(NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.) — With the midterm elections less than two months away, Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday said the “stakes could not be higher” as both parties wrestle for control of Congress.
Speaking at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in Maryland, Harris echoed President Joe Biden’s recent attacks on “MAGA” Republican leaders who he says are a threat to the nation.
“We need to speak truth about that,” Harris said. “Today, we all by coming together reaffirm that we refuse to let extremist, so-called leaders dismantle our democracy.”
The vice president criticized the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as one example of such leaders attempting to “take away freedoms.” At least 15 states have ceased nearly abortion services since the court’s ruling in late June.
Harris warned Republicans could decide to ban abortion nationwide or go after other rights such as contraception or marriage equality if they become the majority in the House and Senate.
“Without a Democratic majority and conference, who knows what other rights they will come after?” she asked.
She condemned Republicans who say issues like abortion rights should be left up to individual states while also “intentionally make it more difficult for people in those states to vote” and called out three states — Florida, Texas and Georgia — for restrictive laws targeting abortion rights and the LGBTQ community.
Like Biden, she also framed the midterm elections as a stark choice between the Democrats’ agenda and that of some of their Republican colleagues.
“If there was any question about whether there’s a difference between the parties, well, over the last 18 months, it has become crystal clear,” she said. “There is a big difference. We all know that American families have been struggling but while Republican Party leaders have gone on TV to opine about the situation, Democrats actually did something about it.”
The vice president went on to tout administrative accomplishments on COVID-19 relief, infrastructure, gun safety and the announcement of student debt cancelation.
Other parts of the Biden-Harris agenda, including child care and voting rights, have stalled in Congress but Harris said if Democrats can pick up two more seats in the Senate more can be done — specifically highlighting her role as the Senate’s tie-breaking vote.
“In our first year in office, some historians here may know, I actually broke John Adams’s record of casting the most tie breaking votes in a single term,” she said, before adding: “I cannot wait to cast the deciding vote to break the filibuster on voting rights and reproductive rights.”
Biden has called on the Senate to change the filibuster rules to pass voting reforms and to codify Roe but was met with opposition from Republicans and a few members of the Democratic Party.
Republicans, in their midterm messaging, have criticized the Biden administration over inflation, gas prices and crime.
The GOP has been generally favored to win back control of the House and Senate this cycle but recent legislative and electoral wins are signs Democrats’ odds may be improving.
Harris celebrated Democrat Mary Peltola’s victory over Republican Sarah Palin in Alaska’s special election for the state’s vacant U.S. House seat, as well as Kansas voters rejecting an anti-abortion ballot measure.
(WASHINGTON) — Since returning to the campaign trail last month after a mid-May stroke, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democrat vying for the state’s open Senate seat, sometimes speaks haltingly to voters — pausing in the middle of sentences and slurring his words.
Otherwise, he has said, he has “no physical limits” and no issues with memory or language comprehension. In an interview on MSNBC last week, Fetterman, who works with a speech therapist, said he was “expecting to have a full recovery over the next several months.”
But Republicans have seized on his public appearances and his post-stroke behavior to suggest that he is not fit to serve in the Senate, a claim outside medical experts reject as reductive.
“It’s just not possible to be an effective senator if you cannot communicate,” retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, whose seat Fetterman hopes to fill, said Tuesday at a press conference with Dr. Mehmet Oz, the GOP nominee and Fetterman’s opponent.
Rick Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, was even more blunt in his criticism last week on Newsmax: “John Fetterman is simply not capable of doing this job. He’s hiding in his basement, he’s not able to talk, he’s not able to process.”
The scrutiny of and questions about Fetterman’s health underscores the stakes of his race against Oz, which could decide who controls Congress’ upper chamber next year. Major politicians suffering health challenges mid-campaign — when they would normally be stumping for voters, night and day — is also relatively rare, and Fetterman’s campaign has been careful of overexposing him while he recovers.
His aides did not respond to requests to make his medical team available for this story. He has, however, previously responded directly to the GOP jabs at his recovery: “I know politics can be nasty, but even then, I could *never* imagine ridiculing someone for their health challenges,” he tweeted in August.
“Anyone who’s seen John speak knows that while he’s still recovering, he’s more capable of fighting for [Pennsylvania] than Dr. Oz will ever be,” a spokesman said earlier this week.
His campaign has said his stroke was the result of a condition called atrial fibrillation, or irregular heart rhythm, which led to a clot; he subsequently had a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted.
The attacks on him increased as he remained mum on debating Oz, who has pushed to share a stage. Last week, Fetterman declined an invitation from KDKA, a Pittsburgh station, to participate in a debate that would have taken place on Tuesday.
“John Fetterman is either healthy and he is dodging the debates because he does not want to answer for his radical left positions, or he’s too sick to participate in the debate,” Oz said in the news conference with Toomey, where the two men spoke in front of photographs of debates in previous Senate cycles.
Fetterman then told Politico on Wednesday that he would debate Oz once. In response, an Oz spokeswoman accused Fetterman in a statement of still not being forthcoming on details about the time, place and the topics.
“It was just simply only ever been about addressing some of the lingering issues of the stroke, the auditory processing, and we’re going to be able to work that out,” Fetterman told Politico.
Outside medical experts said stroke victims’ speech difficulties are not indicative of their cognitive abilities at work.
“You certainly should not conflate language troubles with cognitive trouble,” John Krakauer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for the Study of Motor Learning and Brain Repair, told ABC News in an interview. “That’s just being mean. It’s not scientifically valid. It would be like saying that a stutterer has a cognitive problem.”
ABC News spoke with several neurologists in general terms about stroke recovery. None of the experts interviewed have treated Fetterman or reviewed his medical history.
“Let’s say you have a little tiny stroke in the part of your brain that controls your right arm,” suggested Robert Friedlander, Chair of the Department of Neurological Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “Your right arm is not going to move, but you’re still thinking as you did before.”
“You can impact the speech part of the brain [and] might not sound the way you did before the stroke, but the cognitive component could be preserved,” added Friedlander, who said that, in some cases, language and cognition could both be affected.
If elected, Fetterman wouldn’t be the first stroke victim in the Senate. For example, both Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., suffered strokes earlier this year and have both returned to work. (Luján told ABC News in an interview in May that his stroke left him “wobbly” and a “little weak on the left,” but without any motor movement or voice issues.)
Fetterman also wouldn’t be the first politician to have a health scare while running for office. In late 2019, Sen. Bernie Sanders suffered a heart attack while seeking the Democratic nomination for president. Sanders was hospitalized but quickly returned to the trail.
“Everyone who experiences a stroke will have their own unique recovery process, which is why the only people who can judge fitness for work are the individual’s treating physicians,” said Dr. Leah Croll, stroke neurologist and assistant professor of neurology at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University.
After an earlier period of well wishes and relative silence on Fetterman’s health, the Oz campaign has made his stroke a part of its campaign — sometimes in sharply personal terms. Last month, an aide, Rachel Tripp, was quoted asserting that if Fetterman “had ever eaten a vegetable in his life, then maybe he wouldn’t have had a major stroke and wouldn’t be in the position of having to lie about it constantly.”
In a recent statement, the Oz campaign said that it would “pay for any additional medical personnel he might need to have on standby” during a debate.
“I offered John Fetterman numerous opportunities to explain to me how I can make it easier for him to debate, but at this point, since he’s given numerous reasons for not showing up, including the fact he didn’t have time in his schedule, I’m of the opinion that he’s hiding his radical views,” Oz said on Fox News in August.
Krakauer, who overlapped with Oz at Columbia University as a medical student but has no relationship with the GOP Senate candidate, told ABC News that stroke victims tend to fatigue when speaking for long periods of time.
“Your best level of performance can drop over time,” he said. “A half an hour debate, an hour debate, over and over again is a lot to expect someone with aphasia [language difficulties from brain damage] to do. But that doesn’t mean they’re not cognitively capable.”
Some Democratic voters told ABC News they hope Fetterman debates Oz but insist they’re not concerned.
“People have illnesses all the time, but I think he got the right care,” said Geraldine Eckert, from Mercer County, who attended a recent Fetterman event. “I’m not worried about John Fetterman’s health.”
(NEW ALBANY, Ohio) — After voting for the bipartisan computer chip manufacturing bill earlier this year, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, was one of several lawmakers with President Joe Biden on Friday in Licking County, to mark the groundbreaking of Intel’s new semiconductor chip factory.
But as a Democratic candidate in a competitive Senate race, Ryan has kept his distance from Biden — who lost Ohio to former President Donald Trump by eight points in 2020.
The Ryan campaign has not asked Biden or anyone from the White House to campaign with the Senate hopeful, with “no plans to do so,” spokesperson Izzi Levy told ABC News.
Ryan is not alone: In many key states with crucial Senate, House and gubernatorial races, Democrats are carefully managing their association with the president, toeing the line between appearing too friendly with the White House, and breaking with him and a party who have consistently received low marks from voters on their handling of inflation and the economy.
Ryan went as far as to categorize himself as an “independent” during an interview with Youngstown’s WFMJ-TV on Thursday, ahead of the president’s arrival.
“Well, not really asking anybody. Like I just I’m not one of those guys like, ‘Oh, I need someone to come in and help me.’ I’ve been I’ve been doing this I know what I’m doing. I know what I believe in. I know where I’m from. I know who I’m fighting for. I don’t need anyone else to like, you know, gum that message up,” he said.
When pressed by ABC News on whether he’s renouncing his ties with the Democratic Party, Ryan backtracked, saying he’s campaigning as an “independent-minded person.”
“I’m running as an independent-minded person who’s taken on President Obama, who’s taken Nancy Pelosi, has taken on Bernie Sanders but also agreed with Trump on trade and China and General Mattis and other things,” Ryan said. “People want an independent-minded person, they don’t want someone who’s just going to pull the lever with their own party, and I will be capable of saying ‘no’ to my own party.”
During Thursday’s WFMJ interview, Ryan notably highlighted the policy platforms he’d agreed with former President Trump on while pointing out the times he’d delineated from Biden, with whom he has voted with 100% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.
“I agree with Biden on CHIPS and infrastructure and some of these things,” Ryan said. “I’ve agreed with, you know, Trump, for example, on China trade. I’ve agreed with Trump on renegotiating NAFTA, strong defense, space force, General Mattis, on those things.”
This isn’t the first time that Ryan has attempted to render a stark divide between himself and the president. When Biden announced his student loan forgiveness plan in August, Congressman Ryan distanced himself from the plan, saying it “sends the wrong message to the millions of Ohioans without a degree working just as hard to make ends meet.”
And when President Biden delivered a prime-time speech last Thursday denouncing “MAGA Republicans” and urging the country to unite against threats to American democracy, none of the Democratic Senate nominees that ABC News initially reached out to for responses reacted to the president’s speech, with Ryan later telling ABC News at an Ohio State University game that “we all have to be extremely vocal about people who stormed the Capitol.”
“I think we absolutely have to be very clear about speaking out about that,” the congressman told ABC News.
Ryan also joins a growing sect of national Democrats who have publicly declared their opposition to something Biden and his administration has confirmed he would do for months — run for a second White House term in 2024. He told WFMJ that “we need new leadership across the board” in response to a question on whether he believes Biden should declare another bid for the slot.
When pressed whether yes or no if he wants to see the president run again in 2024, Ryan told ABC News, “That’s not up to me” and reiterated the need for “generational change.”
“Guys like Mitch McConnell, these people have been there for a very long time,” he added. “As we move out of this age of stupidity that we’ve been in officially long. I think it’s time to hit the reset button and get people that don’t want to focus on us being Americans first.”
In Wisconsin over Labor Day weekend, as President Biden touted the power of union workers at a “Laborfest” in Milwaukee — Democratic Senate nominee and Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes was noticeably absent.
At a presser last week in Tempe, Arizona, Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told ABC News that on the issue of whether he wanted the president to come join him in the state before the general election, he said, “We welcome anybody to come out. We’ve got a lot of issues we’re dealing with right now. Water, wildfires, being some of the top of my priority list.”
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat running for governor, did not join the president at his second Labor Day stop in Pittsburgh, after appearing with Biden at an official White House event in Wilkes-Barre the previous week.
Shapiro did tell CNN in May that he would “welcome” Biden in Pennsylvania to campaign for him, adding that he is “focused on running a race here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, listening to the people of Washington County, not Washington, D.C.”
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat in a competitive reelection race with Republican businessman Tim Michels, and Barnes marched in a “Laborfest” parade before the president’s arrival in the city, with supporters asking for pictures and opportunities to shake hands with Barnes, the candidate several voters told ABC News will be “the next senator of Wisconsin.”
In Georgia’s Senate race, Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock has also been on record distancing himself from President Biden as he fights for reelection, locked in a tight battle against former football star and GOP nominee Herschel Walker.
When pressed by ABC News at a campaign stop in Union City on Tuesday, Warnock wouldn’t say if he supports Biden coming to Georgia to campaign for him.
“Frankly, I’m not focused on who I’m campaigning with but who I’m campaigning for,” Warnock said. “That’s why I spend time in places like Union City. Before this stop, I was in Newnan — a place that folks don’t expect Democrats to show up — because I’m determined to represent all the people of Georgia.”
That campaign strategy marks a departure from just last year, when Biden campaigned in Georgia for Sens. Warnock and Jon Ossoff during their runoff elections.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Florida has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against his 2016 presidential challenger Hillary Clinton that accused her of “acting in concert” with top FBI leadership to invent what became known as the Russia investigation.
U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks seemingly mocked the lawsuit in his order of dismissal, calling the suit “difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner.”
“It was certainly not presented that way,” the judge wrote.
Trump had argued that the Russia probe was “prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice,” a group that included defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Bruce Ohr.
The judge said the lawsuit was rife with “glaring problems,” claims that were “not warranted under existing law,” and legal theories that lacked factual support.
“At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum,” the order said.
“We vehemently disagree with the opinion issued by the Court today,” Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, said in a statement following the dismissal. “Not only is it rife with erroneous applications of the law, it disregards the numerous independent governmental investigations which substantiate our claim that the defendants conspired to falsely implicate our client and undermine the 2016 Presidential election.”
Habba said Trump’s legal team would immediately move to appeal the decision.
Trump earlier tried to move the lawsuit to a different judge in the Southern District of Florida, but was unsuccessful. That judge, Aileen Cannon, is the same Trump-appointed judge who this week granted Trump’s motion for a special master to review the Justice Department’s seizure of documents from his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, completed in 2019, concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systematic,” and the investigation led to seven guilty pleas and five jail sentences, mostly on charges of lying to investigators — but no charges were ever brought against Trump himself.
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic congressional leaders are facing a progressive revolt — that could potentially risk a government shutdown — in the wake of the closed-door deal between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin that won the latter’s crucial support for the Inflation Reduction Act.
After repeatedly slamming that “disastrous side deal” that would streamline the permitting process for energy projects across the U.S. — which Schumer agreed to include with a must-pass spending bill to fund the federal government — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promptly announced Thursday that he intends to oppose the funding resolution as a result.
“If the United States Congress goes on record and says, ‘Yes we are going to support more fossil fuel reduction, more carbon emissions,’ the signal we are sending to our own people and the planet is a terrible, terrible signal,” Sanders said in a floor speech.
He did not mince words with reporters afterward. Asked if he would vote no on funding the government if the Schumer-Manchin permitting deal is attached, he replied: “Yes. You’re talking about the future for the planet.”
Sanders’ opposition adds to the growing progressive pressure in the House, where some left-wing lawmakers have likewise threatened to block the government funding bill if it includes Manchin’s desired changes to energy permitting.
Sanders on Thursday read from a soon-to-be-released letter — obtained by ABC News Wednesday — that he said had been signed by “at least 59” House progressives opposing the Schumer-Manchin agreement.
That deal, Sanders said, quoting from the letter, “would silence the voices of environmental communities by insulating them from scrutiny. This would cause members to choose between protecting environmental justice communities from further pollution or funding the government. We urge you to ensure these provisions are kept out of a continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation this year.”
Manchin has argued that permitting reform will also help speed projects related to wind, solar and other environmentally friendly sources of energy. He’s adamant that permitting reform must stay in the funding bill and, so far, he seems to have Schumer’s backing.
Despite the progressive rhetorical thunder, it is possible that the bill to fund the government — which will also include popular aid for Ukraine and disaster relief — will garner enough GOP support to render the threatened liberal blockade moot.
“It was a rank political deal,” Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the appropriations committee, told reporters Thursday of Manchin and Schumer’s agreement. But he stopped short of saying it would put government funding in jeopardy.
Still, some other Republicans are vowing to oppose the funding resolution because they oppose Schumer and Manchin’s dealmaking. Many conservatives have said they took umbrage at the last-minute nature of the deal among Democrats on the sweeping climate and health care reform legislation known as the IRA. It passed without a single GOP vote — not long after some Republicans had voted with Democrats on computer chip funding, thinking that the Democrats’ social spending bill was dead.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told ABC that “I would vote against it,” referring to government funding, and he said he was urging his Republican colleagues to do the same.
It’s not yet clear whether Republicans will unite behind Graham’s effort, but most GOP aides familiar with the matter say they do not expect that.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice on Thursday moved to appeal a federal judge’s ruling in the dispute over documents seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where the government claims highly classified records were being improperly held.
Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s request for a special master to review what was taken, including for items that might be covered by executive privilege, even though Trump is no longer the president and has never asserted privilege over any specific records.
The ruling, which enjoined the government from further use of the seized documents as part of its criminal investigation, was widely criticized by legal experts on both sides — including Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr.
“The Court hereby authorizes the appointment of a special master to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege,” Cannon wrote.
The DOJ’s appeal will go before the 11th Circuit.
Federal prosecutors also requested Thursday for Cannon to stay the portion of her ruling enjoining the government from further review of the documents bearing classification markings taken during the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Cannon had required law enforcement to disclose those materials to the special master.
The DOJ said in Thursday’s court papers that if Cannon doesn’t grant a stay by Sept. 15, they will “intend to seek relief from the Eleventh Circuit.”
Trump “does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessory interest in classified records” prosecutors wrote in a 21-page motion.
Cannon gave Trump’s team until Monday morning to respond to the request for a stay.
The DOJ is not seeking a stay on the handover of non-classified documents to an appointed special master but said that if Cannon doesn’t grant their stay it “will cause the most immediate and serious harms to the government and the public.”
Cannon noted in her previous order that the appointment of an independent third party would not impede the ongoing classification review and national security assessments being conducted by the intelligence community on what was retrieved from Trump’s home last month.
The judge had given DOJ and Trump’s team until Friday to confer and submit a joint list of proposed special master candidates and a proposed order outlining the special master’s duties and limitations.
‘Irreparable harm’
In Thursday’s motion, the DOJ repeatedly sought to undercut Cannon’s position in her ruling approving the appointment of a special master — and cited the risk of “irreparable harm” to national security and the ongoing criminal investigation if she declines to grant their request for a stay.
While they signaled they care relatively little about non-classified records seized from Mar-a-Lago being handed over to a special master, prosecutors argued that the classified records they say were found with Trump are critical to both their ongoing intelligence assessment and the criminal investigation and Trump has absolutely no legitimate legal claim to them.
While Cannon approved the intelligence community (IC) to continue with its separate evaluation of the documents, that “cannot be readily segregated” from the DOJ and FBI criminal investigation and the IC has been forced to temporarily pause its review out of an abundance of caution, prosecutors wrote.
“The application of the injunction to classified records would thus frustrate the government’s ability to conduct an effective national security risk assessment and classification review and could preclude the government from taking necessary remedial steps in light of that review—risking irreparable harm to our national security and intelligence interests,” the DOJ filing states.
They noted that the injunction could prevent the FBI from being able to identify “the existence of any additional classified records that are not being properly stored” past those that were already seized at Mar-a-Lago — reflecting investigators’ concerns that there could be more materials taken by Trump from the White House that they still have yet to recover. (ABC News previously reported federal law enforcement has some worry for the potential that classified records could potentially be somewhere other than Mar-a-Lago. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.)
“Among other things, the classified records are the very subject of the government’s ongoing investigation,” the DOJ filing states.
The department said a partial stay would not harm Trump as it wouldn’t disturb the special master’s review of any other records, including those subject to attorney-client privilege, as the government has already been able to review the classified records for a month — “which, again, indisputably belong to the government, not [Trump].”
They said that being able to use the documents that were marked classified is an essential element of their ongoing investigation, specifically with respect to the two potential crimes of unauthorized retention of national defense information — “the classified records are not merely relevant evidence; they are the very objects of the relevant criminal statute” — and obstruction: “Again, the seized classified records at issue here—each of which the subpoena plainly encompassed—are central to that investigation.”
Prosecutors wrote that if Trump believed he ever had a valid assertion of executive privilege over the documents, he had more than enough time to make such assertions including after the DOJ issued its grand jury subpoena in May.
“Instead, on June 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel produced a set of classified records to the government, and Plaintiff’s custodian certified that ‘[a]ny and all responsive documents’ had been produced after a ‘diligent search,'” the filing states. “Plaintiff cannot now maintain—following the government’s seizure of additional classified records that Plaintiff failed to produce—that classified records obtained in the search, which were responsive to the grand jury subpoena, are shielded from the government’s review by executive privilege.”
In a footnote in the latest filing, DOJ officials wrote that they don’t interpret Cannon’s order as barring their department, the FBI or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from briefing congressional leaders with intelligence oversight responsibilities regarding the records uncovered — suggesting they may seek to brief committee members at some point.
The dispute so far
Trump’s team made the request for a special master two weeks after the Aug. 8 search of his home.
The DOJ strongly opposed the request from the start, arguing the appointment would be “unnecessary and significantly harm important governmental interests, including national security interests” by causing a delay in their investigation.
The department said last week that a team tasked with identifying potential attorney-client privileged materials that were seized in the search of Mar-a-Lago had already completed its review and was in the process of addressing possible privilege disputes.
The DOJ also argued that Trump had no standing to ask for a special master because the documents “aren’t his” anymore and belong to the federal government.
“He is no longer the president and because he was no longer the president he did not have the right to take those documents,” said DOJ lawyer Jay Bratt as the two sides faced off in court on Sept. 1.
Trump’s lawyers, on the other hand, had said the third-party review was needed to deal with potentially privileged materials seized during the search, including both attorney-client and executive privilege.
Christopher Kise, a new addition to Trump’s legal team, cited a “public lack of faith” in the DOJ and “real or perceived lack of transparency” during the court appearance.
At one point, a Trump lawyer compared the former president’s refusal to turn over documents to the National Archives to an “overdue library book.”
Trump’s team has celebrated Cannon’s ruling, while a swath of legal experts and observers criticized her for going too far.
Barr, Trump’s former attorney general, criticized the decision during an appearance on Fox News: “The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it. It’s deeply flawed in a number of ways.”
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden said in a statement on Queen Elizabeth II’s death that “the thoughts and prayers of people all across the United States are with the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth in their grief.”
“Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was more than a monarch,” Biden and first lady Jill Biden said Thursday in a written statement, shortly after the queen’s death was announced. “She defined an era.”
“In a world of constant change,” they continued, “she was a steadying presence and a source of comfort and pride for generations of Britons, including many who have never known their country without her.”
The Bidens said the late queen helped make the U.S.-U.K. relationship “special.”
“Queen Elizabeth II was a stateswoman of unmatched dignity and constancy who deepened the bedrock alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States,” they wrote.
Senior advisers informed Biden of the queen’s death during a meeting in the Oval Office, according to a White House official.
He ordered flags flown at half-staff at the White House and on all public U.S. buildings around the world until sundown on the day her body is laid to rest. After her funeral, her body is expected to be buried at Windsor Castle outside London.
The Bidens said they looked forward “to continuing a close friendship” with her son, now King Charles III, and his wife, Camilla, the queen consort, “in the years ahead.”
“We send our deepest condolences to the Royal Family, who are not only mourning their Queen, but their dear mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother,” they said. “Her legacy will loom large in the pages of British history, and in the story of our world.”
The news of the death of the queen, who was 96, broke earlier Thursday as White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was holding a regular news briefing. Jean-Pierre learned of Buckingham Palace’s announcement from reporters.
“Our hearts go to the people of the United Kingdom, to the queen and to her family,” Jean-Pierre said.
At the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also ordered flags lowered to half-staff.
“Today, Americans join the people of the United Kingdom in mourning the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II,” Pelosi tweeted. “Over her seven decades on the throne, Her Majesty was a pillar of leadership in the global arena and a devoted friend of freedom.”
Earlier Thursday, Biden spoke with British Prime Minister Liz Truss about the queen and told Truss he was “thinking very much” about the ailing monarch, the White House said.
On a pre-scheduled call with European leaders about Ukraine, which White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters was ongoing early Thursday afternoon, the president said he and first lady Jill Biden were “thinking” of the British royal family.
“He did convey to Prime Minister Truss, who is on the video teleconference, that he and Dr. Biden are thinking very much of the queen and the family and the people of the United Kingdom,” Kirby said.
Biden has been briefed on developments and “will be updated throughout the day concerning news out of the United Kingdom,” Kirby said.
“His and the first lady’s thoughts are solidly and squarely with the queen today, and her family,” Kirby said.
Buckingham Palace has said earlier Thursday that Queen Elizabeth’s doctors were “concerned for” her health, and had “recommended she remain under medical supervision.”
Queen Elizabeth met 13 sitting U.S. presidents in her lifetime, and met every U.S. president since World War II, with the exception of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Biden met with the queen last year during a trip to the United Kingdom — his first travel abroad as president.
He had previously met the queen in 1982 as a U.S. senator, during another trip to the U.K.
ABC News’ Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, a onetime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, pleaded not guilty in Manhattan criminal court Thursday to charges of defrauding donors to the “We Build the Wall” fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The six-count indictment charges Bannon and “We Build the Wall” itself with two counts of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of five to 15 years in prison. There are additional felony counts of conspiracy and scheme to defraud along with one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to defraud.
Bannon was released following his arraignment and is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 4.
“I’m going to stay and fight this,” he told reporters as he left the courthouse. “With this case, I’m begging you to remember the presumption of innocence.”
Earlier Thursday, as he arrived at the courthouse to surrender to authorities, he told reporters the charges were “all about 60 days to the election.”
“This is an irony, on the very day the mayor of this city has a delegation down on the border, they are persecuting people here who try to stop them on the border,” Bannon said, referring to a fact-finding delegation New York City Mayor Eric Adams has sent to Texas following the decision by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to bus migrants to New York.
The state charges, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, resemble federal charges for which Bannon received a pardon by Trump, and allege that Bannon and “We Build the Wall” defrauded 430 Manhattan-based donors out of $33,600. Across New York state, there were more than 11,000 donors defrauded out of more than $730,000, according to the indictment.
The pardon by Trump only applied to the federal case and does not preclude the state charges.
The indictment quotes Bannon telling donors at a June 24, 2019, fundraising event, “Remember, all the money you give goes to building the wall.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, speaking at a news conference announcing the charges Thursday afternoon, said that We Build the Wall raised $15 million from donors across the country based on “false pretenses,” citing a pledge organizers made that the group’s president would take no salary.
Instead, the campaign’s president, Brian Kolfage, received a salary of $250,000 that was secretly funneled to him by Bannon, who “directed” We Build the Wall to transfer tens of thousands of dollars to a nonprofit that he controlled, which then paid Kolfage, “thereby obscuring the source of funds,” according to Bragg.
“It is a crime to turn a profit by lying to donors, and in New York, you will be held accountable,” Bragg said. “As alleged, Stephen Bannon acted as the architect of a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud thousands of donors across the country — including hundreds of Manhattan residents.”
“Mr. Bannon took advantage of his donors’ political views to secure millions of dollars which he then misappropriated. Mr. Bannon lied to his donors to enrich himself and his friend,” added New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office participated in the investigation.
Kolfage and Andrew Badolato, both of Florida, were indicted with Bannon in the federal case and pleaded guilty in April in connection with their role in the alleged scheme to defraud “We Build the Wall” donors.
A fourth defendant, Timothy Shea, stood trial in a case that ended in a mistrial.
Kolfage and Badolato are not named in the state indictment, but are referenced as co-conspirators 1 and 2, a sign they could have assisted Manhattan prosecutors build their case against Bannon.
The quartet allegedly used some of the $25 million raised through “We Build the Wall” on personal expenses, including a luxury SUV, a golf cart, and cosmetic surgery, the federal indictment said.
“The defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction,” then-U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said when the charges were announced in 2020.
“My sole intent was to raise funds and donate those funds to the federal government,” Kolfage told the judge in the federal case.
“And you promised that 100% of the money would be used to build that wall? Is that right?” Judge Analisa Torres asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage replied.
“After keeping that large sum of money for yourself, you did not tell the IRS you received the money. Is that right?” Torres asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage answered.
Bannon’s surrender Thursday makes him the third defendant pardoned by Trump to subsequently face charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign boss, was charged with running a two-year scheme to obtain more than $19 million in residential mortgage loans based on fraudulent representations to various banks. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately threw out the case, deeming it too similar to Manafort’s federal conviction and therefore double jeopardy.
In the state case against Bannon, double jeopardy is not expected to apply because a jury was never convened to weigh the federal fraud charges over “We Build the Wall.”
Ken Kurson, a former editor of the New York Observer, associate of Jared Kushner and speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani, was pardoned by Trump in a federal cyberstalking case. Kurson eventually pleaded guilty to two state-level misdemeanors that accused him of spying on his former wife’s computer.
Kurson is due back in court next week so the judge can make sure he’s complying with his community service.
Trump pardoned Kurson during his final moments in office, but then-Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced an indictment seven months later that charged Kurson with eavesdropping and computer trespass.
Kurson, in 2015, surreptitiously installed spyware on his ex-wife’s computer from his work computer at the Observer in 2015, according to the indictment.
“We will not accept presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the well-connected in New York,” Vance said in a statement at the time the charges against Kurson were announced in 2021.
(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, a onetime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, has been charged by authorities in New York with defrauding donors to the “We Build the Wall” fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bannon surrendered Thursday in Manhattan.
He spoke to reporters after arriving to turn himself in, saying the charges were “all about 60 days to the election.”
“This is an irony, on the very day the mayor of this city has a delegation down on the border, they are persecuting people here who try to stop them on the border,” Bannon said, referring to a fact-finding delegation New York City Mayor Eric Adams has sent to Texas following the decision by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to bus migrants to New York.
The indictment charges Bannon and “We Build the Wall” itself with two counts of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of five to 15 years in prison. There are additional felony counts of conspiracy and scheme to defraud along with one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to defraud.
The state charges, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, resemble federal charges for which Bannon received a pardon by Trump, and allege that Bannon and “We Build the Wall” defrauded 430 Manhattan-based donors out of $33,600. Across New York state, there were more than 11,000 donors defrauded out of more than $730,000, according to the indictment.
The pardon only applied to the federal case and does not preclude the state charges.
“Mr. Bannon took advantage of his donors’ political views to secure millions of dollars which he then misappropriated. Mr. Bannon lied to his donors to enrich himself and his friend,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office participated in the investigation, said in a statement.
“It is a crime to turn a profit by lying to donors, and in New York, you will be held accountable,” added Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. “As alleged, Stephen Bannon acted as the architect of a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud thousands of donors across the country — including hundreds of Manhattan residents.”
Two Florida men, an Air Force veteran and a venture capitalist, indicted with Bannon in the federal case, pleaded guilty in April in connection with their role in the alleged scheme to defraud “We Build the Wall” donors.
Brian Kolfage and Andrew Badolato were charged in the scheme with Bannon. A fourth defendant, Timothy Shea, stood trial that ended with a mistrial.
Kolfage and Badolato are not named in the state indictment, but are referenced as co-conspirators 1 and 2, a sign they could have assisted Manhattan prosecutors build their case against Bannon.
The quartet allegedly bilked donors to “We Build the Wall” and used some of the $25 million raised on personal expenses, including a luxury SUV, a golf cart and cosmetic surgery, the federal indictment said.
“The defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction,” then-U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said when the charges were announced in 2020.
“My sole intent was to raise funds and donate those funds to the federal government,” Kolfage told the judge.
“And you promised that 100% of the money would be used to build that wall? Is that right?” Judge Analisa Torres asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage replied.
“After keeping that large sum of money for yourself, you did not tell the IRS you received the money. Is that right?” Torres asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Kolfage answered.
Bannon’s surrender Thursday makes him the third defendant pardoned by Trump to subsequently face charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign boss, was charged with running a two-year scheme to obtain more than $19 million in residential mortgage loans based on fraudulent representations to various banks. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately threw out the case, deeming it too similar to Manafort’s federal conviction and therefore double jeopardy.
In the state case against Bannon, double jeopardy is not expected to apply because a jury was never convened to weigh the federal fraud charges over “We Build the Wall.”
Ken Kurson, a former editor of the New York Observer, associate of Jared Kushner and speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani, was pardoned by Trump in a federal cyberstalking case. Kurson eventually pleaded guilty to two state-level misdemeanors that accused him of spying on his former wife’s computer.
Kurson is due back in court next week so the judge can make sure he’s complying with his community service.
Trump pardoned Kurson during his final moments in office, but then-Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced an indictment seven months later that charged Kurson with eavesdropping and computer trespass.
Kurson, in 2015, surreptitiously installed spyware on his ex-wife’s computer from his work computer at the Observer in 2015, according to the indictment.
“We will not accept presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the well-connected in New York,” Vance said in a statement at the time the charges against Kurson were announced in 2021.
(WASHINGTON) — A state judge in New Mexico has removed a county commissioner from office after ruling that — because he participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — the U.S. Constitution barred him for engaging in an “insurrection.”
It is the first time an elected official directly associated with the attack has been disqualified from serving in public office on those grounds.
New Mexico District Court Judge Francis Mathew barred Otero County commissioner and “Cowboys for Trump” founder Couy Griffin, citing a clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection from serving — the only time in 150 years that the provision has been used to disqualify an official and the first time that a court has ruled the events of Jan. 6 were an “insurrection.”
Griffin “incited, encouraged and helped normalize the violence,” Mathew wrote, calling his actions “overt acts in support of the insurrection.”
Some constitutional experts have suggested the section of the law — despite unsuccessful attempts to invoke the same provision against GOP members of Congress and other Trump-backed candidates earlier this year — may have wide-ranging implications, especially for former President Donald Trump if he runs again for the White House.
“Just the fact that this has happened one time, if it stands up on appeal, makes the future challenges more credible than if no one had ever been disqualified for their participation in January 6 … Up until now it seemed like more of a hypothetical,” said Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional scholar at Indiana University who has studied Section 3 of the The Reconstruction-era amendment.
“If Griffin is disqualified, then it’s a little hard to see why Trump wouldn’t be disqualified,” he added.
Known as the “Disqualification Clause,” the provision bars any person from holding federal office who has previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution — including a member of Congress — who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States or “given aid or comfort” to its “enemies.”
“Griffin, as an Otero County Commissioner since January 2019, took an oath to “support and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States,” Matthew wrote in his opinion.
Convicted earlier this year for trespassing on U.S. Capitol grounds, Griffin refused to certify the state’s primary election results in Otero County in June. He’s now banned from holding any future state or federal elected positions, Mathew ruled.
“You know, they’re, they’re trying to get all of this legal framework in place, because they’re gonna use it against President Trump,” said Griffin in early July during an Otero County Commission special session, where he presented a motion for the county to pay his legal expenses in the lawsuit.
“We can make a stand right here, we can make a stand on a county level. We could fight back,” he said.
During the meeting, Griffin said that he hadn’t gotten any help from Trump-related groups or the former president himself.
“I’m disappointed in President Trump as well. I’m disappointed that I don’t have any more support from their side … it really feels like I’ve been fed to the wolves and along in a lot of ways,” he said.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of New Mexico residents represented by the government accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other lawyers.
“This is a historic win for accountability for the January 6th insurrection and the efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Protecting American democracy means ensuring those who violate their oaths to the Constitution are held responsible,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “This decision makes clear that any current or former public officials who took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and then participated in the January 6th insurrection can and will be removed and barred from government service for their actions.”
The last time elected officials were disqualified from office using the constitutional clause appears to be after the Civil War in 1869, according to CREW, after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Similar constitutional arguments have been made, but have failed to persuade judges in Georgia and North Carolina, against GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn. The latter’s case was ultimately halted after he lost in the primary contest for his reelection bid.
Magliocca, a constitutional scholar at Indiana University and who testified at Greene’s hearing, noted that the challenge to Griffin — compared to those against Greene and Cawthorn — may have succeeded because he was a local official.
“Another difference is Mr. Griffin was an official, not a candidate … so that’s simpler. Because, you know, you’re not dealing with an election, you’re not dealing with a, you know, some very short deadline that you need to make a decision by,” said Magliocca.
“But also, the other thing is, in some instances, you can say that the participation that can be proved for one individual versus another is greater or less. And I think, in Mr. Griffin’s case, the court found a lot of facts,” he said.
Tuesday’s ruling is a test case for inevitable challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility if he plans to make another White House bid, retired Harvard Law professor and constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe told ABC News, which he said may be more effective in keeping him out of office than by means of legal prosecution.
“It’s in response to an extraordinary event, which we hope won’t be repeated. I think it shows that there is an alternative path to holding people accountable besides a criminal prosecution,” said Tribe.
Still, one of the most significant aspects of Tuesday’s decision is that it declares formally that what happened Jan. 6 was an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution, according to Tribe and Magliocca.
“It’s a wake-up call. I mean, it’s not that the courts needed this opinion in order to read the Constitution, we can all read it. But now, there’s an example. It’s really the difference between something that may be a dead letter and something that has actually been resurrected and used successfully,” Tribe said.
“And I think that’s going to encourage people in other contexts to invoke the Fourteenth. It would be premature for anybody to predict that this is the beginning of the end for everyone who was involved in trying to overturn the 2020 election, but it’s certainly a start,” he added.
