(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, said Wednesday that the panel’s long-awaited report will be released on Wednesday, Dec. 21.
Thompson said the report’s release would be coupled with some form of public presentation, the details of which are still being sorted out by committee members.
The report and accompanying materials will be posted online, Thompson said.
He also said that any decisions regarding potential criminal referrals will come the same day, and will be voted on publicly.
Thompson indicated on Tuesday that criminal referrals related to the Capitol attack were under discussion, but that final decisions — including on specific crimes and specific suspects — had not been made pending a vote by committee members.
(WASHINGTON) — As Republicans plan to aggressively challenge President Biden’s border and immigration policies in the House next year, one border-district Republican is drawing attention an alarming number of suicides in the ranks of Customs and Border Protection agents.
Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers plan this week to introduce the TAPS Act to direct resources to Border Patrol agents — modeled on a past effort at the Pentagon to address mental health issues in the military.
“There’s a lot of things that should unite us,” Gonzales said at a news conference Wednesday. “The fact that we have 14 agents who have committed suicide [this year] is a problem … and it’s a problem for this body to solve.”
The 14 recorded suicides is the highest recorded by the agency in 13 years — since 2009. The agency reported eight suicides in 2020 and 11 suicides in 2021.
Gonzales, who represents Uvalde, also spoke about the mental health needs of the agents who responded to the school shooting.
“What they have been exposed to 100% has an impact on you,” he said.
“Until we take out the far of law enforcement coming forward to talk about mental health issues, they’re not going to do it,” said Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing rank and file agents.
Under the current rules, Judd said, an agent who approaches supervisors for mental health issues can be stigmatized and at risk of losing pay.
The Democrats in attendance acknowledged the challenge the next Congress will have in advancing immigration and border security legislation, given the GOP House and a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., said the “best thing we can do for border security is comprehensive immigration reform.”
Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said Democrats and Republicans “recognize that our immigration system is totally broken, and is working for no one.”
“The folks who are manning the southern border are bearing the brunt of our failed policies,” she said. “We are willing to work with anyone on the right or the left to deal with that crisis.”
Gonzales signaled that this new effort could be its own bipartisan push, ahead of any major border security plan advanced by Republicans in the majority next year. Democrats will still control the Senate with 51 seats, and will need at least 60 votes to advance legislation.
A CBP spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News that the agency is “facilitating a culture that destigmatizes suicide and makes it safe for employees to seek help,” and is “increasingly dedicating resources” to support the workforce’s “mental health and well-being.”
“In addition to offering new resources for the field and generating social media and other communications campaigns, CBP has expanded the number of on-site clinicians and is hiring over a dozen operational psychologists. Together, these licensed professionals implement an evidence-based suicide prevention and intervention program, while tackling precursors to suicide including substance abuse, relationship problems, financial difficulties, and job stress during periods of expanded mission scope and complexity,” the spokesperson said.
ABC’s Lauren Peller and Quinn Owen contributed to this report.
If you are experiencing suicidal, substance use or other mental health crises please call or text the new three digit code at 9-8-8. You will reach a trained crisis counselor for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You can also go to 988lifeline.org or dial the current toll free number 800-273-8255 [TALK].
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump had an outside team conduct a deeper search for any government documents at four properties which turned up at least two more documents marked classified, ABC News has confirmed according to sources familiar with the matter.
The documents were recovered at a storage unit that is owned by the federal government, and maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) in West Palm Beach, Florida, the sources told ABC News.
The Department of Justice has been notified of the documents’ existence.
The news of the search and discovery was first reported by The Washington Post.
In August, federal agents searching Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate recovered hundreds of classified documents that had been taken there when Trump left the White House.
The search of the storage unit was conducted after a federal judge pushed Trump’s lawyers to search for any further documents that were taken by the former president and his allies.
A spokesperson for Trump told ABC News in a statement, “President Trump and his counsel continue to be cooperative and transparent, despite the unprecedented, illegal, and unwarranted attack against President Trump and his family by the weaponized Department of Justice.”
“President Trump will keep fighting against the outrageous politicization of law enforcement and will always stand for America and all Americans,” the statement said.
(NEW YORK) — Just before Thanksgiving, about 9 million people who applied for student debt relief from the federal government got an email from the Department of Education with a subject line indicating their application had been “approved,” according to a copy of the email obtained by ABC News.
But that was misleading as the Biden administration’s student loan program was halted in mid-November by Republican-led lawsuits — weeks before the email was sent informing borrowers of their “approved” status.
The email explained as much in the email body, informing borrowers that “lawsuits are preventing the Department of Education from implementing its one-time student loan debt relief program.”
The program will remain in limbo until the Supreme Court makes the final call on the program sometime before late June. But the subject line left many borrowers confused.
Acknowledging the misfire this week — about two weeks later — the Department of Education told ABC News that borrowers will get an updated email soon that corrects the subject line and clarifies the state of the program. (The Department of Education said that some people did get emails with the correct subject line.)
A spokesperson said Accenture Federal Services, a contractor that does digital work for the federal government, is primarily responsible.
“Communicating clearly and accurately with borrowers is a top priority of the Department. We are in close touch with Accenture Federal Services as they take corrective action to ensure all borrowers and those affected have accurate information about debt relief,” a spokesperson for the Education Department said.
Accenture Federal Services has not returned a request for comment from ABC News, but the Education Department said the company is expected to review quality control measures for future email messages having to do with the program.
On the whole, the erroneous email is just one of multiple twists and turns for the debt relief proposal, which the White House announced in late August.
Around 26 million Americans applied for forgiveness by early November — nearly half of the people who were eligible. About 43 million Americans qualify in total, according to the Biden administration.
President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona have said they remain confident the program will prevail through the legal challenges, though its challengers maintain the president has overreached his authority.
(WASHINGTON) — Republicans are celebrating a major political win as they head into the new Congress with a House majority — forcing Democrats to concede on ending the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate in order to get the must-pass national defense bill across the finish line.
The move would be a major concession for Democrats and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy took a victory lap on Tuesday night when the National Defense Authorization Act was revealed to have included a provision to get rid of the mandate, writing on Twitter, “Last week I told Biden directly: it’s time to end your COVID vaccine mandate on our military & rehire our service members.”
“The end of the mandate is a victory for our military & for common sense,” said McCarthy, who is currently in a heated effort to secure support from his conference to become speaker in January.
The White House called the provision being included a “mistake” but didn’t say whether or not Biden would sign the bill once it’s passed. “We continue to believe that repealing the vaccine mandate is a mistake. Making sure our troops are ready to defend this country and prepared to do so that remains the president’s priority and the vaccine requirement for COVID does just that,” National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications John Kirby said Wednesday.
The White House and Pentagon argue that service members have long been required to get multiples vaccinations other than the COVID vaccine.
A vote on the military funding bill is expected as early as Wednesday.
Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday that Democrats needed to agree to the provision in order to get the policy bill passed, calling it “a question of how can we get something done?”
“We are willing to compromise because we want to make sure we fund government. We want to make sure that we get that national defense bill passed. This is a small part of it,” Hoyer said.
The mandate was imposed in August 2021 and requires all U.S. service members to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Other Republicans celebrated the added provision, arguing that the move would particularly help with difficulty in recruiting and retaining service members.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell praised the mandate’s repeal, calling it “a policy which this Democratic administration had stubbornly clung to even as it has clearly undermined readiness and hurt retention.”
Including a repeal of the mandate in House bill may well save the NDAA from procedural calamity when it heads to the Senate. Last week, a large contingent of Senate Republicans threatened to slow or even block the bill over the provision.
“You’re going to kick somebody out of the military who is willing to get shot because they won’t take a shot,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who lead the Senate Republican effort with Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, said at a press conference.
Graham and Braun said they had assembled a coalition of over 20 Republicans who would insist on the opportunity to vote on an amendment to repeal the mandate if a repeal wasn’t included in the bill. A group of this size wouldn’t have been able to block the NDAA, but they could have derailed it for days.
“It ought to be your body and your choice whether you get the vaccine,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who joined the group, said.
It’s likely that if the Senate had brought the vaccine mandate up for a vote it would have passed. There are several conservative Democrats who support repeal of the vaccine mandates.
(WASHINGTON) — In an extraordinary and tense debate stretching three hours on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court entertained an unprecedented call to give state legislatures nearly unchecked power to dictate when, where and how Americans vote for president and Congress.
While a majority of justices appeared skeptical of entirely removing state courts from the process of reviewing state election laws, a majority did seem willing to impose new limits on the role judges can play in election policy. There was no clear consensus on scope or approach.
North Carolina Republicans were asking the high court to reinstate a gerrymandered election map drawn by the GOP-controlled state legislature after it was thrown out by the state supreme court for violating the state constitution. A court-appointed panel drew a new map which was used during the 2022 midterm election.
The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause expressly empowers the state legislature, and legislature alone, to dictate the “time, places and manner” of federal elections — free from substantive review by state courts. The view is based on a fringe theory known as the independent state legislature theory, which the court has never adopted.
“States lack the authority to restrict the legislatures’ substantive discretion when performing this federal function,” argued attorney David Thompson, representing the Republicans.
A group of North Carolina voters and pro-democracy advocates, backed by the Biden administration, opposes the move as contrary to the nation’s history and tradition and has warned that it would invalidate hundreds of election laws in every state.
“The blast radius from their theory would sow elections chaos,” said attorney Neal Katyal, the former Obama administration solicitor general representing the voters. “For 233 years, “This court has never second-guessed a state court interpretation of its own constitution in any context.”
Of the supposed historical underpinning of the theory, Katyal said: “The dog never barked … Not a person said anything like that they were trying to create this strange animal.”
On the left and the right, the justices echoed skepticism of the theory.
“This is a theory with big consequences,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “It would say that if a legislature engages in the most extreme forms of gerrymandering, there is no state constitutional remedy for that, even if the courts think that that’s a violation of the constitution. It would say that legislatures could enact all manner of restrictions on voting, get rid of all kinds of voter protections that the state constitution in fact prohibits. It might allow the legislatures to insert themselves, to give them a role, in the certification of elections and the way election results are calculated.”
“This is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country, Kagan said. “And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to call out inconsistencies in how the theory would be applied. “You do have a problem explaining why these procedural limitations [i.e. a governor’s veto] are okay, but substantive [i.e. a state court ruling] are not,” she told Thompson.
“We ground it in precedent, your honor, and text and structure and history,” Thompson replied.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly sought to poke holes in North Carolina Republicans’ view of the history. “It seems that every answer you give is to get you what you want, but it makes little sense,” she told Thompson.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared most inclined to embrace a broad application of the independent legislature theory, appearing to side with the Republican challengers.
“The question before us is whether the rule, the time, place and manner regulation has been prescribed by the legislature,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. He voiced skepticism of a state court saying “we’re not going to enforce the rules of the legislature for any reason.”
Katyal argued that U.S. Constitution’s references to ‘legislature’ were always understood to mean the “lawmaking ‘system,’ subject to constraints.”
“What’s the check on an appointed state supreme court?” quipped Justice Alito, who probed “boundaries” on state courts that might wade into policymaking. “Many state supreme courts are not elected.”
Chief Justice John Roberts followed with concern about the practice of some state courts appointing a special master to draw election maps after a dispute.
“The judges don’t sit in the back room with lines drawing the districts, but other people do,” Roberts said. “And I wonder if there’s a disconnect between the level of the grant of authority…and how it’s actually practiced on the ground.”
But the chief justice stopped short of suggesting there should be no limits, whatsoever, on state lawmakers when it comes to elections. “State legislative action under the Elections Clause is subject to a governor’s veto, right?”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the case against the independent state legislature theory is a simple one. Since a state’s constitution creates the legislature and lays out its power, lawmakers must inherently be subject to the charter’s terms as interpreted by a court.
“What I don’t understand is how you can cut the state constitution out of the equation when it’s giving the state legislature the authority to exercise legislative power,” she said. “It’s the state constitution that is telling the legislature when and under what circumstances it can actually act as the legislature.”
Kagan repeatedly turned the argument back to the big-picture stakes for a country exhausted by partisanship.
“There’s a great deal of sentiment in this country about the problems with extreme partisan gerrymandering,” she said. “And states have responded to that in nonpartisan ways…State constitutions have been amended by the work of the people.”
“In all recent [Supreme Court] cases,” Kagan said, “we’ve said: of course, state courts applying state constitutions typically constrain state legislatures when they redistrict, when they enact election laws…. We’ve understood this to be an established idea of law.”
The court is expected to hand down a decision before the end of June.
(RICHMOND CITY, Calif.) — After his race for a Northern California city council seat ended in a tie, candidate Cesar Zepeda wore several good luck charms to the drawing that would determine the winner — including a pocket square pin and “love is love” socks.
Luck ended up being on his side: Zepeda won the Richmond City Council District 2 race after his name was drawn out of a red gift bag on Tuesday.
After completing its ballot counting and audit last week, the Contra Costa County Elections Office determined that Zepeda and his opponent, Andrew Butt, had both received exactly 1,921 votes in November’s election.
To break the tie, the Richmond City Clerk’s Office instructed them to write their names in Sharpie on a piece of paper, place it in an identical unmarked envelope, seal it and each take turns shaking the bag in a process that was livestreamed on the city’s website.
After the first attempt saw Richmond City Clerk Pamela Christian draw both envelopes, the bag was vigorously shaken again before she drew out one lime green envelope — Zepeda’s.
“I am the first openly gay man to serve on our council,” Zepeda told reporters in emotional remarks following the draw.
“I want to be able to lead the community with that mindset that we could be different, but if our goals are to make our community better, we can, whether you’re a gay man, whether you’re a straight person, we can do it together,” Zepeda, a health and benefits consultant, said.
Meanwhile, his opponent was wishing for a different outcome.
“Yeah, the one where I won,” Butt said.
“In a perfect world, there would be an opportunity to have another vote, you know, a runoff or something like that,” Butt, a local architect, told reporters. “But you know the reality is that takes time and money and you know we’re short on both. … I don’t know what else to, do honestly.”
California election law stipulates that tied elections be determined by lot — or chance. In Richmond, the city council previously established that process, with a June 2022 resolution stating that the “City Clerk shall place the name of each candidate in a sealed unmarked envelope.”
Prior to the draw, the candidates joked they should resolve the tie by literally racing, or in a dance-off.
“In some ways, it’s interesting and exciting to be a part of it, right, because there’s sort of history being made here. But obviously it’s incredibly nerve-wracking,” Butt told ABC San Francisco station KGO, calling the process “surreal” and “insane.”
Richmond could hold a runoff in a future election, if the city changes its rules before then, according to Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia.
Contra Costa County has had to resolve ties through chance in the past. In 2018, a race for the director of the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District was decided by rolls of a 20-sided die.
California isn’t the only state to decide elections by lot. Twenty-eight states determine winners by drawing of lots “or similar random methods,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Just last month, a tied mayoral race in Butler, Kentucky was decided by a coin toss. Last year, the winner of a tied city council race in Portland, Maine, was determined by drawing a name out of a wooden bowl.
(WASHINGTON) — An attorney for former President Donald Trump told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that Trump’s fiery speech on the Ellipse prior to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was within his official responsibilities and, as a result, he is immune from lawsuits filed by 11 Democratic members of Congress and two Capitol police officers seeking to hold him responsible for the attack.
Washington, D.C., district judge Amit Mehta in February rejected Trump’s bid to have the suits dismissed, prompting Trump’s attorneys to appeal the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The three lawsuits allege violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act that safeguards federal officials and employees against conspiratorial acts directed at preventing them from performing their duties.
The three-judge appeals panel seemed skeptical that Trump’s rhetoric at the rally fell within his official responsibilities, asking his attorney, Jesse Binnall, what power Trump was acting under when he told rally-goers, “We fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
“I don’t know what work the speech-making is doing,” Judge Sri Srinivasan said. “What I’m worried about is whether it actually falls within official presidential responsibility when what’s going on is campaigning for office.”
Judge Greg Katsas asked, more pointedly, “When the president gets involved in electoral counting, what enumerated power of Article II is he acting on?”
Plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers argued that “President Trump is not entitled to the immunity he seeks because his conduct interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.”
But Binnall cautioned that allowing the lawsuits to go forward would “open the floodgates” to civil litigation against U.S. presidents.
“I think it is difficult on any speech the president gives to decide that it’s outside the bully pulpit of the presidency,” Binnall said.
Binnell had argued that a 1982 Supreme Court decision shields presidents from civil lawsuits over their official acts, but Mehta’s decision earlier this year allowed the Jan. 6 suits to go forward.
“Absolute immunity does not shield President Trump from suit,” Mehta said in his ruling. “To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, feeling “exuberant” following Sen. Raphael Warnock’s win in Georgia’s runoff, on Wednesday laid out why he thinks Democrats won and what to expect from their incoming 51-seat edge.
“This election, both in November and now here on December the 6th, now shows that Americans believe in democracy,” Schumer told reporters in a news conference on Capitol Hill. “The American people rejected so many of this MAGA extremism — both in knocking down and not voting for extreme MAGA candidates … Many of the voters in the middle came over to us because they worried what the Republican Party under MAGA control would do to our democracy.”
The 2022 midterms marked the first time since 1943 that a party in power has defended every incumbent Senate seat, a fact Schumer touted to press: “Why did Democrats defy history in these midterms?”
While praising the quality of Democratic candidates, Schumer argued that they won due to the “one-two punch” of Americans retreating from the Republican Party and rewarding Democrats for passing legislation that he said actually matters to voters.
“The combination of those two things was the powerful one-two punch that made us defy all the odds and provided the right so our candidates, both incumbent and non-incumbent, could prevail,” Schumer said, describing when he thought things began to shift for Democrats after dire midterm predictions.
He called the Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn national abortion rights “the crystallization” for the public on Republicans’ move to the right: “[That’s] when people said, ‘Wow, these MAGA Republicans are serious about turning the clock all the way back,'” he said.
Schumer said the conservative court’s majority decisions to expand concealed carry for firearms and to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to curb emissions only added to these fears.
The House Jan. 6 committee’s public hearings on the Capitol attack also “played an important effect,” he contended, in exposing extremism in the GOP.
Now that Democrats have total control of the Senate and are no longer governed by a 50-50 power-sharing agreement with Republicans, Schumer said they are breathing a “sigh of relief.”
Unlike in an evenly split chamber where committees hold an even split of partisan representation, the additional seat will allow Democrats to have clear majorities on committees, making it easier to move future legislation and judicial and executive nominations.
Schumer also highlighted the subpoena power Democrats will have to investigate private sector as well as government entities.
“It gives us just a lift. The fact that we got the 51 votes gives us just a great feeling, enthusiasm, unity, encouragement,” he said.
The Senate leader declined multiple questions to speculate on what specific actions Democrats might take in the new Congress. The House’s incoming GOP majority has already promised what they call aggressive oversight of the Biden administration, including focus on the southern border, the Afghanistan withdrawal and the president’s son Hunter.
Speaking with reporters, Schumer repeated a broad message that he hopes to work with non-MAGA Republican lawmakers — and promised to pursue that goal “with the same kind of energy that we pursued winning this election.”
“There are a good number of Republicans in the Senate and the House who are not MAGA Republicans who know that if the Republican Party follows the hard right and the extreme members in their caucuses, they’ll continue to lose ground. It is my intention to reach out to them and see how can we work in a bipartisan way,” he said.
Asked if he thinks Democrats would have the same wins with President Joe Biden on the ticket in 2024, Schumer said Democrats tend to do better in presidential election years — before reinforcing his support for Biden, when pressed.
“I think President Biden being on the ticket, if he runs — and if he runs, I’ll support him — would be very, very helpful,” Schumer said.
Of Warnock’s win, Schumer said he was moved to tears Tuesday night when the Georgia lawmaker mentioned his mother in his victory speech.
“He said she grew up in the ’50s picking someone else’s cotton and somebody else’s tobacco,” Schumer said. “And last night — this is so touching, every time I read it I get choked up — last night, she helped pick her son to be United States Senator. Only in America.”
He praised Warnock for having four electoral victories against Republicans in two years in a historically red state, and he took a moment of self-congratulation for his efforts to recruit the reverend to run.
“The people of Georgia are better off, the Democratic Senate caucus is better off and America is better off because he ran and won,” Schumer said. “He’s going to have a great, great future.”
(PALM BEACH, Fla.) — A prominent adherent of the QAnon and “pizzagate” conspiracy theories posed for photos with former President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort Tuesday night after speaking at an event hosted at the club, according to the photos and videos posted to social media.
The event came two weeks after Trump had dinner at Mar-a Lago with rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, who recently spoke positively about Hitler, and far-right YouTuber Nick Fuentes, who the Department of Justice has labeled a white supremacist. The meeting sparked outrage despite Trump’s claim he did not know who Fuentes was.
Videos and photos posted to social media appear to show Liz Crokin, a prominent promoter of QAnon and pro-Trump conspiracies theories, speaking at an event at Mar-a-Lago and later posing for photos with Trump. In one photo, the duo make a “thumbs up” sign together.
According to social media posts, the event was billed as a fundraiser in support of a “documentary” on sex trafficking — one of the pillars of the QAnon conspiracy theory. The website for the film, which includes multiple falsehoods and claims of mass sex-trafficking in Hollywood, boasts that it is “Banned by YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and PayPal.”
Mar-a-Lago often hosts events for outside groups.
“You are incredible people, you are doing unbelievable work, and we just appreciate you being here and we hope you’re going to be back,” Trump said in remarks to the crowd, according to a video of his speech.
A representative for the Trump campaign did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
“Tonight I had the privilege and honor to speak at America’s Future fundraiser to combat child trafficking at Mar-A-Lago,” Crokin wrote in a social media post, claiming that while she was at Trump’s club she discussed “Pizzagate” — a viral conspiracy theory that falsely claims prominent Democrats were running a child-sex trafficking ring out of a pizza shop in Washington, D.C.
Crokin has expressed her belief in the conspiracy theory as recently as 2020. In an interview with Salon, she said the theory had not been debunked, according to the outlet.
Crokin was featured in the HBO Docuseries “Q: Into the Storm.” In a video, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she first was introduced to the conspiracy theory by Crokin.
According to a report on an another interview she gave, Crokin said of Trump that as president, Trump was “dismantling the deep state and one of his top priorities is to end sex trafficking.”
Crokin did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the event or whether she still believes in QAnon and “pizzagate” conspiracy theories.
In recent weeks, Trump’s newly announced 2024 campaign has been playing defense on multiple fronts. On Wednesday, Trump’s namesake real estate company was found guilty by a jury in New York of tax fraud. Last week, Trump on social media called for “termination” of “of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” over false claims of election fraud.
