Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Abortion rights activists on Wednesday were relishing a major victory after Kansas voters soundly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to roll back abortion access in the first state-level test since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. v. Wade.

That win — in a red state former President Donald Trump carried by double digit margins in 2020 — is a clear warning shot for conservative candidates and state lawmakers alike who campaign on Roe’s downfall: Put the fate of abortion in the voters’ hands and suffer the political consequences.

Kansas voters choose to protect abortion access

Several factors may have motivated Kansas voters to defeat the amendment 59%-41%, but left-leaning strategists are likely to paraphrase Barack Obama famously observing, “elections have consequences.”

Those sorts of consequences can be measured in turnout.

On Tuesday, an eye-popping number of voters took to the polls, in near presidential general election-levels. So far, about 900,000 Kansans sounded off — compared to numbers in the 300,000 range in the 2016 and 2014 primaries. The turnout was stunning by any measure, for a primary night in the middle of summer vacation season.

Can Democrats repeat the results in other states?

Beyond the headline there’s layered impact here, as those seeking an abortion in a handful of states bordering Kansas — states that have implemented trigger law restrictions — can legally travel across state lines for the procedure.

While it might be a stretch for Democrats to do too big a victory lap for the cause, never in this midterm cycle has the left had a flare so bright and powerful, especially as down-ballot Democrats inherit the baggage of a generally unpopular president in Joe Biden, staggered inflation numbers, and mounting concerns about inflation.

The White House is championing this win, with Biden releasing a statement that the vote “makes clear” that “the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion.”

But several questions remain, a chief one being whether this voter enthusiasm can be replicated in other deeply red states. And will Republican-controlled legislatures dare to push amendments for fear of the same sort of result?

A winning strategy forward for Democrats to preserve abortion rights remains unclear and will surely be tested in the upcoming August primaries.

Plus, the result in the rest of Tuesday night’s primaries will likely give Democrats more headaches than produce high-fives.

A mixed night for impeachment backers, but a big night for election deniers

Elections in Michigan, Missouri, Arizona and Washington made way for big wins for “the big lie” and saw the end of the reelection road for Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, one of the few Republicans who broke party ranks and voted to impeach Donald Trump. Meijer’s loss is something of a grim prescription for the remaining anti-Trump Republicans — Rep. Liz Cheney take note — who have staked their reputations and job security on the anything-but-MAGA line.

Instead of Meijer, ultra-conservative election-denier John Gibbs advances to the general election. The embers of Democrats’ stoking far-right flames burned in this race, too, with the party’s congressional campaign arm pumping $500,000 in ads boosting Gibbs’ profile in the hopes he would be easier for Democrats to beat in November.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, another vocal anti-Trump Republican who decided to back out reelection, told CNN that “the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) needs to be ashamed of themselves.”

Tricky news in any event for Cheney, who faces her own set of hurdles in the Wyoming at-large primary on Aug.16. A quirk of the Wyoming election rules where Democrats and Independents can change party affiliations at the time of voting introduces a safeguard not accessible to someone like Meijer, however.

If the Republican primary cycle has taught anything, it’s that there is legitimate appetite for election conspiracy among the GOP electorate – or at least, a willingness to support “big lie” candidates despite everything that’s been revealed. FiveThirtyEight estimates at least 120 nominees deny the credibility of the election.

Arizona is something of the ground zero of election denial, where candidates at nearly every level champion a flavor of “election integrity.” In the GOP primary for attorney general, former prosecutor Abe Hamadeh, with a blessing from Trump, will effort to make Arizona great again.

It’s too early to call the results for the Republican gubernatorial primary, where former tv anchor Kari Lake has made a questioning of the election her mantra, turning interviews back on journalists to make her case.

Which sort of Democrat is left to fend off someone like Lake? In Arizona, it will be former secretary of state Katie Hobbs, who already is campaigning against “conspiracies of the past.”

“We need leaders who will look to the future, not conspiracies of the past. Leaders who are doers, not whiners. Do you want a governor whose entire platform boils down to being a sore loser or a governor who will get the job done for Arizona?” Hobbs pitched in her victory speech Tuesday night.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin joined forces Wednesday to propose changes to a 19th century law that former President Donald Trump and his allies exploited to try to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Manchin, D-W.Va., and Collins, R-Maine, testified before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee about reforming the Electoral Count Act — a vaguely worded 1887 law that governs the counting of each state’s electoral votes for president.

The once obscure law became a focal point of Trump’s scheme to remain in power as he pressured Republican lawmakers and then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject votes for Joe Biden from certain states during the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Nearly 150 Republicans maintained objections to electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania, even after the violence that broke out at the U.S. Capitol.

“We were all there on Jan. 6,” Manchin said in his testimony. “That happened, that was for real. It was not a visit from friends back home. We have a duty and responsibility to make sure it never happens again.”

Collins and Manchin introduced legislation in late July aimed at modernizing the law after months of negotiation with a group of 16 senators. On Wednesday, they urged colleagues to pass what they said are sensible and desperately needed reforms during this Congress.

“In four out of the past six presidential elections, the Electoral Count Act’s process for counting electoral votes has been abused with frivolous objections being raised by members of both parties,” Collins told the committee. “But it took the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6 to really shine a spotlight on how urgent the need for reform was.”

The first bill — the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act — would raise the threshold for lawmakers to raise objections to state electors. Under current law, one House member and one senator are needed to raise an objection. In their proposal, one-fifth of the House and the Senate would be needed to object.

That measure would also clarify the role of the vice president as purely ministerial, after debate over whether Pence had the authority to unilaterally change, reject or halt the counting of electoral votes.

“It unambiguously clarifies that the vice president … is prohibited from interfering with electoral votes,” Manchin said.

The second bill would double the penalty under federal law for individuals who threaten or intimidate election officials, poll watchers, voters or candidates from one year to two years.

Earlier this summer, former election officials testified before the Jan. 6 committee on the threats they faced in the wake of the 2020 election.

Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, a mother-daughter duo from Georgia, described how being the target of a Twitter post from Trump — in which he falsely alleged they were smuggling suitcases of ballots — upended their lives and careers.

Both women said they’re afraid to use their names, and Freeman was told by the FBI she had to leave her home for two months because of threats.

“I haven’t been anywhere at all,” she said. I’ve gained about 60 pounds. I just don’t do nothing anymore. I don’t want to go anywhere. All because of lies — for me doing my job, same thing I’ve been doing forever.”

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee on Wednesday also heard from a panel of experts on elections and governance studies on the proposed changes to the Electoral Count Act.

Bob Bauer, a scholar in residence at New York University School of Law, said legal scholars have long called for reform and that the bills offered by Manchin and Collins are a “vast improvement over existing law.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A leading House Democrat on Wednesday backtracked on comments she made Tuesday that she doubts President Joe Biden will renew his bid for the presidency in 2024 — a highly unusual break from the party’s standard-bearer.

The White House has said repeatedly Biden intends to run for reelection.

When asked during a debate if he should run again, New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who is currently seeking reelection for the Empire State’s 12th Congressional District, told debate moderators from NY1: “I don’t believe he’s running.”

Maloney is in a hotly contested primary, in part due to redistricting that pits her against another Capitol Hill veteran, Rep. Jerry Nadler. The pair face off on Aug. 23.

Nadler told debate moderators on Tuesday that it was “too early to say” if Biden would run again in 2024, adding that such speculation “doesn’t serve the purpose of the Democratic Party to deal with that until after the midterms.”

Maloney’s answer was quickly seized on by the Republican National Committee and circulated on social media.

Maloney is no political novice. The chair of the House Oversight Committee has served in Congress for nearly 30 years, and her prognosis of Biden’s prospects are at odds with some others in the party: The Democratic National Committee and the White House — as well as congressional leaders like Sen. Chuck Schumer — have aligned on another potential Biden-Kamala Harris ticket. The president previously told ABC News’ David Muir that he would run as long as his health remained good.

Maloney tweaked her remarks somewhat Wednesday morning, tweeting that she would “absolutely support President Biden, if he decides to run for re-election.”

“Biden’s leadership securing historic investments for healthcare, climate & economic justice prove once again why he is the strong and effective leader we need right now,” she said.

Still, Maloney is not alone in her reservations: Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., recently told local media that he doesn’t believe Biden should seek a second term. “I think the country would be well-served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up,” Phillips said.

Later, in a statement to The Minnesota Star Tribune, he added: “Under no condition can we afford another four years of Donald Trump, and while Joe Biden was clearly the right candidate at the right time two years ago, it’s my hope that both major parties put forward new candidates of principle, civility, and integrity in 2024.”

Minnesota House colleague Angie Craig then cited Phillips this week when she said that there needs to be a “new generation of leadership.”

At 79, Biden is the oldest-ever serving president — breaking a record set by his predecessor, Donald Trump, now 76.

Biden last month defended his popularity among Democrats, telling ABC News that a New York Times/Siena College poll showing a majority of his party preferring another 2024 nominee also found that 92% of Democrats said they’d vote for him in another race with Trump.

And among all voters, the poll found, Biden would best Trump 44% to 41%.

Biden told ABC News in December that the prospect of such a rematch was appealing.

“You’re trying to tempt me now,” Biden told Muir then, laughing. “Why would I not run against Donald Trump for the nominee?” he added. “That’ll increase the prospect of running.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(OVERLAND PARK, Kan.) — Abortion rights opponents in Kansas vowed to keep fighting after voters here decisively rejected removing the right to abortion from the state constitution in the first state-level test since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections.

“This setback is not going to stop us. Our resolve has never been stronger than in this very moment,” Peter Northcott, executive director of Kansans for Life said following Tuesday’s defeat.

Coming just weeks after the Roe v. Wade decision, organizers on both sides said voters were more energized and engaged, leading to record turnout despite the issue being decided in a primary in a midterm year when numbers are historically lower.

As of Tuesday morning, more than 298,618 Kansans had cast ballots compared to the 2018 primaries during which only 89,449 had voted early, according to the Kansas secretary of state’s office.

The “Value them Both” amendment centered on a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that protected abortion under the state constitution.

If the amendment had passed, it would have given the state’s GOP-controlled legislature the power to pass new abortion restrictions.

With 99% of the expected vote counted as of 8:31 a.m. Wednesday, “No” led with 59% to “Yes” at 41%

Kansas currently permits abortions up to 22 weeks of pregnancy, although regulations include requirements for counseling, parental consent for minors, and a waiting period.

“I think that Kansas can make a statement to other states and show them that, even though we are normally Republican, we are not letting this be a political choice,” Jackie Clapper told ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott while canvassing with Kansans for Constitutional Freedom ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“We are making this to be a health care choice a right to be able to preserve your choice to make choice decisions for your own body,” she said.

Abortion rights opponents say the issue is far from settled.

“If the last 50 years haven’t shown anything we’ve been fighting we’re not going to stop fighting until every woman is supported, every every father is supported, every child is supported. There’s nobody that’s unwanted and nobody wants to ever give up,” Mary Kissel, told ABC News at the Value them Both coalition watch party.

The ballot question read, in part, “Shall the following be adopted? Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”

It continued, “A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion. A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.”

Following Tuesday’s defeat, the coalition claimed “misinformation” and “confusion that misled Kansans about the amendment.”

“As our state becomes an abortion destination, it will be even more important for Kansans to support our pregnancy resource centers, post-abortive ministries, and other organizations that provide supportive care to women facing unexpected pregnancies. We will be back,” the coalition said in a statement to ABC News.

Voters waiting in line also expressed confusion about the amendment, many saying that while they eventually understood what they were voting on, they had to make an extra effort to figure it out.

Celia Maris, a Democrat who voted “no” on the proposed amendment, said she had to read the wording multiple times, saying, “I think they need to explain it because not everybody can understand the terminology.”

At the same time, she said the confusion made her want to turn out. “I made a point to come and vote today even more.”

Christine Matthews, a “yes” voter, said it wasn’t clear what the amendment would do and wouldn’t do.

“I do think that some people think that if you vote no, then you will totally go back to having a national legal abortion situation. I also think that people think if you vote “yes,” that that is just going to completely wipe out abortion completely. I know neither of those was true.”

Tuesday’s vote was seen as a bellwether in a post-Roe world and will set a precedent for other states considering similar abortion measures.

President Joe Biden used Kansas’ ballot amendment defeat to call on Congress to “listen to the will of the American people and restore the protections of Row as federal law.”

“This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and show have the right to make their own health care decisions,” he said in a statement.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order on Wednesday that will pave the way for Medicaid to pay for abortion services for people having to travel out of state, according to a senior Biden administration official.

The new directive will allow the secretary of health and human services to “invite states to apply for Medicaid waivers, so that states where abortion is legal could provide services to people traveling from a state where abortion may be illegal to seek services in their state,” the official said. Technically, these states would apply through what’s known as a “Medicaid 1115 waiver,” according to the official.

The official noted that when the White House looked into declaring a public health emergency for abortion and what that would allow the federal government to do, this change to Medicaid — an assistance program for low-income patients’ medical expenses — was one of the options. But the White House realized the president could also do it through an executive order instead, which he plans to do Wednesday, the official said.

Biden’s order will also direct the health and human services secretary to make sure “health care providers comply with federal non-discrimination laws so that women receive medically necessary care without delay,” according to the White House. That could include “providing technical assistance for health care providers who may be confused or unsure of their obligations in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs,” or providing other info and guidance to providers about their obligations and consequences of not complying with non-discrimination laws.

The order also will direct the health and human services secretary to improve research and data collection on maternal health outcomes, according to the White House.

Biden is expected to sign the order during the first meeting of a reproductive rights task force that he established in July in the wake of the United States Supreme Court overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which had legalized abortion nationwide nearly 50 years ago. The court’s historic ruling in June declared that there is no federal constitutional right to end a pregnancy, leading some states to ban abortions.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal grand jury has subpoenaed former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone in its investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sources with direct knowledge of the matter told ABC News.

The sources told ABC News that attorneys for Cipollone — like they did with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — are expected to engage in negotiations around any appearance, while weighing concerns regarding potential claims of executive privilege.

The move to subpoena Cipollone signals an even more dramatic escalation in the Justice Department’s investigation of the Jan. 6 attack than previously known, following appearances by senior members of former Vice President Mike Pence’s staff before the grand jury two weeks ago.

Officials with the Justice Department declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.

A representative for Cipollone could not be reached for comment.

Last month, Cipollone spoke to the House Jan. 6 select committee for a lengthy closed-door interview, portions of which have been shown during two of the committee’s most recent public hearings.

Cipollone spoke to the committee on a number of topics, including how he wanted then-President Donald Trump to do more to quell the riot on the day of the attack, and how Cabinet secretaries contemplated convening a meeting to discuss Trump’s decision-making in the wake of the insurrection.

In videotaped testimony before the Jan. 6 committee, Cipollone made it clear that he wanted Trump to intervene sooner while the attack was underway.

“I was pretty clear there needed to be an immediate and forceful response, statement, public statement, that people need to leave the Capitol now,” Cipollone said.

Committee members also questioned Cipollone regarding discussions among members of Trump’s Cabinet about invoking the 25th Amendment to possibly remove Trump from office in advance of President Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A government watchdog group said Tuesday that the Pentagon “wiped” text messages from the cell phones of key Trump administration Defense Department officials after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and is now urging Attorney General Merrick Garland to launch a “cross-agency investigation into the possible destruction of federal records.”

American Oversight, which describes itself as a nonprofit watchdog that uses public records requests to fight corruption, filed several Freedom of Information Act requests within days of Jan. 6, 2021, seeking text messages and other communications among senior Pentagon officials including acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, his chief of staff, Kash Patel, and Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy.

In March, the Pentagon filed court documents acknowledging that text messages belonging to those individuals had been deleted — but framed that action as standard operating procedure whenever an employee leaves the department.

“When an employee separates from DOD or Army he or she turns in the government-issued phone, and the phone is wiped,” the Pentagon wrote in response to American Oversight’s FOIA lawsuit. “For custodians no longer with the agency, the text messages were not preserved and therefore could not be searched.”

But in their letter to Garland on Tuesday, American Oversight accused the Pentagon of knowingly erasing records under active FOIA — and framed this deletion as another effort by these agencies to obscure the actions of administration officials.

“In short, DOD has apparently deleted messages from top DOD and Army officials responsive to pending FOIA requests that could have shed light on the actions of top Trump administration officials on the day of the failed insurrection,” American Oversight Executive Director Heather Sawyer wrote.

Sawyer urged Garland to probe not only the Pentagon’s conduct, but also the U.S. Secret Service’s apparent deletion of their agents’ text messages.

“American Oversight accordingly urges you to investigate DOD’s actions in allowing the destruction of records potentially relevant to this significant matter of national attention and historical importance,” the letter said.

Reached for comment, Army spokesperson Col. Cathy Wilkinson told ABC News, “It is our policy not to comment on ongoing litigation.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The ability to access abortions in Kansas is not changing.

ABC News projects that voters on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the state constitution that would have specified “Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion.”

It was the first popular vote on abortion rights in nearly 50 years — and the first since the demise of Roe v. Wade. In reversing Roe in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion should be left to individual states.

A “yes” vote to approve the Kansas amendment would have effectively overridden a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling and would have cleared the way for GOP super-majorities in the Kansas legislature to enact more stringent abortion restrictions.

A “no” vote keeps the status quo, preserving Kansas as what advocates describe as an abortion rights refuge in a region where bans on the procedure have proliferated.

Kansans on Tuesday also voted in primaries for governor, secretary of state, the House and Senate, state attorney general, state treasurer and the state legislature. Polls closed at 9 p.m. ET.

On Friday, Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab predicted that roughly 36% of Kansas voters would participate in the primary election — a higher number than past cycles.

Schwab’s office said the constitutional amendment about whether or not to bar abortion access had increased voter interest in the election.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After a series of delays and emotional protests, the Senate on Tuesday night approved a bill that will help veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.

The Senate began voting on the PACT Act around 5 p.m., with votes on three Republican amendments before a vote on final passage of the bill, which was 86-11. None of the proposed amendments passed.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the floor called the passage a “wonderful moment, especially for all the people who made this happen.”

Just before the legislation passed, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who helped lead the Democratic effort, could be heard saying “I’m so proud” to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jon Tester of Montana. The two embraced in a hug.

A group of Democrats were set to hold a press conference later Tuesday night following the vote.

The PACT Act had initially passed the Senate earlier this year. But after a quick fix in the House required the bill to be voted on again, 26 Republican senators changed their votes and blocked swift passage of the act last week — sparking outrage among Democrats and veterans groups.

Comedian and activist Jon Stewart has become the face of this legislation, joining veterans in protest outside the Capitol for the last several days. He’s harshly criticized Republicans — who in turn cited concerns about Democratic spending maneuvers — and demanded action from lawmakers.

“America’s heroes who fought in our wars outside sweating their a—- off with oxygen, battling all kinds of ailments” while Republican senators were sitting “in the air conditioning walled off from any of it,” Stewart said during a press conference in front of the Capitol building on Thursday. “They don’t have to hear it, they don’t have to see it. They don’t have to understand that these are human beings.”

Stewart was in the chamber Tuesday night for the vote, along with about 50-75 vets and supporters of the bill. He is expected to join Democrats as they address reporters.

He sat above in the gallery and was seemingly overcome with emotion for a moment after the vote. He appeared to choke up while the clerk read the names of the Senators who voted yes.

When the vote was called, he grabbed his chest. “Hallelujah” and “yeah” were also shouted from observes in the gallery.

Republicans had said they did not object to the new funding for veterans in the proposal but wanted the opportunity to modify a so-called “budget gimmick” they say could be exploited by Democrats.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has led the GOP group in opposition, insisting on an amendment to change language in the bill that he said could free up $400 billion in existing funds already being used for veterans by shuffling the money inside the budget to use for unrelated purposes.

“What matters to a veteran whose ill because of a toxic exposure is that the money is there to cover what he needs, that’s what he should be concerned about and that will be there,” Toomey said Tuesday. “What I am trying to limit is the extent that they could use a budget gimmick to reclassify spending and go on an unrelated spending binge.”

Republicans attempted to close this perceived budget loophole during a Tuesday night vote, but the amendment failed to pass.

Two other amendments from Sens. Rand Paul and Marsha Blackburn also failed. Paul’s amendment aimed to reduce aid to other countries besides Israel over the next 10 years to offset some of the bill’s costs, while Blackburn’s amendment proposed allowing toxic-exposed veterans to go directly into community care.

Schumer on the floor called Tuesday’s development “good news.”

“Our veterans across America can breathe a sigh of relief,” he said. “The treatment that they deserve and have been denied by the VA because of all kinds of legal barriers and presumptions will now be gone.”

ABC News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Osama bin Laden’s successor, who helped coordinate the 9/11 terror attacks, was killed by a CIA drone strike in Afghanistan over the weekend.

President Joe Biden announced that Ayman al-Zawahiri, an al-Qaeda leader, was killed by two Hellfire missiles in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Saturday.

Biden reported that there were no known civilian casualties.

“Justice has been delivered, and this terrorist leader is no more. People around the world no longer need to fear the vicious and determined killer,” Biden said, speaking from the White House on Monday night.

Al-Zawahiri had traveled back to Taliban-controlled Kabul to reunite with his family after U.S. troop withdrawal last August, according to U.S. intelligence, which began to track al-Zawahiri prior to the attack.

Nearly a year after the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the country to Taliban-control and less international oversight, ABC News’ “Start Here” spoke to ABC’s Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz about what al-Zawahiri’s death means for the United States.

START HERE: Can you tell us more about who this guy was and how he was killed?

RADDATZ: Well, it is so remarkable, Brad, that it’s been almost 21 years since they’ve been trying to find [al-Zawahiri]. But you just have to remember what a horrible human being he was.

[al-Zawahiri] helped in the assault on American soldiers in Somalia in 1993, bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in ’98 and the suicide bombing on the USS Cole in Yemen. And, of course, the attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon Flight 93. His planning killed almost 3,000 people.

The U.S. had been tracking al-Zawahiri for, again, almost 21 years and yet never nailed down his exact location. They believe he was on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is a really rugged border, it’s really hard to find people in that. He had certainly escaped before from U.S. intelligence, but this time he showed up in Kabul, right in the center of the city in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Kabul. Places where the warlords live. Places where anybody with money, whether corrupt or not, can be found in that neighborhood. And it’s also very close to where the U.S. used to have its embassy in Kabul.

So they started tracking him many months ago. They believe he went back to Kabul to reunite with his family. Of course, what you have to remember at the center of this is that the Taliban is now in charge in Afghanistan and they, of course, harbored terrorists before 9/11. That’s why we went to battle there in Afghanistan. They promised not to do that again. But the U.S. believes they knew that senior Taliban commanders knew that al-Zawahiri was there.

So [the CIA] tracked him for months. They developed a pattern of life, meaning they just knew when he moved around. They don’t believe he ever left that house. But he would often go out on the balcony and spend a long time on the balcony. And that’s where they got him.

They targeted him when he walked out on the balcony. The president gave the order earlier last week. So they fired on [al-Zawahiri] with two Hellfire missiles from that CIA drone and took him out as he stood on the balcony. His family, [the CIA] say, was inside and unharmed as far as they know that.

START HERE: Unbelievable there. And we should mention, Martha, you said it was President Biden that gave the green light. It was also Biden’s call to totally withdraw from Afghanistan 11 months ago… Is al-Qaeda getting much more comfortable in Afghanistan without us there?

RADDATZ: I think they are getting more comfortable and this will be a big lesson to [the CIA and the U.S.] that ISIS is probably feeling more comfortable, al-Qaeda is feeling more comfortable.

But if you can track someone down like [the CIA] did in the center of the city, you should be concerned about your safety if you are a terrorist.

On the other hand, let’s remember it was about a year ago when the U.S. military targeted someone they thought was a bomb maker and it turned out to be the wrong person. And civilians were killed in that U.S. military drone strike.

This strike, this CIA drone [strike on al-Zawahiri], was the first attack, as far as we know, by the U.S. since the withdrawal last year. And by all accounts, it was a successful one.

START HERE: Really successful, when you think about it, a drone strike that was killing somebody on the balcony and not the people in the rooms nearby that balcony. Unreal. Martha Raddatz, thanks a lot.

 

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.