Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Top lawmakers on Tuesday presented police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, with Congressional Gold Medals — the highest honor that Congress can bestow — nearly two years after the attack.

For many officers honored, the Rotunda ceremony marked the first time since Jan. 6 that they’ve returned to the Capitol complex.

“Many of us still carry the physical, mental and emotional scars after that mob of thousands launched a violent assault in an attempt to halt the counting of electoral ballots,” said Chief Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department. “The sound of metal poles and other objects striking the bodies, helmets and shields may still ring loudly — the air, still thick with bear spray and other chemicals, making it difficult for our officers to see and breathe — the calls for your fellow officer to be harmed just as loud as the day that this occurred.”

“But there is hope,” Contee added, speaking directly to the scores of police present, “because through adversity comes growth, and we continue to grow together and deliver excellence to our community.”

“Defending the U.S. Capitol is something that you will carry with you for the rest of your careers and lives. Regardless of your political affiliation, you responded like you do each and every day: without hesitation, with courage and an unwavering duty to uphold your oath,” Contee said. “You did not give up, and you did not give in.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in one of her final ceremonial acts in leadership, was the first to deliver remarks of the top four congressional leaders, all of whom were present. She recalled Jan. 6 — in which a mob overran law enforcement and stormed the Capitol to try and prevent the certification of Donald Trump’s election loss — as a “day of horror and heartbreak” but also a “moment of extraordinary heroism.”

“Exactly 23 months ago, our nation suffered the most staggering assault on democracy since the Civil War,” Pelosi said. “Staring down deadly violence and despicable bigotry, our law enforcement officers bravely stood in the breach, ensuring that democracy survived on that dark day. So on behalf of the United States Congress and the American people, it is my honor to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police and every hero of Jan. 6.”
MORE: Biden signs measure awarding Congressional Gold Medal to police who defended Capitol

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger said, for his officers, that it was a day “defined by chaos, courage, tragic loss and resolve.”

“I especially want to recognize our officers who made the ultimate sacrifice: Officer Brian Sicknick, Officer Howard Liebengood. Now I want to recognize also Officer Billy Evans who was lost in the line of duty on April 2, 2021, when he was attacked outside the Capitol by a lone assailant,” Manger said, referring to three police who died in the days and months after Jan. 6. “I appreciate the fact that Congress is acknowledging the courage, the strength and resiliency of each and every member of the United States Capitol Police — sworn and civilian.”

Contee, speaking for Metropolitan Police, thanked “all that voted in favor of this recognition.” While the Senate passed legislation last year to grant the medals unanimously with a voice vote, 21 House Republicans voted against it.

The ceremony arrived as Democrats race to finish a nearly 18-month investigation by a House select committee probing the attack amid discussion of criminals referrals to the Justice Department ahead of Republicans taking back the House majority in January.

Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, the likely incoming House speaker, has signaled he would not like to see the select committee kept in place and, instead, hold hearings about security lapses that led to the breach.

McCarthy, on Tuesday, joined in calling the officers “heroes.”

“Heroes who live out the code to protect and serve, heroes who do the noble work — too many people take that for granted — but days like today force us to realize how much we owe that thin blue line. We’re forever indebted to them for their heroism,” McCarthy said.

Gladys Sicknick, the mother of Brian Sicknick, appeared to pass over McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a handshake line with congressional leaders. Gladys Sicknick had lobbied Congress to pass legislation for a bipartisan select commission to investigate Jan. 6, which Senate Republicans ultimately blocked.

McConnell, in his remarks, called law enforcement officers at the Capitol “familiar colleagues … the first faces we see on our way in each morning and our last goodbyes every night.”

“Because you honored your oath to support and defend the Constitution, we were able to honor ours,” McConnell told officers present. “That is a reality that was made especially clear 23 months ago, but it is true every single day. Thank you for having our backs. Thank you for saving our country. Thank you for being not just our friends, but our heroes.”

When President Joe Biden signed legislation to grant the medals last year, he said that one would be placed at the Smithsonian Museum “so all visitors can understand what happened that day.” Medals will also be placed at the Capitol, at the U.S. Capitol Police headquarters and at the Metropolitan Police Department.

“We cannot allow history to be rewritten,” Biden said at a Rose Garden ceremony last summer. “We cannot allow the heroism of these officers to be forgotten. We have to understand what happened — the honest and unvarnished truth. We have to face it.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House Jan. 6 committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie 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.

A spokesperson for the committee subsequently said in a statement that “the Committee has determined that referrals to outside entities should be considered as a final part of its work.”

“The committee will make decisions about specifics in the days ahead,” the spokesperson said.

Thompson, D-Miss., talked with reporters Tuesday on Capitol Hill as his committee pushes to finish its work before the next Congress begins in January and Republicans retake the House. The GOP majority is not expected to continue the Jan. 6 investigation in its current form.

Thompson gave sometimes contradictory answers to questions about whether his committee will make criminal referrals.

“We’ve made decisions that we will make referrals. As to how many, we’ve not decided,” Thompson said before later clarifying, after follow-up questions from ABC News, “What we’ve decided is that we will probably make referrals. … It’s under consideration, but we’ve not decided to do it.”

“We’ve not had a vote,” Thompson said, then added after more questions: “We have not made a decision as to who, but we have made decisions that criminal referrals will happen. … We have not voted on who.”

A criminal referral would be a notable but symbolic move as the Department of Justice can pursue investigations without them or ignore congressional referrals as it chooses. The DOJ has been separately conducting a parallel investigation into Jan. 6.

The committee is also finishing a report summarizing its 18-month investigation into the insurrection last year, when a mob stormed the Capitol, overrunning law enforcement, in an attempt to prevent the certification of President Joe Biden’s win over Donald Trump.

In a series of hearings that began this summer, the committee cited extensive testimony from Trump’s staff and allies, as well as other materials, to argue that Trump plotted to prevent losing power and urged supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 knowing some of them were armed.

Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has accused the committee of partisanship, given that it is dominated by Democrats with only two Republican members. Trump denies wrongdoing.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — Georgia’s Senate runoff between Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker comes to a close on Tuesday after more than a year of campaigning, several controversies and record-breaking turnout.

While the race won’t determine control of the Senate, it could increase Democrats’ power in the chamber — where Vice President Kamala Harris currently has to break ties — or see the Republicans win a 50th seat and create procedural obstacles.

Walker, a businessman and local football legend, and Warnock, a noted reverend in Atlanta, first faced off in November’s general election. But neither got 50% of the vote as required by state law, leading to Tuesday’s runoff after about a week of early voting.

Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:

Dec 06, 12:31 PM EST
Walker dodges Warnock’s attacks on his character

ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Herschel Walker on Election Day about his rival questioning his character and competence — and if he was confident that he could flip Sen. Raphael Warnock’s seat.

“I’m not going to answer that,” Walker said, repeating a version anytime he was presented with his opponent’s name. “We’re going out to win this election. So this election, I’m telling people to get out to vote.”

“Hershel Walker is going to be your senator, and we’re going to get things changed,” Walker added.

When pressed further, Walker said, “The reason I’m not going to address that is because it doesn’t need to be addressed … Right now, I’ll put my character against Raphael Warnock any day. Right now, I’ve done a lot of things.”

Walker’s strategy in the final stretch has been to link Warnock to President Joe Biden, labeling him a “rubber stamp” for Biden’s agenda, a characterization Warnock has rejected.

“I am the 18th most bipartisan senator in the Senate. Period,” Warnock told Scott on Monday. “Now I know that’s an inconvenient fact for Mr. Walker. We also know that he’s allergic to facts, even the facts about his own life.”

-ABC News’ Libby Cathey

Dec 06, 12:17 PM EST
Who is Raphael Warnock?

Warnock is running in his fourth election in under two years as he fights for a full six-year term representing the battleground state.

Warnock is currently at the helm of as Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, which was famously led by Martin Luther King Jr. He has campaigned on a personal history steeped in religion and social justice.

He has also touted his current work during his short time in Congress, including some bipartisan priorities.

“I’m not a senator who used to be a pastor. You might as well know that you sent a pastor to the Senate,” Warnock told canvassers in October.

In 2020, Warnock was accused by then-wife Ouleye of running over her foot amid their divorce proceedings.

Neither police nor medical professionals were able to find evidence to show that she was injured, and Warnock was not charged with any crimes. He told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of the claim: “It didn’t happen.”

Dec 06, 12:16 PM EST
Who is Herschel Walker?

Walker hopes to do what former Sen. Kelly Loeffler could not and defeat Warnock in a runoff election in Georgia.

Walker is a football legend in the state known for scoring touchdowns in the University of Georgia’s 1980 championship season.

Now a businessman, he entered the Senate primary in August 2021 at the urging of former President Donald Trump, a longtime friend, whose swift support largely cleared the field.

“I’m here to win the seat for the Georgia people because the Georgia people need a winner,” he said in October.

Both the November election and the runoff have seen Walker deny a series of allegations from women, including that he paid for their abortions, which he has said is not true. He is running as a staunchly anti-abortion candidate.

During the campaign, Walker’s past also received new scrutiny, such as resurfaced reports about violence in his first marriage — which he didn’t contest — amid what he said was a struggle with dissociative identity disorder.

Dec 06, 12:16 PM EST
Election Day is here for midterm’s final battle

In Georgia, the stage is set for the final Senate battle of the midterm election as voters head back to the polls on Tuesday for the runoff election between Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker.

In November’s general election, Warnock finished less than 1% ahead of Walker, falling just short of the 50% threshold required by state law, triggering a four-week runoff election that included at least five days of mandatory early voting last week.

Georgia is no stranger to runoff elections and this is the third time voters cast ballots in a Senate runoff election in less than two years. But the dynamics have shifted since the 2020 campaign that got Warnock elected. The state legislature passed a sweeping voting law last year that, among other changes, shortened the runoff period from nine weeks to four, causing an all-out sprint to the finish line for both candidates.

On Monday, Walker and Warnock made their closing pitches to voters in multiple campaign stops on the eve of Election Day.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — In Georgia, the stage is set for the final Senate battle of the midterm election as voters head back to the polls on Tuesday for the runoff election between Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker.

In November’s general election, Warnock finished less than 1% ahead of Walker, falling just short of the 50% threshold required by state law, triggering a four-week runoff election that included at least five days of mandatory early voting last week.

Georgia is no stranger to runoff elections and this is the third time voters cast ballots in a Senate runoff election in less than two years. But the dynamics have shifted since the 2020 campaign that got Warnock elected. The state legislature passed a sweeping voting law last year that, among other changes, shortened the runoff period from nine weeks to four, causing an all-out sprint to the finish line for both candidates.

On Monday, Walker and Warnock made their closing pitches to voters in multiple campaign stops on the eve of Election Day.

Walker, a local college football legend, spent most of the day in traditionally conservative north Georgia, holding a slew of meet-and-greets with supporters as he looks to make up ground with Republican voters after receiving roughly 200,000 fewer ballots than his GOP ticket-mate Gov. Brian Kemp in November’s election.

“I feel pretty good about tomorrow,” Walker told ABC News outside a campaign stop in Dawsonville.

“We’re working on turnout, turnout, turnout, so trying to get the people out to turnout the vote. You know, I think a vote for Warnock is a vote for these failed policies. A vote for me is a better coming,” Walker continued.

Warnock, a noted reverend, spent his last day on the campaign trail in Atlanta, including stops at Georgia Tech and at Killer Mike’s Atlanta barbershop, The Swag Shop. Warnock has largely campaigned in the runoff on “character” — in a swipe at Walker’s controversies on the trail — and has focused on appealing to moderates and independent voters like the small but potentially crucial number of split-ticket voters while simultaneously working to energize his base.

“We’ve been engaged in this work and in this movement together for a while now. I started on this journey to the Senate about three years ago and now there’s only one day left. But it all really comes down to this: We need you to show up,” Warnock told students at Tech.

While Georgia’s runoff won’t decide the balance of power in the Senate after a midterm victory in Nevada secured Democrats’ control in the upper chamber, both parties have cautioned voters not to tune out the implications of the race. A 50th Republican seat would create procedural obstacles for Democrats while a 51st seat for Democrats would give them more power on committees and a little more leeway in securing 50 votes when needed.

“There is still a path for Herschel Walker to win this race,” Warnock said Monday. “And so if there’s anything I’m worried about, it’s that people will think that we don’t need their voice. We do.”

While runoffs historically see lower turnout than general elections, voters seemingly remain engaged as Georgia saw record-breaking early numbers last week.

According to state election data, 352,953 people cast ballots on Friday, the final day of early voting for the runoff, bringing the total number of early votes, both in-person and absentee, to more than 1.8 million.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock is running in his fourth election in roughly two years as he fights for a full six-year term representing the battleground state.

Warnock is facing Republican Herschel Walker, a businessman and college football legend in Georgia, in Tuesday’s runoff after neither reached the 50% threshold in last month’s general election, as mandated by state law.

Warnock first won his seat in the Senate in a 2021 runoff after neither he nor then-Sen. Kelly Loeffler garnered 50% of the vote in their first matchup in November 2020.

A noted reverend, Warnock — whom Republicans have sought to cast as too liberal for the state — has campaigned on a personal history steeped in religion, service and social justice. He has also touted his current work during his short time in Congress, including some bipartisan priorities, while Walker calls him merely a vote for President Joe Biden’s policies on inflation and more.

“I’m not a senator who used to be a pastor. You might as well know that you sent a pastor to the Senate,” Warnock told canvassers in October.

He grew up in public housing in Savannah, the 11th of 12 children to two Pentecostal preachers. He ultimately attended Morehouse College, a historically Black institution in Atlanta, before earning a master’s and doctoral degree from Union Theological Seminary in New York.

During the 1990s, he served as the youth pastor and assistant pastor at Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City, a church with an extensive history of fighting for several social justice causes.

The church refused to hire workfare recipients in protest against then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s requirement that welfare recipients work to receive benefits, and it hosted Fidel Castro in 1995 while Warnock was youth pastor, though there is no evidence indicating Warnock was part of the decision-making process of welcoming Cuba’s authoritarian leader.

Warnock in November traveled back to Abyssinian to honor his late mentor, the preacher Calvin Butts, whom he said helped inspire his passion for social issues.

“Calvin Butts taught me how to take my ministry to the streets,” Warnock said in a eulogy, according to The New York Times. “He understood that the church’s work doesn’t end at the church door. That’s where it starts.”

After Abyssinian, Warnock worked at Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore before ultimately returning to Georgia to serve as senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, which was famously led by Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock was featured at several prominent events, including former President Barack Obama’s second inauguration and the funeral for Georgia Rep. John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement.

Also, from 2017-2020, Warnock chaired the New Georgia Project, a nonpartisan voter registration effort.

In 2020, before the election, Warnock was accused by then-wife Ouleye of running over her foot amid their divorce proceedings. She told responding officers that Warnock “crossed a line” and suggested he was manipulative, calling him a “great actor.”

However, neither police nor medical professionals were able to find evidence to show that she was injured, and Warnock was not charged with any crimes. He told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of his then-wife’s claim: “It didn’t happen.”

Warnock first ran for office in 2020 against Loeffler, who was appointed to fill the vacancy left by late Sen. Johnny Isakson, who resigned because of health issues. After defeating Loeffler in 2021, Warnock became the first Black Democrat elected to the Senate from the South and, along with Jon Ossoff, the first Democratic senator elected in Georgia in some 20 years.

While in the Senate, Warnock has vociferously advocated for expansions to health care access, particularly around Medicaid, and emerged as one of the leading voices to lower the cost of insulin. He successfully advocated for language in the Inflation Reduction Act, which ultimately became law, to cap cost for the medication at $35 for people on Medicare.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — Republican Herschel Walker hopes to do what former Sen. Kelly Loeffler could not and defeat Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock in a runoff election in Georgia.

Walker, a football legend in the state known for scoring touchdowns in the University of Georgia’s 1980 championship season, will face Warnock in Tuesday’s race after neither reached the required 50% threshold in last month’s general election.

Both the November election and the runoff have seen Walker deny a series of allegations from women, including that he paid for their abortions, which he has said is not true. He is running as a staunchly anti-abortion candidate.

During the campaign, Walker’s past also received new scrutiny, such as resurfaced reports about violence in his first marriage to Cindy Grossman — which he didn’t contest — amid what he said was a struggle with dissociative identity disorder.

Warnock, Walker’s rival in the runoff, was first elected in January 2021 after defeating Loeffler in a previous runoff to serve the remainder of the late Sen. Johnny Isakson’s term when Isakson resigned.

While the outcome on Tuesday won’t determine control of the Senate, Walker could clinch a 50th seat for the GOP and create procedural obstacles for Democrats in the chamber.

Walker entered the Republican primary in the Senate race in August 2021 at the urging of former President Donald Trump, a longtime friend, whose swift support largely cleared the field.

Walker boasts significant name recognition in Georgia from his extensive football career. He was born in Augusta and after emerging as a star athlete in high school, he played football as a running back at the University of Georgia, where he helped win the national championship in 1980 and the Heisman Trophy in 1982.

In 1983, he joined the New Jersey Generals in the now-defunct United States Football League. The team was sold to Trump after the 1983 season.

He was later selected by the Dallas Cowboys in the 1985 draft and played in the NFL for 12 seasons, including for the Cowboys, the Minnesota Vikings, Philadelphia Eagles and New York Giants.

Later, he launched a chicken distribution business in 2002.

Despite Walker’s local fame, he has grappled with a series of controversies — and criticism from some in his party — while running against Warnock.

Reports showed that Walker never graduated from college, despite his campaign team stating that he did so, and he never had a formal job with law enforcement after Walker repeatedly suggested he did.

During the cycle, Walker also confirmed he has four children — not just the adult son, social media influencer Christian, whom he has been publicly raising for years, but he insisted he wasn’t hiding his kids from the public.

At a recent rally for Warnock, former President Barack Obama jabbed at Walker’s verbal blunders, such as an unusual riff about vampires and werewolves.

On the trail, Walker has cast some of the most serious allegations as political smears manufactured by Democrats.

At the same time, he has emphasized his Christian faith and belief in “redemption.”

“I’m here to win the seat for the Georgia people because the Georgia people need a winner,” he said in October. “They don’t need the one that we see going on right now.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(PHOENIX) — Elected officials in Arizona certified the state’s election results on Monday in a formal canvassing ceremony at the state Capitol, initiating the start of recounts and potential lawsuits, which couldn’t begin by law until after the canvassing.

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, the Democratic governor-elect, presided over the official certification, to the outcry of some Republicans, including her competitor Kari Lake, who was expected to challenge the vote. During the campaign, Lake repeatedly called on Hobbs to recuse herself from her role, but Hobbs maintained she carried no conflict of interest since former secretaries of state have certified their own election wins and because her office does not count the votes.

At the start of the certification process, Hobbs spoke about the importance of protecting democracy and looked to the next major election in 2024.

“Arizona had a successful election, but too often throughout the process, powerful voices proliferated misinformation that threatened to disenfranchise voters,” Hobbs said. “Democracy prevailed, but it’s not out of the woods.”

“2024 will bring a host of challenges from the election denial community that we must prepare for, but for now, Arizonans to stand proud knowing that this election was conducted with transparency, accuracy and fairness in accordance with Arizona’s election laws and procedures,” she added.

Outgoing Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel flanked Hobbs for the canvassing ceremony, along with outgoing Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who investigated claims of election fraud in the 2020 election but did not find anything substantial.

“There’s no better place in the nation to build a successful life” than in Arizona, Ducey said. “Let us remember this as we certify the election and begin this next chapter.”

Brnovich made a point of noting that the governor and attorney general don’t officially certify the election but serve as witnesses in the ceremony.

“I’m reminded what John F. Kennedy often said, those who ride the tiger to seek power often end up inside,” he added.

While Ducey shook hands with Hobbs after the canvass, Brnovich was quick to stand and leave the room.

Monday’s certification triggers automatic recounts in three qualifying races — including the attorney general race, where Democrat Kris Mayes leads by just 511 votes — and opens a five-day window in which legal challenges to the vote can be filed in court.

Lake’s campaign told ABC News on Monday that she still plans to file legal challenges to the election results. Republican Abe Hamadeh, also backed by former President Donald Trump, like Lake, is expected to file a challenge as well.

For weeks, Lake has repeated grievances on social media with Maricopa County’s printer issues on Election Day, calling on officials to resign and retweeting requests for a new election. Maricopa officials have maintained that voters in the state’s largest county were not disenfranchised because other options were presented on Election Day, and have cited a record number of “late early” ballots dropped off on Election Day as the reason why it took several days to count votes.

Lake faced legal blowback of her own just last week when a federal judge issued sanctions against an attorney who represented her and Republican Mark Finchem in a lawsuit inaccurately claiming electronic voting machines weren’t secure or accurate.

U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi wrote he would “not condone litigants … furthering false narratives that baselessly undermine public trust as a time of increasing disinformation about, and distrust in, the democratic process.”

Hobbs’ office did not allow in-person attendance for Monday’s canvass. Although the event was streamed live, as it’s required to be public by law, audio was not working on a Zoom link provided by the secretary’s office, and another Facebook link was down.

Blake Masters, who lost his challenge against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, is the only statewide Republican candidate so far to concede their race. The RNC recently announced he would be joining an advisory council. Masters has called on Republicans to adapt to early-voting expansions in the wake of midterm losses.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Monday and some Republicans in Congress condemned former President Donald Trump’s call for “termination” of the Constitution’s rules — while GOP congressional leaders kept silent on Trump’s comment and Democrats demanded Republicans rebuke him.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, asked about Trump’s comment, said she wanted to be “careful” about how she answered from the briefing room podium since Trump has declared his candidacy for 2024 but reminded that his own administration officials have called the 2020 election the most secure in American history.

“It was also upheld by the Trump administration’s attorney general, and by over 80 federal judges, [many] of whom were nominated by Donald Trump himself,” she said. “And so in 2022, the American people came together, these past midterms, and utterly rejected the dangerous conspiracy that we have been hearing — the big lie that we have been hearing from the former president, but also many Republicans.”

“The American people have been very clear,” she added. “They oppose the way that Republicans have talked about this. They oppose the violent rhetoric that extreme MAGA officials have engaged in, and so we should listen to what the American people had to say just a couple of weeks ago,” referring to the midterm elections.

Her deputy, Andrew Bates, said in a statement Saturday, “Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned.”

The former president, in a post on Truth Social on Saturday, called for the “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” citing debunked claims of voter fraud in 2020, claims that failed in court dozens of times.

Amid a flood of criticism, Trump posted another statement Monday on Truth Social attempting to deny that he posted as much, dismissing reports of his Saturday post as “disinformation and lies,”

“The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution,” he said.

Republican congressional leaders Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, in the final stretch on his quest to become House speaker, on Monday had yet to weigh in on Trump’s comment — which came just days ahead of a Senate runoff in Georgia where Trump has backed Herschel Walker.

McConnell told reporters we would address the issue in his weekly news conference on Tuesday after not addressing in his Monday Senate floor remarks. McCarthy, meanwhile, tweeted just over a week ago that the incoming Republican-led Congress “will read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House,” on its first day, after all members take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

At the same time, some of Trump’s most ardent defenders did not try to excuse or justify his comments.

“I believe in the Constitution, and I believe in the rule of law and believe we should enforce it,” Florida Sen. Rick Scott, said. “Everybody’s gotta be even. Have to abide by it.”

“Yeah, I think what he said was inappropriate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday.

When ABC’s Jay O’Brien pressed Graham on whether Trump’s comments were disqualifying, he said, “I don’t think so.”

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley he doesn’t support suspension of the Constitution.

His Missouri colleague, retiring Sen. Roy Blunt, as the top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, helped swear Trump in as president, said, “Well, I was standing ten feet from him when he took the oath of office and there was no emergency clause not to follow the Constitution,” Blunt said when asked about the comments.

Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, told NBC on Monday that he will “seriously consider” running for president in 2024 if Republicans don’t come out stronger against Trump’s suggestion.

“When you challenge the Constitution itself, that is un-American. If the current GOP presidential candidates don’t repudiate Trump, I’m prepared to get in the race,” Bolton tweeted, along with a clip of the interview.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who voted to convict the former president in his second impeachment trial, and recently won reelection to the Senate, condemned the comment on Twitter.

“Suggesting the termination of the Constitution is not only a betrayal of our Oath of Office, it’s an affront to our Republic,” Murkowski tweeted.

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota tweeted rare criticism of the former president on Monday afternoon, without using Trump’s name.

“As I’ve said before, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would alter the results of the 2020 election,” Rounds wrote. “Anyone who desires to lead our country must commit to protecting the Constitution. They should not threaten to terminate it.”

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn called Trump’s comments “irresponsible” at the Capitol on Monday.

“I don’t know why anybody would say something like that — certainly not an ex-president,” Cornyn said.

Outgoing Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only Republicans to sit on the Jan. 6 select committee, also called out the comment to warn against Trump.

“Donald Trump believes we should terminate ‘all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution’ to overturn the 2020 election,” Cheney said. “That was his view on 1/6 and remains his view today. No honest person can now deny that Trump is an enemy of the Constitution.”

“With the former President calling to throw aside the constitution, not a single conservative can legitimately support him, and not a single supporter can be called a conservative. This is insane. Trump hates the constitution,” Kinzinger tweeted, tagging McCarthy and Reps. Elise Stefanik and Jim Jordan for their reaction.

Ohio Rep. Dave Joyce, a leading House Republican, told ABC “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that Trump’s comment was not a deal-breaker for him supporting the former president in 2024.

This marks the second time in back-to-back weeks that Republicans on Capitol Hill have started their Mondays having to answer questions about Trump — who remains their de facto party leader and only current 2024 candidate. Republicans last week fielded fallout over Trump’s meeting with a renowned antisemite and white nationalist.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a stern rebuke from the Senate floor on Monday, said Trump “cannot seem to go a week without doing or saying something disgusting, dishonorable and frankly disqualifying for higher office.”

“How can anyone hope to take the presidential office — oath of office — to preserve and protect the Constitution, while simultaneously calling for the Constitution’s termination?” Schumer said. “It’s wholly disqualifying on its face.”

“When a former president calls for the termination of the U.S. Constitution, there can be no silence, no equivocation, nothing less than total and fierce condemnation,” he added. “So, to my Republican colleagues, enough is enough.”

ABC News’ Olivia Rubin and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday appeared sympathetic with a wedding website designer challenging Colorado’s anti-discrimination law and its requirement that she provide services for same-sex couples or face a fine. At the same time, the justices seemed wary about the ramifications of a broad ruling in her favor, suggesting a desire to potentially resolve the case on narrow grounds.

Lorie Smith, a Denver-based designer who is Christian, says the state’s public accommodations law — mandating that businesses serve all customers regardless of their sex, gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation — forces her as an artist to create messages that violate her beliefs. She has not yet turned away any customers, but says the law preemptively prevents her from joining a lucrative line of work.

Smith is “an individual who says she will sell and does sell to everyone, all manner of websites. But she won’t sell a website that requires her to express a view about marriage that she finds offensive to her religious beliefs,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said favorably of Smith.

“One can view these websites — or, last time around we had cakes — as either expressing the makers’ point of view or the couple’s point of view,” Gorsuch said, alluding to a related 2018 case involving cakes for same-sex weddings. “And that’s really at the heart of a lot of this.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the case boils down to a simple question: “How do you characterize website designers? Are they more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors, or are they more like, you know, the publishing houses and other free speech analogues?” The latter are given broad discretion under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.

“They are creating speech,” Kristen Waggoner, Smith’s attorney said. “In those other examples, speech is not at issue.”

Colorado argued its law is neutrally applied to all public businesses and does not compel speech, instead simply requiring a business owner to offer the same goods and services to all customers, regardless of their status.

“Impact on expression is incidental,” Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson told the justices.

“Granting such a license to discriminate would empower all businesses that offer what they believe to be expressive services, from architects to photographers to consultants, to refuse service to customers because of their disability, sexual orientation, religion, or race,” Olson said. “This rule would allow another web design company to say no to interracial couples served.”

Olson explained that a Jewish deli could lawfully choose to only sell Jewish foods, or that a Muslim printer could only agree to print Quran verses, but that both would need to provide that same service to anyone who sought it, regardless of the customer’s identity. “If they offer a general service to the public, then they need to offer that regardless of the customer’s religion,” he said.

The court’s liberal justices, in repeated succession, echoed Colorado’s concerns about a slippery slope.

“What’s the limiting line?” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “How about people who don’t believe in interracial marriage, or about people who don’t believe that disabled people should get married?”

Sotomayor also questioned whether the act of creating a website for a customer can itself fairly be considered the protected speech of the designer.

“How is this your story? It’s their story,” Sotomayor said of a couple to be married.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a hypothetical scenario of a mall Santa who sold artistic photos with children meant to be evocative of the 1940s and 50s — and would only appear with white children as a matter of belief.

“Their policy is that only white children can be photographed with Santa in this way, because that’s how they view the scenes with Santa that they’re trying to depict,” Jackson said. “Why isn’t your argument that they shouldn’t be able to do that? And maybe it is?”

“This court has protected vile, awful, reprehensible, violent speech in the past,” replied Waggoner, Smith’s attorney. “No one should be compelled to speak a message.”

“Ms. Smith believes opposite-sex marriage honors scripture and same-sex marriage contradicts it,” Waggoner told the justices.

Arguments in the case ran nearly double their scheduled length, stretching two and a half hours.

The Biden administration joined the debate on the side of Colorado, warning against a decision that would undermine the government’s compelling interest in rooting out discrimination nationwide. More than a dozen states have laws similar to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act at issue in this case.

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Brian Fletcher argued that the status of LGBTQ people and the nature of a same-sex marriage are intertwined, and that refusing to offer a wedding website to a same-sex couple is akin to turning away people for who they are.

“I do not mean to equate those who have different views about marriage to racists,” Fletcher said, but “the same principles apply in both cases.”

Several of the justices on both sides seemed eager to try to find common ground, presenting a flurry of hypothetical situations to test various proposals.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether a web designer could simply affix a “tagline” stating his or her beliefs about marriage that would appear on all wedding websites sold.

Justice Elena Kagan, while broadly supportive of Colorado’s case, suggested some elements of an artists’ design might more clearly qualify for free speech protection than others. “A statement of opinion about the nature of this marriage,” she said, “I have difficulty with that hypothetical.”

Justice Jackson probed whether the court could draw a line between explicit and implicit speech, positing that a website designer might not have to write clear statements which violate a particular personal belief but that the mere act of making a website for a wedding would itself be a lesser-protected form of speech.

“This would be the first time in the court’s history, correct, that a business open to the public … serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex religion, or sexual orientation, correct?” Sotomayor asked, highlighting opponents’ view of the stakes.

“Yes,” replied Olson.

Gorsuch later countered: “No, what they say is we will not sell to anyone a message that I disagree with as a matter of religious faith, just as a speech writer says or a press release writer, the freelance writer, says I will not sell to anyone a speech that offends my religious belief.”

A decision is expected by the end of June 2023.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In the summer, Democrats were privately debating how to handle a jolt that had been sent to the more than 1 million U.S. households with same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court had just overturned its own rulings on abortion rights, and conservative Justice Clarence Thomas openly mused in his concurring opinion whether the court’s landmark 2015 decision on gay marriage — which he said was based on “legal fiction” — should be next.

According to several aides on Capitol Hill, a top staffer to New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, approached the office of Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator and a longtime LGBTQ rights advocate.

Should the House push through a party-line gay rights bill to send a political message ahead of the midterm elections? Nadler’s staff asked. Or was there a chance Democrats could peel off enough Republican support for a bill that would guarantee same-sex marriage?

According to several aides familiar with the account, Baldwin had already told her staff she thought such a bill was doable.

“Let’s do this for real,” responded Baldwin’s chief of staff, Ken Reidy, kicking off a monthslong negotiation on what would become the biggest civil rights deal to pass Congress in years.

On Tuesday, the House is expected to finalize the Respect for Marriage Act, approving the Senate version that passed last week by a 61-35 vote. An earlier House vote on the proposal drew 47 Republican yeses. President Joe Biden could sign the bill into law within days.

Douglas Laycock, a top religious liberty scholar who supports the legislation, said he never thought it would happen in his lifetime.

“This is the first significant compromise between gay rights groups and religious liberty groups,” said Laycock, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Virginia. “Both sides killed every previous attempted compromise.”

Laying down a ‘yellow brick road’

Onlookers have been quick to credit the bill’s success — drawing Republicans as well as Democrats — to changing public opinion. Indeed, according to a Gallup poll in May, 71% of Americans say they support legal same-sex marriage. That is more than 40 points higher than in 1996, when the question was first asked.

But people involved in the bill’s passage said it also was the product of a hard-fought negotiation years in the making.

“This shows there was a bipartisan way for LGBTQ freedom and religious freedom,” said Tim Schultz, president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, who worked on the bill representing faith-based groups.

“Lawmakers do want to find a way forward on these issues. And I hope that this breaks the ice for bigger things,” he added.

To understand that breakthrough, ABC News interviewed Hill staffers and lobbyists, several of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to be candid on how such a bill survived.

According to those involved, much of the compromise unfolded behind closed doors, including private phone calls by wealthy GOP donors who wanted Congress to resolve the issue.

Of particular concern, some Republicans said, was that any moves by the Supreme Court could alienate independent and moderate voters ahead of the 2024 election — much as the debate on abortion rights hurt Republicans in the midterms.

There also were unexpected alliances. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers same-sex relationships against God’s commandments, emerged as an early architect of the bill and worked closely with Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the first openly bisexual member of the chamber, who grew up Mormon.

Under an amendment backed by the church, the Respect for Marriage Act guaranteed that faith-based groups wouldn’t lose their tax-exempt status or risk federal grant money because of their objections to same-sex marriages.

In exchange, the Mormon church publicly endorsed the proposal as one that protects “religious freedom,” paving the way for a dozen Senate Republicans to swing behind it.

“We knew who we could get to ‘yes,'” said one GOP lobbyist. “But we needed to lay down a yellow brick road they could walk on.”

What the marriage bill does and doesn’t do

The Respect for Marriage Act is intended as kind of an insurance policy in case the Supreme Court were to overturn its own landmark ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, which requires every state to allow same-sex marriage.

If that ruling is reversed by the court, as Justice Thomas suggested it could be, the Respect for Marriage Act would kick in to require that all states recognize unions legally performed elsewhere in the country.

The bill is narrow in scope, disappointing many progressives. It wouldn’t force states to issue same-sex marriage licenses, for example, as is required now under the Obergefell ruling.

The bill also doesn’t say whether businesses or faith-based organization can deny working with same-sex couples, citing either freedom of religion or speech. Such a case is being considered this week in the Supreme Court.

Still, LGTBQ advocates who worked on the bill said the compromise is a historic step forward that provides legal certainty to the 710,000 households in the U.S. with married same-sex couples.

“It’s not easy to sit down and actually have a conversation. I would say there is skepticism on both sides,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who was involved in negotiations on the bill.

“But I think by the end of the process, there was a recognition that people were actually negotiating in good faith there,” Minter said.

Congressional aides said the legislation was closely negotiated by Democratic Sens. Baldwin and Sinema along with three Republicans: Susan Collins of Maine, who was known to cross party lines; Rob Portman of Ohio, who a decade ago changed his mind on same-sex marriage after learning his son was gay; and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had backed this year’s bipartisan package on gun safety.

Several people said the job fell to Tillis to convince enough Republican colleagues to vote in favor of the bill so no one person had to be the final deciding vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance most legislation.

Other key moments included a decision by Democrats to hold off on a Senate vote until after the midterm elections were settled and a decision by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent GOP senators not to speak out against the bill even though they personally voted against it.

The Catholic Church and several conservatives publicly criticized the legislation, including Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and James Lankford of Oklahoma, who contended it would set a national policy on gay marriage that uniquely exposes churches and organizations to lawsuits.

But after the Church of Jesus Christ and several religious liberty scholars publicly signed on, the dozen Senate Republicans joined in support and guaranteed its passage.

In the end, both LGBTQ rights groups and religious freedom advocates claimed victory — an achievement Sinema noted at a news conference celebrating the bill’s passage in the Senate.

“What could fundamentally be more American than balancing those two issues?” she asked.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.