Politics

(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, a onetime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, pleaded not guilty in Manhattan criminal court Thursday to charges of defrauding donors to the “We Build the Wall” fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The six-count indictment charges Bannon and “We Build the Wall” itself with two counts of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of five to 15 years in prison. There are additional felony counts of conspiracy and scheme to defraud along with one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to defraud.

Bannon was released following his arraignment and is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 4.

“I’m going to stay and fight this,” he told reporters as he left the courthouse. “With this case, I’m begging you to remember the presumption of innocence.”

Earlier Thursday, as he arrived at the courthouse to surrender to authorities, he told reporters the charges were “all about 60 days to the election.”

“This is an irony, on the very day the mayor of this city has a delegation down on the border, they are persecuting people here who try to stop them on the border,” Bannon said, referring to a fact-finding delegation New York City Mayor Eric Adams has sent to Texas following the decision by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to bus migrants to New York.

The state charges, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, resemble federal charges for which Bannon received a pardon by Trump, and allege that Bannon and “We Build the Wall” defrauded 430 Manhattan-based donors out of $33,600. Across New York state, there were more than 11,000 donors defrauded out of more than $730,000, according to the indictment.

The pardon by Trump only applied to the federal case and does not preclude the state charges.

The indictment quotes Bannon telling donors at a June 24, 2019, fundraising event, “Remember, all the money you give goes to building the wall.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, speaking at a news conference announcing the charges Thursday afternoon, said that We Build the Wall raised $15 million from donors across the country based on “false pretenses,” citing a pledge organizers made that the group’s president would take no salary.

Instead, the campaign’s president, Brian Kolfage, received a salary of $250,000 that was secretly funneled to him by Bannon, who “directed” We Build the Wall to transfer tens of thousands of dollars to a nonprofit that he controlled, which then paid Kolfage, “thereby obscuring the source of funds,” according to Bragg.

“It is a crime to turn a profit by lying to donors, and in New York, you will be held accountable,” Bragg said. “As alleged, Stephen Bannon acted as the architect of a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud thousands of donors across the country — including hundreds of Manhattan residents.”

“Mr. Bannon took advantage of his donors’ political views to secure millions of dollars which he then misappropriated. Mr. Bannon lied to his donors to enrich himself and his friend,” added New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office participated in the investigation.

Kolfage and Andrew Badolato, both of Florida, were indicted with Bannon in the federal case and pleaded guilty in April in connection with their role in the alleged scheme to defraud “We Build the Wall” donors.

A fourth defendant, Timothy Shea, stood trial in a case that ended in a mistrial.

Kolfage and Badolato are not named in the state indictment, but are referenced as co-conspirators 1 and 2, a sign they could have assisted Manhattan prosecutors build their case against Bannon.

The quartet allegedly used some of the $25 million raised through “We Build the Wall” on personal expenses, including a luxury SUV, a golf cart, and cosmetic surgery, the federal indictment said.

“The defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction,” then-U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said when the charges were announced in 2020.

“My sole intent was to raise funds and donate those funds to the federal government,” Kolfage told the judge in the federal case.

“And you promised that 100% of the money would be used to build that wall? Is that right?” Judge Analisa Torres asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage replied.

“After keeping that large sum of money for yourself, you did not tell the IRS you received the money. Is that right?” Torres asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage answered.

Bannon’s surrender Thursday makes him the third defendant pardoned by Trump to subsequently face charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign boss, was charged with running a two-year scheme to obtain more than $19 million in residential mortgage loans based on fraudulent representations to various banks. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately threw out the case, deeming it too similar to Manafort’s federal conviction and therefore double jeopardy.

In the state case against Bannon, double jeopardy is not expected to apply because a jury was never convened to weigh the federal fraud charges over “We Build the Wall.”

Ken Kurson, a former editor of the New York Observer, associate of Jared Kushner and speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani, was pardoned by Trump in a federal cyberstalking case. Kurson eventually pleaded guilty to two state-level misdemeanors that accused him of spying on his former wife’s computer.

Kurson is due back in court next week so the judge can make sure he’s complying with his community service.

Trump pardoned Kurson during his final moments in office, but then-Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced an indictment seven months later that charged Kurson with eavesdropping and computer trespass.

Kurson, in 2015, surreptitiously installed spyware on his ex-wife’s computer from his work computer at the Observer in 2015, according to the indictment.

“We will not accept presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the well-connected in New York,” Vance said in a statement at the time the charges against Kurson were announced in 2021.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, a onetime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, has been charged by authorities in New York with defrauding donors to the “We Build the Wall” fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bannon surrendered Thursday in Manhattan.

He spoke to reporters after arriving to turn himself in, saying the charges were “all about 60 days to the election.”

“This is an irony, on the very day the mayor of this city has a delegation down on the border, they are persecuting people here who try to stop them on the border,” Bannon said, referring to a fact-finding delegation New York City Mayor Eric Adams has sent to Texas following the decision by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to bus migrants to New York.

The indictment charges Bannon and “We Build the Wall” itself with two counts of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of five to 15 years in prison. There are additional felony counts of conspiracy and scheme to defraud along with one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to defraud.

The state charges, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, resemble federal charges for which Bannon received a pardon by Trump, and allege that Bannon and “We Build the Wall” defrauded 430 Manhattan-based donors out of $33,600. Across New York state, there were more than 11,000 donors defrauded out of more than $730,000, according to the indictment.

The pardon only applied to the federal case and does not preclude the state charges.

“Mr. Bannon took advantage of his donors’ political views to secure millions of dollars which he then misappropriated. Mr. Bannon lied to his donors to enrich himself and his friend,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office participated in the investigation, said in a statement.

“It is a crime to turn a profit by lying to donors, and in New York, you will be held accountable,” added Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. “As alleged, Stephen Bannon acted as the architect of a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud thousands of donors across the country — including hundreds of Manhattan residents.”

Two Florida men, an Air Force veteran and a venture capitalist, indicted with Bannon in the federal case, pleaded guilty in April in connection with their role in the alleged scheme to defraud “We Build the Wall” donors.

Brian Kolfage and Andrew Badolato were charged in the scheme with Bannon. A fourth defendant, Timothy Shea, stood trial that ended with a mistrial.

Kolfage and Badolato are not named in the state indictment, but are referenced as co-conspirators 1 and 2, a sign they could have assisted Manhattan prosecutors build their case against Bannon.

The quartet allegedly bilked donors to “We Build the Wall” and used some of the $25 million raised on personal expenses, including a luxury SUV, a golf cart and cosmetic surgery, the federal indictment said.

“The defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction,” then-U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said when the charges were announced in 2020.

“My sole intent was to raise funds and donate those funds to the federal government,” Kolfage told the judge.

“And you promised that 100% of the money would be used to build that wall? Is that right?” Judge Analisa Torres asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage replied.

“After keeping that large sum of money for yourself, you did not tell the IRS you received the money. Is that right?” Torres asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage answered.

Bannon’s surrender Thursday makes him the third defendant pardoned by Trump to subsequently face charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign boss, was charged with running a two-year scheme to obtain more than $19 million in residential mortgage loans based on fraudulent representations to various banks. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately threw out the case, deeming it too similar to Manafort’s federal conviction and therefore double jeopardy.

In the state case against Bannon, double jeopardy is not expected to apply because a jury was never convened to weigh the federal fraud charges over “We Build the Wall.”

Ken Kurson, a former editor of the New York Observer, associate of Jared Kushner and speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani, was pardoned by Trump in a federal cyberstalking case. Kurson eventually pleaded guilty to two state-level misdemeanors that accused him of spying on his former wife’s computer.

Kurson is due back in court next week so the judge can make sure he’s complying with his community service.

Trump pardoned Kurson during his final moments in office, but then-Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced an indictment seven months later that charged Kurson with eavesdropping and computer trespass.

Kurson, in 2015, surreptitiously installed spyware on his ex-wife’s computer from his work computer at the Observer in 2015, according to the indictment.

“We will not accept presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the well-connected in New York,” Vance said in a statement at the time the charges against Kurson were announced in 2021.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A state judge in New Mexico has removed a county commissioner from office after ruling that — because he participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — the U.S. Constitution barred him for engaging in an “insurrection.”

It is the first time an elected official directly associated with the attack has been disqualified from serving in public office on those grounds.

New Mexico District Court Judge Francis Mathew barred Otero County commissioner and “Cowboys for Trump” founder Couy Griffin, citing a clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection from serving — the only time in 150 years that the provision has been used to disqualify an official and the first time that a court has ruled the events of Jan. 6 were an “insurrection.”

Griffin “incited, encouraged and helped normalize the violence,” Mathew wrote, calling his actions “overt acts in support of the insurrection.”

Some constitutional experts have suggested the section of the law — despite unsuccessful attempts to invoke the same provision against GOP members of Congress and other Trump-backed candidates earlier this year — may have wide-ranging implications, especially for former President Donald Trump if he runs again for the White House.

“Just the fact that this has happened one time, if it stands up on appeal, makes the future challenges more credible than if no one had ever been disqualified for their participation in January 6 … Up until now it seemed like more of a hypothetical,” said Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional scholar at Indiana University who has studied Section 3 of the The Reconstruction-era amendment.

“If Griffin is disqualified, then it’s a little hard to see why Trump wouldn’t be disqualified,” he added.

Known as the “Disqualification Clause,” the provision bars any person from holding federal office who has previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution — including a member of Congress — who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States or “given aid or comfort” to its “enemies.”

“Griffin, as an Otero County Commissioner since January 2019, took an oath to “support and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States,” Matthew wrote in his opinion.

Convicted earlier this year for trespassing on U.S. Capitol grounds, Griffin refused to certify the state’s primary election results in Otero County in June. He’s now banned from holding any future state or federal elected positions, Mathew ruled.

“You know, they’re, they’re trying to get all of this legal framework in place, because they’re gonna use it against President Trump,” said Griffin in early July during an Otero County Commission special session, where he presented a motion for the county to pay his legal expenses in the lawsuit.

“We can make a stand right here, we can make a stand on a county level. We could fight back,” he said.

During the meeting, Griffin said that he hadn’t gotten any help from Trump-related groups or the former president himself.

“I’m disappointed in President Trump as well. I’m disappointed that I don’t have any more support from their side … it really feels like I’ve been fed to the wolves and along in a lot of ways,” he said.

The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of New Mexico residents represented by the government accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other lawyers.

“This is a historic win for accountability for the January 6th insurrection and the efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Protecting American democracy means ensuring those who violate their oaths to the Constitution are held responsible,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “This decision makes clear that any current or former public officials who took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and then participated in the January 6th insurrection can and will be removed and barred from government service for their actions.”

The last time elected officials were disqualified from office using the constitutional clause appears to be after the Civil War in 1869, according to CREW, after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Similar constitutional arguments have been made, but have failed to persuade judges in Georgia and North Carolina, against GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn. The latter’s case was ultimately halted after he lost in the primary contest for his reelection bid.

Magliocca, a constitutional scholar at Indiana University and who testified at Greene’s hearing, noted that the challenge to Griffin — compared to those against Greene and Cawthorn — may have succeeded because he was a local official.

“Another difference is Mr. Griffin was an official, not a candidate … so that’s simpler. Because, you know, you’re not dealing with an election, you’re not dealing with a, you know, some very short deadline that you need to make a decision by,” said Magliocca.

“But also, the other thing is, in some instances, you can say that the participation that can be proved for one individual versus another is greater or less. And I think, in Mr. Griffin’s case, the court found a lot of facts,” he said.

Tuesday’s ruling is a test case for inevitable challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility if he plans to make another White House bid, retired Harvard Law professor and constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe told ABC News, which he said may be more effective in keeping him out of office than by means of legal prosecution.

“It’s in response to an extraordinary event, which we hope won’t be repeated. I think it shows that there is an alternative path to holding people accountable besides a criminal prosecution,” said Tribe.

Still, one of the most significant aspects of Tuesday’s decision is that it declares formally that what happened Jan. 6 was an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution, according to Tribe and Magliocca.

“It’s a wake-up call. I mean, it’s not that the courts needed this opinion in order to read the Constitution, we can all read it. But now, there’s an example. It’s really the difference between something that may be a dead letter and something that has actually been resurrected and used successfully,” Tribe said.

“And I think that’s going to encourage people in other contexts to invoke the Fourteenth. It would be premature for anybody to predict that this is the beginning of the end for everyone who was involved in trying to overturn the 2020 election, but it’s certainly a start,” he added.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, a onetime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, surrendered Thursday to authorities in New York to face felony charges linked to his role in “We Build the Wall,” an online fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The indictment charges Bannon and “We Build the Wall” itself with two counts of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of five to 15 years in prison. There are additional felony counts of conspiracy and scheme to defraud along with one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to defraud.

The state charges, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, resemble federal charges for which Bannon received a pardon by Trump and allege Bannon and “We Build the Wall” defrauded 430 Manhattan-based donors out of $33,600. Across New York state, there were more than 11,000 donors defrauded out of more than $730,000, according to the indictment.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal grand jury investigating the activities leading up the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and the push by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the result of the 2020 election has expanded its probe to include seeking information about Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, sources with direct knowledge tell ABC News.

The interest in the fundraising arm came to light as part of grand jury subpoenas seeking documents, records and testimony from potential witnesses, the sources said.

The subpoenas, sent to several individuals in recent weeks, are specifically seeking to understand the timeline of Save America’s formation, the organization’s fundraising activities, and how money is both received and spent by the Trump-aligned PAC.

Neither a spokesperson for Trump nor an official with the Justice Department immediately responded to ABC News’ request for comment.

Trump and his allies have consistently pushed supporters to donate to the PAC, often using false claims about the 2020 election and soliciting donations to rebuke the multiple investigations into the former president, his business dealings, and his actions on Jan. 6.

After the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate last month, Save America PAC sent out a fundraising email in which Trump urged supporters to “rush in a donation IMMEDIATELY to publicly stand with me against this NEVERENDING WITCH HUNT.”

According to Save America’s statement of organization filed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the committee was established just days after the 2020 election. At the time, the filing said the new committee is affiliated with the Trump campaign and the Trump Make America Great Committee, a small-dollar focused, joint-fundraising committee between the president’s campaign and the Republican National Committee, which has been sending out donor solicitation emails for Save America.

Similar to regular political action committees, leadership PACs can only accept up to $5,000 per donor, far less than the upwards of $800,000 donations that the Trump campaign and the Republican Party’s high-dollar joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory, had previously raised.

Since its inception, Save America PAC has brought in more than $135 million, including transfers from affiliated committees, according to disclosure records. As of the end of July, the PAC reported having just under $100 million in cash on hand.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The FBI sought to interview a current top adviser to former President Donald Trump who has also been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury, both in relation to investigations into the events leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

William Russell wasn’t home when the two FBI agents came to his house Wednesday morning, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Russell served in the Trump White House as a special assistant to the president and the deputy director of advance before moving down to Florida to work as an aide to Trump after he left the White House.

Russell has also been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating Jan. 6, sources familiar with the matter said. The subpoena requests documents and communications related to the so-called fake slates of electors pushed in various states in support of Trump, the sources said.

The outreach to Russell shows that federal investigators are seeking to question Trump’s inner circle, sources said; and the subpoena indicates the grand jury’s work is widening as law enforcement continues to probe the events surrounding the attack on the Capitol and Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The attempted interview was first reported by The New York Times.

Russell and the FBI have not commented.

Investigators with the House Jan. 6 committee have also requested information and communications from Russell in recent weeks, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge granted lawyers for former President Donald Trump’s request to have a special master oversee the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.

To break down the latest developments of the saga, a standoff between the Department of Justice and the former president, “ABC News Prime” spoke with Kan Nawaday, former federal prosecutor and ABC News contributor.

Nawaday discussed the implications of this decision, how it will affect the Department of Justice’s investigation and what he expects the next steps will be.

PRIME: ABC News contributor Kan Nawaday, [is] a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. Thanks so much once again for being here. Let’s start off just with your reaction to the judge’s ruling to actually grant Trump’s request for a special master. Did that surprise you?

NAWADAY: It didn’t surprise me to grant a special master to review the attorney-client privilege documents. It was mind blowing, mind boggling that she granted the request for a special master to determine whether items are subject to the executive privilege. There really is no basis in the law and precedent for doing something like that for a former president.

PRIME: Some people are saying, ‘well, of course, she was appointed by Trump. What do you expect? Of course she’s going to rule in his favor.’ Do you think there’s anything there?

NAWADAY: I don’t think so. And I think she’s just maybe she’s just trying to be really careful, maybe she’s trying to put some of the responsibility on an independent special master instead of following, you know, what I see as a pretty clear precedent that you don’t need a special master to decide executive privilege.

PRIME: How do you think this will impact the Justice Department investigation going forward, and do you expect them to appeal?

NAWADAY: It’s going to slow down their investigation to a crawl. What will happen is Trump, the former president, is going to fight about everything, about who the special master is going to be, about the process and about everything. And there are 11,000 documents involved. I can see DOJ filing an appeal just because of how bad of a precedent this opinion sets.

PRIME: We heard Pierre [Thomas] talk about that Friday deadline. What do you expect to happen at that point?

NAWADAY: Either DOJ is going to appeal before then or they’re both, DOJ and Trump, going to put in competing submissions. It’s supposed to be a joint submission, but I think that submission is going to say, ‘we’re DOJ, we want this,’ ‘we’re Trump, we want this,’ and there’s not going to be that much overlap.

PRIME: All right. So let’s talk about the implications of the upcoming election with regard to this investigation. Of course, there’s that unwritten rule that the DOJ has or they don’t react basically or don’t act for 60 days leading into an election so that doesn’t seem like there’s anything biased or improper going on. So how will that influence?

NAWADAY: First of all, you are absolutely right, it’s an unwritten rule. The DOJ tries to avoid overt actions that could influence an election. And I think that’s important to remember. I think if there’s a grand jury out there, it’s going to continue its investigation, DOJ will continue its investigation and do all the covert things like speaking with witnesses, things like that, bringing people in the grand jury. What they likely won’t do is do something overt like charge somebody.

PRIME: Some new developments out of New Mexico where you had a public official who was removed from office after participating in Jan. 6. Explain to us the circumstances surrounding that and what that means now going forward.

NAWADAY: Well, what basically happened was there was a county commissioner in New Mexico who had been convicted federally for his participation in the events of Jan. 6. And a private citizens group brought an action to disqualify him from holding office as a public commissioner, as a public official.

And the basis for that is under the 14th Amendment, there’s a disqualification clause which says that if you are a public official and then you commit insurrection, you can no longer hold public office. So this is pretty groundbreaking. This is the first time, I believe, since the 1800s, that this disqualification clause has been used. So it could potentially be groundbreaking.

PRIME: Before I let you go, I want to go back to Trump just really quickly. We’re, of course, getting everybody’s opinion here. Everybody has one with regard to, do you think that Trump will ultimately be indicted?

NAWADAY: I think there is so much evidence there that in any other case, somebody would have charged this.

PRIME: Kan Nawaday, thank you so much, as always.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Hillary Clinton expressed her concern over the classified documents seized at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate last month, sharing a warning that “every American” should be concerned.

On Wednesday, the former secretary of state joined “The View” alongside daughter Chelsea Clinton to share about their new docuseries, “Gutsy” on Apple TV+ premiering on Friday. Before delving into their new show, which highlights some of America’s biggest heroines, they weighed in on one of the nation’s hottest topics: the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and the documents found at the residence.

The FBI executed a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home on August 8. According to the inventory list unsealed Friday by a federal judge, agents gathered more than 11,000 documents or photographs without classification markings that were described as property of the U.S. government.

Hundreds of the documents retrieved during the search were considered confidential, secret and top-secret documents, as well as more than 40 empty folders with either “CLASSIFIED” banners on them or labeled “Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide.”

ABC News previously reported that the FBI remains concerned about classified records that could still be missing even after their search of Mar-a-Lago.

On “The View,” Hillary Clinton said the seized documents from Mar-a-Lago “should be taken really seriously.”

“It should concern every American, because those documents and the empty folders as they were marked suggest that there was really important secret information that is essential to our country’s defense and security,” she said.

Clinton went on to explain how classified documents were securely shared with her during her time as secretary of state under former President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013.

“A military courier would come into my office. It would be an emergency. There wouldn’t be time to get to the White House and have an emergency meeting in a SCIF,” she explained. “Usually a man — it was always a man, I remember — walked in, he would have a briefcase locked to his wrist.” A SCIF is a U.S. government–approved secure facility where sensitive information can be looked over by government officials.

“He would come into my office and he would say, ‘You have to look at this immediately, secretary.’ He would unlock the briefcase; he would stand there; he would give me this document that had really delicate, secret information about something of importance,” she continued. “I would read it, then I would sign that I read it. It would go back into the locked box attached to his wrist and off he would go.”

With that knowledge, Clinton was left puzzled as to how sensitive documents could be moved at all. “I don’t understand how [Trump] was permitted to take them, even to the residence, let alone to a country club in Florida,” she said.

Clinton went on to say that the country doesn’t have a clear understanding of what was in the seized documents, but reminded viewers on the daytime talk show that “people literally die to get our government information. They go to prison. They get exiled.”

“The idea that this would have been done, I hope everybody takes really seriously,” she added.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted a request from Trump’s legal team to appoint a special master to review documents seized in the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. The judge’s order halts all reviews of the documents by the Justice Department in its criminal investigation.

When co-host Joy Behar asked Clinton if Trump should be indicted over the documents found in his Mar-a-Lago estate, she said that she didn’t want to “prejudge.”

“I have been prejudged wrongly enough. I’m not going to judge somebody else, and so I think the key is what the facts and the evidence are, what the FBI and the intelligence community learn about these documents, how they ended up there, who else saw them,” Clinton responded.

She went on to explain how the public should have “two minds” about the investigation. “No one is above the law, and the rule of law in a democracy … has to be our standard.”

The public “should not rush to judgment,” Clinton continued, but “we should be concerned about it, and we should follow the facts and the evidence.”

Chelsea Clinton also weighed in on South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham claiming political violence would break out if Trump were to be indicted over mishandling of presidential records.

“I’m very worried about our country,” she said. “Sen. Graham and others … should know better and should be more responsible with their platforms.”

“After the white nationalist insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, we know that there are people who believe that violence is an acceptable tool, even in our democracy, even in the 21st century in the United States of America,” she continued.

“I’m very concerned and I’m very disappointed in the senator,” Chelsea Clinton said. “I hope that others do not follow his lead.”

Every episode of ABC’s award-winning talk show “The View” is now available as a podcast! Listen and subscribe for free on Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor “in coming weeks,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.

Democrats are concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may pave the way for same-sex marriage, contraception and other privacy rights to be dismantled.

“Let’s remember why a vote on the Respect for Marriage [Act] is necessary,” Schumer said. “Millions upon millions of American women had their right taken away by the extremist MAGA Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision. And in a concurring opinion Justice Thomas opened the door for the Supreme Court going even further.”

“When some Republicans say the vote is unnecessary, it won’t happen — they said the same thing about Roe,” Schumer continued.

Democrats want to pass the bill quickly, Schumer said, and would prefer to do so in a stand-alone vote. But they would need at least 10 Republicans to back the bill in order for it to overcome the filibuster and pass.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, are working with Republicans to shore up enough votes. The two recently penned an op-ed in The Washington Post telling their colleagues it’s time to “get the job done.”

“But let me be clear, a vote will happen,” Schumer told reporters Wednesday. “A vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor in the coming weeks and I hope there will be 10 Republicans to support it.”

Democrats were considering a riskier option to codify same-sex and interracial marriage by attaching the bill to a must-pass continuing resolution to keep the government open past Sept. 30, an aide familiar with the matter told ABC News on Tuesday. But Schumer and other Democrats appeared to change course on Wednesday.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told ABC News, “Not gonna happen” when asked if the marriage bill would be added to the temporary government funding bill.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday that the government funding bill should be as “clean as possible” in order to move forward without controversy.

Baldwin and Collins also said they prefer the stand-alone bill route, and are currently working on an amendment to appease Republican concerns about the legislation.

“We’re looking at an amendment that would strengthen the language in the bill to make crystal clear that it does not in any way infringe upon religious liberties, and it also would correct a drafting error in one part of the bill that makes very clear that marriage is between two individuals,” said Collins, adding that some Republicans have expressed concern that the bill might lead to “polygamous marriage” though that is not allowed in any state in the country.

Asked if she were confident she had the support of 10 Republicans, Collins said, “I’m never confident until the role is called, but we’re making good progress. There’s a lot of sincere interest, but obviously people want to see the amendment and have input into the amendment.”

The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House in a bipartisan vote of 267 to 157 in July. Forty-seven Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill.

The legislation repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, “marriage” as between a man and a woman. It also provides additional legal protection for same-sex or interracial couples.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at the time called the bill’s passage “another step to defend freedom for the American people.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama are returning to the White House Wednesday, reuniting with now President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden to unveil their official portraits and introduce the artists behind them — a long-held secret in Washington after an unusually long wait for their reveal.

“President Biden and Dr. Biden are honored to have former president Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama back to the White House for the unveiling of their portraits, which will hang on the walls of the White House forever as reminders of the power of hope and change,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.

The ceremony is returning to the White House after a 10-year hiatus. It was then-President Obama who last held such a ceremony, when he welcomed back former president George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush for an unveiling of their official portraits back in 2012.

The public unveiling of presidential portraits as we know it today started in 1978 during the Carter administration, according to White House Historical Association President Stuart McLaurin.

“The Carters were the first to invite the Fords back for the reveal of their portrait. Prior to that, they were just kind of hung up when they were done,” McLaurin said.

Since then, an unofficial tradition began of the current president hosting their most recent predecessor at the White House for the event with few exceptions — events that have often been bipartisan with some good-natured ribbing.

“George, I will always remember the gathering you hosted for all the living former presidents before I took office, your kind words of encouragement. Plus, you also left me a really good TV sports package. I use it,” Obama joked in 2012 of George W. Bush.

The tradition was notably broken during the Trump presidency, with the former president eschewing the event — a perhaps unsurprising decision, given Trump’s baseless claims that Obama spied on his 2016 presidential campaign, and was not born in the United States.

Despite the wait, McLaurin said the event at the White House on Wednesday will be “happy, positive” moment for the Obamas.

“There’s a sense of anticipation and excitement about it. And the President and First Lady who are depicted in those portraits have seen them of course, but the reality of having them unveiled in full scale size right there in the East Room of the White House. It’s just a moment — it’s almost like a Christmas morning,” he said.

The process for creating the portraits begins at the end of an outgoing president’s term, with the selection of an artist they’d like to complete their portrait. The White House Historical Association, a non-profit, non-partisan organization started in 1961 by first lady Jackie Kennedy, then contracts the artist to complete the historic image.

According to McLaurin, it typically takes three to four years for the portraits to be completed, but there is no hard and fast deadline for the process.

The Obama portraits have been completed for “a few years,” he said.

As for Trump’s official portrait, McLaurin said the artists have been identified and contracted for the former president and first lady’s portraits, but did not have more details about where in the process they are.

“Typically they would have conversations or they would talk about style and process and things in the background. Sometimes presidents or first ladies put things that have some meaning or purpose or tell a story behind them,” McLaurin said.

“I don’t know how much of that has happened with the Trump’s. I do know that their artists have been identified,” he added.

After its creation in 1961, the White House Historical Association undertook the task of acquiring portraits for every former president and first lady to complete the collection of iconic images of the nation’s leaders.

“You know, with the Founding Fathers and the early presidents, Americans did not know what their presidents looked like,” McLaurin said. “Americans depended on these images that were created and disseminated across the United States.”

“In contemporary modern presidents, we are supersaturated every day with what they look like. So, to me, the interesting take on these portraits is this is really how a president and a first lady see themselves and how they want to be remembered,” he added.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.