Politics

(WASHINGTON) — It’s a move that would have been unthinkable last year: Weeks after a holiday surge crushed hospitals and more people died in a single month than a typical annual flu season, four Democratic governors this week declared an end date to statewide mask mandates in schools.

The new changes won’t take effect for several weeks. Gov. Ned Lamont’s Connecticut mandate will expire Feb. 28, followed by New Jersey on March 7, and Oregon and Delaware on March 31 — presumably after the omicron wave has ended and case counts are low. Their decisions also leave local school districts the option of keeping their mandates in place.

Still, the message from the Democratic governors to President Joe Biden was unmistakable: With the midterms nine months away, Democrats are now joining the chorus of Republicans who say the nation must learn to “live with the virus” and are pressing Biden to chart a path forward.

“Democratic voters have run out of empathy for unvaccinated people dying of COVID,” said Brian Stryker, a partner at Impact Research, a Democratic polling firm. “They are ready to live their lives.”

If 2021 was the year of the vaccine, 2022 is already shaping up to be the year voters demand the U.S. moves on.

For health experts, living with COVID means paying attention to local case counts and “dialing” up or down restrictions as needed. It also means taking steps to protect people who are immunocompromised and are at higher risk for breakthrough cases, as well as children under the age of 5 who still don’t qualify for a vaccine.

For many Americans, though, including a growing number of Democratic voters, living with COVID means loosening restrictions regardless of case counts or vaccination status.

According to a new Axios/Ipsos poll, two-thirds of Americans say they do not believe it’s possible for the U.S. to eradicate the coronavirus within the next year, although they are divided about how to handle that.

That reality puts unique pressure on Biden ahead of his State of the Union address on March 1 — a speech typically used by sitting presidents to declare victory and look toward the future.

“The public is saying ‘enough.’ The politicians are saying ‘enough,'” said Frank Luntz, a longtime Republican pollster and strategist.

“If Biden doesn’t say ‘enough’ at the SOTU, he’ll be digging a hole he can’t climb out. The (Democratic) governors know this because they’re closer to the people,” he wrote in an email to ABC News.

A Democratic official familiar with the thinking of the governors said they have been talking for a while now about offering COVID-wary Americans a “light at the end of the tunnel” after the omicron wave — and pressing the White House to do the same in Biden’s upcoming national address.

“The governors are acutely aware that there’s a need to provide people some optimism and give people some sense of ‘here’s the path forward,'” said the official, who agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity in order to speak more openly.

“They want him to talk about his wins, and there are good ones to talk about” like job growth and infrastructure investments that aren’t COVID related, the person said.

Biden’s initial plan to liberate Americans from the pandemic by last Fourth of July centered on vaccinations and ensuring widespread and equitable access. Eventually, he turned to workplace mandates. Yet one year later, tens of millions of eligible Americans remain unvaccinated and his mandates for large businesses have been scuttled by the Supreme Court.

COVID hospitalizations and deaths also have eclipsed any comparisons to the flu. For example, more than 60,000 people died from complications of COVID in January alone — one of the highest monthly COVID-19 death tolls on record. By comparison, a typical flu season might result in 20,000 to 50,000 deaths in an entire year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. in the last week averaged about 614 new cases a day per 100,000 residents — 61 times what the CDC considers to be low transmission. The CDC still recommends masks indoors, including in schools, for people ages 2 and up.

“I’m sure they’re facing a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to try to make sure the pandemic is over,” Andy Slavitt, a former Biden adviser on COVID, said on ABC’s “Start Here” podcast of the Democratic governors. “It’s just not quite clear that it is.”

While the Democratic governors insist public health remains the priority, it’s hard to ignore this week’s rollbacks as a political calculation as Democrats look toward the midterm elections. Connecticut’s Lamont is up for reelection this fall. Oregon Democratic Gov. Kate Brown’s term limit expires this fall, leaving her seat up for grabs.

In New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Philip Murphy is coming off a narrow victory last fall, a race that surprised many pundits by how close it was. Also worth noting was Republican Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia last fall, flipping enough Democratic voters to win the governor’s race there by promising to keep schools open and empower parents to make education decisions.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and lead pollster for Biden in the 2020 presidential election, said overall polling in the country still suggests strong support among Americans for masks in schools, with moms and women in particular erring on the side of caution. So Biden will have to take into account that majority of voters when addressing the nation, even if they aren’t as vocal, she said.

“Voters are also very worried about the learning loss and social learning loss associated with closing schools,” she said. “Democrats are on the right side of this issue and should make the argument forcefully that we are going to protect our children, work with parents and teachers to get the best schooling for our children, and follow the science to get this under control.”

Stryker said he still thinks the goal — at least from a political standpoint — is to move away from talking about the pandemic as much as Democrats are.

“If Democrats can stop talking about COVID every day, treat it like the long-term problem it is and start talking about more immediate concerns of voters” like the high cost of living, “the better they will do in the midterms,” he said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican lawmakers are divided on what could become a defining issue for the GOP after the Republican National Committee passed a censure resolution last week including language critics said suggested the Jan. 6 attack was “legitimate political discourse” — with the top Republican in Congress rebuking the RNC Tuesday.

The resolution, censuring GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — members of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack — said the incumbent lawmakers were “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse” — a phrase that has since come under fire and Cheney juxtaposed on social media with images of violence at the Capitol.

Asked about the RNC move at a weekly leadership press conference on Capitol Hill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did not address the “legitimate political discourse” language used directly, but offered his characterization of Jan. 6 and suggested the RNC was out of line to single out sitting members.

“Well, let me give him my view of what happened January the 6th. We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent a peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election from one administration to the next. That’s what it was,” McConnell said.

“With regard to this suggestion that the RNC should be in the business of picking and choosing Republicans who ought to be supported, traditionally, the view of the national party committee is that we support all members of our party, regardless of their positions, and some issues,” he added.

Asked if he had confidence in RNC Chairperson Ronna McDaniel, McConnell said, “I do — but the issue is whether or not the RNC should be sort of singling out members of our party who may have different views from the majority. That’s not the job of the RNC.”

In an interview with Spectrum News in December, McConnell signaled his personal interest in the House committee’s work, despite blocking the formation of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the attack last year, and said, “I think that what they’re seeking to find out is something the public needs to know.”

ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott asked House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who has struggled to maintain GOP infighting on his quest to become House speaker, whether he thought there was was “legitimate political discourse” on Jan. 6 after he dodged reporters questions on the topic last week.

“Everybody knows there was — anyone who broke inside,” McCarthy replied Tuesday.

McCarthy’s office called later to clarify that he meant that “anybody who broke inside was not” engaged in legitimate political discourse.

Asked also if he was supportive of the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger, McCarthy said, “I think I’ve already answered that question — there’s a reason why Adam is not running for reelection,” in an apparent reference to an earlier interview with OAN.

The No. 3 House Republican Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. — who replaced Cheney as a member of leadership after an internal revolt last year — told reporters Tuesday, “The RNC has every right to take any action and the position that I have is you’re ultimately held accountable to voters.”

Asked also if she believes the violence on Jan. 6 was “legitimate political discourse,” Stefanik condemned the violence but proceeded to equate the violence of Jan. 6 to the “violence of 2020” — seemingly a reference to the national protests that took place following George Floyd’s murder.

But while House Republicans and close allies of Trump have defended the resolution, several members of Senate Republican leadership sought to distance themselves from it, with a number refuting the “legitimate political discourse” description.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas — a key ally of McConnell — told reporters Monday that the language in the resolution wasn’t appropriate.

“I just I think being accurate is really important, particularly when you are talking about something that sensitive, and I just think it was not an accurate description,” Cornyn said.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., also on the Hill Monday for an evening leadership meeting with McConnell, reacted as if the RNC’s action is wholly apart from him and the Senate GOP.

“I mean it’s what they want to say. I’m clear what I believe has been,” said Scott, who has condemned rioters on Jan. 6 as “disgraceful and un-American.”

But Florida’s other senator, Sen. Marco Rubio, fell in line with messaging of the RNC and former President Donald Trump, condemning the Jan. 6 committee, instead, on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday as “a partisan scam.”

Other senators have wiggled around taking a clear stance.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who announced last month he is not running for reelection to the Senate, told reporters Monday, “Everybody has the right to peacefully protest, but they don’t have the right to be violent. Of course, there was protest that day that was not violent, but there was also a terrible violent and criminal part of it.”

Pressed on whether the RNC resolution and specific language was appropriate, he said, “I haven’t read what they said, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to call violent and criminal activity.”

Senate GOP Whip John Thune, R-S.D., up for reelection this year and often a target of former President Donald Trump — was pressed repeatedly on whether he supports the censure resolution, but demurred, saying the focus, instead, should “be forward, not backward.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., echoed the sentiment but in a more critical tone, saying, “We’ve got a lot of issues that we should be focusing on besides censuring two members of Congress because they have a different opinion.”

The RNC has come under intense questioning since Friday about the inclusion of the “legitimate political discourse” phrase in its censure resolution to Cheney and Kinzinger.

Asked Friday to elaborate on the description, the RNC official said the party is talking about “legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.”

“Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line,” McDaniel said in a statement. “They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol. That’s why Republican National Committee members and myself overwhelmingly support this resolution.”

McDaniel’s statement notably attempted to clarify the resolution’s “legitimate political discourse” language, adding the words, “that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol,” though that additional phrasing did not appear in the resolution that was passed Friday.

Senate and House Democrats have come out swinging against the RNC’s decision.

“Ronna McDaniel should be ashamed of herself,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries told reporters during a press conference Tuesday. “What makes it worse is that our Republican colleagues here in the Capitol refuse to denounce it because they are a part of the cult, as well.”

Republican Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, meanwhile, sought to pivot away from the issue on ABC’s This Week when pressed by co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday, condemning the violence of Jan. 6 but unwilling to denounce the resolution.

“My understanding is [the statement] pertains to the legitimate protesters that I saw that day,” McCaul said.

Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who voted against both of Trump’s impeachments, weighed in over the weekend to say that what transpired on Jan. 6 “was criminal, un-American, and cannot be considered legitimate protest.”

A handful of the seven Senate Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” last year were also among the first to condemn the RNC language.

“What happened on January 6, 2021 was an effort to overturn a lawful election resulting in violence and destruction at the Capitol. We must not legitimize those actions which resulted in loss of life and we must learn from that horrible event so history does not repeat itself,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, tweeted.

Hers followed Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, writing Friday morning that “shame” falls on the party, that his niece, McDaniel, currently presides over.

“Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost,” Romney tweeted.

And Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also reacted with apparent shock, tweeting, “The RNC is censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger because they are trying to find out what happened on January 6th – HUH?”

The move to censure Cheney and Kinzinger marks the first time the national RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by its members.

The day before the RNC vote, Kinzinger tweeted he has “no regrets about my decision to uphold my oath of office and defend the Constitution.”

Kinzinger, who is not running for reelection but has said his political career is not over, said in a statement that GOP leadership had allowed “conspiracies and toxic tribalism” to cloud “their ability to see clear-eyed.”

“I’ve been a member of the Republican Party long before Donald Trump entered the field,” Kinzinger said in a statement Thursday night. “Rather than focus their efforts on how to help the American people, my fellow Republicans have chosen to censure two lifelong Members of their party for simply upholding their oaths of office.”

Cheney also spoke to her identity as a “constitutional conservative” in a statement and said, “I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky, the second-most senior lawmaker in the House, told ABC News he has apologized to Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, after she said he refused to put on his mask Tuesday when she asked him to and, instead, poked her and told her to “kiss my ass.”

“This afternoon, I met with Congresswoman Beatty to personally apologize. My words were not acceptable and I expressed my regret to her, first and foremost,” Rogers said in a statement.

Beatty, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, tweeted a thread about their exchange Tuesday afternoon that got more than 10,000 likes and 5,000 retweets in less than an hour from its posting.

“Today, while heading to the House floor for votes, I respectfully asked my colleague @RepHalRogers to put on a mask while boarding the train. He then poked my back, demanding I get on the train. When I asked him not to touch me, he responded, ‘kiss my ass,'” the Ohio lawmaker tweeted.

“This is the kind of disrespect we have been fighting for years, and indicative of the larger issue we have with GOP Members flaunting health and safety mandates designed to keep us and our staff safe,” she wrote.

In a third and final tweet, Beatty tagged Rogers’ Twitter account and said, “when you are ready to grow up and apologize for your behavior, you know where to find me.”

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus held a press conference on the Capitol steps Tuesday evening to demand Rogers apologize for what they suggested was a physical and verbal “assault” on Beatty and described overall incivility in the halls of Congress.

“I will not give Hal Rogers a pass,” said Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., who is running for Senate. “Look, we’re all dealing with the same thing, but his racist, inappropriate behavior against Joyce Beatty is totally unacceptable. And we will not tolerate it.”

Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., first vice chair of the caucus, added, “We are here in solidarity to call on that member to formally apologize to our chair and to understand the seriousness of his actions and the lack of decorum that he exhibited today.”

The apology from Rogers, a Republican, to Beatty, a Democrat, marks a rarity in today’s hyper-partisan Congress.

Republicans have rebelled against mask requirements at the Capitol since they were imposed last year with the change of congressional leadership amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with some publicly questioning the efficacy of masks despite public health experts recommending them.

In a directive issued last month amid looming fears of the omicron variant, the Office of the Attending Physician, Dr. Brian Monahan, said it was required that all members and staff wear “medical-grade” masks throughout the House, unless members are speaking in the halls of the House or someone is alone. There is no mask requirement for the Senate chamber or the halls of Congress.

While Rogers not wearing a mask did not break any Capitol rules, Democrats have for months blasted Republicans for flouting COVID-19 precautions and what they say is a lack of concern over the health and safety of their congressional colleagues, especially with many in a higher age bracket.

Several Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for refusing to wear masks on the House floor but have characterized the rebukes as badges of honor.

Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend all Americans still wear masks in crowded indoor areas, such as on trains.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Second gentleman Doug Emhoff, attending an event at Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, was escorted out of the room by a U.S. Secret Service agent because of a reported “security threat.”

Emhoff was ushered out of the room at 2:18 p.m. by a Secret Service agent, according to a press pool report. Dunbar’s principal followed a few minutes later, the report said.

His staff informed the pool there was a security threat reported by the school to the Secret Service.

A school announcement came over the intercom at 2:34 p.m. calling on teachers to evacuate the school and reporters left the building as well.

Enrique Gutierrez, the press secretary for DC Public Schools, said, “It was an apparent bomb threat … It was a bomb threat. We’re taking precautions, evacuation — evacuating everybody. Seems like all the students are out and safe.”

Earlier, Emhoff’s office put out a news release saying that, in commemoration of Black History Month, Emhoff would visit the school “to meet with students who are participating in a program that helps them relate to history on a personal level.”

His wife, Vice President Kamala Harris, was not with him at the time.

Emhoff’s communications director, Katie Peters, said in a statement that Emhoff is safe after the U.S. Secret Service had been “made aware of a security threat” at the school.

“U.S. Secret Service was made aware of a security threat at a school where the Second Gentleman was meeting with students and faculty,” the statement said. “Mr. Emhoff is safe and the school has been evacuated. We are grateful to Secret Service and D.C. Police for their work.”

“This afternoon during an event attended by a Secret Service protectee, the Secret Service was made aware of a threat to the venue and immediately evacuated the protectee,” a Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement.

“At this time there is no information to indicate the threat was directed toward our protectee. In order to maintain operational security, the Secret Service does not discuss our protectees or the means and methods used to conduct our protective operations,” the spokesperson said.

During a news conference later Tuesday, D.C. police said that the bomb threat at Dunbar High School during Emhoff’s visit appeared to be unrelated to previous bomb threats recently against Historically Black Colleges and Universities and that Emhoff wasn’t targeted, based on a preliminary investigation.

The bomb threat “doesn’t appear related and tied to what happened over the last few weeks but again, can’t rule it out,” Ashan M. Benedict, executive assistant chief of police with the Metropolitan Police Department, told reporters.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — More than 13 months after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Justice Department has readied an extensive group of witnesses and a mountain of evidence that it’s preparing to present against the first alleged rioter to take their case to trial, according to a new court filing Tuesday.

Guy Reffitt, a Texas man who faces several felony charges in connection with the riot, is set to sit before a jury of his peers beginning Feb. 28 in D.C. District Court in Washington. He is also facing charges of allegedly threatening his son and daughter over his involvement in the attack.

Of the more than 730 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, the Justice Department had secured guilty pleas from more than 200 as of Tuesday, according to ABC News’ latest tally.

Tuesday’s filing shows federal prosecutors are preparing testimony for Reffitt’s trial that they say will tell not just the story of Reffitt’s own actions leading up to, during, and following the attack, but also the broader danger that the pro-Trump mob posed to democracy as they stormed the building, sending lawmakers, congressional staffers, and former Vice President Mike Pence into hiding.

Reffitt has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.

Among the 13 witnesses the Justice Department hopes to call is Capitol Police inspector Monique Moore, who the DOJ says will introduce surveillance videos showing Reffitt and other rioters on the restricted grounds outside the Capitol, as well as video showing Pence’s motorcade leaving the east plaza of the Capitol as Pence was still inside the building.

Three other members of the Capitol Police who interacted with Reffitt outside the Capitol building are expected to testify about launching pepper balls, pepper spray and projectiles at Reffitt after they had instructed him and other rioters to leave the west side of the Capitol grounds. One of the officers is expected to introduce audio clips from their radio communications during the riot as they called for backup and described the breach as it was happening.

Four FBI agents who participated in the investigation of Reffitt after his alleged participation in the riot are expected to testify about Reffitt’s alleged possession of a firearm while at the Capitol and the evidence accumulated from a search of his home and personal devices. The evidence, according to the filing, includes several videos Reffitt took while on Capitol grounds, including one with a Kodak Orbit 360 camera that can be panned and rotated 360 degrees.

A Secret Service special agent who acts as the agency’s supervisor at the Capitol is expected to introduce videos showing Pence’s evacuation from the Capitol during the attack, and the emergency actions the Secret Service took in response to the storming of the building.

Daniel Schwager, general counsel to the Secretary of the Senate, is expected to explain the constitutional process of certifying the Electoral College vote, during which prosecutors are expected to introduce videos and still images showing the dangers the mob posed after entering the Capitol.

A fellow member of the Three Percenter militia group who traveled with Reffitt to Washington and has been granted immunity by the government for his testimony, is expected to testify about discussions he allegedly had with Reffitt, and also about their travel arrangements, Reffitt’s firearms and tactical gear, and his movements and actions surrounding Jan. 6.

Reffitt’s son, Jackson Reffitt, and his daughter, Peyton Reffitt, are also expected to testify about their interactions with their father both before and after the riot. According to the filing, Jackson Reffitt will play out and authenticate five audio recordings he made of his father speaking to the family in the days after he returned to their home in Texas.

If convicted on all charges, Reffitt could face years in prison.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican lawmakers are divided on what could become a defining issue for the GOP after the Republican National Committee passed a censure resolution last week including language critics said suggested the Jan. 6 attack was “legitimate political discourse” — with the top Republican in Congress teasing he’s prepared to answer a question on the issue Tuesday.

The resolution, censuring GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — members of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack — said the incumbent lawmakers were “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse” — a phrase that has since come under fire and Cheney juxtaposed on social media with images of violence at the Capitol.

ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott asked House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who has struggled to maintain GOP infighting on his quest to become House speaker, whether he thought there was was “legitimate political discourse” on Jan. 6 after he dodged reporters questions on the topic last week.

“Everybody knows there was — anyone who broke inside,” McCarthy replied Tuesday.

McCarthy’s office called later to clarify that he meant that “anybody who broke inside was not” engaged in legitimate political discourse.

Asked also if he was supportive of the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger, McCarthy said, “I think I’ve already answered that question — there’s a reason why Adam is not running for reelection,” in an apparent reference to an earlier interview with OAN.

The No. 3 House Republican Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. — who replaced Cheney as a member of leadership after an internal revolt last year — told reporters Tuesday, “The RNC has every right to take any action and the position that I have is you’re ultimately held accountable to voters.”

Asked also if she believes the violence on Jan. 6 was “legitimate political discourse,” Stefanik condemned the violence but proceeded to equate the violence of Jan. 6 to the “violence of 2020” — seemingly a reference to the national protests that took place following George Floyd’s murder.

But while House Republicans and close allies of Trump have defended the resolution, several members of Senate Republican leadership sought to distance themselves from it, with a number refuting the “legitimate political discourse” description.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas — a key ally of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said that he will address the topic at his own Tuesday press conference — told reporters Monday that the language wasn’t appropriate.

“I just I think being accurate is really important, particularly when you are talking about something that sensitive, and I just think it was not an accurate description,” Cornyn said.

It’s unclear how much McConnell will say, but in an interview with Spectrum News in December, the Republican leader signaled his personal interest in the House committee’s work, despite blocking the formation of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the attack last year.

“I think it’s fact-finding, it’s interesting, we’re all going to be watching it,” McConnell said. “I think that what they’re seeking to find out is something the public needs to know,” he added.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., also on the Hill Monday for an evening leadership meeting with McConnell, reacted as if the RNC’s action is wholly apart from him and the Senate GOP.

“I mean it’s what they want to say. I’m clear what I believe has been,” said Scott, who has condemned rioters on Jan. 6 as “disgraceful and un-American.”

But Florida’s other senator, Sen. Marco Rubio, fell in line with messaging of the RNC and former President Donald Trump, condemning the Jan. 6 committee, instead, on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday as “a partisan scam.”

Other senators have wiggled around taking a clear stance.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who announced last month he is not running for reelection to the Senate, told reporters Monday, “Everybody has the right to peacefully protest, but they don’t have the right to be violent. Of course, there was protest that day that was not violent, but there was also a terrible violent and criminal part of it.”

Pressed on whether the RNC resolution and specific language was appropriate, he said, “I haven’t read what they said, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to call violent and criminal activity.”

Senate GOP Whip John Thune, R-S.D., up for reelection this year and often a target of former President Donald Trump — was pressed repeatedly on whether he supports the censure resolution, but demurred, saying the focus, instead, should “be forward, not backward.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., echoed the sentiment but in a more critical tone, saying, “We’ve got a lot of issues that we should be focusing on besides censuring two members of Congress because they have a different opinion.”

The RNC has come under intense questioning since Friday about the inclusion of the “legitimate political discourse” phrase in its censure resolution to Cheney and Kinzinger.

Asked Friday to elaborate on the description, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the party is talking about “legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.”

“Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line,” said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. “They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol. That’s why Republican National Committee members and myself overwhelmingly support this resolution.”

McDaniel’s statement notably attempted to clarify the resolution’s “legitimate political discourse” language, adding the words, “that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol,” though that additional phrasing did not appear in the resolution that was passed Friday.

Senate and House Democrats have come out swinging against the RNC’s decision.

“Ronna McDaniel should be ashamed of herself,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries told reporters during a press conference Tuesday. “What makes it worse is that our Republican colleagues here in the Capitol refuse to denounce it because they are a part of the cult, as well.”

Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, meanwhile, sought to pivot away from the issue on ABC “This Week” when pressed by co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday, condemning the violence of Jan. 6 but unwilling to denounce the resolution.

“My understanding is [the statement] pertains to the legitimate protesters that I saw that day,” McCaul said.

Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who voted against both of Trump’s impeachments, weighed in over the weekend to say that what transpired on Jan. 6 “was criminal, un-American, and cannot be considered legitimate protest.”

A handful of the seven Senate Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” last year were among the first to condemn the RNC language over the weekend.

“What happened on January 6, 2021 was an effort to overturn a lawful election resulting in violence and destruction at the Capitol. We must not legitimize those actions which resulted in loss of life and we must learn from that horrible event so history does not repeat itself,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, tweeted.

Hers followed Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, writing Friday morning that “shame” falls on the party, that his niece, McDaniel, currently presides over.

“Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost,” Romney tweeted.

And Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also reacted with apparent shock, tweeting, “The RNC is censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger because they are trying to find out what happened on January 6th — HUH?”

The move to censure Cheney and Kinzinger marks the first time the national RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by its members.

The day before the RNC vote, Kinzinger tweeted has “no regrets about my decision to uphold my oath of office and defend the Constitution.

Kinzinger, who is not running for reelection but has said his political career is not over, said in a statement that GOP leadership had allowed “conspiracies and toxic tribalism” to cloud “their ability to see clear-eyed.”

“I’ve been a member of the Republican Party long before Donald Trump entered the field,” Kinzinger said in a statement Thursday night. “Rather than focus their efforts on how to help the American people, my fellow Republicans have chosen to censure two lifelong Members of their party for simply upholding their oaths of office.”

Cheney also spoke to her identity as a “constitutional conservative” in a statement and said, “I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump.”

ABC News’ Ben Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol said Monday it was “too early” to know if the probe has been impacted by the discovery that Donald Trump took boxes of presidential records with him when he left the White House last year.

National Archives officials confirmed Monday that the agency recently retrieved 15 boxes of presidential records from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida that were “improperly” removed after the end of his time in the White House.

According to National Archivist David Ferriero, representatives for Trump are “continuing to search” for more records that may have been improperly taken from the White House.

Sources tell ABC News that the documents, which were retrieved last month, included communications between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, as well as a letter from former President Barack Obama to Trump that was left as per custom ahead of Trump’s inauguration.

Officials say the records should have been transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) from the White House at the conclusion of the Trump administration in January 2021, as required by the Presidential Records Act.

“NARA pursues the return of records whenever we learn that records have been improperly removed or have not been appropriately transferred to official accounts,” Ferriero said.

The Washington Post first reported the news of the records being retrieved from Mar-a-Lago.

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the House committee investigating Jan. 6 to access hundreds of National Archives records as part of its probe.

Committee chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told ABC News that it was “too early” to know how Trump’s handling of White House records has impacted the committee’s work to date — and whether it has prevented investigators from obtaining key documents and records.

Thompson on Monday said the committee “would not hesitate” to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department if lawmakers determine that Trump willfully violated the Presidential Records Act.

“We will continue to review, and if the review shows that a referral is warranted, we won’t hesitate to do it,” Thompson said.

As previously reported by ABC News, House investigators have discovered that Trump had a habit of shredding documents, notes and other White House records into little pieces that at times left aides scrambling to pick them up off the floor of the Oval Office, sources said.

“The destruction of documents, the reports of large quantities of documents in Mar-a-Lago, all point to a violation of the record-keeping requirements, and the tearing up certainly seems like a willful violation of the law,” committee member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told ABC News.

“We’re going to look at how we can have a more effective mechanism of ensuring compliance,” Schiff said. “There is substantive concern about it, and it’s not a concern that began in the last administration, but it certainly has reached a new height.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Following a day of heavy criticism, President Joe Biden’s top science adviser, Dr. Eric Lander, has resigned after an investigation into his mistreatment of staff.

“The President accepted Dr. Eric Lander’s resignation letter this evening with gratitude for his work at OSTP on the pandemic, the Cancer Moonshot, climate change, and other key priorities,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Monday night. “He knows that Dr. Lander will continue to make important contributions to the scientific community in the years ahead.”

In his letter to the president, Lander said that his resignation “is my fault and my responsiblity.”

“I am devastated that I caused hurt to past and present colleagues by the way in which I have spoken to them,” he wrote.

He cited “ambitious goals” as the driving force behind his demanding behavior.

“I have sought to push myself and my colleagues to reach our shared goals — including at times challenging and criticizing. But it is clear that things I said, and the way I said them, crossed the line at times into being disrespectful and demeaning, to both men and women,” he wrote. “That was never my intention. Nonetheless, it is my fault and my responsibility. I will take this lesson forward.”

Psaki was asked about Lander several times during Monday’s briefing.

She condemned his behavior and said an investigation had taken place. Senior White House officials told him his behavior was inappropriate and “corrective actions needed to be taken,” she said.

“Nothing about his behavior is acceptable to anyone here — at all,” Psaki said at one point.

But the fact that Lander still had a job garnered special scrutiny because of a pledge Biden made on his first day in office.

“If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot — on the spot,” he said. “No ifs, ands, or buts — everybody, everybody is entitled to be treated with decency and dignity. That’s been missing, in a big way, the last four years.”

Lander said his resignation would be effective “no later than” Feb. 18 “in order to permit an orderly transfer.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated Alabama’s new GOP-drawn congressional map over the objection of civil rights groups and decisions of two lower courts finding that it dilutes the influence of Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The vote to temporarily stay a lower court order blocking the map was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s three liberals in dissent.

The decision means Alabama will not immediately have to redraw its political lines to include a second majority-Black district, as had been ordered by a District Court judge, allowing the original maps to take effect for midterm elections.

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s majority said it would take up the Alabama redistricting case on the merits later this year.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement concurring with the decision, argued that the court should stay out of the political process so close to an election, insisting the decision makes “no new law regarding the Voting Rights Act” and simply allows time for a full briefing and oral argument.

“To reiterate: The Court’s stay order is not a decision on the merits,” he said.

The court’s liberals, however, weren’t buying it.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a pointed dissent, accused her colleagues of going “badly wrong” and forcing “Black Alabamians to suffer what under that law is clear vote dilution.”

“That decision does a disservice to our own appellate processes, which serve both to constrain and to legitimate the Court’s authority. It does a disservice to the District Court, which meticulously applied this Court’s longstanding voting-rights precedent,” Kagan wrote. “And most of all, it does a disservice to Black Alabamians who under that precedent have had their electoral power diminished—in violation of a law this Court once knew to buttress all of American democracy.”

Roberts also wrote in dissent that he would have allowed the District Court’s order to stand given that its analysis of the case in his view “seems correct.”

“We are disappointed by today’s decision. The fight for fair representation for Black voters in Alabama has been a winding road, generations long,” said Evan Milligan, an Alabama voter who helped bring the legal challenge to the state’s new map. “We won’t dishonor their legacy by putting down the torch they have handed to us. We will continue striving to ensure that our legislature honors the Voting Rights Act and that Black Alabamians have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.”

In a highly fact-intensive review, the lower court concluded Alabama’s maps likely violated the Voting Rights Act by depriving Black voters of influence. Section 2 of the landmark civil rights law makes it illegal to deny minority voters equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Just over a quarter of Alabama voters are Black, according to Census data, but under the proposed maps the state would have just one majority-Black district out of seven. The appeals court panel said an additional Black-majority district needed to be added.

“Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress,” the panel wrote.

All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents — two by former President Donald Trump, one by former President Ronald Reagan.

Alabama is appealing the decision, saying it would force the state to draw lines based solely on race and at a “late hour” ahead of midterms, creating voter chaos. Republicans allege the claims are less about racial representation than they are about Democrats trying to take back power.

Experts say the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the case, after it’s argued and decided on the merits, could potentially have a sweeping impact, serving as the basis for challenges to maps in California, Texas, New York, North Carolina and other states where maps face similar objections from minority voters.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) – Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, criticized the Biden administration’s approach toward Russia on Sunday, as the country continues to build up its military presence around Ukraine.

“The deterrence has not been there and deterrence is key,” McCaul told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

The ranking Republican member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee moderated a classified briefing on Capitol Hill earlier this week amid escalating tensions in and around the former Soviet Republic. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin led the briefing for House members on Thursday.

On Thursday, the Biden administration accused Russia of planning to film a fake Ukrainian attack to give President Vladimir Putin a reason to invade the neighboring Baltic state. The U.S. hoped to spoil the operation by making the plan public.

A bipartisan group of senators is close to reaching a deal on a bill that would impose crippling sanctions on Russia for its hostilities against Ukraine.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.