(WASHINGTON) — On Tuesday, House Democrats passed a bill which would protect same-sex and interracial marriages, in response to the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and fear among lawmakers that other legal protections might be at risk.
Meanwhile, the Labor Department announced inflation has reached its highest rate in 40 years, a fact that is being blamed on the White House and Democratic lawmakers, with a recent ABC-Ipsos poll showing that more than 80% of Americans think the economy is either an important or very important issue affecting how they will vote in the midterm elections this November.
Senate Minority Whip John Thune spoke with GMA3 about the House vote on Tuesday, his perspective on what’s causing inflation and what he thinks is the biggest concern for voters.
GMA3: Let me bring in now Senate Minority Whip John Thune. Senator, thank you so much for being with us. I think a lot of people wouldn’t be surprised that a Republican is blaming Democrats maybe for inflation. We’re going to get to that in just a second. But I do want to ask you about the news we saw overnight, what happened in the House, the kind of a bipartisan bill came out of there to protect same-sex marriage. This, of course, in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision with, some say, other things like same-sex marriage could be at risk. I want to ask, are you ready in the Senate to support that bill as well to somewhat codify same-sex marriage in this country?
THUNE: Well, thanks, TJ. Amy, good afternoon. We don’t know if that bill is coming to the Senate. They did pass a bill in the House last night. And if and when Senator Schumer decides to bring it up in the Senate, then we’ll consider it at that time. But as you saw, there was a fairly significant vote, bipartisan vote last night. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case in the Senate. But I will go across that bridge if and when we come to it.
GMA3: But would you say we do in this country? Maybe that’s something we do need to codify? Do we need to make it clear — same-sex marriage — so it doesn’t end up in the Supreme Court’s decision again?
THUNE: Well, I don’t think it’s an issue. It’s not an issue. Anybody, certainly in my state of South Dakota, for that matter, across the country is talking about right now. They’re talking about inflation and gas prices and all the other things. I don’t — I think it’s an issue that right now, at least the Democrats here in Washington are talking about, because they’re trying to create an issue going into the election because they don’t want to talk about the economic issues. So, it’s not — it’s just not something the court is considering.
They made it very clear, actually, in their opinion on Dobbs that they were not dealing with anything but the precedent on abortion, that it wouldn’t affect other precedents. So, I think you had a very strong majority of people point out that Justice Thomas had a dissenting view. That’s true. But if you look at the six-person Justice majority on that opinion, they made it abundantly clear that this issue addressed specifically the issue of abortion and not other precedents.
GMA3: Senator Thune, let’s move on to the economy and inflation specifically. I’ll directly let everyone know your tweet that we know TJ was referring to. You said or you tweeted, “this level of inflation is a direct result of Dems spending since they’ve taken control in D.C.” Where do you believe costs should be and could be cut right now to rollback that tide of inflation?
THUNE: Well, I think if you look at it, Amy, when President Biden took office, the inflation rate was 1.4%, well within the Fed’s range of 2%. Now, as you said, it’s a 40-year high, 9.1% last month, year over year. What that represents, according to the Joint Economic Committee in a study they did recently, is about 700 additional dollars per month per family in this country, or about $9,000 a year in higher costs.
So, I think it comes back to the bill they passed, which we tried to discourage them from passing. And even liberal Democrat economists from the Obama administration also suggested this was a really bad idea to flood the zone with a lot of spending, which they did with the $2 trillion bill last year. That overstimulated the economy. You know, the textbook definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. So, it started with the spending.
I think the other issue, honestly, is lack of a coherent energy policy in this country. A lot of what drives inflation is gas prices. And if you look at the price of gas, it’s doubled since the president took office. And I think a lot of that has to do, which is not having the supply. They shut down a lot of oil and gas production in this country. I think there are things you can do that, you know, one, stop the wasteful spending, unnecessary spending.
Don’t talk about raising taxes. That would be a horrible idea right now, which is on their agenda and then come up with a coherent energy policy that emphasizes American energy production so that we’re not dependent upon other countries around the world.
GMA3: What would you like to do right now given that — and again, you listed many things, and I again, somewhat said it jokingly, nobody surprised to hear a Republican put the blame at the feet of Democrats. But we had the pandemic and there were a lot of things that did happen that was kind of out of a lot of people’s control with the supply-chain issues. A lot of people came right back to the market. The demand went up really quickly. And I know you talked about the 2 trillion in spending, but a lot of that was to put money back in Americans’ pockets who were struggling coming out of the pandemic. So it was a lot of things going on there. But what can you do? What can Congress do right now — do you feel?
THUNE: Well, and honestly, TJ, to your point, there was $5 trillion in spending in 2020, all done on a bipartisan basis. The $2 trillion came last year after the president took office. And there are things we can do. I worked on a bipartisan way with Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota on a supply chain issue, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which is designed to get at some of those bottlenecks that we’re experiencing at the ports.
And I think, again, as I said before, focusing on and getting the administration to work with us on an energy policy that is American energy, all, you know, it should be all of the above strategy. But we ought to try to achieve energy independence in this country. I think that will drive gas prices down, which I think would have a pretty profound impact on inflation. And I just think, again, it would be a mistake right now, which the Dems are talking about, to increase taxes and come up with yet another pretty big spending bill.
They’re talking about another trillion dollars. I think that would be a huge mistake. But it shouldn’t come as any surprise to you or anybody else. It’s an even numbered year. This is an election year. So obviously we’re going to be talking about issues that we think impact people’s pocketbooks in this country. And certainly inflation represents that.
I just came from a weekend back in South Dakota, out in the western part of the state, and it is having a profound impact on the economy in a state like South Dakota, which in the summer months depends on the travel industry and that, you know, gas prices has a very consequential impact on that.
GMA3: Senator Thune, it is an election year, as you point out. And according to the latest Pew Research poll, 62% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all, or at least most cases. Obviously, we saw the sweeping reversal of Roe versus Wade. I’m curious, how do you see women losing their reproductive rights that they’ve had for nearly five decades? How do you see that impacting Republicans? I know you’re up for reelection as well in these midterms.
THUNE: Right. Well, and I think it’s an issue that it will in certain areas of the country, act probably as a motivator for people to vote. I think in the end, Amy, it does get trumped by these other economic issues. It’s an issue that people care — certainly intensity behind it on both sides, which is the reason, I think for the past 50 years, there’s been so much tumult in the country and why the court decided to take it up.
But, you know, again, remember, it doesn’t do away with abortion. It simply returns that power to the states and their elected representatives. And it’s, I think, one of those issues you have to find political consensus around. And I think each state, at least right now, will probably do that slightly differently in how it plays out in the election. I don’t think it’s anybody’s guess. I think it’s an issue and I think in certain places it will be more prominent than it is in other places.
But I think in most areas of the country, people are going to be focusing on these pocketbook economic issues. I think that’s ultimately going to be what they vote on.
(ATLANTA) — Georgia’s so-called “heartbeat law” can go into effect, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday, making the state the latest to institute a six-week ban on abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.
The court additionally allowed the ban to take effect immediately — instead of later this summer, as was initially expected — in an unusual move abortion rights advocates criticized as “horrific.”
The bill, which Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law in 2019, had been blocked from going into effect since a lower court ruled it unconstitutional.
Under the legislation, abortions in the state are banned after about 6 weeks. There are exceptions for medical emergencies, “medically futile” pregnancies and rape and incest — if a police report has been filed. The law also redefines “natural person” under Georgia law to mean “any human being including an unborn child” — including an embryo or fetus at any stage of development.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit lifted an injunction on the law on Wednesday, citing precedent from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe.
The appeals court also vacated an order blocking the expanded definition of natural person, ruling that the redefinition “is not vague on its face,” as abortion-rights advocacy groups had argued. The decision does allow for challenges to specific Georgia statutes amended by the redefinition, according to the plaintiffs in the case.
The court’s ruling typically wouldn’t have taken effect until it issued an official mandate — usually 28 days after a decision. But the court additionally issued a stay on the lower court’s injunction on Wednesday, allowing the abortion ban to immediately go into effect.
Previously, abortion up to 21 days and six days of pregnancy had been legal in Georgia.
Gov. Kemp, one of the defendants in the case, celebrated the court’s decision.
“We are overjoyed that the court has paved the way for the implementation of Georgia’s LIFE Act, and as mothers navigate pregnancy, birth, parenthood, or alternative options to parenthood — like adoption — Georgia’s public, private, and non-profit sectors stand ready to provide the resources they need to be safe, healthy, and informed,” he said in a statement.
The organizations that filed the lawsuit called the move by the court to stay the injunction “highly unorthodox” and “outside of the normal court procedures.”
“This is a highly unorthodox action that will immediately push essential abortion care out of reach for patients beyond the earliest stages of pregnancy,” the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Georgia, Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Southeast and Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a joint statement. “Across the state, providers are now being forced to turn away patients who thought they would be able to access abortion, immediately changing the course of their lives and futures. This is horrific.”
Abortion-rights advocates vowed to continue to preserve abortion access in Georgia following the decision.
“Soon, Georgians past the earliest stages of pregnancy will face that same barrier, and it will be insurmountable for some. People who can’t afford to leave the state will be forced to seek abortion outside the health care system or remain pregnant against their will,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.
“This is a grave human rights violation, and Planned Parenthood, along with its partners, will do everything in our power to fight back and ensure all people can get the health care they need, regardless of where they live,” Johnson’s statement added.
Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate facing off against Kemp in the race for governor, called the law “draconian.”
“What has been done with this law is an assault on our liberties and we will fight back,” she said in a video message on Twitter.
Since Roe fell, several other states, including Tennessee, Ohio and South Carolina, have instituted bans on abortion at around 6 weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant.
(WASHINGTON) — As midterm elections heat up, political campaigns are beginning to think differently and trying some unorthodox methods to win.
Recently, there have been efforts by Democratic PACs to steer Republican voters to specific candidates in primaries.
In Maryland, one Democratic PAC, DGA Action, ran ads promoting Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox, who is endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
Other races are taking similar approaches.
ABC News Political Director Rick Klein spoke with “START HERE” Wednesday about this strategy and its effectiveness.
START HERE: Rick, why would Democrats try to help a Trump Republican win a primary?
KLEIN: Because they think that Trump Republican would be easier to beat. You know, in some ways, this is one of the oldest tricks in the book. You try to choose your own opponent because you think you can beat the other person.
And you do it in this case with the kind of false praise of saying, Oh, this person is 100% MAGA or 100% pro-life. Of course, that’s a badge of honor inside a Republican primary and the Democrats that are spending millions of dollars to boost those far-right opponents, they know that.
But what makes this different is we’re talking about individuals who are flat-out election deniers. In the case of Cox, the person that Democrats are boosting in the state of Maryland, this is someone who bused supporters into the Capitol on January 6, although he says he didn’t enter himself. And as the riot was ongoing, he tweeted and later deleted that [then-Vice President] Mike Pence is a traitor.
There’s a lot of history of screwing around and the other side’s primary, but the stakes this time could be different.
START HERE: Rick, what if it doesn’t work? Because I’m trying to think of the last really Trumpy candidate that was seen as a walkover. Oh, that’s right. His name was Donald Trump. A lot of people said Hillary Clinton got what she wished for. She still lost. So why should Democrats think that will not happen again?
KLEIN: Yeah, it’s a huge risk. And forget Maryland, because Maryland’s probably not a battleground state in 2024. But guess what is: Pennsylvania.
That’s where Democrats spent money to try to boost Doug Mastriano, a state senator who again was at the Capitol on January 6 and is one of the staunchest Trump supporters in the nation. He’d be in a position, if he’s governor, to name the next secretary of state to oversee the next election. That’s a dangerous place to have an election denier.
You also saw Democrats try to do this and succeed in Illinois. They failed in Colorado, another battleground state. But the other consequences of this misfiring are vast. And it’s why even some Democrats are saying, ‘wait a second, this is not a time to be playing politics as usual.’ You have to be careful about this. Already with the data that ABC has compiled, along with FiveThirtyEight, we’re talking about more than 120 Republican candidates on the ballot this fall for major offices like secretary of state or governor or for Congress who deny the legitimacy of the last election. That’s just different than we’ve seen in the past and underscores how risky this strategy really is.
START HERE: And there’s no reason to think that if another election came along featuring Donald Trump or not, that that wasn’t seen as favorable to Republicans, that these same people would not say no, that you should throw those results out. Rick, in the meantime, I’m trying to figure out what even this midterm election landscape looks like compared to a couple of months ago, because a lot of people figured Republicans were kind of a lock to take back the House and the Senate. President Biden’s approval hasn’t been so hot, but all that, of course, was before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Is there a different sense now of where each party stands?
KLEIN: Yeah, there’s an interesting trend that’s starting to emerge, Brad, where the president’s numbers are still pretty bad historically; about as bad as any president at this point in his term. And the numbers in the House kind of reflect that. The Democrats are almost certainly going to lose control of the House. But something different is happening in Senate races.
You’re seeing Democrats begin to do a little bit better on what we call the generic ballot. Do you support a Democrat or a Republican? And abortion rights and gun violence and all the other issues they may be adding into that. Despite the drag that inflation has. But the other thing that’s happening is that Republicans are putting up a lot of flawed candidates, some of whom, as we’ve been discussing, put up there because of Democrats meddling in primaries, other cases, just because Trump has been such a loud voice.
In places like Georgia [and] Ohio, [and] like Pennsylvania’s governor’s race and Senate race with Dr. Oz. You have a situation where the Republicans may not have their best choice on the playing field and it might boost Democrats’ chances. And it has a lot of Democrats thinking, ‘you know what, we’ve got a shot at keeping the Senate despite all of the headwinds we’re facing this year.’
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday reiterated that “no person” is above the law amid calls from some congressional Democrats to charge former President Donald Trump over last year’s Capitol riot.
A visibly animated Garland twice stated that “no person” is above the law during a press conference when pressed specifically about Trump, whom Democrats say incited the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection over his unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in 2020.
The Department of Justice has been prosecuting various cases related to the rioting that day.
“There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, what’s it not doing, what our theories are and what our theories aren’t, and there will continue to be that speculation,” the attorney general said. “That’s because a central tenant of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenant of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in the public.”
“We have to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election, and we must do it in a way filled with integrity and professionalism,” Garland added.
In the 18 months since the attack on the Capitol, the Justice Department has charged 855 defendant’s from all 50 states, and among those 263 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 90 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer, according to the Justice Department.
The Justice Department has secured more than 325 pleas in January 6th cases and just under 100 have been sentenced to time in federal prison.
Former Trump campaign and White House official Steve Bannon is currently on trial over contempt of Congress charges, pleading not guilty to allegations that he did not comply with the House Select Committee Investigating the attack on the US Capitol.
However, as the House panel investigating the insurrection ramps up its public hearings, Democrats are clamoring for the Justice Department to charge the former president himself. Those calls ramped up after testimony before the panel revealed that Trump was aware that some in the crowd during his speech at the Ellipse were armed before urging his supporters to march to the Capitol.
“Trump was told the mob was armed. He sent them to the Capitol to kill us. He wanted to go into the House Chamber to overturn the election. He assaulted a Secret Service agent who told him no. He must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the…law,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., tweeted last month.
The issue of charging Trump is not a new one, though this is the first time it is an option since he left the White House.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 said it could not definitively clear the then-president of obstruction of justice accusations but cited longstanding Justice Department policy against charging sitting presidents.
(WASHINGTON) — Steve Bannon, who served as former President Donald Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, is on trial for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September of last year, with the committee telling him it had “reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged Bannon with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, setting up this week’s trial.
Here is how the news is developing. All times are Eastern:
Jul 20, 4:39 PM EDT
Defense says Bannon was in ongoing negotiations with committee
As his cross-examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling wrapped up, defense attorney Evan Corcoran continued to frame Bannon’s noncompliance with the subpoena as happening at a time when Bannon’s attorney was still in negotiations with the committee.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon wasn’t in negotiations because there was nothing to negotiate — Trump hadn’t actually asserted executive privilege, Amerling said, so there was no outstanding issue to resolve. And she said that the committee had made clear to Bannon repeatedly that there were no legal grounds for his refusal to turn over documents and testify before the committee.
Corcoran showed the jury the letter that Trump sent to Bannon on July 9, 2022 — just two weeks ago — in which Trump said he would waive executive privilege so Bannon could testify before the committee. He also displayed the letter that Bannon’s former attorney, Robert Costello, sent the committee on the same day saying that Bannon was now willing to testify in a public hearing.
But Amerling then read aloud from the letter that the committee sent to Costello in response, noting that Bannon’s latest offer “does not change the fact that Mr. Bannon failed to follow [proper] process and failed to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena prior to the House referral of the contempt resolution concerning Mr. Bannon’s defiance of the subpoena.”
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn noted that before two weeks ago, Bannon never offered to comply with the subpoena, even after being told repeatedly by the committee last year that his claims had no basis in law and that he could face prosecution; even after he was found in contempt of Congress in October last year; even after he was criminally charged a month later for contempt of Congress; and even after a lawsuit related to executive privilege had been resolved by the Supreme Court six months ago.
Amerling testified that had Bannon complied with the subpoena in time, the committee would have had “at least nine months of additional time” to review the information, and now there are “five or so months” left of the committee.
“So as opposed to having 14 in total, the committee only now has five?” Corcoran asked.
“That’s correct,” said Amerling.
Jul 20, 3:48 PM EDT
Defense argues Bannon was constrained by questions over executive privilege
In the defense’s ongoing cross examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling, attorney Evan Corcoran continued to stress how Bannon was prevented from testifying due to the right of executive privilege that protects confidential communication with members of the executive branch.
But Amerling testified that there are two main issues with such a claim.
First, she said, some of what the subpoena requested “had nothing to do with communication with the former president” and “could not possibly be reached by executive privilege” — especially Bannon’s communications with campaign advisers, members of Congress and other private parties, as well as information related to Bannon’s podcast, she testified.
In addition, despite what others may have said, “The president had not formally or informally invoked executive privilege,” Amerling said. “It hadn’t been invoked.”
Yet Bannon still refused to comply with the subpoena, despite having no legal grounds to do so, she said.
Amerling reiterated that by the time the committee met to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, “there had been extensive back-and-forth already between the select committee and the defendant’s attorney about the issue of executive privilege, and the select committee had made its position clear.”
Corcoran also argued that Bannon didn’t comply with the subpoena right away because he expected the deadline would ultimately change, due to the fact that it’s common for subpoena deadlines to shift.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon’s situation was different.
“When witnesses are cooperating with the committee and indicate they are willing to provide testimony, it is not unusual to have some back-and-forth about the dates that they will appear,” she said. However, she said, “it is very unusual for witnesses who receive a subpoena to say outright they will not comply.”
In his questions, Corcoran also suggested that Amerling might be a biased witness, noting that she had donated to Democratic causes in the past, and that she is a member of the same book club as one of the prosecutors in the case, Molly Gaston.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” Corcoran asked.
“We are,” Amerling replied.
Amerling said that it had been some time — perhaps as much as a year or more — since she and Gaston both attended a meeting of the club. But she conceded that, with the types of people who are in the book club, it was “not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Jul 20, 12:55 PM EDT
Defense attorney presses Jan. 6 staffer on timing of subpoena deadline
Under cross-examination from Bannon defense attorney Evan Corcoran, House Jan. 6 committee senior staffer Kristin Amerling was pressed on why the committee set the deadlines it did for Bannon to comply with the subpoena — especially since “the select committee is still receiving and reviewing documents” now, Corcoran said.
Corcoran pressed Amerling over who specifically decided that Bannon should have to produce documents by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, and who specifically decided that Bannon should have to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2021.
Amerling said that the “process” of drafting the subpoena involved many people, including senior staff like herself, but it was all ultimately approved by committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
“To the best of my recollection, because of the multiple roles that we understood Mr. Bannon potentially had with respect to the events of Jan. 6, at the time that we put the subpoena together, there was a general interest in obtaining information from him expeditiously, because we believed this information could potentially lead us to other relevant witnesses or other relevant documents,” Amerling said. “There was general interest in including deadlines that required expeditious response.”
“The committee authorization is just through the end of this year,” so it is operating under “a very tight timeframe,” she said.
Corcoran also said he wanted to made clear to the jury that, as he put it, “in this case, there is no allegation that Steve Bannon was involved in the attack” on the Capitol.
Earlier, Amerling testified that the committee tried to give Bannon “an opportunity” to explain his “misconduct” in ignoring the subpoena and to provide “information that might shed light on his misconduct, such as he might have been confused” about the subpoena — but Bannon never presented any such explanation or information before he was found in contempt, she said.
Jul 20, 11:17 AM EDT
Jan. 6 staffer says panel ‘rejected the basis’ for Bannon’s privilege claim
Kristin Amerling, a senior staffer on the House Jan. 6 committee, returned to the stand to continue her testimony from Tuesday. She testified that Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that his non-compliance “would force” the committee to refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution.
She said the subpoena issued to Bannon indicated he was “required to produce” records encompassing 17 specific categories, including records related to the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, his communications with Trump allies and several right-wing groups, his communications with Republican lawmakers, and information related to his “War Room” podcast.
The committee was seeking to understand “the relationships or potential relationships between different individuals and organizations that played a role in Jan. 6,” Amerling said. “We wanted to ask him what he knew.”
Asked by prosecutor Amanda Vaughn if Bannon provided any records to the committee by the deadline of 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, Amerling replied, “He did not.”
“Did the committee get anything more than radio silence by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7?” Vaughn asked.
“No,” said Amerling.
Amerling said that in a correspondence she received that day at about 5 p.m. — after the deadline had passed — Bannon’s attorney at the time, Robert Costello, claimed that Trump had “announced his intention to assert” executive privilege, which Costello said at the time rendered Bannon “unable to respond” to the subpoena “until these issues are resolved.”
But the next day, Amerling recalled on the stand, she sent Costello a letter from Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson, “explaining that the committee rejected the basis that he had offered for refusing to comply.”
“Did the letter also tell the defendant he still had to comply?” Vaughn asked Amerling.
“Yes, it did.” Amerling said.
“Did the letter warn the defendant what might happen if he failed to comply with the subpoena?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, it did,” said Amerling.
The letter was “establishing a clear record of the committee’s views, making sure the defendant was aware of that,” Amerling testified.
Jul 20, 10:06 AM EDT
Judge won’t let trial become ‘political circus,’ he says
Federal prosecutors in Steve Bannon’s contempt trial raised concerns with the judge that Bannon’s team has been suggesting to the jury that this is a “politically motivated prosecution” before the second day of testimony got underway Wednesday morning.
Before the jury was brought in, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to make sure the jury “doesn’t hear one more word about this case being” politically motivated, after she said the defense’s opening statement Tuesday had “clear implications” that the defense was making that claim.
Nichols had barred such arguments from the trial.
In response, defense attorney Evan Corcoran defended his opening statement, saying it “was clearly on the line.”
Nichols then made it clear that during trial, the defense team may ask witnesses questions about whether they themselves may be biased — “but may not ask questions about whether someone else was biased in an action they took outside this courtroom.”
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus,” Nichols said.
Speaking to reporters after the first full day in court, Bannon blasted members of the Jan. 6 committee and House Democrats for not showing up as witnesses in his trial.
“Where is Bennie Thompson?” asked Bannon regarding the Jan. 6 committee chairman. “He’s made it a crime, not a civil charge … have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.”
“I will promise you one thing when the Republicans that are sweeping to victory on Nov. 8 — starting in January, you’re going to get a real committee,” Bannon said. “We’re going to get a real committee with a ranking member who will be a Democrat … and this will be run
appropriately and the American people will get the full story.”
The first witness for the prosecution, Kristin Amerling of the Jan. 6 committee, testified that a subpoena is not voluntary.
Amerling, the Jan. 6 panel’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, read aloud the congressional resolution creating the committee and explained that the committee’s role is to recommend “corrective measures” to prevent future attacks like the one on Jan. 6.
“Is a subpoena voluntary in any way?” asked prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
“No,” Amerling replied.
Amerling also discussed how important it is to get information in a timely manner because the committee’s authority runs out at the end of the year. “There is an urgency to the focus of the Select Committee’s work … we have a limited amount of time in which to gather information,” she said.
Amerling noted that Bannon was subpoenaed pretty early on in the committee’s investigation.
She said the committee subpoenaed Bannon in particular because public accounts indicated that Bannon tried to persuade the public that the 2020 election was “illegitimate”; that on his podcast the day before Jan. 6 he made statements “including that all hell was going to break loose, that suggested he might have some advance knowledge of the events of Jan. 6”; that he was involved in discussions with White House officials, including Trump himself, relating to “strategies surrounding the events of Jan. 6”; and that he had been involved in discussions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 with “private parties who had gathered in the Willard hotel in Washington, D.C., reportedly to discuss strategies around efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power or overturning the election results.”
“Is that something that would have been relevant to the committee’s investigation?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, because the Select Committee was tasked with trying to understand what happened on Jan. 6, and why,” Amerling replied.
Amerling will be back on the stand Wednesday morning when the trial resumes.
Jul 19, 3:55 PM EDT
Defense tells jury ‘there was no ignoring the subpoena’
Bannon’s defense attorney Matt “Evan” Corcoran said in his opening statement that “no one ignored the subpoena” issued to Bannon, and that “there was direct engagement by Bob Costello,” Bannon’s attorney, with the House committee, specifically committee staffer Kristin Amerling.
He said Costello “immediately” communicated to the committee that there was an objection to the subpoena, “and that Steve Bannon could not appear and that he could not provide documents.”
“So there was no ignoring the subpoena,” Corcoran said. What followed was “a considerable back and forth” between Amerling and Costello — “they did what two lawyers do, they negotiated.”
Corcoran said, “the government wants you to believe … that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up to a congressional hearing room … but the evidence is going to be crystal clear no one, no one believed Mr. Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021,” and the reasons he couldn’t appear had been articulated to the committee.
Corcoran told the jury that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable that Steve Bannon willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear for the deposition on Oct. 14, 2021 — “but you’ll find from the evidence that that date on the subpoena was the subject of ongoing discussions” and it was not “fixed.”
In addition, Corcoran told jurors, you will hear that “almost every single one” of the witnesses subpoenaed led to negotiations between committee staff and lawyers, and often the appearance would be at a later date than what was on the subpoena.
Corcoran also argued that the prosecution may have been infected by politics, telling the jury that with each document or each statement provided at trial, they should ask themselves: “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
Jul 19, 3:31 PM EDT
Prosecutors say Bannon’s failure to comply was deliberate
Continuing her opening statement, federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that the subpoena to Bannon directed him to provide documents by the morning of Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition the morning of Oct. 14, 2021 — but instead he had an attorney, Robert Costello, send a letter to the committee informing the committee that he would not comply “in any way,” she said.
“The excuse the defendant gave for not complying” was the claim that “a privilege” meant he didn’t have to turn over certain information, Vaughn said. “[But] it’s not up to the defendant or anyone else to decide if he can ignore the [request] based on a privilege, it’s up to the committee.”
And, said Vaughn, the committee clearly told Bannon that “your privilege does not get you out of this one, you have to provide documents, and you have to come to your deposition.” And importantly, she said, the committee told Bannon that “a refusal to comply” could result in criminal prosecution.
“You will see, the defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate here,” Vaughn told the jury. “The only verdict that is supported by the evidence here: that the defendant showed his contempt for the U.S. Congress, and that he’s guilty.”
Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn began opening statements by saying, “In September of last year, Congress needed information from the defendant, Steve Bannon. … Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan. 6, 2021. … Congress had gotten information that the defendant might have some details about the events leading up to that day and what occurred that day.”
So, Vaughn told the jury, Congress gave Bannon a subpoena “that mandated” he provide any information he might have.
“Congress was entitled to the information it sought, it wasn’t optional,” Vaughn said. “But as you will learn in this trial, the defendant refused to hand over the information he might have.”
Vaughn said Bannon ignored “multiple warnings” that he could face criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena and for preventing the government from getting “important information.”
“The defendant decided he was above the law and decided he didn’t need to follow the government’s orders,” she said.
Jul 19, 2:51 PM EDT
Judge instructs jury of the burden of proof
Prior to opening statements, the judge made clear to the jury that the Justice Department has the burden to prove four distinct elements “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
(1) that Bannon was in fact subpoenaed for testimony and/or documents;
(2) that the testimony and/or documents were “pertinent” to the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation;
(3) that Bannon “failed to comply or refused to comply” with the subpoena;
(4) that the “failure or refusal to comply was willful.”
Jul 19, 2:44 PM EDT
Jury sworn in after judge denies continuance
A 14-member jury has been sworn in for the contempt trial of ex-Trump strategist Steve Bannon.
Of the 14 jurors, nine are men and five are women.
The swearing-in of the jury comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a one-month delay of the trial, which attorneys for Bannon argued was necessary due to a “seismic shift in the understanding of the parties” of what the government’s evidence will be.
“We have a jury that is just about picked,” Nichols said in denying the request for a one-month continuance.
One of the jurors, a man who works for an appliance company, said Monday during jury selection that he watched the first Jan. 6 committee hearing and believes the committee is “trying to find the truth about what happened” on Jan. 6.
Another juror, a man who works as a maintenance manager for the Washington, D.C., Parks and Recreation department, said he believes what happened on Jan. 6 “doesn’t make sense.”
Another juror, a woman who works as a photographer for NASA, said “a lot” of her “photographer friends were at the Capitol” on Jan. 6, and she has watched some of the Jan. 6 hearings on the news.
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday he would like to see the upper chamber now vote on legislation to codify the right to same-sex and interracial marriage after 47 Republicans joined Democrats in the House in approving the measure on Tuesday night.
Schumer said during a floor speech that he was “really impressed by how much bipartisan support it got in the House.” He added: “I want to bring this bill to the floor. And we’re working to get the necessary Senate Republican support to ensure it would pass.”
President Joe Biden also wants the Senate to take up the measure quickly, with his aides saying senators should “act swiftly” in sending the bill to him for his signature.
“We need this legislation, and we urge Congress to move as quickly as possible,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said aboard Air Force One on Wednesday. “It’s something the vast majority of the country support, just like they support restoring Roe [v. Wade], stopping a national abortion ban and protecting the right to use contraception.”
Calls for swiftly bringing the legislation to the floor come amid some concern that the Senate’s legislative calendar is too full to take up the bill before a month-long recess that begins on Aug. 5.
“We have more priorities than we have time,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, said on Tuesday.
Schumer needs at least 10 Republicans to join the 50 members of the Democratic caucus and avoid a filibuster of a vote. Conservative Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia told reporters on Wednesday that he did not have a problem with the measure but needed to see the fine print in the bill, according to a spokeswoman.
Bill co-sponsor Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said there was “a possibility” that 10 Republicans would vote for it, though the extent of Senate GOP support is currently unclear. In the House, 77% of Republicans rejected the measure, including leadership.
“I think that’s obvious,” Portman said Wednesday when asked if Republican views on same-sex marriage were shifting. His own position changed in 2013 when he revealed that his son is gay.
While some congressional Republicans have argued the bill over-states the danger to national marriage rights and is being used as political tool, Portman said the bill sends an important message even if it fails to gain the necessary support.
Senate Republican whip John Thune told reporters that he “would not be surprised” if enough of his conference supported the proposal, adding that he likely would not push his members to oppose it. But the conservative from South Dakota said the matter was nothing more than a political distraction.
“I don’t think it’s an issue right now that anybody’s talking about,” Thune said. “I think this is an issue that Democrats have concocted because they like to shift the subject from inflation and gas prices and the [southern] border and other issues.”
After expressing reservations about the bill to ABC News on Tuesday, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, told reporters on Wednesday he was “looking at the bill and probably will” support it.
GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ted Cruz of Texas ignored reporter questions about how they may vote.
Known as the Respect for Marriage Act, the same-sex and interracial marriage legislation comes as the House takes up a series of bills that seek to codify unenumerated constitutional rights extended by the Supreme Court, including the right to same-sex marriage and access to contraception for married couples.
Abortion access was another such right until the high court reversed Roe last month.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurrence in that case that the court should next reverse its ruling on same-sex marriage and contraception access.
This week, the House is also set to vote on a bill that would protect access to contraception after it approved legislation last week to codify a women’s right to an abortion. The fate of those bills in the Senate is not clear.
ABC News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Steve Bannon, who served as former President Donald Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, is on trial for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September of last year, with the committee telling him it had “reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged Bannon with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, setting up this week’s trial.
Here is how the news is developing. All times are Eastern:
Jul 20, 3:48 PM EDT
Defense argues Bannon was constrained by questions over executive privilege
In the defense’s ongoing cross examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling, attorney Evan Corcoran continued to stress how Bannon was prevented from testifying due to the right of executive privilege that protects confidential communication with members of the executive branch.
But Amerling testified that there are two main issues with such a claim.
First, she said, some of what the subpoena requested “had nothing to do with communication with the former president” and “could not possibly be reached by executive privilege” — especially Bannon’s communications with campaign advisers, members of Congress and other private parties, as well as information related to Bannon’s podcast, she testified.
In addition, despite what others may have said, “The president had not formally or informally invoked executive privilege,” Amerling said. “It hadn’t been invoked.”
Yet Bannon still refused to comply with the subpoena, despite having no legal grounds to do so, she said.
Amerling reiterated that by the time the committee met to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, “there had been extensive back-and-forth already between the select committee and the defendant’s attorney about the issue of executive privilege, and the select committee had made its position clear.”
Corcoran also argued that Bannon didn’t comply with the subpoena right away because he expected the deadline would ultimately change, due to the fact that it’s common for subpoena deadlines to shift.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon’s situation was different.
“When witnesses are cooperating with the committee and indicate they are willing to provide testimony, it is not unusual to have some back-and-forth about the dates that they will appear,” she said. However, she said, “it is very unusual for witnesses who receive a subpoena to say outright they will not comply.”
In his questions, Corcoran also suggested that Amerling might be a biased witness, noting that she had donated to Democratic causes in the past, and that she is a member of the same book club as one of the prosecutors in the case, Molly Gaston.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” Corcoran asked.
“We are,” Amerling replied.
Amerling said that it had been some time — perhaps as much as a year or more — since she and Gaston both attended a meeting of the club. But she conceded that, with the types of people who are in the book club, it was “not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Jul 20, 12:55 PM EDT
Defense attorney presses Jan. 6 staffer on timing of subpoena deadline
Under cross-examination from Bannon defense attorney Evan Corcoran, House Jan. 6 committee senior staffer Kristin Amerling was pressed on why the committee set the deadlines it did for Bannon to comply with the subpoena — especially since “the select committee is still receiving and reviewing documents” now, Corcoran said.
Corcoran pressed Amerling over who specifically decided that Bannon should have to produce documents by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, and who specifically decided that Bannon should have to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2021.
Amerling said that the “process” of drafting the subpoena involved many people, including senior staff like herself, but it was all ultimately approved by committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
“To the best of my recollection, because of the multiple roles that we understood Mr. Bannon potentially had with respect to the events of Jan. 6, at the time that we put the subpoena together, there was a general interest in obtaining information from him expeditiously, because we believed this information could potentially lead us to other relevant witnesses or other relevant documents,” Amerling said. “There was general interest in including deadlines that required expeditious response.”
“The committee authorization is just through the end of this year,” so it is operating under “a very tight timeframe,” she said.
Corcoran also said he wanted to made clear to the jury that, as he put it, “in this case, there is no allegation that Steve Bannon was involved in the attack” on the Capitol.
Earlier, Amerling testified that the committee tried to give Bannon “an opportunity” to explain his “misconduct” in ignoring the subpoena and to provide “information that might shed light on his misconduct, such as he might have been confused” about the subpoena — but Bannon never presented any such explanation or information before he was found in contempt, she said.
Jul 20, 11:17 AM EDT
Jan. 6 staffer says panel ‘rejected the basis’ for Bannon’s privilege claim
Kristin Amerling, a senior staffer on the House Jan. 6 committee, returned to the stand to continue her testimony from Tuesday. She testified that Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that his non-compliance “would force” the committee to refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution.
She said the subpoena issued to Bannon indicated he was “required to produce” records encompassing 17 specific categories, including records related to the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, his communications with Trump allies and several right-wing groups, his communications with Republican lawmakers, and information related to his “War Room” podcast.
The committee was seeking to understand “the relationships or potential relationships between different individuals and organizations that played a role in Jan. 6,” Amerling said. “We wanted to ask him what he knew.”
Asked by prosecutor Amanda Vaughn if Bannon provided any records to the committee by the deadline of 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, Amerling replied, “He did not.”
“Did the committee get anything more than radio silence by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7?” Vaughn asked.
“No,” said Amerling.
Amerling said that in a correspondence she received that day at about 5 p.m. — after the deadline had passed — Bannon’s attorney at the time, Robert Costello, claimed that Trump had “announced his intention to assert” executive privilege, which Costello said at the time rendered Bannon “unable to respond” to the subpoena “until these issues are resolved.”
But the next day, Amerling recalled on the stand, she sent Costello a letter from Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson, “explaining that the committee rejected the basis that he had offered for refusing to comply.”
“Did the letter also tell the defendant he still had to comply?” Vaughn asked Amerling.
“Yes, it did.” Amerling said.
“Did the letter warn the defendant what might happen if he failed to comply with the subpoena?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, it did,” said Amerling.
The letter was “establishing a clear record of the committee’s views, making sure the defendant was aware of that,” Amerling testified.
Jul 20, 10:06 AM EDT
Judge won’t let trial become ‘political circus,’ he says
Federal prosecutors in Steve Bannon’s contempt trial raised concerns with the judge that Bannon’s team has been suggesting to the jury that this is a “politically motivated prosecution” before the second day of testimony got underway Wednesday morning.
Before the jury was brought in, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to make sure the jury “doesn’t hear one more word about this case being” politically motivated, after she said the defense’s opening statement Tuesday had “clear implications” that the defense was making that claim.
Nichols had barred such arguments from the trial.
In response, defense attorney Evan Corcoran defended his opening statement, saying it “was clearly on the line.”
Nichols then made it clear that during trial, the defense team may ask witnesses questions about whether they themselves may be biased — “but may not ask questions about whether someone else was biased in an action they took outside this courtroom.”
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus,” Nichols said.
Speaking to reporters after the first full day in court, Bannon blasted members of the Jan. 6 committee and House Democrats for not showing up as witnesses in his trial.
“Where is Bennie Thompson?” asked Bannon regarding the Jan. 6 committee chairman. “He’s made it a crime, not a civil charge … have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.”
“I will promise you one thing when the Republicans that are sweeping to victory on Nov. 8 — starting in January, you’re going to get a real committee,” Bannon said. “We’re going to get a real committee with a ranking member who will be a Democrat … and this will be run
appropriately and the American people will get the full story.”
The first witness for the prosecution, Kristin Amerling of the Jan. 6 committee, testified that a subpoena is not voluntary.
Amerling, the Jan. 6 panel’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, read aloud the congressional resolution creating the committee and explained that the committee’s role is to recommend “corrective measures” to prevent future attacks like the one on Jan. 6.
“Is a subpoena voluntary in any way?” asked prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
“No,” Amerling replied.
Amerling also discussed how important it is to get information in a timely manner because the committee’s authority runs out at the end of the year. “There is an urgency to the focus of the Select Committee’s work … we have a limited amount of time in which to gather information,” she said.
Amerling noted that Bannon was subpoenaed pretty early on in the committee’s investigation.
She said the committee subpoenaed Bannon in particular because public accounts indicated that Bannon tried to persuade the public that the 2020 election was “illegitimate”; that on his podcast the day before Jan. 6 he made statements “including that all hell was going to break loose, that suggested he might have some advance knowledge of the events of Jan. 6”; that he was involved in discussions with White House officials, including Trump himself, relating to “strategies surrounding the events of Jan. 6”; and that he had been involved in discussions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 with “private parties who had gathered in the Willard hotel in Washington, D.C., reportedly to discuss strategies around efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power or overturning the election results.”
“Is that something that would have been relevant to the committee’s investigation?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, because the Select Committee was tasked with trying to understand what happened on Jan. 6, and why,” Amerling replied.
Amerling will be back on the stand Wednesday morning when the trial resumes.
Jul 19, 3:55 PM EDT
Defense tells jury ‘there was no ignoring the subpoena’
Bannon’s defense attorney Matt “Evan” Corcoran said in his opening statement that “no one ignored the subpoena” issued to Bannon, and that “there was direct engagement by Bob Costello,” Bannon’s attorney, with the House committee, specifically committee staffer Kristin Amerling.
He said Costello “immediately” communicated to the committee that there was an objection to the subpoena, “and that Steve Bannon could not appear and that he could not provide documents.”
“So there was no ignoring the subpoena,” Corcoran said. What followed was “a considerable back and forth” between Amerling and Costello — “they did what two lawyers do, they negotiated.”
Corcoran said, “the government wants you to believe … that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up to a congressional hearing room … but the evidence is going to be crystal clear no one, no one believed Mr. Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021,” and the reasons he couldn’t appear had been articulated to the committee.
Corcoran told the jury that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable that Steve Bannon willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear for the deposition on Oct. 14, 2021 — “but you’ll find from the evidence that that date on the subpoena was the subject of ongoing discussions” and it was not “fixed.”
In addition, Corcoran told jurors, you will hear that “almost every single one” of the witnesses subpoenaed led to negotiations between committee staff and lawyers, and often the appearance would be at a later date than what was on the subpoena.
Corcoran also argued that the prosecution may have been infected by politics, telling the jury that with each document or each statement provided at trial, they should ask themselves: “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
Jul 19, 3:31 PM EDT
Prosecutors say Bannon’s failure to comply was deliberate
Continuing her opening statement, federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that the subpoena to Bannon directed him to provide documents by the morning of Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition the morning of Oct. 14, 2021 — but instead he had an attorney, Robert Costello, send a letter to the committee informing the committee that he would not comply “in any way,” she said.
“The excuse the defendant gave for not complying” was the claim that “a privilege” meant he didn’t have to turn over certain information, Vaughn said. “[But] it’s not up to the defendant or anyone else to decide if he can ignore the [request] based on a privilege, it’s up to the committee.”
And, said Vaughn, the committee clearly told Bannon that “your privilege does not get you out of this one, you have to provide documents, and you have to come to your deposition.” And importantly, she said, the committee told Bannon that “a refusal to comply” could result in criminal prosecution.
“You will see, the defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate here,” Vaughn told the jury. “The only verdict that is supported by the evidence here: that the defendant showed his contempt for the U.S. Congress, and that he’s guilty.”
Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn began opening statements by saying, “In September of last year, Congress needed information from the defendant, Steve Bannon. … Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan. 6, 2021. … Congress had gotten information that the defendant might have some details about the events leading up to that day and what occurred that day.”
So, Vaughn told the jury, Congress gave Bannon a subpoena “that mandated” he provide any information he might have.
“Congress was entitled to the information it sought, it wasn’t optional,” Vaughn said. “But as you will learn in this trial, the defendant refused to hand over the information he might have.”
Vaughn said Bannon ignored “multiple warnings” that he could face criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena and for preventing the government from getting “important information.”
“The defendant decided he was above the law and decided he didn’t need to follow the government’s orders,” she said.
Jul 19, 2:51 PM EDT
Judge instructs jury of the burden of proof
Prior to opening statements, the judge made clear to the jury that the Justice Department has the burden to prove four distinct elements “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
(1) that Bannon was in fact subpoenaed for testimony and/or documents;
(2) that the testimony and/or documents were “pertinent” to the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation;
(3) that Bannon “failed to comply or refused to comply” with the subpoena;
(4) that the “failure or refusal to comply was willful.”
Jul 19, 2:44 PM EDT
Jury sworn in after judge denies continuance
A 14-member jury has been sworn in for the contempt trial of ex-Trump strategist Steve Bannon.
Of the 14 jurors, nine are men and five are women.
The swearing-in of the jury comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a one-month delay of the trial, which attorneys for Bannon argued was necessary due to a “seismic shift in the understanding of the parties” of what the government’s evidence will be.
“We have a jury that is just about picked,” Nichols said in denying the request for a one-month continuance.
One of the jurors, a man who works for an appliance company, said Monday during jury selection that he watched the first Jan. 6 committee hearing and believes the committee is “trying to find the truth about what happened” on Jan. 6.
Another juror, a man who works as a maintenance manager for the Washington, D.C., Parks and Recreation department, said he believes what happened on Jan. 6 “doesn’t make sense.”
Another juror, a woman who works as a photographer for NASA, said “a lot” of her “photographer friends were at the Capitol” on Jan. 6, and she has watched some of the Jan. 6 hearings on the news.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced a few executive actions to address climate change, with a focus on helping Americans facing extreme heat — but the steps fall short of the more sweeping measures climate activists are calling for.
While Biden didn’t declare a climate national emergency on Wednesday, as many activists and Democratic lawmakers encouraged him to do, he strongly suggested he would do so soon.
“Now let me be clear, climate change is an emergency and in the coming weeks, I’m going to use the power I have as president to turn these words into formal, official government actions through the appropriate proclamations, executive orders and regulatory power that the president possess,” he said. “When it comes to fighting climate change I will not take no for an answer.”
For now,, the directives largely appear to provide more funding to or otherwise strengthen existing programs.
According to the White House, the president’s latest set of executive actions focus on “protecting communities facing extreme heat with additional FY22 funding for FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and additional guidance to support the Department of Health and Human Services Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).” The BRIC program offers funding to communities for hazard mitigation, while the LIHEAP provides low-income Americans with assistance in covering their energy costs.
Biden also announced additional actions to boost the domestic offshore wind industry.
Biden made the announcements while visiting a now-defunct coal-fired power plant, called Brayton Point, in Somerset, Massachusetts. The site is expected to be turned into a manufacturing plant that will produce transmission cables for Massachusetts’ offshore wind industry, according to the White House.
“I come here today with a message,” Biden said. “As president I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger, and that’s what climate change is about.”
Biden continued, “It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger. The health of our citizens and our communities is literally at stake.”
A White House official told reporters that Wednesday’s actions are a “continuation of the decisive steps on climate that the president has taken since day one.”
The Biden administration’s efforts to continue to pivot the U.S. power sector toward zero-emission energy options, such as off-shore wind, move the country in the right direction but don’t address the larger problem of cutting and reducing current energy-based emissions from the existing fossil fuel industry. Without continuing to cut and reduce current emissions from a range of polluting areas, it will take much more than empowering renewable energy and improving building efficiency to reach Biden’s climate goals.
Wednesday’s announcements come as people across the United States — and around the world — grapple with sweltering temperatures this week. A scorching airmass remains over the majority of the continental U.S. on Wednesday, with a heat dome sitting over the Southwest and Great Plains and triple-digit temperatures stretching throughout the Midwest and up and down the East Coast.
ABC News’ Julia Jacobo and Tracy Wholf contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Gov. Larry Hogan is a popular Republican who won two statewide elections in Democratic-leaning Maryland — but his full-throated endorsement didn’t mean enough to the Republican base in Tuesday’s primary.
Hogan’s preferred candidate, his former Commerce Secretary Kelly Schulz, is projected to lose the GOP nod to succeed Hogan.
Instead, primary voters chose state Del. Dan Cox, a vocal critic of Hogan’s policies — in particular restrictions to combat COVID-19 — who was backed by former President Donald Trump, another Hogan foe. The governor, in turn, assailed Cox as a right-wing “conspiracy theorist.”
Hogan, a moderate who twice won over a majority of voters in a blue state, hoped to see a similar politician win the nomination to continue the GOP’s control of the governorship.
But Trump, as he has done to mixed success in other state primaries, weighed in to support the more conservative choice and relished the chance to punish a Republican critic.
It was Cox — who criticized the 2020 elections results; opposes abortion and restrictions on guns; and who has campaigned heavily against government’s role in public life, including COVID lockdowns and changes in education — who won out.
“RINO Larry Hogan’s Endorsement doesn’t seem to be working out so well for his heavily favored candidate,” Trump said in a statement after Tuesday’s race. “Next, I’d love to see Larry run for President!”
In remarks on Tuesday night, Cox said, “President Trump didn’t have to come alongside an outsider, a newcomer so to speak. Somebody that believed in his vision of America first. A person that believed in it for each one of us. But he did.”
Soon, Hogan’s office was telling reporters that he would not vote for Cox in November.
And, according to The Baltimore Sun, Schulz adviser Doug Mayer spoke sharply about who the base had chosen: “The Maryland Republican Party got together and committed ritualized mass suicide. The only thing missing was Jim Jones and a glass of Kool-Aid. I hope it was a good party.”
This year’s primary season has seen the next phase of the GOP’s political identity slowly form, race by race, across the country.
In Maryland as in some other states, like Arizona and Georgia, a relative sliver of high-profile Republicans have decided to challenge the Trump-backed candidates, many of whom baselessly question the 2020 election as he does or who run further to the right of the general electorate.
In Georgia, for example, the Trump choice lost handily. In Illinois and in Maryland, it was the reverse.
While that narrows the lane for local anti-Trump Republicans, some Democrats hope the victory of more right-wing nominees will give them a boost in the November midterms.
In Maryland as elsewhere, Democratic groups spent big on advertising in the Republican primary trying to raise the profile of Cox as the more conservative choice in a state with blue-leaning voters.
Observers says they may be right: The day after the primary, the Cook Political Report changed its rating for the Maryland governor from “lean Democrat” to “Solid Democrat.”
In a press conference earlier this month, Hogan blasted the Democratic Governors Association decision to advertise about Cox, saying Democrats were “spending over $1 million … [because they] desperately want [Cox] to be the Republican nominee.”
Cox reportedly attended that press conference, occasionally shouting back at the governor and at Schulz, then later posted a series of videos on social media that called the event “laughable” and “hilarious.”
So where does Tuesday’s result leave more moderate Republicans like Hogan? He has been pointed and emphatic about his hopes for the party repudiating Trump — as epitomized during a speech at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California this past May.
“The last four years were the worst four years for the GOP Party since the 1930s, even worse than after Watergate when Ronald Reagan had to rebuild the party from the ashes,” Hogan said in remarks about the future of the Republican party. “We lost the White House, the Senate, the House. We lost governors’ seats, and state legislative bodies. Trump said we would be winning so much we’d would get tired of winning. Well, I’m tired of our party losing.”
Republican voters, though, aren’t tired of Trump. While a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, showed half of the party preferred someone else as a potential 2024 candidate, Trump was still the overwhelming favorite among a hypothetical field of candidates.
And a significant number of Republican candidates have found primary success sowing the same sorts of doubts that Trump embraces and that Hogan warned against. According to data collected by FiveThirtyEight, at least 120 election-denying candidates who ran for all sorts of down-ballot offices advanced from their primaries and will be on the general election ticket in November.
Cox likewise attacked the 2020 election. He called former Vice President Mike Pence a “traitor” for certifying the 2020 election results in now-deleted tweets. (He later apologized.) He also organized buses to drive Maryland residents to Trump’s rally on Jan. 6, 2021, though he said he didn’t go to the Capitol and denounced the rioting that broke out there.
Schulz’s loss is deflating for Hogan for another reason: He opted-out of a run for Senate but has yet to take a presidential bid off the table, citing his belief that he has a winning brand of Republican politics.
In an interview with CBS News earlier this month, Hogan said “more and more people are encouraging” him to consider campaigning.
“There’s a diminishing number of folks that are wanting the former President Trump to run,” he told CBS. “There’s a growing number of people that are looking for our kind of successful, bigger-tent politics.”
ABC News’ Alisa Wiersema contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — As the House committee probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol continues to reveal how it says then-President Donald Trump and his allies worked to overturn the 2020 election, a bipartisan group of senators has quietly reached agreement on a sweeping effort to overhaul the very law at the heart of the former president’s effort — the Electoral Count Act of 1887 — and was set to unveil a bill Wednesday.
The ambiguous 19th century law attempts to prescribe both the process by which the Electoral College selects the president and vice president and how Congress then counts those votes.
The senators hope to address the apparent loopholes and vagueness in the bill, problems laid bare last year on Jan. 6 when Trump’s congressional supporters tried to overturn the results in five states that voted for Joe Biden and the committee says Trump attempted to pressure his own vice president to hijack what is normally a ceremonial role in overseeing the certifying of each state’s slate of electoral votes, a move that fueled the Capitol insurrection.
The bipartisan group of 16 senators, nine Republicans and seven Democrats, led by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and including Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a joint statement, “From the beginning, our bipartisan group has shared a vision of drafting legislation to fix the flaws of the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887. Through numerous meetings and debates among our colleagues as well as conversations with a wide variety of election experts and legal scholars, we have developed legislation that establishes clear guidelines for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes for President and Vice President. We urge our colleagues in both parties to support these simple, commonsense reforms.”
The new legislation, the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA), would enshrine the vice president’s “ministerial” role rendering that person powerless to alter the electoral count; dramatically raise the number of congressional objectors required to challenge a state’s results to 20%, or one-fifth of members, in both chambers — a jump from the current requirement of one in each house; clarify that states may not select electors after Election Day; and dictate what happens if an alternate slate of electors is presented to Congress, according to a one-sheet released from the group.
The bill text, according to an aide familiar with the matter, is nearly done and is expected to be released soon.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence ignored the pressure campaign Trump and his allies mounted and certified the electoral totals from each state, but the Senate group in its release states that the bill “affirmatively states that the constitutional role of the Vice President, as the presiding officer of the joint meeting of Congress, is solely ministerial and that he or she does not have any power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.”
Additionally, the new legislation seeks to stop any state from sending a false slate of electors, as was part of a plan by Trump’s allies in the wake of Joe Biden’s win in 2020.
“We define who is the official at the state level for submitting the slate and that is the governor, unless the state law or state Constitution indicates otherwise,” Collins told reporters Tuesday, adding that the state “would not be able to change who submits the change (to Congress) after the election.”
“Congress could not accept a slate submitted by a different official. This reform would address the potential for multiple state officials to send Congress competing slates,” the release states.
The Maine GOP moderate said the bill states that under the Constitution or under federal laws “an aggrieved candidate could bring a lawsuit and challenge any kind of due process challenge, for example, and there would be a process for expedited consideration in the courts.”
In addition to those changes to the 1887 law, the Senate group reached back to an 1845 law, the Presidential Election Day Act, to strike what it calls “an archaic” provision “that could be used by state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by declaring a ‘failed election’ –- a term that is not defined in the law,” the group’s release states. Current law states that if electors are not chosen by Election Day in November, states may appoint electors in a manner they choose.
“Instead, this legislation specifies that a state could move its presidential election day, which otherwise would remain the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November every four years, only if necessitated by ‘extraordinary and catastrophic’ events,” according to the release.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told ABC News that his portion of the ECRA dealt with the problem that cropped up just days after the 2020 election in which a Trump appointee at the General Services Administration — a little-recognized federal agency that normally unlocks millions of dollars for office space, equipment, and government staff for a presidential transition — refused to send a letter recognizing Joe Biden as the president-elect.
That provision “would allow an eligible candidate, during the limited time period in which the outcome of a presidential election is reasonably in dispute, to receive transition resources, removing the need for the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration to ascertain the apparent winner during this time,” the release states.
The group goes on to define a sole election winner as someone who “receives the majority of pledged electoral votes and there are no further legal or administrative actions pertaining to the results; receives the majority of electoral votes at the meeting of electors in December following the election; or is formally elected at the joint meeting of Congress on January 6.”
In addition to the ECRA, a slimmer bipartisan group also introduced the “Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act” to deal with the unprecedented rise in threats against poll workers and other election officials.
This measure would “double the penalty under federal law for individuals who threaten or intimidate election officials, poll watchers, voters, or candidates. Under current law, threats of violence or intimidation against these individuals are punishable by no more than one year in prison. This penalty would be raised to no more than two years in prison,” the release states. Additionally, the measure seeks to improve the handling of election-related mail, and — though there was no widespread evidence of fraud, like voting system tampering, despite Trump’s false claims to the contrary — “increase the existing maximum penalties for individuals who willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter election records from $1,000 to $10,000 and from up to one year in prison to up to two years in prison. In addition, it would make it illegal to tamper with voting systems,” according to the release.
Both parties have, in recent years, sought — largely through symbolic challenges — to use the arcane 1887 election law to partisan advantage in what is usually a simple, barely-noticed ceremony of formalities at the heart of a peaceful transfer of power in the U.S, and the legislation introduced Wednesday is also designed to close the door on some of that. Democrats did it in 2001 and 2017 during the joint session of Congress after bitter electoral outcomes that saw their party out of power in the White House.
After the 2020 election, however, Trump and his congressional allies’ outsized effort — without evidence to back their claims of election fraud — moved Congress to finally act. After a violent, pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, the culmination of a months-long effort to reverse the election results, as GOP lawmakers challenged the results of Arizona’s vote for Joe Biden, many senators abandoned the effort – though six conservatives, led by Missouri’s Josh Hawley, ultimately stuck with it.
Collins’ effort began in earnest in January and has included an influential roster in the Senate, from the more consensus-minded, like GOP Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ohio’s Rob Portman, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Republicans more supportive of Trump, like Graham, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis and Indiana’s Todd Young. Democrats, primarily led by Joe Manchin of West Virginia, include Virginia’s Mark Warner, Biden ally Chris Coons of Delaware, Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.
The participation of Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, a progressive fresh off a major bipartisan win reforming the nation’s gun laws, was a surprise to many at first, with a number of participants — from Republican to Democrat — eventually expressing admiration for his ability to forge consensus.
“At first, I was really skeptical of Chris’ involvement. I thought, ‘No way. He’s a ringer for (Senate Majority Leader Chuck) Schumer.’ But seriously, he was constructive, thoughtful,” said one Republican senator who asked to speak on background of the group’s deliberations.
The group is aiming to present their work in two parts – with the core of the bill going to the Rules Committee which has jurisdiction over election law.
On Tuesday, that panel’s chair, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, told ABC News that she planned to hold hearings on the bill and allow her members to consider the legislation and potentially make changes. The rest of the bill would go to the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who strongly rebuked Trump and his fellow Republicans for attempting to stop the orderly transfer of power, said he has kept close tabs on what the group is doing and is “generally supportive.” If he were to support the bill, that could have great sway over his conference and give cover to those who might fear a Trump backlash.
Earlier this year, McConnell, R-Ky., told ABC of the Electoral Count Act, “I think it needs fixing, and I wish them well, and I’d be happy to take a look at whatever they can come up with.” Asked for any red lines in those negotiations, the leader said, “I just encourage the discussion, because I think [the ECA] clearly is flawed. This is directly related to what happened on January 6th, and I think we ought to be able to figure out a bipartisan way to fix it.”
