked about a possible federal government shutdown, Jeffries on Sunday called on Republicans to “stop fighting each other” and said he expects more conversations to occur but didn’t say if he’s discussed a path forward with McCarthy.

As some Republican members threaten to bring a motion to vacate to oust McCarthy, Jeffries also wouldn’t say if House Democrats would help bail out the speaker.

“We haven’t given it any thought one way or the other,” he said.

“But what we should be focused on right now is avoiding an unnecessary government shutdown that will hurt the ability of our economy to continue to recover,” he added.

On “This Week,” Jeffries addressed the new impeachment inquiry into Biden, with McCarthy claiming a “culture of corruption” around the president — which the White House calls baseless.

“There are no facts on the record to suggest that President Biden engaged in impeachable offenses. There are no facts on the record to suggest that President Biden broke the law in any way, shape or form,” Jeffries said.

He called the probe another “product of the House Republican civil war.” McCarthy had originally said there would be a vote to launch it, but it was unclear if he had sufficient votes to do so and he ultimately launched one anyway.

“House Republicans have uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct,” he said last week.

Congressional Republicans have long been investigating what they claim are illicit ties between the president and his son Hunter Biden, particularly around Hunter Biden’s controversial overseas business dealings.

No evidence has emerged to show the president was directly involved in Hunter Biden’s business decisions or made decisions because of them.

On Thursday, Hunter Biden was charged in Delaware for allegedly lying about his drug use when he bought a gun in 2018. His attorney said on “Good Morning America” last week that the case is “likely unconstitutional” and insisted it will be dismissed.

The minority leader said on “This Week” that Hunter Biden’s indictment proves there is no interaction between the president and the administration’s Department of Justice, which has been investigating Hunter Biden.

“Hunter Biden is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The matter is before a court of law right now, and let’s see how it proceeds,” Jeffries said. “I think what’s more important is that President Joe Biden continues to lead us forward to focus on the things that matter.”

Separately, in the wake of a United Auto Workers strike, Jeffries said he will be traveling to Detroit on Sunday afternoon and is “looking forward to standing in solidarity with” them as they “are fighting for the fundamental American dream.”

He said he hopes the strike will end “sooner rather than later.”

One issue that Jeffries deflected on entirely was Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Former House Speaker Pelosi did not directly answer a question in an interview last week about whether Harris, who has poor approval ratings, is Biden’s best choice as running mate. Karl pressed Jeffries on why.

Jeffries said Pelosi is “very capable of answering that question on her own.”

But he endorsed Harris himself, saying, “She’ll be a great running mate. She’s been a tremendous partner in the things that President Biden has been able to accomplish.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace warned Sunday that “everything’s on the table” as rank-and-file House Republicans like her spar with Speaker Kevin McCarthy over high-profile issues including the federal government spending battle.

Asked about other members of her conference threatening to bring a so-called motion to vacate, Mace said on ABC’s “This Week” that she would not “comment on conjecture,” but she suggested that she could be swayed to support the effort to oust McCarthy from his speakership which, if successful, would grind the House to a halt until a replacement is elected.

Mace cited similar complaints as from some other GOP lawmakers over alleged broken promises from McCarthy, though she said she anticipated he will ultimately retain his gavel.

“I will tell you I’m one of those members who was made certain promises. I’ve worked on women’s issues. I’ve worked on issues related to gun violence I feel are very important. And it’s fallen on deaf ears. And if I give a handshake to someone, I expect them to follow through,” she told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl. “Everything’s on the table at this point for me because I want to do the right thing for the American people.”

“I do think he will continue to be speaker,” she added of McCarthy, “but I do think it’s going to be a long rest of the year.”

Some more hard-line House Republicans have complained that McCarthy caved earlier this year when working with Democrats on raising the debt ceiling and have said they could move to remove him from the speakership if he does not agree to significant spending cuts when government funding expires at the end of this month.

Mace has occasionally criticized McCarthy, suggesting that he has not followed through on commitments he made to her, though she has voted to support party-line legislation and his speakership.

However, others like Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., have repeatedly said they could push a motion to vacate over what they view as an inadequate appetite from McCarthy to cut spending levels — a threat that boiled over at a conference meeting last week.

“Move the f—— motion,” McCarthy dared his detractors, ABC News reported.

Mace told Karl on “This Week,” in light of Gaetz’s threat, “Either he’s going to file it or he’s not. If he’s going to do it, put his money where his mouth is. I do hear that some votes might be up for grabs because people were made promises that have not been kept.”

She criticized McCarthy for not having individual votes on spending bills and predicted he would have to instead rely on temporary solutions like continuing resolutions.

“That doesn’t give a budget for the country, and that doesn’t give consistency for the economy, for businesses that are trying to grow,” she said. “And both sides, quite frankly, have put us in this position and he ought to take ownership of it and so, too, should Republicans.”

“We want the American people to trust us, to trust Congress to do the right thing, and to be responsible with their tax dollars,” Mace went on to say.

She said that she does not see the impasse being resolved before the government funding deadline, with McCarthy supporting a short-term funding patch while his more conservative flank vows to vote against that.

“I’m expecting a shutdown,” Mace told Karl.

While acknowledging her differences with McCarthy, Mace also pushed back on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries who, in his own appearance on “This Week,” called out a Republican “civil war.”

“I find it a little bit hypocritical that that is the divisive language that he used in his interview, and talking about people over politics,” she said. Referring to the debt limit deal this year, she said, “If Democrats and, quite frankly, Republicans wanted to put people over politics, they would not have joined hands earlier this year to add $18.8 trillion to the debt.”

Karl also pressed Mace on McCarthy launching an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, as Republicans continue to allege he had inappropriate ties to his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings. The White House has dismissed the claims as baseless.

Republicans have not directly tied the president to any wrongdoing, but Mace insisted there was enough “smoke” to warrant an investigation.

“You can’t say, ‘Hey, there’s a little bit of smoke, we’re not going to follow the fire.’ And the inquiry, my understanding is … gives us expanded subpoena powers,” Mace said. “I want the bank records of Joe Biden.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As former President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim he won the last election while he campaigns for the 2024 Republican nomination, outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said in a new interview he is not worried about a repeat of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“You saw what happened on Jan. 6. Are you nervous about that happening again? Can you honestly say you’re not nervous about that happening again?” ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz asked the chairman in an interview that aired Sunday.

“No, I’m not nervous about it,” Milley said. “I don’t get nervous about a lot of things. I’ve seen a lot of combat. So I’m beyond that actually.”

Raddatz followed up, asking Milley whether he’s “confident” what happened that day will not happen again.

“I am confident that the United States and the democracy in this country will prevail and the rule of law will prevail,” Milley said. “These institutions are built to be strong, resilient and to adapt to the times, and I’m 100% confident we’ll be fine.”

Raddatz pressed the retiring general on what it says about America that millions of people still do not believe the 2020 election was legitimate, citing an August CNN/SSRS poll that found 38% of Americans do not think Biden was legitimately elected.

“When you look at those numbers, and when you look at crowds, saying the election was stolen, what do you think?” Raddatz asked.

“The United States, you know, Martha, has been under a lot of challenges over the years. … There’s a term I’ve talked to people about the ‘conceit of the present,’ where people think that the present is always the worst. Well, it’s not always the worst,” Milley said.

He cited what he described as “tough times” for the country, including several wars, the Great Depression and the assassinations of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

“This is not the toughest time. America will prevail, it will come through stronger on the other end and the American people are gonna be just fine,” he said.

After Trump lost the 2020 election, Milley was reportedly concerned the former president might try to hold onto power by using the military. But he told Raddatz he did not receive any illegal commands after Election Day.

“Was there concern?” Raddatz asked.

“No, you know, I argued the case at various times for alternative courses of action. Never received an illegal order,” Milley said.

One of the most controversial moments of Milley’s tenure as Joint Chiefs chairman came in the summer of 2020, as racial justice protests swept the nation.

On June 1 of that year, police aggressively cleared protesters from the area surrounding the White House about 20 minutes before Trump walked across Lafayette Square to St. John’s Church for what became one of the most infamous photo ops of his presidency.

For part of that walk, Milley was behind Trump, in full battle dress uniform.

He has previously said he regretted that moment, and on “This Week,” Milley confirmed he considered resigning after the incident.

According to one book about the Trump administration, “The Divider,” Milley — who has acknowledged speaking with several authors covering that period — wrote a resignation letter in which he castigated Trump as “doing great and irreparable harm to my country.”

“Several people counseled me and, and they reminded me that that an officer — a commissioned officer — resigning is the consummate political act, and that it’s our obligation to stay out of politics,” Milley told Raddatz. “And if I were to resign, then that would be a grave mistake. And it would be putting the uniform even more into politics.”

When he departs, Milley may be one of the most well-known figures to serve in the role in recent history.

Still, he told Raddatz he has no plans to change his policy of not commenting on presidents, including Trump, his former boss and the man who nominated him to his most senior post.

“It’s a professional ethic,” Milley said. “And the American people will be the deciders of who they elect as a president. It’s not gonna be a general. It’s not going to be someone in uniform.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — The jury, consisting of Texas senators, has acquitted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on 16 articles of impeachment he faced in a rare Texas Senate impeachment trial after Paxton was suspended by the Texas House in May.

The 16 articles were rejected overwhelmingly, with not even a simple majority voting in favor of any of the articles. A supermajority of 21 votes was required to convict Paxton on an impeachment article.

The senators subsequently voted to dismiss four additional articles that were being held in abeyance.

Closing arguments in the Texas Senate impeachment trial of Paxton began Friday morning with short remarks from the prosecution’s Rep. Andrew Murr, who led the House impeachment managers’ investigation, and which were followed by arguments from two of Paxton’s attorneys, Tony Buzbee and Dan Cogdell. After the House impeachment managers’ side finished their remarks, which they returned to after Paxton’s side spoke, the jury of senators began deliberations, which will be closed to the public.

Paxton was tried on 16 articles of impeachment that center around allegations that the attorney general abused his office through an improper relationship with campaign donor and real estate investor, Natin “Nate” Paul.

Both Paul and Paxton have denied wrongdoing. Unrelated to the allegations involving Paxton, Paul faces eight felony counts for allegedly making false statements to mortgage lenders and credit unions to secure business loans, and his trial is set to begin next summer. Paul entered a not guilty plea in June.

Paxton has denounced the impeachment proceedings, which were overwhelmingly backed by state House Republicans, as a “sham.”

Both Paxton’s defense and Paul have also denied accusations of bribery.

Murr split his allotted time and opened only with a few minutes of closing arguments before allowing the defense to speak. In his initial remarks before the Senate, he said, “Mr. Paxton’s attorneys like to remind everyone that he was elected by 4.2 million voters, but they have blindly ignored the fact that he has ultimately ended up serving one person: himself.” Murr also criticized Paxton’s absence from the chamber during most of the trial; Paxton attended a few hours on day one of the trial, only returning for closing arguments on Friday, nearly two weeks later.

A passionate Buzbee spent his final moments before the jury arguing that the defense proved that the prosecution has shown no impeachable evidence against Paxton.

He categorized the allegations made by the House impeachment managers regarding Paxton’s relationship with Paul into what he described as “three buckets: campaign donation, house renovations, and Olson job,” referring to a job procured for Laura Olson, with whom Paxton allegedly had an affair. Paxton has never publicly admitted to the alleged affair, but his counsel did not deny the alleged affair during the trial. Olson has never addressed the alleged affair publicly.

Buzbee proceeded to elaborate on what he argued was a lack of evidence the prosecution presented for each category.

Earlier in the trial, Buzbee criticized a 2018 donation Paul made to Paxton’s campaign, which the prosecution has argued is evidence of a bribe, stating, “If campaign donations were bribes, everybody in this town would be impeached.”

In a similar defense made in his closing remarks, Buzbee said of Paxton’s alleged affair: “If this impeachment is based on a marital impropriety, then line up. Line up. We’re gonna be doing a lot of impeaching in this city.”

Buzbee leveled accusations against multiple parties in his closing remarks, some of which were in no way affiliated with the trial for the 16 articles of impeachment. He took aim at President Joe Biden and multiple federal agencies, suggesting a larger political agenda at play.

“If you don’t think that the Biden administration and its FBI and Department of Justice would not love, would not love to indict Ken Paxton, then you’re not paying attention. They’ve done nothing. You know why they’ve done nothing? Because there’s nothing to do,” he told jurors.

Additionally, Buzbee called the whistleblowers who testified during the trial “so-called whistleblowers, which are nothing but disgruntled ex-staffers.”

Cogdell followed his co-counsel, criticizing the case against Paxton.

“Some of the greatest lawyers in Texas literally could not put together a cogent case that could convince anyone that these things occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. These aren’t second chair misdemeanor prosecutors,” he said. “They were the best of the best. They did the best they could. But the evidence simply wasn’t there.”

Murr followed for the prosecution by urging senators, “Members of the jury, this is the most important choice you have ever faced in 100 years. It’s probably the only vote that anyone will ever talk about in your careers.”

Murr spent a considerable portion of his time replaying videos of witness testimony before the jury, responding to each point made by the defense with what he argued was evidence outlining wrongdoing by the attorney general, who said that bribery didn’t happen and the alleged affair wasn’t relevant.

“Now is your time to do right,” he concluded his remarks with.

Rep. Jeff Leach gave the prosecution’s closing arguments.

“Mr. Buzbee, you said in your closing that we’re here because we hate Ken Paxton, and you could not be more wrong. I have loved Ken Paxton for a long time,” he told jurors, before listing many ways in which he said the pair bonded over their relationship.

Leach addressed the whistleblowers present in the room, whom over the trial spent hours testifying before the Senate.

“I see some of the whistleblowers are here in the gallery this morning. These are men and women of high esteem, character, conservative to the core. And you courageously spoke out, knowing the consequences and taking the risk. Much like all of us have had to do, and will have to do, with this vote. I want you to do know the House has seen you and heard you,” he said.

He urged the jury “not to ask yourself what is safe or popular or politic, but what is right. And I believe that it is right, as painful as it might be, for us and for you to vote to sustain the articles of impeachment committed to you by the Texas House of Representatives.”

Leach ended his remarks by saying he prays “God’s grace, and favor, his wisdom and discernment over you as you deliberate and vote on this historic matter.”

While the duration of deliberations is not now known, the presiding judge over the trial, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, told jurors they should plan to work through the weekend if needed and will take no days off until they are ready to present their votes publicly.

He remarked Friday morning before closing arguments that “for the public, this is like 16 trials in one. This is not a normal trial,” stressing the number of articles the senators were responsible for deliberating over.

ABC News’ Gina Sunseri contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls campaign across the country, many have one pitch in common: a promise to eliminate federal agencies or otherwise dismantle the “administrative state.”

At least five of the major candidates, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence, have endorsed doing away with the Department of Education, a favorite target at August’s GOP debate.

Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy has gone a lot further. The list of departments he wants to abolish includes not only the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Nuclear Regulatory Commission but also the Internal Revenue Service — and even the FBI.

Earlier this week, he proposed cutting the federal workforce by a whopping 75%.

“Do we want incremental reform?” Ramaswamy said. “Or do we want a revolution?”

ABC News spoke with half a dozen experts about how eliminating departments would work. They described such pledges as political talking points easier said than done, with some calling the proposals either impractical or unfeasible.

“Some of the implications are either dangerous in terms of the ability of the federal government to fulfill its mission or downright impossible, that is making promises candidates are not going to be able to keep,” said Donald Kettl, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and former dean of its school of public policy.

“It’s a long shot,” said Kevin Kosari, a senior fellow at the center-right think tank American Enterprise Institute. “Government agencies have a habit of sticking around.”

The idea of dismantling these agencies isn’t novel. Republicans have long run on the idea that the federal government is too big and needs to be streamlined. Abolishing the Department of Education, in particular, has been a Republican Party goal since the agency was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.

President Ronald Reagan made it a standard applause line.

But there’s a reason it hasn’t happened.

There are so many roadblocks to any such effort, experts said, that none could identify the last time a high-level department was entirely wiped off the map.

“The executive branch has limited authority to reorganize itself, and almost certainly that authority does not extend to unilaterally eliminating a Cabinet department or agency that’s provided for in statute,” said Michael Thorning, the director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Eliminating an agency would need to be done in concert with Congress, experts agreed. And with the current makeup of lawmakers on Capitol Hill — a Republican-led House and Democrat-controlled Senate — any proposals are likely to face an uphill battle, not to mention pushback from various interest groups that would lobby Congress hard to maintain those departments.

“You cannot get rid of departments unless you undo legislation,” said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Take the Department of Education, for example. The $80-billion department oversees student loan services, grant programs, non-discrimination policies and more.

“That means having Congress take a series of very, very difficult votes to say, ‘We’re not going to have a student loan program anymore. We’re not going to have Pell Grants anymore. We’re not going to have Title I anymore,'” Kamarck said.

Some have proposed reshuffling programs like Pell Grants and Title I to other agencies while cutting what they see as unnecessary or duplicative elements of the department. The conservative Heritage Foundation issued a report in 2020 proposing the elimination of more than 80 Department of Education programs and moving 40 others to different agencies, such as the Treasury Department or Justice Department.

“I think what really needs to be done is a thoughtful process of moving the offices that deserve to stay around to other agencies, and then eliminating the ones that do not,” said Jonathan Butcher, the senior research fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation.

Kamarck said that could be done, but says how much money you’d save or how much you’d shrink government would be less than candidates suggest. The Heritage Foundation proposal would result in a total savings cost of $17 billion annually.

Similar tough conversations about what’s essential and what’s not would need to be held concerning other agencies candidates have pitched eliminating like the IRS or Commerce Department, as well as proposals to flatly cut a certain percentage of the non-defense federal workforce.

Kettl and others said dismantling the FBI would be about as close to a “non-starter” idea as possible given its role in criminal investigations, homeland security and more. Ramaswamy has said 20,000 of the FBI’s 35,000 employees are “non-essential” and would be out of a job when he shut it down. The rest, he said, could be moved to other law enforcement departments like the U.S. Marshals Service or the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s attractive to talk about slashing and cutting and burning,” said Kettl, “but the bottom line is that there are important things at work and we have to ask, ‘Am I willing to wait longer for airport security lines? Are we willing to wait longer for tax refunds? Are we willing to take the risk that we don’t want the federal government stepping in to help people who have been injured by fires in Maui or by tornados in the Midwest?'”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith and his team have requested a federal judge in Washington, D.C., impose a “narrowly tailored” order restricting former President Donald Trump from making public statements that they argue could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.

In an extraordinary filing, Smith’s office accused Trump of engaging in a sweeping campaign of “disinformation” and harassment intended to intimidate witnesses, prosecutors and others involved in the prosecution he is facing.

“Like his previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election, the defendant’s recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals –the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors,” the filing says.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.

Prosecutors say their proposed order to D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan would be “a narrow, well-defined restriction” that would prohibit Trump from making statements “regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.”

The order would not prohibit Trump from quoting or referencing public court records or making proclamations of innocence, prosecutors say.

But if implemented by Judge Chutkan, such an order would likely set off a high-stakes legal battle, with Trump — who is currently the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential primary — expected to argue that his First Amendment rights are being violated.

It’s unclear when Judge Chutkan might rule on the government’s motion.

Trump has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the election interference charges as “a persecution of a political opponent.” A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Kennedy family members have long been standard-bearers in the Democratic Party — a fact Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has sought to capitalize on in his bid to defeat President Joe Biden in the contest for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.

But Kennedy — the nephew and son of party stalwarts President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, respectively — refused to close the door last week on leaving his party’s primary amid a bitter fight with the Democratic National Committee over its rules governing the nomination process, even after saying he would only run as a Democrat.

Speaking during a town hall in North Charleston, South Carolina, last week, Kennedy said he was keeping all options open when asked by an attendee if he was prepared to run an independent campaign amid perceived hurdles erected by the DNC, which the campaign claims were built to foil his candidacy.

“They’re trying to make sure that I can’t participate at all in the political process, and so I’m going to keep all my options open,” Kennedy said of the DNC. A day later, he told another crowd in New Hampshire that he “would have to make a call before Oct. 15” if he were to decide to run independently.

While Kennedy has long assumed the role of an outsider Democratic candidate up against Biden’s better-established and better-funded incumbency, he has frequently brushed aside questions about any potential third-party bids.

During a NewsNation town hall in June, Kennedy called being a Democrat part of his identity.

“You know, people have said to me, ‘why don’t you run it as an independent’ … and I say ‘because I’m a Democrat,'” Kennedy said.

“This is who I am. This is my identity. But I want my party back. I want my party to be … the party that I grew up in. The party of John Kennedy, the party of Robert Kennedy, the party of FDR and Harry Truman,” he said.

And again, when asked during a late-August Fox News interview if he would consider a third-party bid in the 2024 election, Kennedy explicitly said he would not.

“No, I’m a Democrat. You know, I’m a traditional Democrat, and … part of my mission here is to summon the Democratic Party back to its traditional ideals,” Kennedy said. “I’m not surprised that the people who are aligned with the DNC, people who are closely aligned with the White House, are troubled by my candidacy.”

When asked by ABC News a day after his North Charleston town hall if he were willing to make a third-party run, Kennedy said that he was going to “wait and see.”

“I’m hoping to run in the Democratic Party. If it’s possible to have a fair election in the Democratic Party, I will run in the Democratic Party, and I haven’t made any kind of plans other than that,” he said.

Reached by ABC News, campaign manager and former congressman Dennis Kucinich dismissed that there was any shift in messaging around a potential third-party bid.

“Well, first of all, I’m not ready to acknowledge that there’s any shift,” he said. “We’re trying to stop the Democratic Party from making a mistake. We’re trying to help the Democratic Party come to reconcile with its own voting base.”

Kucinich added, “regardless of what’s been said, even by the candidate himself, we have not abandoned hope for the Democratic Party.”

Though a frequent critic of the DNC on the campaign trail, Kennedy’s attacks have reached a fever pitch over the past few weeks, with Kennedy and his campaign publicly and privately blasting the DNC’s recent primary calendar shakeups and making other allegations of proposed rule changes and vote-rigging.

In early September, the Kennedy campaign said they’d emailed DNC Chair Jamie Harrison requesting a meeting between party leadership and the candidate to discuss “voter rights and protection of the people’s voice” while requesting “full transparency” related to nomination process matters.

Harrison replied to Kennedy’s campaign Tuesday with an offer to meet. Kennedy responded with a separate, open letter on Wednesday night, still accusing the party of engaging in “repeated interference in the primary elections” and imploring it to hold “the most transparent, equal, accessible, and accountable election that has ever been seen in this country.”

Among Kennedy’s top complaints with the party’s nomination process are changes to the primary calendar, which could see classic early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire striped of their convention delegates if they are out of compliance with the national party’s election calendar, which is slated to have South Carolina vote first. Kennedy’s campaign is still hitting Iowa and New Hampshire nonetheless.

When asked why, if the Kennedy campaign is committed to winning a Democratic primary, it was expending resources on states that appear poised to lose their delegates, Kucinich said that the DNC was playing a dangerous game by neglecting the two states, which place significant value on retail politics and pride in their respective “first in the nation” statuses.

“One of the major failures in the foresight of the leadership … of the Democratic Party, is that they appear to be writing off New Hampshire’s four electoral votes, Iowa’s six electoral votes, and I have yet to see a presidential race where any party would want to spot the other 10 electoral votes,” Kucinich said. “Mr. Kennedy is reaching out to protect the position of the party in the general election.”

Another attendee at last week’s North Charleston town hall raised the concern that Kennedy may be a spoiler for Biden and open up a lane for Republicans to take back the White House, something the candidate brushed off.

“If you don’t mind, in this room, if you are a Republican, raise your hand,” Kennedy asked of the audience, with several attendees’ hands going up.

“OK, so, I don’t think I’m hurting President Biden, let me just rest my case,” he said to applause, a tacit acknowledgment of his growing support among a base broader than just Democratic voters.

Biden is significantly ahead of Kennedy in the polls — 67% to 11%, according to the latest major polling average from FiveThirtyEight.

DNC members have brushed off Kennedy’s criticisms of their nominating process. Maria Cardona, a member representing Washington, D.C., called his recent public statements “absolutely ridiculously insane” and a “desperation attempt” to stay relevant on the campaign trail.

Cardona also questioned why the candidate was only now speaking up about the DNC’s decision-making process, which has been ongoing well over the past year through open meetings.

“This has been a long process, where we have had massive public meetings. Where were they? Where was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Did he come to any of those meetings? Did they chime in as to how they wanted to see this process run? Do they have ideas? The first time I’ve seen them,” she said.

On Tuesday, after repeated claims from Kennedy’s campaign that they’d attempted to make contact with the national party, Harrison agreed to arrange for a meeting between the camps, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

“Based on statements made in the media and in fundraising appeals” from Kennedy’s campaign, Harrison wrote, it “is clear that there are serious misunderstandings of the Democratic nominating process that are important to correct.”

The DNC held a meeting in Washington, D.C., Thursday, where they reviewed delegate selection plans and provided updates on outstanding plans, among other items. A few Kennedy supporters attended the meeting, but did not interrupt it — though they circulated printed copies of Kennedy’s open letter to Harrison to party members.

One Kennedy supporter, Kyle Kemper, parked a bus decorated with the candidate’s face plastered over it in front of the D.C. hotel where the party convened.

“We would still support RFK if he switches parties,” Kemper said. “In New Hampshire, he declared that by Oct. 15, he’ll be making a decision whether to support and continue the family legacy of being one of the best Democrat candidates the world has ever seen. Or … take on the DNC and take on the establishment.”

DNC member and ABC News political contributor Donna Brazile questioned Kennedy’s allegiance to the Democratic party amid his recent criticisms.

“I recognize that part of their political strategy might be to take on the party in a run as an anti-establishment candidate, get in line, how he was anti-establishment. Rev. Jesse Jackson was anti-establishment, Bernie Sanders ran as an anti-establishment,” Brazile said.

“The difference is those candidates competed, and they failed to win the nomination, but they continue to be involved in a process. Anyone who is a true Democrat would not threaten to leave the party.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House Oversight Committee will be launching a Republican-led probe into the federal response to the Maui wildfires, claiming Biden had “failed” in that effort when it came things such as government aid and housing assistance.

In a letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency leadership signed solely by House Republicans, Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Pete Sessions, the subcommittee chairman, are demanding information on the recovery and what steps have been taken by the agency.

“To ensure locals are receiving the assistance they need, and taxpayer dollars being used effectively, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability is taking action and seeking information from FEMA on all ongoing recovery efforts in Maui,” Comer and Sessions wrote in a statement.

The chairmen said in the letter that President Joe Biden has “built his entire reputation on empathy and compassion” but “failed” in the response to the wildfires.

The letter comes as the 2024 presidential election heats up and many Republicans work to cast Biden as slow to respond to the Maui wildfires. Biden has faced criticism from some Republicans — including front-runner Donald Trump — who said he did too little during the first days after the fires broke out. The White House responded, saying Biden acted quickly and stayed in touch with local officials and emergency teams in Hawaii. He later visited with first lady Jill Biden.

The probe will look into what support local Maui and Hawaii officials requested and how that support was delivered. Government spending and housing assistance will be investigated as well.

One of the concerns mentioned in the letter is reports that FEMA employees stayed at luxury hotels and resorts during their response in Lahaina. FEMA said staffer were told it was “necessary to temporarily house FEMA employees in such locations so they could be close enough to Lahaina to effectively perform their duties,” according to the letter. Also, staffers were told FEMA paid reduced rates at these locations, it said in the letter.

The committee wants answers from FEMA by Sept. 29. The letter was signed by 15 House Republicans.

On Sept. 8, Biden authorized an increase in the level of federal funding for Public Assistance projects undertaken in the state to 90% of coverage, unless otherwise authorized for 100%.

More than 7,400 people were placed in temporary housing on Wednesday, according to FEMA.

More than 5,090 households have been approved for individual assistance. Nearly $84 million in federal assistance has been approved for survivors, which includes housing and other needs assistance as well as Small Business Association disaster loans.

Environmental Protection Agency in Lahaina and Upcountry areas affected by the fires have also been conducting air sampling tests and hazardous material removals in the disaster area in an effort to clear the region for rebuilding efforts.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Before House Speaker Kevin McCarthy decided to move forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump openly pushed Republicans to do more, claiming his political rival is a “crook,” which the White House denies as baseless.

Sources tell ABC News that, this week, Trump also privately discussed Biden and impeachment with House Republicans before and after McCarthy announced he was launching an investigation, which ramps up congressional scrutiny of the president at the same time that Trump faces four criminal cases of his own.

He has pleaded not guilty to all of his charges.

Rep. Elise Stefanik, who is a member of the Republican leadership, spoke with Trump on Tuesday afternoon and updated him on the just-announced impeachment inquiry, according to two sources.

Trump also had dinner on Sunday night with Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and discussed the topic of impeachment, per two sources. She shared a photo of the two together at the dinner.

“It wasn’t something he asked about,” Greene told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. “It was just something that I was telling him the strategy that I thought we should take.”

In an interview with Megyn Kelly that aired Thursday, Trump said: “That’s up to them [Republican lawmakers] if they want to do impeachment or impeachment inquiry.”

But he suggested it was payback for his two previous impeachments. (Senate Republicans acquitted him in both trials.)

“They did it to me, and had they not done it to me, I think, and nobody officially A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on whether Trump has privately urged House Republicans to make such a move.said this … perhaps you wouldn’t have it being done to them,” he told Kelly, later adding, “It’s a shame … that’s human nature.”

McCarthy, who has also faced pressure from hard-line members of his conference to pursue impeachment against Biden, hasn’t commented on whether he’s discussed it with Trump.

A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on whether Trump has privately urged House Republicans to make such a move.

He has previously expressed multiple times that the House wouldn’t need to do a long impeachment inquiry, claiming the case against Biden is already clear. McCarthy on Tuesday alleged there was a “culture of corruption” around the president.

The White House has pushed back on the inquiry, with press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying Wednesday, “What you see Republicans in Congress, they have spent all year investigating the president. That’s what they have spent all year doing. And have turned up with no evidence, none, that he did anything wrong.”

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, a staunch Trump congressional ally, said he hasn’t talked to the former president about the impeachment inquiry and didn’t have plans to, deflecting on the argument that some Republicans felt pressure from the former president to act.

“I think the real pressure is going to be borne by voters, specifically Republican voters,” Donalds told ABC News.

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who had recommended against an impeachment inquiry, subsequently said that since the decision has been made to launch one, he wants to “do it right, by the book.”

“I don’t want to make impeachment normal in our country,” Bacon told ABC News. “So we’ve had four in total in the history of this country. I’ve already been in two of them, and so I want to make sure that we do this cautiously and meticulously — do it right, by the book.”

As of right now, the House likely does not have the 218 votes needed to impeach President Biden on any charges, and congressional Republicans appear to disagree about whether they think there’s enough evidence to carry through an impeachment.

Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, said this week that he was “not seeing facts or evidence at this point.” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who would serve as a juror at an impeachment trial, agreed. She said this week she did not think enough evidence had been presented for a conviction.

Out on the trail, Trump has pledged to investigate Biden and other political opponents, contending that the Justice Department under the Biden administration has pursued him out of partisanship. “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said during a rally with the South Dakota Republican Party last week.

The federal special counsel who charged Trump in two cases, Jack Smith, has disputed that, pointing to the grand juries who approved both indictments.

“Republicans in the Senate and the Republicans in the House cannot let this go on,” Trump said in South Dakota.

For Republicans in Congress that don’t act on Biden, Trump has said they “should be immediately primaried and get out.”

ABC News’ Rachel Scott and Will Steakin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.