(WASHINGTON) — Lawyers from the Justice Department and the state of Texas squared off in court Friday as the Biden administration seeks an order that would halt enforcement of the state’s restrictive abortion law.
In an overnight filing, DOJ officials accused Texas of mounting a “brazen” effort to enact a law purely designed to obstruct women’s right to an abortion while evading all traditional methods of judicial review.
“S.B. 8’s novel enforcement scheme is calculated to accomplish what no state should be able to do in our federal system: deter, suppress, and render moot rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” department officials said in their filing. “The State does not dispute that S.B. 8 has virtually eliminated previability abortions after six weeks of pregnancy in the State. Moreover, the approach Texas has taken need not be confined to the abortion context. If this mechanism works here, it would serve as a blueprint for the suppression of nearly any other constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court but resented by a state government.”
S.B. 8, or the ‘Texas Heartbeat Act,’ bars physicians from providing abortions once they detect a so-called fetal heartbeat — which can be seen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. But the language of the law makes it so private citizens can sue anyone they “reasonably believed” provided an abortion, and effectively removes any government officials from being part of its enforcement.
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced last month that the Justice Department would sue Texas over its law just one week after the U.S. Supreme Court let it take effect. Soon after, the department filed for an emergency injunction seeking to halt enforcement of the law entirely as the legal fight plays out.
In a filing Wednesday, Texas officials urged District Judge Robert Pitman to dismiss DOJ’s request for an injunction — arguing the Biden Administration had no standing to pull it before a federal judge and that the matter should instead be resolved before state courts.
“The federal government asks the Court to dispense with the normal cause-of-action requirement based on unfounded fears that the Texas Heartbeat Act will otherwise “evade judicial review.” Nothing could be further from the truth,” officials wrote in their filing. “The constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act can be reviewed in the same way that virtually all of state tort law is: State-court defendants raise constitutional defenses before neutral judges sworn to follow the U.S. Constitution and, if necessary, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Also in their brief, Texas officials made an eyebrow-raising counterargument to DOJ’s contention that the abortion law hinders interstate commerce — the state instead pointed to reports of women seeking an abortion being forced to travel out of the Texas to Oklahoma, saying that “is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel.”
It’s not clear when Judge Pitman might rule on DOJ’s request for an emergency injunction — though the ruling is likely to face a quick appeal from either Texas or DOJ to try and put the matter before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a separate challenge previously ruled the law could take effect.
(WASHINGTON) — Justice Brett Kavanaugh has tested positive for COVID-19, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
Kavanaugh tested positive during a routine test ahead of an investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
He has been vaccinated since January and currently has no symptoms, the court said. His family has also tested negative.
The court said Kavanaugh was informed Thursday evening that he tested positive.
“On Thursday, per the Court’s regular testing protocols, Justice Kavanaugh had a routine Covid test ahead of Justice Barrett’s investiture on Friday. On Thursday evening, Justice Kavanaugh was informed that he had tested positive for Covid-19,” the court’s spokesperson Patricia McCabe said in a press release.
“As a precaution, Justice and Mrs. Kavanaugh will not attend Justice Barrett’s investiture this morning,” McCabe said.
Barrett is scheduled to have an investiture photo op on Friday coming down the steps of the Supreme Court Building with the Chief Justice and her husband.
The news comes three days before the court is scheduled to begin its new term on Monday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — In today’s world of permanent campaigning, “leadership PACs” — political action committees established by individual politicians — have served as an invaluable vehicle for members of Congress to support their political allies.
Leadership PACs were approved in 1978 as a way for politicians to raise money and then make contributions to other candidates. The money cannot be used on a politician’s own election expenses.
But a new report by the good-government groups Campaign Legal Center and Issue One shows that numerous lawmakers have been dedicating most of their leadership PAC spending to overhead and fundraising for the PAC — often at fancy restaurants and luxury resorts — while spending comparatively little on actual contributions to other candidates or political allies.
During the 2020 election cycle, there were at least 120 members of Congress whose leadership PACs reported that less than 50% of their spending was in the form of political contributions to other candidates, political allies, or parties, according to the report.
Of those, 43 members’ leadership PACs devoted less than 25% of their overall spending to political contributions during that cycle, while a handful of members’ leadership PACs spent more than five figures without making any political contributions whatsoever.
Early in 2019, then-North Carolina GOP Rep. George Holding’s leadership PAC made two such contributions, giving a total of $5,000 to a fellow North Carolina Republican House hopeful running in a GOP primary.
But a few months later in December, Holding announced that he would not seek reelection in 2020 — and that $5,000 remained the PAC’s only political contributions throughout the 2020 cycle. All the while, Holding’s PAC continued to rake in contributions from supporters, while the PAC spent nearly $200,000 on airfare and car services and on food and drink at restaurants and clubs, including the exclusive East India Club in London and the Union Club in New York City, according to the report.
The report notes that none of the donor funds beyond the $5,000 contributions went toward supporting Holding’s political allies.
“Most members of Congress use their leadership PAC for their intended purposes — aiding other candidates, their parties, and political allies,” Issue One Research Director Michael Beckel told ABC News. For a typical member, Beckel said, 70% of their leadership PAC’s expenditures go toward political expenditures.
But other members use their leadership PAC funds to spend lavishly on expensive meals, trips to elite resorts and rounds of golf at premier courses, which is “purportedly done for the purpose of political fundraising,” Beckel and his co-authors wrote in the report. However, the authors wrote, “this explanation rings hollow when just a fraction of the money raised goes toward political contributions.”
“Some politicians are simply raising money at one posh location to pay for the next fundraiser at the next fancy destination — creating an endless fundraising cycle at luxurious restaurants and resorts, much of which is paid for by special interest money, with no cost to lawmakers’ own pocketbooks,” the authors wrote.
When Holding launched his leadership PAC, Conservative Roundtable, in 2014, it devoted nearly 70% of its funds to supporting fellow Republicans running for office that year, past disclosure filings show. But over the years, according to the report, the PAC gradually spent less and less on supporting GOP allies. Out of the $202,000 the PAC spent in the last election cycle — besides the $5,000 in political contributions and the funds spent on social clubs, airfare and lodging — the bulk of the PAC’s expenditures went to a fundraising firm.
Holding’s PAC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment, but the then-congressman told CQ Roll Call in a statement last year that as co-chair of the U.K. Caucus and co-chair of the British American Parliamentary Group, he “traveled to London at no expense to the taxpayer for the purpose of developing and maintaining a leadership role on U.K./U.S. issues.”
“In addition, I have developed a supporter base with the American expatriate community in the U.K,” Holding said in the statement. It’s unclear from the report or from committee disclosure filings if his trips to London were paid for by his leadership PAC.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s leadership PAC, Reinventing a New Direction, spent only 12% of its expenditures on political contributions out of the nearly $1 million it spent during the 2020 cycle, according to the report, with a big chunk of the PAC’s money going to political research and consulting, as well as to fundraising.
Tens of thousands of dollars of Paul’s PAC money also went to travel, lodging and meals at high-end establishments, including The Breakers, a five-star resort in Palm Beach, Florida, and BLT Prime at former President Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C. Paul’s PAC also spent money on tickets at Nationals Park, home of Washington’s Major League Baseball team, and at Karlštejn Castle, a tourist destination outside Prague in the Czech Republic, according to the report.
Paul’s spokesperson did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore’s leadership PAC also reported using just 12% of its total spending during the 2020 election cycle on direct political contributions, while spending tens of thousands of dollars on fundraising, lodging and airfare. The PAC spent roughly $32,000 on meals and catering, including thousands of dollars at steakhouses and for delivery services, and spent thousands of dollars on event tickets purchased through Live Nation, StubHub and Ticketmaster, according to the report.
Moore’s PAC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
While some PACs may be skimping on direct political contributions to political allies, a number of lawmakers say they’ve found other ways for their PACs to support their political interests.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz’ leadership PAC, while spending just 18% of its $2.2 million in total expenditures on directly supporting other Republican candidates and political groups in the 2020 cycle, spent more than 70% of its funds on media buys and online advertising promoting Republican political causes.
Cruz’ spokesperson told ABC News that “in addition to making direct contributions to candidates, his strong fundraising has permitted Jobs, Freedom & Security PAC to go above and beyond the typical Leadership PAC by investing heavily in advertisements and messaging that empower and help give voice to the conservative movement.”
Cruz’ PAC also spent more than $12,000 for facility and equipment rentals from the Houston Astros baseball team, as well as big sums on airfare and boutique hotels, according to the report.
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton’s two leadership PACs reported spending just 8% on political contributions out of their combined total expenditures of $1.7 million during the 2020 cycle, with the vast majority of their funds being spent on salaries, consulting and fundraising. In contrast, during the 2016 cycle, the majority of Moulton’s Serve America PAC money — more than 84% — went to other Democratic campaigns, past campaign disclosure filings show.
Moulton, however, told ABC News in a statement that his PACs’ political contributions to Democratic allies were lower in the 2020 election cycle because he had been mobilizing his donors to contribute directly to other candidates rather than asking them to cut a check to his PACs to then be forwarded along. Through this strategy, Moulton said, his team raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for then-candidate Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and for Democratic Georgia Senate candidates.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal court on Thursday ordered the Federal Election Commission to rule on pending complaints that allege the National Rifle Association used shell entities to illegally coordinate campaign spending with federal candidates, including with the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.
In 2019, the Washington-based nonpartisan watchdog group Campaign Legal Center Action sued the FEC on behalf of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group led by former Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, after the federal agency failed to act on multiple complaints that accused the gun rights group of perpetrating what plaintiffs called “an elaborate scheme … to unlawfully coordinate with candidates it supports for federal office.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday ordered the FEC to take action on the complaints within 30 days.
In the 2019 suit, the plaintiffs alleged that the NRA used a “network of shell corporations” to circumvent contribution limits and coordinate approximately $35 million in ad spending with the campaigns of at least seven Republican candidates over the last three election cycles, “thereby making millions of dollars of illegal, unreported, and excessive in-kind contributions.”
The complaint alleged that while the NRA deliberately circumvented FEC rules that prohibit vendor coordination between campaigns and outside groups, the federal agency responsible for oversight of election spending — whose members frequently deadlock on matters along partisan lines — had not taken any enforcement action.
“The failure of the FEC to enforce our campaign finance laws has resulted in an explosion of shady campaign spending,” said Trevor Potter, the president of Campaign Legal Center Action CLC and a former FEC chairman. “The FEC had the chance to do the right thing by taking action against the NRA for this blatant spending coordination, but failed to do so.”
“This is a baseless effort engineered by anti-gun groups who want to silence the voices of our members,” NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide told ABC News in a statement. “We welcome the FEC’s review so we can move on from this frivolous distraction.”
A spokesperson for the FEC declined to comment on the litigation.
FEC rules prohibit outside groups from making coordinated expenditures with campaigns, stipulating that candidate campaigns should not be “materially involved” in the production and placement of ads purchased by the super PAC arm or the politically active nonprofit arm of the NRA. Vendors that are shared by the NRA and federal campaigns are also prohibited from sharing information in support of each other.
“Over the last several years and across election cycles, the NRA has been brazenly flouting campaign finance law by illegally funneling money to candidates while claiming to remain independent,” said David Pucino, senior staff attorney at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“It is clear that the NRA will continue to violate the law until someone stops them,” Pucino said. “Today’s decision ordering the FEC to take action is a resounding win to keep dark money out of our politics.”
(WASHINGTON) — House Democrats scrapped plans on Thursday to vote on the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure agreement after leadership and the White House failed to bring progressives and moderates together behind a path forward for President Joe Biden’s broader agenda.
“The President is grateful to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer for their extraordinary leadership, and to Members from across the Democratic Caucus who have worked so hard the past few days to try to reach an agreement on how to proceed on the Infrastructure Bill and the Build Back Better plan,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Thursday night. “A great deal of progress has been made this week, and we are closer to an agreement than ever. But we are not there yet, and so, we will need some additional time to finish the work, starting tomorrow morning first thing.”
“While Democrats do have some differences, we share common goals of creating good union jobs, building a clean energy future, cutting taxes for working families and small businesses, helping to give those families breathing room on basic expenses — and doing it without adding to the deficit, by making those at the top pay their fair share,” Psaki added.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., left the Capitol just after midnight, and told Rachel Scott that progressives and moderates are closer to reaching an agreement on the size of their social policy package than it appeared earlier in the week.
“We’re not trillions of dollars apart,” Pelosi said.
Asked about the vote on the Senate-approved infrastructure bill that didn’t take place Thursday, Pelosi said, “There will be a vote today,” in what appeared to be a reference to the legislative calendar.
The decision to delay the vote came after Pelosi insisted Thursday morning that she planned to go ahead with a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill — despite progressive Democrats vowing to defeat it.
“We’re on a path to win. I don’t want to even consider any options other than that,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference. “We go in it to win it.”
Earlier, as she arrived on Capitol Hill, pressed by a reporter that the bill is facing “insurmountable opposition at the moment,” Pelosi responded that it’s “our plan” to bring the bill to vote Thursday, her self-imposed deadline.
“Hour by hour,” she responded. “You’re moment by moment. I’m hour-by-hour.”
“You cannot tire. You cannot concede. This is the fun part,” Pelosi said later at her news conference. “Our best interest is served by passing this bill today.”
Yet her comments suggested the House was in a holding pattern, with no firm decision on whether to hold or cancel the vote.
“We are proceeding in a very positive direction,” Pelosi said brightly, even though the bill has not been scheduled for the House floor and her top lieutenants have said publicly that it lacks the votes to pass.
Meanwhile, the White House wasn’t ruling out Biden heading to Capitol Hill Thursday to make a last-minute push to House Democrats just before the big vote.
While lawmakers were expected to agree separately on a government funding resolution with hours to spare Thursday, the outcome of the House vote on the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill — central to Biden’s agenda — was still in serious doubt.
Pelosi spent the afternoon meeting with various factions of her caucus. Even as progressives left the meeting vowing to withhold support for the infrastructure bill absent progress on Democrats’ larger agenda, two groups of moderates left meetings with Pelosi predicting a vote later Thursday evening.
Progressive Democrats have all but guaranteed that they will defeat the bipartisan bill on the floor — to the embarrassment of Pelosi who vowed to pass the bill this week — absent any breakthroughs on the larger policy spending package. Those breakthroughs seem unlikely as negotiations between the White House and Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, who oppose the package’s $3.5 trillion price tag, have fallen flat.
Roughly half of the nearly 100-member progressive caucus — at least 50 members, urged on by Sen. Bernie Sanders — have vowed to vote no on the bipartisan bill, effectively holding it hostage until a larger infrastructure bill passes via the reconciliation process.
While progressives bashed Manchin and Sinema over their objections to the larger package, Pelosi praised Manchin at her news conference, calling the West Virginia Democrat “a good member of Congress” and said negotiations are focused on “substance” rather than “rhetoric” or “dollars.”
At midday, Manchin told reporters his topline number for the larger bill — that he’s conveyed to Biden — is $1.5 trillion, something bound to harden progressive opposition and put the House vote in even more jeopardy.
Attempting to also sway progressives, Pelosi said Thursday members should “remove all doubt” that there will not be a reconciliation bill following a bipartisan vote on Thursday.
“We will have a reconciliation bill. That is for sure. today the question is about. We are proceeding in a very positive way to bring up the bill, to bring up the “BIF” (the bipartisan infrastructure bill), and to do so in a way that can win. And so far so good for today, it’s going in a positive direction,” she said.
Pelosi, who met with her leadership team ahead of news conference, hinted that getting a larger human infrastructure and climate policy bill is vital to her and her legacy.
“I just told members of my leadership that the reconciliation bill was a culmination of my service in Congress ’cause it was about the children,” she said.
But progressives appear to be holding firm in opposition.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., reiterated on Thursday that progressives are in the “same place” and will not vote to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless there is agreement with the moderate Democratic senators on a larger social spending package.
“We will not be able to vote for the infrastructure bill until the reconciliation bill has passed,” Jayapal told reporters after a meeting with Pelosi.
“It’s not about trusting the speaker, it’s not about trusting the president, it’s really about the vote as an ironclad assurance from the Senate,” she added, referring to Manchin and Sinema.
At her midafternoon White House briefing, press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters, “We’re working towards winning a vote tonight. We have several hours left in the day.”
She added, “We know that compromise is inevitable. We’ve also seen that play out over the last couple of days. And right now, we’re clearly in the thick of it.
Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” that she’s “never bringing a bill to the floor that doesn’t have the votes” — raising questions of whether she’ll stop the vote in the 11th hour.
Asked on Sunday by Stephanopoulos if she was confident that progressive members would vote yes, Pelosi answered, “Well, let me just say we’re going to pass the bill this week.”
Biden stepped out of the White House Wednesday night, rubbing elbows at the congressional game with his former colleagues, appearing to be in good spirits, amid the tense legislative negotiations, while Pelosi appeared to do some last-minute lobbying on her cell phone, in a show of the stakes of the infrastructure bill passing this week — as opposed to later.
The $3.5 trillion bill progressives insist the House passes before or at the same time as the $1.2 trillion package includes significant new investments in health care, child care, higher education, workforce training, and paid family and medical leave which would include 12 weeks paid family and medical leave for most working Americans.
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate was set to vote Thursday on a deal party leaders reached late Wednesday to avert a government shutdown that would have affected hundreds of thousands of federal workers and slammed an economy still struggling to recover from the pandemic, all this with just hours left to stave off a crisis.
Under the deal, announced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, senators are expected to dispense with a handful of Republican amendments and then approve a temporary funding bill that not only averts a shutdown until Dec. 3, but also disaster aid for states ravaged by extreme weather and money to further assist Afghan refugees.
“The last thing the apparent American people need is for the government to grind to a halt,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday morning.
The stopgap measure does not include any provision to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, though, after Republicans steadfastly rejected any attempt to include it.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has continued to insist that his conference will not help raise the borrowing limit — or even expedite Democrats’ ability to do so alone – citing concerns about the majority party’s intention to pass trillions in new spending for social and climate policy. This, despite a debt ceiling increase paying for past, bipartisan debt.
“What Republicans laid out all along was a clean continuing resolution without the poison pill of a debt limit increase,” McConnell said. “That’s exactly what we’ll pass today.”
He said Democrats “accepted reality,” putting forward a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the government, and that “the same thing will need to happen on the debt limit.”
Schumer said Republicans realized a shutdown would be “catastrophic” and “they should realize that a default on the national debt would be even worse.”
He said the GOP have spent the week “solidifying themselves as the party of default.”
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., noted the irony of Republicans refusing to raise the borrowing limit but then voting to approve billions in new spending.
“If there’s no money in the Treasury to pay for these items — what’s the point?” Leahy asked.
McConnell, for his part, condemned Democrats for not including $1 billion in funding for Israel’s anti-missile Iron Dome system. Democrats in the House balked at funding, and the measure was stripped out in that chamber. But a majority of Democrats in both chambers have said they intend to pass the funding for a key U.S. ally at a later date.
The stopgap funding measure, once passed in the Senate, heads back to the House where it is expected to be swiftly approved. Then it hits President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature, just hours before the government technically runs out of money at the end of the day Thursday.
These things always take much longer than is expected, and with just hours before the midnight deadline, it does remain possible that lawmakers will miss that time limit but not by any great length of time.
(WASHINGTON) — Intense phone calls, ice cream and bipartisanship. The Congressional Baseball Game had it all as lawmakers of all stripes came together Wednesday night to enjoy a little of America’s favorite pastime: baseball.
The game came hours before a potential government shutdown and crucial infrastructure bill vote.
Though many lawmakers were at Washington National’s park ready to play ball, business was still booming on the Hill. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced senators reached a deal to avert a government shutdown just hours before it would’ve taken effect. But it wasn’t game over for Democrats just yet.
On Thursday, lawmakers are set to vote on President Joe Biden’s widely-touted $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. The White House has struggled to get moderates like Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Joseph Manchin, D-W.Va., on board as well as other progressives who worry about social spending programs being cut from the bill as a result of those negotiations. If Thursday’s vote fails, it would be a big hit to Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, and it would highlight a lack of party consensus for Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.
So Wednesday’s game had more implications than just the usual bragging rights, and it showed, because big players came out, and not just to cheer on their colleagues.
After the first inning, the game paused. Then, Biden made his way out from behind home plate. At the same time, fans sitting in the Democratic fan section erupted into cheers while Republican fans booed the president and chanted for the game to resume.
Biden sat in the Democrats’ dugout for some time, talking with lawmakers. On multiple occasions, lawmakers handed the president their phones to either take photos with them or jump on calls. More than once he was seen looking intense while leaning on the railing of the dugout and talking on the phone.
But, it wasn’t all work. Biden handed out ice cream bars to both teams, complete with the presidential seal.
House Speaker Pelosi and second gentleman Doug Emhoff didn’t suit up to play, but they were in attendance, cheering on Democrats. Pelosi was also busy multitasking, watching the game while talking to several people on the phone. She spent most of the night busy with negotiations as Democrats go into crunch mode trying to get lawmakers on the same page ahead of Thursday’s infrastructure vote. Her palpable tension came after progressive Democrats on Tuesday warned Pelosi and other party leaders that without a deal on a broader social policy bill, they did not intend to support the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Earlier in the evening Wednesday, Biden was inducted into the Congressional Baseball Hall of Fame. His granddaughter, Naomi Biden, accepted the award on his behalf, leading many to believe the president was caught up in infrastructure negotiations at the time.
And hopefully those negotiations went better off the field for Democrats than on the field. Republican lawmakers led for most of the night and ended up taking home the trophy, with a score of 13-12.
The Congressional Baseball game has been played since the early 1900s. It’s a chance for members of Congress to put aside their political differences on the Hill and instead take them to the mound. The game supports Washington, D.C., charities and philanthropies, which include The Washington Literacy Center, The Boys and Girls Club and the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack issued 11 subpoenas Wednesday to organizers of the pro-Trump rally outside the White House that turned into a march on the U.S Capitol.
The committee, which recently subpoenaed Trump’s closest aides and advisers for records and depositions by mid-October, is seeking documents and testimony as part of its investigation into the insurrection at the Capitol and Trump’s actions before, during and after the riot, along with Trump’s broader campaign to challenge the election results from inside and outside the federal government.
Trump himself addressed the rally, which was held just south of the White House on the National Mall.
As part of their inquiry, investigators are reviewing ties and communications between Trump White House associates and organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally, which was planned for the day Congress convened to affirm the election results. Thousands of people traveled to D.C. for the event, with many going on to assault police officers and forcibly enter the U.S. Capitol, temporarily disrupting the electoral count.
Conservative activist Amy Kremer, who founded “Women for America First,” the group that put together the rally supporting Trump on the day of the electoral vote count, was singled out by the panel in their second tranche of subpoenas, along with her daughter, Kylie.
Caroline Wren and Maggie Mulvaney, who were listed on the event permits with the National Park Service, were also subpoenaed, the committee said. Mulvaney is the niece of former Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and worked on Trump’s presidential campaign.
“The Select Committee is investigating the facts, circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend to the House and its relevant committees corrective laws, policies, procedures rules, or regulations,” Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson wrote in the letter to each subpoena recipient. “The inquiry includes examination of how various individuals and entities coordinated their activities leading up to the events of January 6, 2021.”
The panel also subpoenaed Hannah Salem, a GOP operative who was listed on the paperwork and previously served as a senior Trump White House press aide.
Katrina Pierson, a former Trump campaign adviser and Tea Party activist who served as a campaign spokesperson in 2016 and spoke at the Jan. 6 rally was also subpoenaed by the committee.
“Americans will stand up for themselves and protect their rights, and they will demand that the politicians that we elect will uphold those rights, or we will go after them,” Pierson said at the rally.
The others subpoenaed were Cynthia Chafian, who submitted the first permit application for the event, and Justin Caporale, Tim Unes, Megan Powers and Lyndon Brentnall, all of whom were listed on permit paperwork.
The committee said Wednesday it had notified the recipients of the subpoenas within the past 24 hours.
Thompson told reporters last week that the committee could also issue subpoenas to former President Trump’s children as part of its investigation. Trump’s two eldest sons, Donald Jr., and Eric, spoke at the rally, as did his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, and Don Jr.’s girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News host and Trump campaign adviser.
(WASHINGTON) — A possible government shutdown is looming as funding runs out at the end of the day Thursday, and Congress has yet to pass a temporary measure to keep the government going.
If one passes both the Senate and House it could be on President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature by Thursday.
But if Congress fails to act, a government shutdown could begin as early as Friday.
If there’s a government shutdown, does everything close?
No, not everything. A full government shutdown would mean federal agencies close their doors or reduce their operations to only what is deemed essential. Programs and agencies that receive mandatory funding or are self-sufficient, such as the U.S. Postal Service, will continue to operate. Only those programs and agencies that are dependent on annual appropriations will be running with empty pockets.
Essential services necessary for public safety such as air traffic control and law enforcement will keep operating — though not necessarily at the same levels.
If essential services continue, why should I care?
During a shutdown, agencies are stripped to the bone, providing only what is necessary to protect life and property or what is required by law. Agency services most directly connected to the public are likely to cease or be severely delayed, seeing “tremendous disruption and uncertainty” as they adjust to reduced staff and operations, according to David Reich of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
National parks and Smithsonian museums will close, and while people will still receive their Social Security payments, benefit verification, processing overpayments and issuing replacement Medicare cards will stop.
There could be delays in air travel with reductions in the Transportation Security Administration’s workforce. If you have any questions about your taxes, there won’t be anyone on the other end of the line at the Internal Revenue Service because it will not be continuing its customer service.
Will the CDC and FDA close – even though we’re in a pandemic?
No, but there might be delays. Among those agencies that typically see a reduction in operations are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. While these agencies are integral to coronavirus vaccine distribution and combating the coronavirus, they will be continuing their pandemic-related functions at a much-reduced capacity.
The Department of Health and Human Services, the umbrella agency over the CDC, FDA and NIH, will be furloughing 43% of its employees, according to its shutdown contingency plan. Agencies are responsible for creating their own plans for how they will continue operating if money runs out.
Do we know for sure what services will stop?
Yes, and no. Last week, the White House budget office, the Office of Budget and Management, reminded senior agency officials to review and update their shutdown plans. Some agencies have released their plans outlining what is expected to continue and what will be put on hold.
But according to Maya MacGuineas, the president of the nonpartisan think tank Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it’s never clear until a shutdown which services will pass the absolutely necessary test.
“But one thing is for sure, a lot of people will go home and won’t be doing their jobs and that slows down the process of just about everything,” she said.
How many workers will be affected?
There are about 2.1 million civilian federal employees, according to the Congressional Research Service. During a shutdown, federal employees are either sent home or asked to work without pay.
For example, the Department of Defense is planning to reduce its civilian workforce by 55%, and the Environmental Protection Agency will be furloughing 99% of its employees.
For a small fraction of federal employees, their salaries are financed through funding other than appropriations.
Yet for the majority of the federal workforce, the essential employees left staffing agencies would be missing out on their paychecks.
Jacqueline Simon, public policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing over 700,000 government workers, said that for many federal employees, the lack of a paycheck creates tremendous hardship.
“They have rent to pay. They have mortgages to pay, insurance payments, car payments, child support,” she said. “There is a myth that federal employees are all well paid professionals and that’s just not true.”
About a third of the employees the union represents fall into the category of people who make less than $40,000 a year and may not have the financial cushion to keep working without pay, Simon said.
Federal employees working through the shutdown get back pay, but that will not help them in the interim.
Will a shutdown affect the economy?
A government shutdown does not usually have widespread impacts on the economy unless they drone on for weeks. The 2018-2019 partial shutdown under the Trump administration resulted in economic losses of $1.2 billion each week; it was the longest in the nation’s history, lasting 35 days.
The longer a shutdown lasts, the more areas with high numbers of federal employees could see their local economies begin to suffer because those employees are not getting paid, according to Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Government shutdowns create distrust with how the government functions and the uncertainty can impact the economy, MacGuineas said. Compounding the uncertainty is whether Congress is going to pass a raise or suspension to the debt ceiling so the U.S. does not default on its obligations, which is a separate and much more serious issue from the shutdown.
ABC News’ Molly Nagle and Ben Gittleson contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — An Air Force veteran who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for joining the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was sentenced Wednesday to 45 days in jail — marking the first misdemeanor plea to lead to jail time for a Jan. 6 rioter who was not held prior to sentencing.
Derek Jancart, who was among members of the pro-Trump mob that entered the Capitol and made it as far as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s conference room, had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. He was not accused of participating in any violence during the riot.
The Justice Department had asked that he be sentenced to four months in jail, more than they have requested for other lower-level misdemeanor defendants. Prosecutors noted Jancart’s former service in the military, saying he “swore an oath to defend the country, and instead participated on an attack against democracy itself.”
Jancart and his attorney countered by asking Judge James Boasberg to instead sentence him to probation.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Jancart apologized to the court for his actions at the Capitol, saying he “didn’t go there to hurt anybody.”
“I did get caught up in the moment … I wish in hindsight I had stayed back,” Jancart told the court.” I love this country and I feel ashamed of my actions.”
The George Washington University Project on Extremism says that 71 of the more than 600 people charged so far in connection with the Capitol attack have claimed to have military experience. Jancart is the first Jan. 6 defendant with military service to be sentenced for joining in the insurrection.
A co-defendant of Jancart’s, Erik Rau, was also sentenced Wednesday to 45 days in jail.
Rau cried as he addressed the court, saying that his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack had taken a toll on his family.
“I am first of all very sorry that you are having to spend your morning having to deal with me,” Rau said. He told the court that “there is no excuse” for his actions during the insurrection.
To date, more than 80 rioters have pleaded guilty to the charges against them, based on a tally by ABC News. Of the seven other defendants sentenced after pleading guilty to misdemeanor offenses, none have been ordered to spend time in jail, with the exception of two sentenced to time served after they received pretrial detention.
In recent hearings, several judges have expressed concern that the Justice Department is not seeking harsh enough punishments for some of those charged in connection with the attack.
