(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.
(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.”
(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.”
(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.”
(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.
(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.
(WASHINGTON) – As the standoff between Russia and the United States continues, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan warned of a “very distinct” possibility Russia will attack Ukraine at “any time now.”
“We believe that there is a very distinct possibility that Vladimir Putin will order an attack on Ukraine. It could take a number of different forms. It could happen as soon as tomorrow or it could take some weeks yet,” Sullivan said in an interview with ABC “This Week” Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday.
“[Putin] has put himself in a position with military deployments, to be able to act aggressively against Ukraine at any time now,” he added, stressing that the United State is working with allies and continues to urge a path of diplomacy.
Sullivan said the United States is ready to respond, no matter what Russia decides.
“If they choose to go down the path of escalation instead, it will come at enormous human cost to Ukrainians. But it will also, we believe, over time, come at real strategic cost to Vladimir Putin,” he said.
ABC News has learned Putin now has 70% of his troops in place to possibly launch a full-scale attack on Ukraine. The report comes as U.S. troops began arriving in Poland over the weekend after President Joe Biden ordered deployments to reassure NATO allies.
Raddatz pressed Sullivan on the message U.S. troop deployments sends to the Russians as the U.S. continues to push for a diplomatic solution: “You talk about this diplomatic path, but 1,700 US troops just arrived in Poland, part of the 3,000 going in. Three hundred more sent to Germany. … (It) sounds like you’re no longer trying to de-escalate the situation.”
“We have since the beginning for months now, as we have warned about the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, pursued a two-track approach, deterrence and diplomacy,” he argued.
“Those forces you just referred to have not been sent to fight Russian forces in Ukraine. They have been sent to defend NATO territory because we have a sacred obligation under Article 5 to defend our NATO allies and to send a clear message to Russia, that if it tries to take any military action or aggression against our NATO allies, it will be met with a stiff response, including by the U.S. forces who are on the ground there now,” Sullivan said, adding the U.S. has been “equally clear” it is ready to have “substantive discussions on matters of European security” with Russia.
Sullivan would not get into specifics on how certain an attack is, even though Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., reportedly said after a briefing on the situation that a Russian invasion was a “near certainty.”
“I’m not going to make a prediction about what is going to unfold in the coming days. All I’m going to say is that we, the United States, under the direction of President Biden, are ready either way,” Sullivan said when pressed by Raddatz.
“We are ready,” he said, adding, “And we are ready to respond in a united, swift and severe way with our allies and partners should he choose to move forward with a military escalation.”
As the window for diplomacy appears to be rapidly closing, U.S. officials have repeatedly said they do not believe Putin has made up his mind on how to proceed but no longer describe the threat of a possible invasion as “imminent,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday.
With athletes from around the world gathering to compete in the Winter Olympics in China, Raddatz asked Sullivan if the U.S. believed Putin would hold off on an attack until the games conclude on Feb. 20 — allowing more time for the ground to freeze to facilitate tank movements.
Sullivan said it was possible but stressed that an attack could also come sooner.
“At this point, we’re in the window, meaning that we can’t just assume it’s going to be a couple of weeks off. Is that a possible scenario? Are there reasons to believe that it could happen in that timeframe? Yes. But there are also reasons to believe that Russia, under the direction of President Putin, could take steps before then.”
Sullivan appeared to brush off concerns over China’s alliance with Russia and the impact it could have on the U.S. threat of sanctions after Putin and President Xi Jinping met in Beijing Friday.
“That is an economic power powerhouse, China. Could that undermine your plans for severe sanctions?” Raddatz asked.
“Our view is that China is not in a position to compensate Russia for the economic losses that would come from our sanctions. That’s the analysis that we and the European share, and we believe the Russians and Chinese understand that as well,” Sullivan responded, adding that China would also feel the cost in the “eyes of the world” of supporting Russia.
(WASHINGTON) — A new bill proposed this week would develop a federal alert system for active shooter situations, which have increased by over 1200% between 2000 and 2020.
The FBI defines an active shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Though they account for a small percentage of gun deaths, 333 active shooter incidents in the United States resulted in 2,851 deaths between 2000 and 2019, according to an FBI report released last year.
On Tuesday alone, there were active shooter incidents at Bridgewater College in Virginia, where two officers were killed, and at South Education Center in Minnesota, where one student was killed and another was left in critical condition.
A bill proposed in the House the same day would help sound the alarm when such incidents occur so that people nearby an active shooter incident would be sent up-to-date information on their phones.
Reps. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., proposed the bill, which aims to improve law enforcement officers’ ability to quickly disseminate information during active shooter situations. The AMBER Alert system, which this bill is modeled after, is a public alert triggered when a child is endangered or abducted.
The mechanics of the alert system are not spelled out in the legislation, but a coordinator from the Department of Justice would be responsible for determining best practices.
“It’s really about protecting law enforcement, protecting communities from gun violence, making sure that people have accurate and instantaneous information when there’s an active shooting to save lives,” Cicilline told ABC News.
Similar alert systems like the one proposed in the bill have been established in Michigan, Rhode Island and Texas, but the new legislation would provide a more uniform, national approach.
While several attempts at federal gun control legislation have been stalled in the Senate due to Republican opposition in recent years, this bill — which doesn’t directly impact gun ownership — was brought to the House floor by the bipartisan duo optimistic about garnering similar support in the Senate.
“I think it’s fair to say that when we pass this bill out of the House, there will be significant bipartisan support. We have been in discussions with both Democrats and Republicans,” Cicilline said.
Upton was one of eight House Republicans who voted in favor of the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 that would require a background check for all firearm purchases. Despite passing in the House on March 11, 2021, the bill has yet to receive a vote in the Senate, where it’s unlikely to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
The Active Shooter Alert Act focuses on reducing harm during a shooting event instead of aiming to prevent the active shooter from acquiring a gun in the first place.
“Look, to the extent that anyone thinks that this bill alone is going to do all that we need to do to reduce gun violence in this country, of course, that’s not true,” Cicilline said.
In fact, mass shootings, which can include active shooter situations, represented a mere 1% of all of the 191,897 gun deaths that occurred from 2015 to 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that identifies mass shootings as cases in which four or more people are shot and tracks them through public data, news reports and other sources. They also accounted for only 2.8% of the 74,565 gun homicides during that same five-year period.
The bill is on pace to be up for a vote in the House during Police Week, which runs from May 15 through May 21, according to the bill’s sponsors.
ABC News’ Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The House on Friday passed sweeping legislation that will invest billions of dollars into American manufacturing and scientific research in a bid to take on China’s growing economic dominance.
The bill was approved along party lines, 222-210.
One Democrat, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, voted against the bill, saying in a statement she objected to “problematic, poorly-vetted provisions” relating to trade.
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger was the sole Republican to vote “yes” with Democrats.
Passage of the bill comes nearly eight months after the Senate passed its own version last year. The two chambers will now go to conference over the bill to align the legislation into one final text that must pass both chambers again before it can reach President Joe Biden’s desk.
“The America COMPETES Act will ensure that America is preeminent in manufacturing, innovation and economic strength, and can out-compete any nation,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ahead of Friday’s vote.
House leaders are urging swift action on the reconciliation process — they’ve said their goal is to get it to Biden as soon as possible so he can tout the big win during his State of the Union address on March 1.
The House bill would provide $52 billion over five years to boost semiconductor research, manufacturing and design. This investment comes amid a global shortage of semiconductors, also known as chips, which are essential for the production of cars, smartphones, and medical equipment.
“The semiconductors are microchips that power virtually everything in our everyday lives. From our cell phones to automobiles, refrigerators, the internet, the electric grid without semiconductors, these things do not function in a modern economy,” Biden said during his remarks on the January jobs report.
“The House of Representatives just passed … over $90 billion for research and development, manufacturing and all those elements of the supply chain needed to produce products right here in America so we can keep delivering more announcements like the one we’ve had this past few weeks.”
Biden also claimed that this legislation aims at lessening the fiscal impact of economic inflation that many Americans are experiencing with high food and gas prices.
The bill also provides $45 billion over six years in grants and loans to improve the supply chain issues.
The bill also includes numerous provisions seeking to apply diplomatic pressure on the Chinese government for its human rights violations against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region.
While Republicans have been largely supportive of the measure over the last several months, House Republican leadership urged members to vote against the legislation on Friday, saying the bill is “too weak” on China.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has obtained White House records showing then-President Donald Trump spoke with Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio that morning, a source confirmed to ABC News Friday.
The source said call logs records, part of the documents the National Archives handed over to the committee, found that Trump called Jordan from the White House residence and they spoke for 10 minutes, and while Jordan has said he did speak to Trump that day, it was not previously known they spoke that morning, before the attack and the counting of electoral votes.
One entry shows a request from Trump to get Jordan on the phone. A second entry detailed the length of the call.
The records also show Trump did not leave the White House until 11:40 a.m. on Jan. 6 to speak to his supporters on the Ellipse.
ABC News asked Jordan earlier Friday as he was racing out of the Capitol with suitcases in hand, “If you say you have nothing to hide, why not cooperate with investigators?”
“We laid everything out in the letter you guys can read our letter and the biggest point we made in the letter was when you already have a committee that has proven they will alter evidence and then lie to the American people about it that’s a big concern but we lay that out and other concerns in the letter,” Jordan replied.
He also refused to answer whether he would comply with a subpoena from the committee.
“We’ll see what happens we’ll see what the committee does. I’ve got to get to the airport,” he said.
The House select committee sent a letter to Jordan in December requesting he appear for an interview with the panel about his communications with Trump on and before Jan. 6.
Jordan, who has attacked the committee’s integrity, was among the House Republicans nominated to serve on the select committee by House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blocked him from being seated on the panel given his past false statements about the election results — which led McCarthy to withdraw all his selections to the committee.
Jordan is also one of 147 House Republicans who voted against certifying the election for President Joe Biden and has refused to cooperate with the House investigation into Jan. 6.
He has previously acknowledged that he spoke with the president the day of the riot but Friday’s development that the committee has record of a 10-minute call with Trump provides more insight into the records the committee has obtained.
The Ohio congressman admitted last July that he — like McCarthy — spoke to Trump on the phone on Jan. 6.
Asked in an interview with Ohio Spectrum News reporter Taylor Popielarz if he spoke to Trump before during or after the attack, Jordan said he didn’t remember.
“I spoke with him that day. After? I think after. I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know,” he said. “I don’t know when those conversations.”
Fox News host Brett Baier also pressed Jordan around the same time on whether he spoke to Trump that day, and Jordan repeatedly deflected, saying he’s “talked to the former president umpteen times — thousands, countless times.”
Baier followed up, “But I mean on January 6, congressman.”
“Yes,” Jordan said. “I mean, I’ve talked to the president so many — I can’t remember all the days I’ve talked to him, but I’ve certainly talked to the president.”
Conversations in Trump’s orbit, such as the call with Jordan, are key to what the committee is seeking to investigate.
Jordan, a leader and founding member of the Trump-aligned House Freedom Caucus, was among the GOP lawmakers who planned to challenge the election results on the House floor. He has said he had “nothing to do with” the attack on the Capitol.
After the election, the Ohio Republican focused most of his efforts challenging the legality of the pandemic-era voting changes in many states rather than some of the more outlandish and unproven theories of election fraud pushed by some Trump supporters.
ABC News’ Libby Cathey contributed to this report.
