(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department on Wednesday released guidance intended to caution states embarking on so-called post-election ‘audits’ of vote counts for the 2020 presidential election that they must not run afoul of federal voting laws.
The guidance, previously previewed last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland in his policy address on voting rights, outlines federal statutes that the department says elections officials must adhere to during such “audits,” such as preserving all federal elections materials and making sure they’re not tampered with.
“This document sets down a marker that says the Justice Department is concerned about this, and we will be following this closely,” a DOJ official told reporters on a media conference call Wednesday.
The guidance echoes a warning sent by the department back in May to the Republican-run audit in Arizona, warning officials there that all election records must be preserved and expressing concern about the state handing over election materials to the private contractor group Cyber Ninjas.
After the department’s letter, Arizona officials backed off of a plan to send contractors from the group to visit homes in the state’s largest county of Maricopa to ask voters whether or not they had cast ballots. The Wednesday guidance includes a warning that officials who seek to embark on such “audits” can’t do so in a way that will intimidate voters.
DOJ officials on Wednesday declined to provide any update on the department’s review of the Arizona “audit.” But the guidance comes as Republicans in several other states have expressed interest or are already moving forward with similarly partisan reviews of the 2020 vote count in certain jurisdictions — despite lacking any evidence of widespread fraud.
The department also issued separate guidance Wednesday that outlines the range of federal laws protecting voting by different methods.
“It’s responsive to the fact that more Americans than ever are voting, not on Election Day in person in a polling place, but that are voting at voting centers or voting early or voting by mail,” one official said.
An official said that the second set of guidance should be a note of caution to states that might be looking to roll back policies that expanded access to voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. The official gave the example of the election bill passed this year by Republicans in Georgia that implemented voting restrictions the department is now suing over, alleging it unlawfully targets minority communities.
“You should not assume that if you abandon the practices that have made it easier for people to vote, that abandonment is not going to get scrutiny from the Department of Justice,” an official said.
(WASHINGTON) — Negotiators say they have a deal on bipartisan infrastructure.
A redo of last week’s failed test vote is expected Wednesday evening. Republican negotiators, all of whom blocked the procedural motion last week, said they’re ready to vote tonight, though a Democratic leadership aide said a time has not yet been set for the vote.
Negotiators also said they expect enough Republicans to support beginning debate.
Democrats called a special lunch to talk about the proposal behind closed doors this afternoon. Many say their support will hinge upon what is discussed during the meeting.
Details about the agreement are still emerging, but an aide close to the talks confirmed to ABC News that the topline value for new spending has decreased from $579 billion to $550 billion.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., the chief Democratic negotiator, told reporters that she expects some of the bill text to be available Wednesday, with further updates released as remaining details are worked out.
A “small tiny thing” related to transit and a “small thing” related to broadband must still be addressed, Sinema said.
Sinema said she spoke with President Joe Biden and said he is “very excited” about and “committed to” the plan.
Sen. Rob Portman, who has been the chief negotiator for Republicans on the bill, announced the agreement flanked by the four other Republicans in the core negotiating group.
“As of late last night and really early this morning we now have an agreement on the major issues we are prepared to move forward,” Portman said. “We look forward to moving ahead and having the opportunity to have a healthy debate here in the chamber regarding an incredibly important project to the American people.”
Democrats who are part of the negotiations confirmed that a deal had been struck.
Sen. Joe Manchin, asked if it was his understanding that a bipartisan deal had been reached, replied “That sure is.”
It’s still not clear if all Democrats are going to support the bipartisan deal. Democratic Whip Dick Durbin Wednesday morning said it was an “unanswered question” whether all Democrats back the deal.
“I don’t believe we certainly don’t have a whip or people signing on the dotted line,” Durbin said. “We need some assurances that we are all in this together.”
It takes less than ever to find partisan grooves these days — and the fact that they’ve been etched deeper out of the fallout from Jan. 6 serves as a case in point.
That’s the reality that confronts President Joe Biden with this next uncertain phase of combatting the pandemic. New federal guidance on mask mandates and the consideration of a vaccine requirement for federal workers run into longstanding political arguments about individual liberties and personal accountability.
The push for vaccinations has become less partisan of late, with prominent Republicans adding new emphasis — and giving special credit to the previous administration — to make the case.
Yet mask-wearing and vaccine requirements have long since taken on cultural as well as political significance, and the fallout of Biden’s latest comments offer just a taste. Former President Donald Trump is offering strong pushback to mandates, and consider as well how readily some Republicans are using Dr. Anthony Fauci as a foil — raising money off the mention of his name, and even threatening legal action against him.
Biden indicated that he will outline next steps in the push to vaccinate the country on Thursday, as some statistics showing rates going up of late. The president on Tuesday also served up a reminder that as a candidate he “promised to be straight with you about COVID — good news or bad.”
Another reminder: 11 months ago, Biden said he wouldn’t hesitate to order another shutdown if that’s what his advisers recommended.
“I would shut it down; I would listen to the scientists,” he told ABC “World News Tonight” Anchor David Muir last August.
The campaign was quick to clarify that comment at the time. Biden’s statement Tuesday about masks and vaccines framed them as a way “to avoid the kind of lockdowns, shutdowns, school closures and disruptions we faced in 2020.”
“We are not going back to that,” the president said.
The RUNDOWN with Averi Harper
The testimony of Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn underscored the additional layer of trauma Black law enforcement officers experienced on Jan. 6.
Dunn’s heartbreaking testimony chronicled the racial slurs he endured as he tried to defend the seat of our nation’s democracy.
Among the insurrectionists were attackers who carried Confederate flags, donned shirts with anti-Semitic messages and freely hurled the n-word at Black officers.
“No one had ever, ever called me a n***** while wearing the uniform of a Capitol Police officer,” said Dunn.
He also brought with him the stories of other Black officers, later adding, “Another Black officer later told me he had been confronted by insurrectionists in the Capitol who told him, put your gun down and we’ll show you what kind of n***** you really are.”
For many, listening to Dunn recount the epithets stung as they were broadcast uncensored. The attack at the Capitol is often referred to as one of our nation’s darkest days, it’s particularly poignant that racism crept its way into the ugliness of it all, too.
It’s a vile reminder that racism in America, even in its most blatant forms, still exists.
The TIP with Alisa Wiersema
Republicans in Washington have one more representative joining their ranks — but the victory serves as an upset to Trump, despite his looming influence over the Republican Party on a national scale.
Nearly three months after the May 1 special election, State Rep. Jake Ellzey came out on top in Tuesday’s runoff election for Texas’ 6th Congressional District. Ellzey faced off with fellow Republican, Susan Wright, who had Trump’s backing going into the contest due to the political legacy of her late husband, Rep. Ron Wright, who died in February from COVID and complications with cancer.
The conclusion of the race is the latest indicator of the former president’s looming influence over his party in a state that is increasingly becoming ground zero for intra-party battles.
On Monday, Trump waded into another high-profile Texan battle by endorsing incumbent Attorney General Ken Paxton for another term. The move served a devastating — and complicated — blow to Land Commissioner George P. Bush, who was the only member of his storied political family to publicly back Trump, despite the former president launching repeated attacks against his father, Jeb Bush.
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department declined a request from Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., Tuesday night to intervene for him in a lawsuit brought by a Democratic lawmaker suing him for his role in allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
In a new filing, the DOJ said it has determined it does not believe Brooks was acting within the scope of the duties of his office when he spoke in front of a pro-Trump rally just before rioters stormed the building, telling the crowd, “today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking a**.”
Brooks had asked for the Justice Department to replace him as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., providing him legal immunity under a law known as the Westfall Act that former President Donald Trump similarly has sought to use to shield him from an effort by columnist E. Jean Carroll to sue him for defamation over his denial of her rape allegation.
“We appreciate the thoughtful analysis by the Committee on House Administration and the Department of Justice and could not agree more with their conclusion,” Rep. Swalwell’s attorney Philip Andonian said in a statement Tuesday night. “This conduct manifestly is outside the scope of Brooks’s employment as a member of Congress and the House and DOJ made the right call in requiring him to answer directly for his actions. This is a great step toward justice.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland faced a barrage of criticism last month when the department said it would continue to seek to substitute itself for Trump in the lawsuit, arguing that the law did apply to Trump even if they believed his statements were “crude” and “disrespectful.”
“The essence of the rule of law is that like cases be treated alike,” Garland said in defense of the move in testimony before a Senate panel. “That there not be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. That there not be one rule for friends and another for foes.”
Brooks similarly argued that by speaking to the rally and repeating Trump’s false claims of a stolen election that he was performing an official act of his office by representing the interests of his constituents.
Brooks has not responded to ABC News’ request for comment following the DOJ’s decision Tuesday.
But the chair of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., disputed that assertion in a July 23 letter to the Justice Department, saying that Brooks’ conduct was “in furtherance of political campaigns” and thus should be deemed outside the scope of his office.
“Essentially, in deflecting the allegation that his speech was an incitement to violence, Representative Brooks has sworn under oath to the court that his conduct was instead in furtherance of political campaigns,” Lofgren wrote. “As noted, standards of conduct that apply to Members and precedents of the House are clear that campaign activity is outside the scope of official duties and not a permissible use of official resources.”
The Justice Department in its late filing Tuesday night largely backed Lofgren’s position, saying, “Brooks’s appearance at the Jan. 6 rally was campaign activity, and it is no part of the business of the United States to pick sides among candidates in federal elections. … Indeed, although the scope of employment related to the duties of a Member of Congress is undoubtedly broad and there are some activities that cannot be neatly cleaved into official and personal categories, Brooks’s request for certification and substitution of the United States for campaign-related conduct appears to be unprecedented.”
“Members of Congress are subject to a host of restrictions that carefully distinguish between their official functions, on the one hand, and campaign functions, on the other,” the department said. “The conduct at issue here thus is not the kind a Member of Congress holds office to perform, or substantially within the authorized time and space limits, as required by governing law,” the DOJ wrote.
The DOJ also notes that “if proven” the conduct Brooks is alleged by Swalwell to have engaged in “would plainly fall outside the scope of employment for an officer or employee of the United States.” “… conspiring to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 election and to injure Members of Congress and inciting the riot at the Capitol.”
“Alleged action to attack Congress and disrupt its official functions is not conduct a Member of Congress is employed to perform and is not “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve” the employer, as required by District of Columbia law to fall within the scope of employment,” the department wrote in its filing.
Legal experts have been closely watching what the DOJ would ultimately decide in Brooks’ case, believing it could have a significant impact on other cases brought against allies of former President Trump being sued for encouraging or inciting the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.
It is still unclear, however, whether the judge overseeing the case will decide to grant Brooks’ request to substitute the DOJ for himself despite DOJ’s stated opposition Tuesday evening.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol held its first hearing Tuesday in which lawmakers heard dramatic, emotional accounts from law enforcement officers who defended the building against a pro-Trump mob.
“We’re going to revisit some of those moments today, and it won’t be easy,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said to open the hearing, while praising the officers for holding the line. “But history will remember your names and your actions.”
Here are key takeaways from the first hearing:
All witnesses feared for their lives during attack
The four officers testifying — Capitol Police officers Aquilino Gonell and Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officers Michael Fanone and Daniel Hodges — flatly rejected any attempts to rewrite history on Jan. 6 and downplay the attack as one that shouldn’t be investigated further, telling lawmakers they all feared for their lives on Jan. 6.
When Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., asked Gonell to respond to former President Donald Trump’s calling the crowd “loving.” Gonell placed responsibility on him for sending his supporters to the Capitol.
“It’s a pathetic excuse for his behavior for something that he himself helped to create — this monstrosity,” Gonell said. “I’m still recovering from those ‘hugs and kisses’ that day.”
Hodges, who referred to the rioters as “terrorists,” detailed the weapons used against officers that day including police shields, batons, hammers, a sledgehammer, flag poles, tasers, pepper spray, bear and wasp spray, copper pipes, rocks, table legs broken down, guardrails, cones and “any items they can get their hands on.”
“There were over 9,000 of the terrorists out there with an unknown number of firearms and a couple hundred of us, maybe. So we could not — if that turned into a firefight, we would have lost,” he said. “And this was a fight we couldn’t afford to lose.”
Hodges, who was crushed in a doorway that day, recalled how he had to wrestle with one rioter who tried to take his baton and how another shouted at him, “‘You will die on your knees.'”
Gonell also described the day as a scene “from a medieval battlefield.”
“I could feel myself losing oxygen and recall thinking to myself, ‘this is how I’m going to die, trampled defending this entrance,'” he said.
But the officers said they didn’t think twice about defending the Capitol and democracy, as traumatic as the experience was for them, their colleagues and families.
“Us four officers, we would do Jan. 6 all over again,” Dunn said. “We wouldn’t stay home because we knew what was going to happen. We would show up. That’s courageous. That’s heroic. So what I ask from you all, is to get to the bottom of what happened.”
“The rioters called me traitor, a disgrace, and shouted that I—an army veteran and a police officer—should be executed,” Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell says during Jan. 6 select committee hearing. https://t.co/KuT3vxIg91pic.twitter.com/knJ8oRxRqg
The lawmakers choked up at times during the officers’ testimony including Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who told them, “You guys may like individually feel a little broken … but you guys won.”
“Democracies are not defined by our bad days. We’re defined by how we come back from bad days,” he said.
Racial slurs heard at riot haunt hearing room: ‘I guess it is America’
Racial slurs haunted the hearing room as officers recounted chants made by the mob, moving some officers to tears and prompting some lawmakers to hang their heads.
Dunn recounted the racist verbal abuse he endured from rioters in emotional testimony and said it was the first time he had been called the n-word in uniform.
“I’m a law enforcement officer and I do my best to keep politics out of my job, but in this circumstance I responded, ‘Well, I voted for Joe Biden, does my vote not count? Am I nobody?'” he said he told rioters who falsely shouted at him the election was stolen.
Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn on racial abuse from rioters: “It’s so disheartening and disappointing that we live in a country with people like that, that attack you because of the color of your skin just to hurt you.” https://t.co/pZb3doEsvxpic.twitter.com/rVGupmH6hP
“That prompted a torrent of racial epithets,” Dunn said. “One woman in a pink MAGA shirt yelled “You hear that guys, this n***** voted for Joe Biden.”
Dunn, who also witnessed a Confederate flag carried through the Capitol, said that other Black officers shared similar stories of racial abuse from the day.
“I sat down on the bench in the Rotunda with a friend of mine, who is also a Black Capitol Police officer and told him about the racial slurs I endured. I became very emotional and began yelling, ‘How the blank could something like this happen? Is this America?'” he said. “I began sobbing.”
When Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., posed the same question to Dunn later, the officer said, “I guess it is America. It shouldn’t be.”
Committee looking to subpoena Trump, lawmakers
Cheney, in her opening statement, made clear the committee is open to subpoenaing the former president, White House aides and members of Congress as they create a timeline of the day.
“We must also know what happened every minute of that day in the White House. Every phone call, every conversation, every meeting, leading up to, during, and after the attack. Honorable men and women have an obligation to step forward,” she said.
Adding to that pressure, all four witnesses told lawmakers they wanted an investigation into those in power who may have aided and abetted rioters.
Dunn used an analogy with a hitman to describe his expectations, in an apparent nod to the former president, after the witnesses spent three and a half hours recounting chants of “Trump sent us,” among others.
“If a hitman is hired and he kills somebody, the hitman goes to jail, but not only does the hitman go to jail but the person who hired them does. There was an attack carried out on Jan. 6 and a hitman sent them,” he said. “I want you to get to the bottom of that.”
Thompson said at a press conference after the hearing that the committee could be brought back for another hearing during the House’s August recess, which starts Friday. The panel said its work is just beginning.
The Department of Justice said in letters to former Trump officials, and provided to congressional committees, that they can participate in the investigations into the Jan. 6 attack, according to sources and letters reviewed by ABC News earlier Tuesday.
Cheney and Kinzinger poke holes in GOP arguments against committee
The two Republicans on the panel spent their questioning time pushing back on some of the most prominent Republican talking points after Jan. 6 — including that the rioters were not violent and that whatever took place at the Capitol paled in comparison to violence perpetrated by antifa during racial justice protests.
“I condemn those riots and the destruction of property that resulted — but not once did I ever feel that the future of self-governance was threatened like I did on Jan. 6,” Kinzinger said. “There was a difference between breaking the law and rejecting the rule of law, between a crime, even grave crimes and a coup.”
Kinzinger also defended his choice to serve on the committee, saying it’s “not in spite of my membership in the Republican Party, but because of it, not to win a political fight, but to learn the facts and defend our democracy.”
Cheney reminded in her opening statement that she and other lawmakers preferred to establish an independent commission to investigate the attack, but that effort was “defeated by Republicans in the Senate.”
“That leaves us where we are today. We cannot leave the violence of Jan. 6 and its causes uninvestigated,” she said. “If those responsible are not held accountable, and if Congress does not act responsibly, this will remain a cancer on our constitutional republic.”
Rep. Liz Cheney: “We must overcome the many efforts we are already seeing to cover up and obscure the facts…No member of Congress should now attempt to defend the indefensible.”
The former No. 3 House Republican also reminded that her GOP colleagues had “recognized the events that day for what they actually were” in the days after the attack, even if members downplay it now.
Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, Republicans who boycotted the select panel said the hearing should focus on the fact that Capitol Police were unprepared for Jan. 6. But because they gave up their ability to participate in the hearing, they couldn’t lead the discussion in their preferred direction — or challenge Democrats’ lines of inquiry the way Cheney and Kinzinger picked apart some of their claims.
Officers, while praised for heroism, blast lawmakers for partisan politics
While the officers were praised throughout the hearing for holding the line on Jan. 6, with lawmakers on the panel thanking them for their protection, the officers didn’t hold back when describing their disapproval in how partisan politics has muddied the search for the truth.
Fanone, the Metropolitan Police Department officer who was dragged down the Capitol steps, beaten with a flagpole, tased repeatedly and taunted with chants of “kill him with his own gun,” called out lawmakers on Tuesday who have blocked efforts for an investigation.
Officer Michael Fanone slams the table during Capitol riot hearing: “The indifference shown to my colleagues is disgraceful!”
“What makes the struggle harder and more painful is to know so many of my fellow citizens…are downplaying or outright denying what happened.” pic.twitter.com/1mGO4hHTFG
“The indifference shown to my colleagues is disgraceful,” he said, slamming his fist on the witness table. “I feel like I went to hell and back to protect them and the people in this room, but too many are now telling me that hell doesn’t exist or that hell actually wasn’t that bad.”
“Nothing — truly nothing — has prepared me to address those elected members of our government who continue to deny the events of that day, and in doing so betray their oath of office,” he added.
Gonell said of the former president downplaying the day, “It’s insulting, it’s demoralizing because everything that we did was to prevent everyone in the Capitol from getting hurt.”
Dunn said that the investigation is innately political because of the landscape surrounding the attack, but that it shouldn’t stop lawmakers from seeking the truth.
“It’s not a secret that it was political. They literally were there to stop the steal. So when people say it shouldn’t be political, it is. It was and it is. There’s no getting around that,” he said.
“Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are being lauded as courageous heroes and while I agree with that notion, why? Because they told the truth? Why is telling the truth hard?” he asked. “I guess in this America, it is.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden said Tuesday afternoon that a mandate to require all federal employees to be vaccinated is now “under consideration.”
He said this one day after the Department of Veterans Affairs moved to require all health workers get a COVID-19 vaccine and shortly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited new science on the transmissibility of the delta variant and reversed its mask guidance.
“It’s under consideration right now,” Biden said when asked by ABC News if the federal government would expand the vaccine mandate. “But if you’re not vaccinated, you’re not nearly as smart as I thought you were.”
BREAKING: Pres. Biden tells ABC’s @sarahkolinovsky that he is considering a mandate for all federal employees to get COVID-19 vaccines.
As he wrapped a visit to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ABC News also asked the president about Tuesday’s new guidance from the CDC, recommending masks for vaccinated Americans in public, and whether it would cause confusion, but Biden continued to focus on those who remain unvaccinated.
“We have a pandemic because the unvaccinated — and they’re sowing enormous confusion,” he said. “The more we learned — the more we learn about this virus and the delta variation, the more we have to be worried, concerned.”
“And the only one thing we know for sure, if those other 100 million people got vaccinated we’d be in a very different world. So get vaccinated. If you aren’t, you’re not nearly as smart as I thought you were,” Biden continued.
Following his remarks, Biden released a statement saying the CDC decision is “another step on our journey to defeating the virus” and that he’d have more to say on Thursday when he will “lay out the next steps” to get more Americans vaccinated.
Regarding the CDC recommendation for students, Biden said it’s “inconvenient,” but gives them a chance to learn “with their classmates with the best available protection.”
He also acknowledged concerns that as cases rise and mask guidance is reversed that the U.S. could be heading back to restrictions and closures but said in the statement, “We are not going back to that.”
“In the meantime, more vaccinations and mask wearing in the areas most impacted by the delta variant will enable us to avoid the kind of lockdowns, shutdowns, school closures and disruptions we faced in 2020. Unlike 2020, we have both the scientific knowledge and the tools to prevent the spread of this disease,” he said.
Earlier Tuesday, the CDC cited new science on the transmissibility of the delta variant and reversed its mask guidance to recommend that everyone in areas with high levels of COVID, vaccinated or not, wear a mask, as the virus continues to spread rapidly across the U.S.
“This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendation,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a briefing on Tuesday afternoon.
Throughout Washington there was a quick return to mask wearing for many who had grown accustomed to being without.
Vice President Kamala Harris, meeting with Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Native American voting rights advocates Tuesday afternoon, wore a mask indoors for the first time since May 13.
Asked about the development, Harris gave a little shrug.
“None of us like wearing masks,” she said bluntly.
She noted that most people dying at this point are not vaccinated.
“People need to get vaccinated. That’s the only way we’re going to cut this thing off. No one likes wearing a mask. Get vaccinated. That’s it,” she said, then hitting her hand on the table for emphasis.
ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett and Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
(RICHMOND, Va.) — Virginia gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe called on his GOP opponent Glenn Youngkin to cancel his appearance at and denounce what the 5th Congressional District Republican Party is calling an “election integrity regional rally,” which coincides with the anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act first being signed into law.
Susan Swecker, chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Virginia, called on the 5th District Republicans to cancel the event altogether.
“We all know what Glenn Youngkin and Republicans mean when they talk about election integrity. They’re following Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen and pushing restricting measures that make it harder for folks to exercise their fundamental right to vote,” Swecker said in a virtual press conference Tuesday. “Here in Virginia, we fought hard to protect and expand the sacred right to vote, and we’re not about to let Glenn Youngkin drag us backwards.”
The two-day, paid event is scheduled for Aug. 6 and 7 at Liberty University, a private evangelical Christian institution in Lynchburg. Attendees can purchase “early bird tickets” through Friday, which cost $60 per individual and $110 per couple; after Friday, ticket price increases by $20 and $40, respectively, according to the flyer for the event.
Youngkin, along with the other statewide GOP nominees for lieutenant governor, Winsome Sears, and attorney general, Jason Miyares, are the headliners for the Saturday night banquet.
The itinerary for the 5th District Republicans’ rally, which was not organized or being run by the Youngkin campaign, does not indicate it will be an event highlighting conspiracies about the 2020 election. It appears to be more of a grassroots event for the party’s faithful, with breakout sessions focused on voter registration, outreach like phone banking and door-knocking, organizing and election monitoring, for which there is a legal process to do.
In response to a request for comment, Melvin Adams, the chairman of the 5th District Republicans, told ABC News the party is “not surprised by these tactics.”
“They know this is a close race and that our event to thank, inspire, equip, and empower our ‘grassroots’ volunteers, while also helping them know how they can help to secure the integrity of our local elections, will cause an unprecedented Republican turnout in this very RED region of Virginia,” Adams said. “That is why they are attempting to cause distraction.”
Election integrity has become the rallying cry of the Republican Party following the 2020 presidential election, which former President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim was “rigged,” despite no real evidence to support the baseless accusation of widespread fraud in battleground states Trump legitimately lost. Republican-led state legislatures, including Georgia, Florida and Arizona, have passed new “election integrity” laws, some of which amount to sweeping rewrites of election code.
The lawmakers justify these changes by asserting voters have lost faith in the system and are demanding changes — though few in the party openly acknowledge the source of that diminished confidence among voters, Republican voters specifically.
Youngkin, who earned Trump’s endorsement after securing the nomination, has not personally repeated the same lies about the election being “stolen,” but the issue of election integrity has been central to his campaign.
Before the party convention in May, the only major plan Youngkin released was one in February about this, also creating an “election integrity task force.” The five-prong plan calls for creating a “politically independent and transparent” Department of Elections, monthly updates to voter rolls, stricter voter identification requirements, verification of mail ballot applications and returns to ensure they are “legitimate and timely,” and requiring ballot counting observers and an audit of voting machines.
McAuliffe, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s predecessor who’s vying for his old job, blasted the rally as being “inspired by Donald Trump’s conspiracy theory that led to a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.”
“Glenn – enough is enough. I call on you to immediately withdraw from this ‘election integrity’ rally and disavow this dangerous, deadly conspiracy theory once and for all. Virginians deserve a leader who will tell the truth, act with integrity, and respect the office they seek to hold,” McAuliffe said in a statement Tuesday. “Glenn has shown, yet again, that he is no such leader. … If Glenn has any respect for the truth or Virginians, he will drop out of this event immediately.”
In response, Youngkin spokesperson Matt Wolking said in a statement, “Terry McAuliffe opposes requiring a photo ID to vote, which undermines the integrity of our elections and makes it easier to cheat. Glenn Youngkin will restore Virginia’s photo ID law and make sure it is easy for every eligible person to vote and harder to cheat.”
In Virginia, current law requires voters present a form of identification, but photo ID specifically is not required. There is broad support among the public for requiring voters to present a photo ID to cast ballots. In late June, a Monmouth University poll found that 80% of Americans support this, including about 60% of Democrats.
McAuliffe also accused Youngkin of spending “months denying that Joe Biden was duly elected president.” Since winning the nomination, Youngkin has repeatedly said Biden was legitimately elected, according to a fact check done by the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact. However, the fact check also found that pre-nomination, multiple media outlets reported that Youngkin or his campaign either did not respond to questions about whether Biden was “legitimately elected” or declined to answer.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice has sent letters to six former Trump DOJ officials telling them that they can participate in Congress’ investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to sources and communications reviewed by ABC News.
The move is likely to remove a significant barrier that Democrats faced during Trump’s presidency, when the Justice Department backed the White House’s efforts to prevent any DOJ officials from testifying before their Democratic congressional committees.
At this time, no Trump-era DOJ official has indicated that they have agreed to testify in the congressional probe.
The first hearing of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, featuring law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6, got underway Tuesday.
Earlier, those attorneys who had been asked to testify had said they would need authorization from the Justice Department, sources told ABC News.
“Department attorneys, including those who have left the Department, are obligated to protect non-public information they learned in the course of their work,” reads the DOJ’s letter, which was sent Monday and reviewed by ABC News. “For decades and across administrations, however, the Department has sought to balance the Executive Branch’s confidentiality interests with Congress’s legitimate need to gather information. The extraordinary events in this matter constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an accommodation to Congress in this case.”
The letter was sent to former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia B.J. Pak, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia Bobby Christine and former Associate Deputy Attorney General Patrick Hovakimian, all of whom were requested as witnesses by House Oversight Committee.
“The extraordinary events in this matter constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an accommodation to Congress in this case,” the letter said. “Congress has articulated compelling legislative interests in the matters being investigated, and the information the Committees have requested from you bears directly on Congress’s interest in understanding these extraordinary events: namely, the question whether former President Trump sought to cause the Department to use its law enforcement and litigation authorities to advance his personal political interests with respect to the results of the 2020 presidential election.”
(NEW YORK) — Two key senators announced a bipartisan deal on a $2.1 billion emergency security supplemental bill to send much-needed funding to Capitol Police and the National Guard, as law enforcement officers were recounting to members of the House their gripping, harrowing tales of confrontations with former President Donald Trump’s supporters rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
The deal includes $70.7 million for Capitol Police training, equipment, overtime, more officers, hazard pay and retention bonuses; more than $521 million to the National Guard to reimburse the department for the long hours guardsmen put in guarding the Capitol in the wake of the attack; and additional funding will be allotted for making repairs to the building after rioters damaged the centuries-old historic building. There’s also $35.4 million for the Capitol Police mutual aid agreements with local, state and federal law enforcement for securing the Capitol and funds to secure the Capitol complex and respond to COVID on the complex.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that “We’re going to take care of the Capitol Police, fix all the problems that need to be done here (in the building), certainly take care of the National Guard, which is critical, because they have real problems.”
The Guard has been desperate for the reimbursement, threatening to cancel training events, drills in August and September and potentially furloughing civilians.
The embattled Capitol Police, still clawing back from the Jan. 6 attacks — enacting changes in leadership, grappling with retirements and officers walking away from the job after that harrowing day — have said they would be out of funding by mid-August if Congress did not act.
The emergency supplemental also has $1.125 billion to cover the Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa program — a little less than what the White House requested — to provide asylum to allies there who aided the U.S. mission and now face retribution from a resurgent Taliban.
Leahy has said before that the money is also designed to address the backlog of applications for the program and shortening the work requirement to one year from two, but it unclear what will be in the final deal.
The chairman said the bill could be on the floor as early as Tuesday night, but lawmakers could have a Sen. Rand Paul problem. The Kentucky Republican is opposed to awarding funds to provide asylum to Afghan interpreters and others who helped the United States in that long-fought war.
The State Department announced last week the “first tranche” of Afghans being evacuated from Afghanistan consists of 700 who worked for the U.S. military and diplomatic missions in Afghanistan and an estimated number of their family members — bringing the total to a “ballpark” of 2,500 Afghans set to be sent to Fort Lee base in Virginia, according to State Department spokesperson Ned Price.
Thousands more are being moved to other cooperating countries, as well as overseas U.S. bases.
ABC News’ Conor Finnegan contributed to this report.
This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Despite heavy opposition from Republican leadership, the House select committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is holding its first hearing on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
The panel will hear from law enforcement officers who defended the building, including Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Michael Fanone. They both lobbied lawmakers in May, alongside the family of fallen Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, to form a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the attack — an effort Republicans blocked in the Senate.
The House voted to form a select committee to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi has appointed eight members — six Democrats and two Republicans, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. They were the only House Republicans who broke from the GOP to vote in favor of creating the committee.
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled all five of his appointments after Pelosi vetoed two of them over statements they had made which she said would damage the credibility of the probe. McCarthy has attempted to dismiss the investigation as a “sham” and threatened punitive action on the Republicans who’ve agreed to serve with Democrats.
Jul 27, 8:37 am
Rep. Liz Cheney on ABC’s Good Morning America says subpoenas possible for McCarthy, Trump
With hours until the first hearing kicks off, Rep. Liz Cheney — one of two Republicans serving on the select committee — shot back at fellow Republicans criticizing her role in the probe, saying, “This is absolutely not a game. This is deadly serious.”
”There are some in my party, including Leader McCarthy, who continue to act as though this is about partisan politics, I think it’s really sad. I think it’s a disgrace,” she told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
She also said subpoenas for House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy and even former President Donald Trump are possible.
“The committee will go wherever we need to go to get to the facts,” she said.
