Politics

(WACO, Texas) — Former President Donald Trump will address supporters in Texas on Saturday as he faces a possible indictment.

The rally at Waco Regional Airport is being billed by his team as the first of his 2024 campaign, though he’s held smaller events in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina since launching his White House bid back in November.

It will be Trump’s first campaign event since he claimed last weekend he would be arrested this past Tuesday in connection to a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential race.

The campaign won’t be deterred by the prospect of charges stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation, those in Trump’s orbit told ABC News, adding it may be an opportunity to rile up his base.

The former president has taken on a defiant attitude as he assails Bragg and encourages protest on his social media. In one post, he warned of “potential death and destruction” if he were to be indicted. As ABC News has previously reported, the DA has been presenting a case for some time and the grand jury is expected to reconvene on Monday.

The tone of Trump’s posts makes Waco a noteworthy backdrop for Saturday’s rally. The Texas town was the site of the 1993 face-off between government agents and the Branch Davidian religious sect. The 51-day siege resulted in the deaths of 82 Branch Davidians — at least two dozen of whom were children — as well as four federal agents.

The campaign stop is coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the deadly standoff, which lasted from Feb. 28 to April 19, 1993.

“Waco is kind of the genesis of a lot of the discontent about government and the use of violence to be able to react to it,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, told ABC News.

Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s spokesman, told the New York Times the location was selected “because it is centrally located and close to all four of Texas’ biggest metropolitan areas — Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio — while providing the necessary infrastructure to hold a rally of this magnitude.” The statement made no mention of Waco’s history.

When asked by Newsmax whether he was “stoking the fire of Waco” by holding his rally there Saturday, Trump dodged.

“I hear there’s tens of thousands of people,” Trump told the rightwing outlet Friday night, though it is unclear how many participants are expected to attend. “The line is already miles long trying to get in.”

“We’re gonna have a great time in Waco,” he added.

Musician Ted Nugent, who said he will be performing at the rally, tweeted he’s going to “unleash a firebreathing Star-Spangled Banner” and referred to McLennan County, where Waco is located, as “the epicenter of conservative American Dream spirit/values.”

But Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, noted the choice of Waco for the rally’s setting in her effort to undercut the rally by encouraging people to register but not show up.

“Donald has a rally in Waco this Saturday. It’s a ploy to remind his cult of the infamous Waco siege of 1993, where an anti-government cult battled the FBI. Scores of people died. He wants the same violent chaos to rescue him from justice,” she tweeted Thursday, encouraging her followers to reserve tickets and “make sure most of the seats are empty when the traitor takes the stage.”

Amid the chatter over Waco’s history, Rottinghaus noted the city also encompasses the traditional traits for a campaign stop: It’s located in a county Trump won by 23 points in 2020 and is close enough to urban areas to potentially draw a large crowd that is favorable to the former president.

“Donald Trump needs to defend the South and Texas is fertile ground for a stand,” Rottinghaus said.

The Lone Star State will play an important role in the Republican primary, as it has the second-highest number of delegates. Republicans in Texas will cast their votes for the party’s presidential nominee on March 5, 2024, alongside several other states as part of the cycle’s Super Tuesday.

Trump and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley are so far among some of the candidates to officially throw their hat in the ring for the party’s nomination, but others — including former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — are considered likely contenders.

ABC News’ Olivia Rubin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday announced a new migration deal as part of Biden’s first visit to America’s northern neighbor.

The new agreement will allow Canada to send migrants who cross at unofficial ports of entry at America’s northern border back to the U.S., a change to the Safe Third Country Agreement long-sought by Canada.

The U.S. will also be able to turn back asylum seekers who travel across the border from Canada.

In return, Canada has agreed to allow 15,000 more people from the Western Hemisphere to migrate to Canada legally.

Biden officially announced the new policy agreement as he delivered remarks to the Canadian Parliament, saying he applauded Canada for “stepping up with similar programs opening new legal pathways” to migrants.

“At the same time, the United States and Canada will work together to discourage unlawful border crossing and fully implement the updated Safe Third Country Agreement,” Biden said.

During a joint news conference with Biden, the Canadian prime minister emphasized working with the U.S. to “keep our people safe.”

“Keeping people safe also includes keeping asylum seekers safe, keeping our borders secure and keeping our immigration strong,” Trudeau said. “Both of our countries believe in safe, fair and orderly migration, refugee protection and border security.”

Trudeau said authorities will enforce the agreement beginning at midnight Friday.

The Bidens arrived in Canada on Thursday, and were welcomed by Trudeau and his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau at their residence in Ottawa.

The U.S.-Canada relationship was strained during the previous administration as Trudeau and former President Donald Trump clashed on a number of issues, including trade and immigration. But the alliance has since mended under Biden.

Trudeau touched on the “challenging times” the two nations faced, noting the last time Biden appeared in the room for a joint press conference he was the outgoing vice president.

“I have to say through our conversations back then, through the work we have been able to do over these past two years, it has truly been an honor to be able to work with you for the benefit of Canadians and Americans, but also to continue to have a positive impact on the world in a very uncertain time,” Trudeau said.

Biden, too, praised the U.S.-Canada alliance, saying the two countries will “always will have each other’s backs.”

Biden began the day on Parliament Hill for an official welcome and meetings with Trudeau, Canada’s Opposition Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and others.

In the evening, Biden and first lady Jill Biden will attend a gala dinner hosted by the Trudeaus at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa before departing for Wilmington, Delaware.

ABC News’ Justin Fishel and Luke Barr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — With a grand jury weighing possible charges against former President Donald Trump, the case is drawing comparisons to the indictment of a rising Democratic star over a decade ago that also involved hush money accusations.

In 2011, John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and two-time presidential candidate, was charged in an alleged plot to violate campaign finance laws during his 2008 bid for the White House.

Federal prosecutors accused Edwards of soliciting nearly $1 million from wealthy donors to hide his affair with videographer Rielle Hunter — and that he was the father of their baby — to prevent damage to his reputation as a family man during the campaign.

Edwards’ defense team argued the donations were personal gifts from friends, not campaign contributions, and were intended only to hide the affair from his cancer-stricken wife, not voters.

A North Carolina jury found Edwards not guilty of one count of receiving illegal campaign donations but deadlocked on five other charges, leading to a mistrial. The Justice Department ultimately dropped the charges.

It was the most recent major case of a hush money scheme in a presidential campaign, until now.

On Saturday, Trump claimed he expected to be arrested this past Tuesday in connection with a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the final stretch of the 2016 campaign.

It remains unclear what action Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will take, or when.

Prosecutors are said to be considering whether Trump falsified business records when reimbursing his attorney Michael Cohen for the payment to Daniels. That would be a misdemeanor under New York law, though it could become a felony if prosecutors contend he falsified records to conceal another crime.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina made a comparison to Edwards during a recent appearance on MSNBC.

“This is very — look, John Edwards — remember that case, where a third party paid for John Edwards’s mistress who was pregnant with his baby and all that stuff? … He was acquitted. And the DOJ dropped all charges on the hung counts on that,” Tacopina said.

Tacopina has also echoed Edwards’ defense that the Daniels payment wasn’t related to the campaign and was intended to protect the Trump family.

“He made this with personal funds to prevent something coming out false but embarrassing to himself and his family’s young son,” Tacopina told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America.”

Similarities, differences in Trump and Edwards cases

“There are a lot of similarities in how these two cases may run,” said Steven Friedland, a law professor at North Carolina’s Elon University and a former federal prosecutor.

Both cases involve salacious details of a presidential candidate paying a woman to keep quiet about an alleged affair.

After first denying the affair, Edwards admitted his relationship with Hunter, a videographer hired to document his campaign, in an interview with ABC News’ Bob Woodruff in 2008. He denied being the father of their child until he eventually acknowledged that in 2010.

Trump has long denied Daniels’ allegation of a 2006 affair, and his team has cast the funds given to her as an extortion payment.

Politics also hover over the two cases. Trump and Republicans have assailed Bragg as a Democrat abusing his authority to go after a political enemy. In the Edwards case, some Democrats questioned whether George Holding, a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney who later ran for Congress as a Republican, was acting out of his own political ambition.

And both cases involve star witnesses whose credibility has been questioned.

In Edwards’ case, it was his former aide Andrew Young who took the stand under a grant of immunity to testify against him. The defense cross-examination painted Young as an inconsistent witness.

In Trump’s case, it is Cohen. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and other crimes, including lying to Congress, for his role in orchestrating the payment to Daniels.

He told ABC News he is ready to testify against Trump, should there be an indictment. But Trump and his allies, including attorney Robert Costello, have sought to undermine his credibility.

“Just like the cross-examination of Andrew Young was pivotal in the John Edwards case, it looks like no matter what charges are brought, the cross examinations of Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, if she testifies, will be pivotal,” Friedland said.

There are also differences between the two cases, observers noted, with one of the most notable being the timeline of the payments.

The payments to Edwards’ mistress began in 2007 and continued after he suspended his campaign, while Daniels received a one-time payment just before the 2016 election.

“It’s really hard to believe that the primary motivation wasn’t to prevent it from coming out and affecting the presidential election,” Brett Kappel, a campaign finance law specialist, said of the payment to Daniels.

Another key contrast is that the Edwards case played out at the federal level, while Trump is being investigating at the state level.

What the Edwards case could mean for Trump

While it remains to be seen what charges and evidence Bragg may bring forward, the Edwards case showed even trials dominated by sordid details involving a high-profile politician ultimately hinge on the legal intricacies involved.

It also left the remaining question of whether hush money can amount to a campaign contribution.

Friedland noted that alleging a campaign finance rules violation was a “novel” approach to bringing criminal charges in Edwards’ case, and that it remains so today.

“It isn’t a well-established violation of criminal law,” he said.

Despite no conviction in the Edwards case, the revelation of the affair and hush payments promptly ended his political career. What would the impact be on Trump, who has already weathered several scandals?

“Certainly, all the things that have happened to him up to this point, including impeachment twice, has not dampened the ardor of his supporters,” said Stanley Brand, an election law expert. “And I don’t know that a New York prosecution on something that is essentially to begin with a misdemeanor is going to do that, either.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday are expected to announce a new migration deal as part of Biden’s first visit to America’s northern neighbor.

The two leaders will hold a joint news conference after Biden addresses the Canadian Parliament.

The new agreement will allow Canada to send more migrants who cross at unofficial ports of entry of America’s northern border back to the U.S., according to a senior U.S. official and another person familiar with the deal.

In return, Canada has agreed to allow 15,000 more people from the Western Hemisphere to migrate to Canada legally.

Ahead of Biden’s visit, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters the administration was “committed” to working with Canada to address the increase in migration going north but declined to confirm the deal.

The Bidens arrived in Canada on Thursday, and were welcomed by Trudeau and his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau at their residence in Ottawa.

The U.S.-Canada relationship was strained during the previous administration as Trudeau and former President Donald Trump clashed on a number of issues, including trade and immigration. But the alliance has since mended under Biden.

“We have no greater friend and ally than the United States,” Trudeau said after he and Biden sat down for a bilateral meeting on Friday morning.

Biden began the day on Parliament Hill for an official welcome and meetings with Trudeau, Canada’s Opposition Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and others.

Trudeau said they’ve been “working closely together over the past few years” on the economy, climate change, geopolitical security and standing up for values around the world.

Biden remarked that the U.S. is lucky to have Canada as a neighboring ally.

“All the values are the same, we disagree and agree on things occasionally but there’s no fundamental difference in the democratic values we share,” Biden said.

In addition to immigration, Trudeau and Biden are expected to discuss a range of economic and security issues.

In the evening, Biden and first lady Jill Biden will attend a gala dinner hosted by the Trudeaus at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa before departing for Wilmington, Delaware.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s claims of executive privilege and has ordered Mark Meadows and other former top aides to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the election leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, was subpoenaed along with the other former aides by Special counsel Jack Smith for testimony and documents related to the probe.

Trump’s legal team had challenged the subpoenas by asserting executive privilege, which is the right of a president to keep confidential the communications he has with advisers.

In a sealed order last week, Judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump’s claim of executive privilege for Meadows and a number of others, including Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, his former national security adviser Robert O’Brien, former top aide Stephen Miller, and former deputy chief of staff and social media director Dan Scavino, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Former Trump aides Nick Luna and John McEntee, along with former top Department of Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli, were also included in the order, the sources said.

Trump is likely to appeal the ruling, according to sources briefed on the matter.

“The DOJ is continuously stepping far outside the standard norms in attempting to destroy the long accepted, long held, Constitutionally based standards of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege,” a Trump spokesperson said in a statement. “There is no factual or legal basis or substance to any case against President Trump. The deranged Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media are corrupting the legal process and weaponizing the justice system in order to manipulate public opinion, because they are clearly losing the political battle.”

Meadows did not respond to ABC’s request for comment and neither did an attorney representing him. Ratcliffe, O’Brien, Miller, Luna, McEntee and Cuccinelli did not respond to ABC’s request for comment. An attorney representing Scavino also did not respond.

Some of the aides that have been ordered to testify have already appeared before the grand jury but did not answer some questions related to interactions with the former president, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News, and thus would now be required to return for additional testimony. The grand jury proceedings are being held under seal.

It’s not clear the amount of information each of them would have, or the scope of what prosecutors want to question them on, the sources said.

ABC News previously reported that in February, prosecutors investigating Jan. 6 moved to compel testimony from a number of top Trump aides, including Meadows, Ratcliffe and O’Brien.

Previously, Judge Howell had rejected Trump’s claim of executive privilege to block the testimony of two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence, Greg Jacob and Marc Short. In rejecting Trump’s motion to block the testimony of Jacob and Short, the judge ruled that it is up to the current president to assert executive privilege, not a former president, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.

The judge also previously ruled that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, along with his deputy Pat Philbin, also had to return to the grand jury to answer additional questions after Trump previously argued they were protected by privilege.

Howell is being succeeded by a new chief judge on the D.C. district court, who will now oversee grand jury matters related to the special counsel’s probes.

Smith, a longtime federal prosecutor and former head of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, was tapped in November by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election and Trump’s handling of classified materials after leaving office.

Meadows, who according to sources was subpoenaed in January, was one of the only aides around Trump on Jan. 6 as the attack unfolded. He was also party to the infamous January 2021 phone call that Trump had with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” him enough votes to win the state.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans narrowly passed H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act on Friday, sending the proposal along to the Senate, where it is likely to fail.

The House bill, which has few champions among Democrats and advocacy groups, passed in a 213-208 vote Friday morning. Rep. Julia Letlow, R-La., the bill’s sponsor, shook hands and fist bumped rejoicing members upon the bill’s passage.

“Today was a win for every mother or father, but most importantly for every student in America,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy said at a press conference following the vote, noting thousands of parents signed on to the bill.

Backers of the bill say H.R. 5 has five core principles: Parents have the right to know what their children are being taught, to be heard, to see the school budget and spending, to protect their children’s privacy and to keep their children safe.

“It is not an attempt to have Congress dictate their [schools] curriculum, or determine the books in the library,” Letlow explained. “Instead, this bill aims to bring more transparency and accountability to education, allowing parents to be informed and when they have questions and concerns to lawfully bring to their local school board.”

Letlow, a former educator, had over 70 co-sponsors originally, including McCarthy.

“I couldn’t imagine someone would oppose a Parents Bill of Rights,” McCarthy, who called education the great equalizer, told ABC News.

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., has been a vocal advocate for the issue since gaveling in her first hearing in February. More recently, Foxx, who said the proposal “will help parents steer the educations of their children back onto the correct path where they can learn the skills they need for a lifetime of success,” said she feels good about the bill despite Democrats’ stated opposition.

“It had a good response in the Rules Committee [despite] the Democrats trying to demonize the bill saying it’s ‘banning books,'” Foxx told ABC News. “It has nothing to do with that, so, no, I feel really good about it.”

Parents who support the bill suggest the legislation was needed in response to widespread virtual instruction amid pandemic-fueled school closures.

“Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. This includes their education, medical care, morality and religion,” Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, said at a House subcommittee hearing. “I want to be clear: These are inherent natural rights. Parental rights do not stop at the classroom door.”

But the bill was criticized by Democratic leadership.

“Their educational agenda is pretty simple: They want to ban books, they want to bully the LGBTQ+ community [and] they want to bring guns into classrooms, kindergarten and above,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said after the bill passed.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said he respects parents’ voices but worries Republicans’ H.R. 5 has become a “highly partisan” issue.

“They [Republicans] want to bring, you know, partisan rhetoric and fighting into the classroom,” Aguilar said. “We don’t think that’s right. We think that they continue to put politics over parents and that that is the focus of this bill and this piece of legislation.”

National Parents Union President Keri Rodrigues led a coalition of nearly 50 parent protesters to Washington this week. Her organization traversed the halls of Congress, knocking on members’ doors to make their voices heard in opposition to the bill.

“It [H.R. 5] has made a mockery out of what we are trying to do for our children,” Rodrigues said. “None of our priorities have been reflected in H.R. 5 because they’re attempting to do this to us without us.”

Rodrigues’ top educational priorities include making sure children are safe at school amid the threats of gun violence, bullying and mental health struggles.

“H.R. 5 is a bill that has been created by politicians in Washington instead of parents that it says they’re here to protect,” Rodrigues said, donning the group’s signature “Nothing About Us Without Us” shirts. “So, again, you’re trying to do something to us without our input. We’re saying, ‘No, thanks.'”

Meanwhile, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., has also proposed a countermeasure to the GOP bill. Her Bill of Rights for Students and Parents has several sponsors from leading members of the House’s education committee and dozens of advocacy groups.

Neither bill seems to have drawn interest from the Senate, and Republicans on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee told ABC News it’s not on the agenda.

“The House Republicans’ school control bill is Orwellian to the core,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “It will not see the light of day here in the Senate.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican members of the House Oversight Committee, including chairman James Comer, say they plan to tour a Washington, D.C., jail on Friday where some Jan. 6 defendants are being held.

The congressional delegation is being led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., one of the most vocal critics of the detainment of individuals charged in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Speaking with ABC News earlier this week, Greene said the visit would focus on the conditions of those being jailed, including what Greene claimed to be “reports of abuse.”

Greene claimed those being held pretrial are “not allowed to see their families, many times are not allowed to see their attorneys” and that “the food has been a major complaint. There’s been complaints of it tasting like cleaner.”

GOP members of the panel are expected to hold a news conference following the tour.

Two Democrats on the panel are expected to join 14 Republican members on the tour, according to a list of participants provided by Greene’s office: Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas.

Crockett framed her participation as a check on her Republican colleagues in a series of Twitter posts on Friday morning.

“Today, I will visit the jail where insurrectionists are being held as a member of the Oversight committee to ensure that the Truth is told & not another revisionist alternative reality. As a former PD & civil rights lawyer, I’ve seen inhumane conditions,” she wrote. “It’s important we don’t conflate their less than 5 star stay w/ the truly inhumane conditions that mostly black & brown folk have suffered through for decades.”

Most people charged with a crime in relation to the Jan. 6 attack have been released as they await trial. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. told ABC News earlier this month that there were “approximately two dozen defendants” in pre-trial detention and nearly all of them were charged with assaultive conduct.

Comer, R-Ky., told reporters on Wednesday members are “gonna try and see what it looks like” inside the facility.

“That’s part of what the Oversight Committee does with everything pertaining to the federal government, so we have some members that are going to hopefully tour that prison,” he said.

Greene and Comer sent a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser pressing her for documents and communications regarding Jan. 6 detainees’ complaints.

The jail tour comes amid a wave of activity from House Republicans regarding Jan. 6 since they took over the chamber in January. They’ve created a committee to investigate alleged security failures and the previous House Jan. 6 committee’s work.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump’s election team is downplaying the impact of a possible indictment on his campaign, insisting it will not force him cut back, including on his travel.

At the same time, associates boast they’re ready to launch a full-throated response to what they cast as a partisan fishing expedition by a Democratic prosecutor.

“This is the new normal, the president has been battle-tested. This operation has been fine-tuned since 2016. Dealing with these types of news cycles, you learn to get good at it. We have a full-spectrum response operation on the campaign that can deal with anything that comes our way,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told ABC News.

Manhattan District Attorney Bragg’s office has been investigating a hush money payment sent to porn actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to cover up an alleged affair. The possible indictment could center on whether the payment amounted to a violation of campaign finance law.

Trump denies any wrongdoing and says the two never had a relationship, though he has admitted Daniels was paid $130,000.

Operatives working on Trump’s campaign and in touch with his team said a sense of inevitability has crept into the former president’s orbit but that the prospect of an indictment is not viewed internally as a significant new challenge for someone who has spent his political career batting away a string of investigations.

“I haven’t spoken to him directly on this since it since it popped up, but I’ve been in touch with the key staff around him, and they treated it all along like it was going to happen,” said one GOP operative working on Trump’s campaign.

“The Trump mentality is, you always expect that the worst is going to happen. That’s just how they live,” added one former campaign staffer who is still in touch with Trump’s team but was not authorized to speak on the record. “So, is this a war footing? I think he’s been on war footing since 2015.”

As the impact of a possible indictment plays out in the long term, sources said Trump might have to stay flexible to ensure he can appear in court or address unforeseen circumstances.

“The only thing is, if he, for legal requirements, has to defend himself, I’m sure he’ll adjust his schedule appropriately,” said the operative working with the Trump campaign.

In the near-term, the ex-staffers and others who spoke to ABC News forecasted that Trump will maintain his travel schedule — including a rally this coming Saturday in Waco, Texas — while viewing the potential indictment as an opportunity to further rile up his base.

And, unlike his 2016 campaign, his 2024 bid is staffed by veteran politicos who allies say stand ready to spin an indictment, if issued.

“It’s four paragraphs in every rally speech through the general election,” said a second former campaign aide still in touch with Trump’s team. “I think they’ll double down on his commitment to get out there.”

“While being arrested is a humbling experience, there’s probably no better way for the Trump campaign to move into overdrive,” the person added. “You couldn’t ask for a better gift if you understand how to take advantage of it. And he’s surrounded by people who know how to do it.”

Bragg Thursday indicated he would not give in to external pressure from Trump’s allies, lashing out at House Republicans’ demand he provide documents and testimony about his investigation.

Leslie Dubeck, Bragg’s general counsel, said in a response to House Republicans Thursday that their request marks “an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution” and came “only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.”

“Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry,” Dubeck wrote.

And Trump’s detractors suggest an indictment could undercut his support, with former New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie, an ally-turned-critic, saying Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that any “profits” Trump gains from “chaos and turmoil” don’t negate the political downside.

“At the end, being indicted never helps anybody,” he added. “It’s not a help.”

Still, those in Trump’s orbit said they didn’t expect any pause in Trump’s well-worn playbook of lambasting his perceived enemies.

“It’s the same as it always been, as it was with Mueller, as with all these other investigations. It’s just attack,” the first former aide said. “Once you punch, you just don’t stop.”

More punches could be thrown as soon as Saturday in Texas, with Cheung saying Thursday, “I’d watch the Waco rally if I were you.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Republican-led House failed on Thursday to override President Joe Biden’s veto of a resolution that would have prevented retirement fund managers from accounting for certain social factors when making investment decisions.

The vote was 219-200 in favor of overcoming the veto, but a two-thirds majority vote is needed.

The House initially passed H.J. Res. 30 on Feb. 28 with the support of all Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine. It took on the issue of environmental, social and governance (ESG), specifically whether retirement fund managers covered under federal law may include that strategy in their calculus.

ESG — labeled by critics as “woke capitalism” — has become a major target by conservatives who say it is unfair to certain companies, including in the oil and gas industry, and can be bad for investors. Supporters of the policy say it guides them to invest in issues they believe help society and reflects changing trends.

Following Biden’s veto on Monday, the first of his presidency, House Republicans took up the issue again. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said his conference would continue to fight against ESG.

“House Republicans will keep fighting to overturn this rule allowing ESG investing and to make sure Americans are getting the best retirement they can, not the most woke,” the leader wrote in his weekly floor lookout.

But the vote to override Biden’s veto — the House GOP’s first attempt to do so in the new Congress — was always unlikely to succeed. The measure needed two-thirds of the lower chamber’s support to advance to the Senate, where it would also need a two-thirds majority vote.

While there is a slim Republican majority in the House, the GOP is in the minority in the Senate.

Legislative action on the ESG issue came after a Labor Department rule under Biden took effect at the beginning of February allowing retirement fund managers to consider ESG factors. But it is an issue Republicans in Congress oppose because they say it is wrong to consider non-financial variables, like climate change.

House Republicans quickly introduced a resolution to block the Biden administration’s rule, which gained sufficient support in both chambers of Congress. After H.J. Res. 30 passed the House, it passed the Senate on March 1 with the bipartisan support of Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana.

Biden vetoed the measure on Monday, saying then that the Department of Labor’s rule “protects the hard-earned life savings and pensions of tens of millions of workers and retirees across the country.”

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden marked the 13th anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act in the same room where he once whispered in President Obama’s ear that enacting the legislation was a “big f—— deal.”

Biden cheekily recalled the hot-mic moment on Thursday, saying he stands by the terminology he used years ago in describing the sweeping health care reform.

“Many of you joined us that day after fighting for decades to make it happen, and I remember three words I used at the time, I thought it was –” Biden said, smiling to invited guests in the White House East Room. “I thought it was a big deal. And I stand by the fact, it was a big deal.”

The landmark health care law was passed in 2010 when Biden was vice president, and he gave high praise to former President Barack Obama for his leadership in securing the “extraordinary achievement.”

“While the Affordable Care Act has been called a lot of things, ‘Obamacare’ is the most fitting description,” Biden said to applause.

But Biden mostly used the event to hammer Republicans over health care policy, making the event resemble more a campaign speech than an anniversary celebration.

“Folks, our MAGA Republican friends — and by that way, I want to be clear: There are some good decent Republicans out there,” Biden said. “But this new crowd, this ain’t your father’s Republican Party.”

The president touted the progress his administration has made to advance health care policy though legislation like the Affordable Care Act and Inflation Reduction Act and warned that Republicans in Congress have not supported the same policies in a divided Washington.

“Folks, look, we’re making health care more affordable in many other ways as well. Last year, I proposed and the Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which no Republican voted for, even the good ones. I don’t mean ‘good’ in the moral sense. I mean the normal Republican,” he said.

Biden also highlighted recent moves by several pharmaceutical companies to cap the price of insulin — something he called for during his State of the Union address — as well as provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act that will allow for Medicare to negotiate the price of some prescription drugs.

He also repeatedly focused on the fact that Republicans have yet to release their budget proposal and argued that the White House releasing its proposal earlier this month shows where they stand.

“Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value,” he said. “Well, I value everyone having a decent shot. It’s about fairness. It’s about dignity. My budget continues to build on the progress we made in the Affordable Care Act.”

“We still haven’t seen the House Republican budget. They want to negotiate. I say, ‘I’ve laid down my budget on the 9th, you lay down yours, let’s negotiate.’ I don’t know where their budget is. No, I’m serious,” Biden added to laughter.

After his remarks, Biden took time to hold up Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez’s son, Hodge, who has become a familiar sight in Washington, including getting on TV during the week-long votes for House speaker.

The president held Hodge close for a few moments, with the seven-month-old baby putting his hands on Biden’s face.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.