Politics

(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, 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.

Jul 19, 6:14 PM EDT
Bannon, outside courtroom, criticizes Jan. 6 panel

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.”

-Laura Romero and Soo Rin Kim

Jul 19, 5:23 PM EDT
A subpoena isn’t voluntary, says prosecution witness

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.”

Jul 19, 2:58 PM EDT
Prosecution begins opening statements

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.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Ukraine’s first lady Olena Zelenska, highlighting the civilian victims of war in her country, implored Congress to provide additional weapons and air defense systems to Ukraine as Russia’s invasion heads into its sixth month.

“You help us and your help is very strong,” Zelenska said in a rare address by a first lady to U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, via a translator. “While Russia kills, America saves, and you should know about it. But unfortunately, the war is not over.”

The Ukrainian first lady arrived at the Capitol Visitors Center Congressional Auditorium with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shortly after 11 a.m. on Wednesday. Pelosi introduced Zelenska, stating the Congress is “honored” to welcome her from the war zone.

Zelenska’s remarks came as Vladimir Putin’s forces ramp up attacks and missile strikes on Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions.

“Usually the wives of the president are exclusively engaged in peaceful affairs — education, human rights, equality, accessibility — and maybe you expected from me to speak on those topics,” she said. “But how can I talk about them when an unprovoked, invasive terrorist war is being waged against my country?”

“Russia is destroying our people,” she said.

The first lady spoke about the conflict’s toll on women and children. She has been separated from her husband, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for much of the time since the war broke out in February.

She told lawmakers she wanted to address them not just as politicians but as mothers, fathers, sons and daughters as she displayed images of some of the children killed in the conflict — including a 4-year-old named Liza who was killed in a Russian missile strike in the city of Vinnytsia last week.

While the slideshow of war casualties played behind her, Zelenska told lawmakers: “Those are Russia’s ‘hunger games’ — hunting for peaceful people in peaceful cities of Ukraine.”

A photograph of Liza’s stroller on the ground after the attack was shown to lawmakers on the screen behind Zelenska.

“I’m asking for air defense systems in order for rockets not to kill children in their strollers, in order for rockets not to destroy children’s rooms and kill entire families,” she said.

Lawmakers in May passed a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine for military and economic assistance.

Zelenska made many stops in Washington this week, holding meetings with high-profile officials including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power.

On Tuesday, she met with U.S. first lady Jill Biden at the White House for a bilateral meeting.

President Zelesnkyy said on Tuesday he expects from his wife’s visit “significant results for Ukraine in cooperation with America. ​​It is important right now.”

“I really believe that it will be heard by those on whom decision-making in the US depends,” Zelenskyy said of his wife’s address to Congress.

Zelenskyy addressed U.S. lawmakers himself virtually in March, receiving a standing ovation after invoking Pearl Harbor in his plea for additional military aid.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Democrats’ campaign arm outraised its Republican counterpart in the second quarter of 2022 amid a fierce battle for control of the upper chamber, which is split 50-50.

In numbers shared first with ABC News, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) said Tuesday it drew $33.5 million in donations from April to June, of which $12.5 million was raised in June alone. The group finished June with more than $53.5 million in the bank and has no debt, it said.

Comparatively, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) previously announced that it raised $25.6 million in the second quarter of 2022 and finished June with $28.5 million cash on hand. It also had no debt, it said.

“The DSCC’s record breaking fundraising continues to be powered by strong, energized grassroots supporters who recognize the stakes of this election — and are committed to protecting and expanding our Democratic Senate Majority that is fighting to address working families’ most pressing priorities,” DSCC Executive Director Christie Roberts said in a statement.

An NRSC spokesperson said in their own statement that “the NRSC has broken fundraising records and are spending money early to define the Democrats. Meanwhile, Democrats are blowing money defending weak incumbents in states that Joe Biden won by double digits. No amount of money can save Democrats from themselves.”

The dueling hauls indicate both parties will be flush with cash heading into November. They are also both expressing optimism about their ability to control the Senate in the next Congress — when Democrats hope to preserve their bare majority while Republicans look to capitalize on President Joe Biden’s sagging approval and other political headwinds, like high inflation.

Democrats say they saw a surge in donations last month after the Supreme Court scrapped constitutional protections for abortion. The DSCC said the day of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade marked its strongest day of online fundraising so far this cycle, with the day after marking the second-best day of online fundraising.

Democrats are hoping that social issues like abortion and gun reform will energize a base that polls show has been depressed heading into the midterms, with Biden’s approval ratings stuck under 40%, according to the FiveThirtyEight average.

The core Senate battleground map has Democrats defending incumbents in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and New Hampshire — and Republicans trying to hold onto open seats in North Carolina and Pennsylvania while electing Sen. Ron Johnson to a third term in Wisconsin.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden is expected to announce on Wednesday a few executive actions to address climate change, with a focus on helping Americans facing extreme heat — but the steps fall far short of the more sweeping measures climate activists are calling for.

In fact, 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 will include “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.

The White House said Biden will also announce “additional actions to boost the domestic offshore wind industry.” Further information on those actions was not immediately available, and it was unclear whether they would be new or impactful.

Biden will make 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.

“The President ran on fighting the urgent economic and national security threat of climate change, and tomorrow’s actions will be a continuation of the decisive steps on climate that the President has taken since day one,” a White House official said. “In the coming days, he will continue to announce executive actions that we have developed to combat this emergency.”

While Biden does not plan to declare a climate national emergency this week, that option is “still on the table,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Tuesday.

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.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — There is no need for a disinformation board at the Department of Homeland Security, a DHS panel has concluded in its interim report on examining the board.

“We have concluded that there is no need for a Disinformation Governance Board,” the interim review panel, chaired by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, said Tuesday.

In the spring, the Department of Homeland Security faced swift backlash from Republicans and civil liberties groups on creating a board to address privacy concerns that arise with disinformation campaigns when information is shared between departments, as well as to ensure it’s done appropriately, and also appointed a controversial leader — Nina Jankowicz — to chair the board.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas faced criticism for putting the board together and even admitted its rollout was sloppy.

Less than a month after it was put together, DHS put the board’s activity on pause and commissioned a review.

“Given the complete lack of information about this new initiative and the potential serious consequences of a government entity identifying and responding to ‘disinformation,’ we have serious concerns about the activities of this new Board, particularly under Ms. Jankowicz’s leadership,” Mike Turner and John Katko, Republican leaders of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote in a letter to Mayorkas in May.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council’s Disinformation Best Practices and Safeguards Subcommittee will issue a full report in early August “on how the Department can most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to the homeland, while increasing transparency and protecting free speech, civil rights, civil liberties and privacy.”

HSAC is a group of Homeland Security professionals picked by the secretary to offer advice on certain departmental issues.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — For the first time in seven years, the country’s lead agency on protecting the public from crimes involving firearms, explosives and arson has a Senate-confirmed director.

Steve Dettelbach was sworn in on Tuesday by Attorney General Merrick Garland in front of his family and friends at the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives in Washington.

Dettelbach, a career prosecutor who previously served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, said it was “the honor of his professional life.” He is the first congressionally approved chief of the agency since 2015. President Joe Biden’s previous nominee was withdrawn in part because of outside opposition to his gun control politics.

Dettelbach — who also faced criticism from gun groups — was subsequently confirmed earlier this month in a 48-46 vote and drew praise from other law enforcement.

“You have not just my promise and my vow to fight with you, but you have my heart, my soul, you have everything that I can give to try to join you in this effort,” he told the assembled crowd on Tuesday.

He added that some of the major challenges facing the country today — including rates of gun violence, mass shootings and extremism — are also the issues the ATF can help with.

He pointed to the Highland Park, Illinois, parade massacre on the Fourth of July, when ATF helped trace the gun involved; and, he said, the agency assisted in finding evidence in the rubble of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

“It’s going to take all of us in this nation, in law enforcement,” to address the country’s ongoing threats of rising violence and mass shootings, Dettelbach said.

“The rule of law is the one thing that drives me — there is one set of laws that governs everyone in the nation, and nobody is above it,” he said.

The attorney general lauded Dettelbach and thanked him for returning to the Justice Department.

“He understands that ATF’s mission has never been more urgent than it is today,” Garland said. “Time and again this year, we have been tragically reminded of the essential role that ATF plays in the fight to protect our communities from gun violence.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill to codify the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade — with one justice writing that the right to same-sex marriage should also be reversed.

The final vote was 267-157, with 47 Republicans joining every Democrat in the majority.

Notable among those conservatives was Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming — in a break from her past stance on the issue, which publicly put her at odds with her parents and sister, who is gay. In 2021, Cheney reversed her opinion and said, “I was wrong.” (By contrast, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, voted no on the legislation Tuesday.)

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., kicked off debate on the bill — The Respect For Marriage Act — which would prevent state discrimination related to marriage based on “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” It would also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The legislation, Nadler said, “would reaffirm that marriage equality is and must remain the law of the land.”

“Congress should provide additional reassurance that marriage equality is a matter of settled law. All married people building their lives together must know that the government must respect and recognize their marriage for all-time,” Nadler continued.

Concern among some lawmakers and advocates about the legal fate of same-sex marriage mounted after Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which reversed Roe last month. In his separate opinion from the majority, Thomas wrote that the court should next revisit its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, from 2015, which guaranteed nationwide same-sex marriage.

While the court’s majority took pains to note its decision to overturn Roe should not be seen as an indication of future rulings, Thomas’ separate opinion caused alarm among same-sex marriage supporters.

House Democrats have set votes on multiple bills to codify rights that were not spelled out in the Constitution but which were granted — at least for a period of time, in Roe’s case — by Supreme Court rulings.

“The Supreme Court’s extremist and precedent-ignoring decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has shown us why it is critical to ensure that federal law protects those whose constitutional rights might be threatened by Republican-controlled state legislatures,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said in a statement on Monday.

Following Nadler’s introduction of the marriage bill Tuesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, called the proposal an attempt to “intimidate” the Supreme Court and said the threat to same-sex marriage was a “manufactured crisis” — accusing Democrats of using the the legislation as a political tool.

“Democrats can’t run on their disastrous record, they can’t run on any accomplishments less than four months before an election,” Jordan said.

Both he and Texas Republican Rep. Mike Johnson said there was no need for the bill.

Nadler pushed back on the notion that Obergefell was solidified and that the bill was unnecessary. “If that decision is not overturned, this bill is unnecessary but harmless. If that decision is overturned, this bill is crucial — and we don’t know what this court is going to do,” he said.

House Republican Minority Whip Steve Scalise said at a press conference Tuesday morning that Republicans would be free to make their own decision on the bill — reflecting, in part, how the politics around the issue have shifted for the GOP in the seven years since Obergefell. Polling shows Americans have become increasingly supportive of same-sex marriage.

“Every member obviously is going to have to make their own vote on that,” Scalise said.

In a show of Republican backing for the bill, New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis indicated her support shortly before debate began.

“Today, I will vote to codify same-sex marriage to ensure our fellow Americans continue to have the right to equal marriage and benefits under federal law,” Malliotakis said in a statement after expressing regret for a previous vote against the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York when she served in the state Assembly.

After being passed by the House, the bill moves to a split Senate where Republican support is possible, too, if fragmented. It’s unclear if and when the upper chamber will take it up, given other business and a looming recess.

“I’ve made clear my support for gay marriage years ago. I will look at what the House is doing and see what that might mean here on the Senate side,” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said Tuesday morning. She also listed the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion access rulings and its ruling guaranteeing contraception for married couples as rights she would like to see codified. (Democratic leaders in the House said this week they will also vote on a bill codifying contraception access.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., criticized Democrats’ framing of the same-sex marriage proposal but stopped short of saying how he would vote on it.

“It’s obviously settled law right now. This is a pure messaging bill by a party that has failed on substantive issues — be it inflation, crime or the [southern] border and now are looking for cultural issues in order to somehow do better in November,” he said.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said the marriage bill would likely draw a “mixed bag” of Republican votes.

The proposal was introduced Monday by a bipartisan group including Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

ABC News’ Gabe Ferris and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Army’s recruiting challenges this year continue as senior U.S. Army officials acknowledged to Congress on Tuesday that the total size of the active-duty arm of the branch will be 10,000 soldiers fewer than had been anticipated.

Army officials blame a tight labor market where private companies are incentivizing pay and the decreasing number of young people who can meet their tough eligibility standards.

The total size of the Army, or the “end strength,” as it is known, is met by keeping soldiers through retention or by bringing in new soldiers through recruiting. This year’s retention rates for the fiscal year 2022, ending in September, are higher than had been planned, but the same cannot be said for Army recruiting.

“The Army active-duty enlisted recruiting goal for the FY22 is 60,000 based on the 476,000 end-strength goal announced in March. As of mid-July, the Army has recruited nearly 30,000 enlisted Soldiers, 50% of our mission,” Lt. Col. Randee Farrell, the spokeswoman for Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, said in a statement to ABC News.

Back in March, already facing recruiting challenges, the Army had reduced its annual recruiting target by 15,000 recruits.

On Tuesday during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing, Gen. Joseph Martin, the Army’s vice chief of staff, acknowledged that the Army’s recruiting challenges will mean it will fall about 10,000 soldiers short of meeting its projected end-strength goal.

“We believe that will land at 466,400 for this year for an end strength if we make our recruiting objectives,” Martin said. “If we’re over or under that will impact next year’s and strength, as well. We’re taking that all into account.”

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., cited new Army information provided to another House committee that the Army would have an even more “dramatic” drop in the fiscal year 2023.

“You’re now shifting from an end strength of 473 [thousand] to somewhere between 445,000 and 452,000, so a reduction of between 21,000 and 28,000,” Speier said. “That’s alarming.”

Martin confirmed Speier’s numbers and said he was planning for it to be higher, though it would all depend on recruiting.

“I’d like to say that it’s 445 to 452 [thousand] but we’re going to mission ourselves for 455 if we can achieve it,” Martin said. “The question is, it’s whether or not we can achieve it.”

The big drop in recruiting is blamed on the tight post-COVID labor market and rising incentives from private companies to hire employees. The shrinking number of young Americans eligible to meet their recruiting standards has also shrunk from 29% to 23%.

“Right now what we’re experiencing and the why of what we think’s going on right now is we’ve got unprecedented challenges with both a post-COVID-19 environment and labor market, but also competition with private companies that have changed their incentives over time,” Martin said.

“You’ve seen that with the various incentives that companies have provided, and then what we call a decrease as a result of that, a decreasing propensity and requisite qualifications to serve,” he added.

What impact the Army’s end-strength drop will have on readiness remains to be seen.

Other military branches are also facing recruiting challenges.

“The Department is in fierce competition for skilled, relevant and innovative talent. The labor market, exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic and the military-civilian divide, creates a challenging recruiting environment,” Gilbert Cisneros, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness of the United States, told senators during an Armed Services subcommittee hearing in April

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Several House Democrats were arrested on Tuesday while protesting outside the Supreme Court over its decision to overturn constitutional protections for abortion access.

The group of Democratic lawmakers and others marched over to the high court from the Capitol while chanting “we won’t go back” and “our body our choice” — the latest demonstration after five conservative justices ruled last month to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that first legalized abortions nationwide.

Seventeen lawmakers in total were arrested, according to Capitol Police, including Reps. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Illinois’ Jan Schakowsky.

Police at the Supreme Court told the protesters that they were participating in “illegal demonstration activity” before advising anyone who didn’t want to get arrested to leave, which sparked singing and chanting from the group.

Officers then began arresting the demonstrators, though no handcuffs were seen. Police also collected IDs and took pictures of those arrested — including of some of the lawmakers — and brought water to the staging area for protesters to drink.

Tuesday’s event was part of Democrats’ efforts to continue highlighting the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision, which allowed the implementation of stringent abortion restrictions or outright bans in at least a dozen states across the country.

In statements, the lawmakers vowed they would keep fighting to protect abortion access.

“The extremist Republican Party is determined to take us back in time and take away our rights. I refuse to stand on the sidelines as their rampage continues,” Clark said in a statement. “I am furious and heartbroken, and I will proudly fight for our right to abortion and all of our Constitutional rights. They can arrest me, but we won’t allow them to arrest freedom.”

The court’s ruling, widely celebrated by conservatives, was met with widespread protests by abortion rights supporters.

Democrats in liberal states have pushed efforts to enshrine abortion protections into law. But at the federal level, lawmakers have struggled to pass similar legislation, given GOP opposition and reluctance to change Senate rules.

House Democrats this week passed two bills, one to codify Roe v. Wade and another to protect a person’s right to travel to other states for legal abortions. However, those measures are not expected to have sufficient support to pass the 50-50 Senate.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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 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.”

Jul 19, 2:58 PM EDT
Prosecution begins opening statements

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.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.