(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, a onetime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, surrendered Thursday to authorities in New York to face felony charges linked to his role in “We Build the Wall,” an online fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
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 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.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal grand jury investigating the activities leading up the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and the push by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the result of the 2020 election has expanded its probe to include seeking information about Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, sources with direct knowledge tell ABC News.
The interest in the fundraising arm came to light as part of grand jury subpoenas seeking documents, records and testimony from potential witnesses, the sources said.
The subpoenas, sent to several individuals in recent weeks, are specifically seeking to understand the timeline of Save America’s formation, the organization’s fundraising activities, and how money is both received and spent by the Trump-aligned PAC.
Neither a spokesperson for Trump nor an official with the Justice Department immediately responded to ABC News’ request for comment.
Trump and his allies have consistently pushed supporters to donate to the PAC, often using false claims about the 2020 election and soliciting donations to rebuke the multiple investigations into the former president, his business dealings, and his actions on Jan. 6.
After the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate last month, Save America PAC sent out a fundraising email in which Trump urged supporters to “rush in a donation IMMEDIATELY to publicly stand with me against this NEVERENDING WITCH HUNT.”
According to Save America’s statement of organization filed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the committee was established just days after the 2020 election. At the time, the filing said the new committee is affiliated with the Trump campaign and the Trump Make America Great Committee, a small-dollar focused, joint-fundraising committee between the president’s campaign and the Republican National Committee, which has been sending out donor solicitation emails for Save America.
Similar to regular political action committees, leadership PACs can only accept up to $5,000 per donor, far less than the upwards of $800,000 donations that the Trump campaign and the Republican Party’s high-dollar joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory, had previously raised.
Since its inception, Save America PAC has brought in more than $135 million, including transfers from affiliated committees, according to disclosure records. As of the end of July, the PAC reported having just under $100 million in cash on hand.
(WASHINGTON) — The FBI sought to interview a current top adviser to former President Donald Trump who has also been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury, both in relation to investigations into the events leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
William Russell wasn’t home when the two FBI agents came to his house Wednesday morning, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Russell served in the Trump White House as a special assistant to the president and the deputy director of advance before moving down to Florida to work as an aide to Trump after he left the White House.
Russell has also been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating Jan. 6, sources familiar with the matter said. The subpoena requests documents and communications related to the so-called fake slates of electors pushed in various states in support of Trump, the sources said.
The outreach to Russell shows that federal investigators are seeking to question Trump’s inner circle, sources said; and the subpoena indicates the grand jury’s work is widening as law enforcement continues to probe the events surrounding the attack on the Capitol and Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
The attempted interview was first reported by The New York Times.
Russell and the FBI have not commented.
Investigators with the House Jan. 6 committee have also requested information and communications from Russell in recent weeks, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge granted lawyers for former President Donald Trump’s request to have a special master oversee the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.
To break down the latest developments of the saga, a standoff between the Department of Justice and the former president, “ABC News Prime” spoke with Kan Nawaday, former federal prosecutor and ABC News contributor.
Nawaday discussed the implications of this decision, how it will affect the Department of Justice’s investigation and what he expects the next steps will be.
PRIME: ABC News contributor Kan Nawaday, [is] a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. Thanks so much once again for being here. Let’s start off just with your reaction to the judge’s ruling to actually grant Trump’s request for a special master. Did that surprise you?
NAWADAY: It didn’t surprise me to grant a special master to review the attorney-client privilege documents. It was mind blowing, mind boggling that she granted the request for a special master to determine whether items are subject to the executive privilege. There really is no basis in the law and precedent for doing something like that for a former president.
PRIME: Some people are saying, ‘well, of course, she was appointed by Trump. What do you expect? Of course she’s going to rule in his favor.’ Do you think there’s anything there?
NAWADAY: I don’t think so. And I think she’s just maybe she’s just trying to be really careful, maybe she’s trying to put some of the responsibility on an independent special master instead of following, you know, what I see as a pretty clear precedent that you don’t need a special master to decide executive privilege.
PRIME: How do you think this will impact the Justice Department investigation going forward, and do you expect them to appeal?
NAWADAY: It’s going to slow down their investigation to a crawl. What will happen is Trump, the former president, is going to fight about everything, about who the special master is going to be, about the process and about everything. And there are 11,000 documents involved. I can see DOJ filing an appeal just because of how bad of a precedent this opinion sets.
PRIME: We heard Pierre [Thomas] talk about that Friday deadline. What do you expect to happen at that point?
NAWADAY: Either DOJ is going to appeal before then or they’re both, DOJ and Trump, going to put in competing submissions. It’s supposed to be a joint submission, but I think that submission is going to say, ‘we’re DOJ, we want this,’ ‘we’re Trump, we want this,’ and there’s not going to be that much overlap.
PRIME: All right. So let’s talk about the implications of the upcoming election with regard to this investigation. Of course, there’s that unwritten rule that the DOJ has or they don’t react basically or don’t act for 60 days leading into an election so that doesn’t seem like there’s anything biased or improper going on. So how will that influence?
NAWADAY: First of all, you are absolutely right, it’s an unwritten rule. The DOJ tries to avoid overt actions that could influence an election. And I think that’s important to remember. I think if there’s a grand jury out there, it’s going to continue its investigation, DOJ will continue its investigation and do all the covert things like speaking with witnesses, things like that, bringing people in the grand jury. What they likely won’t do is do something overt like charge somebody.
PRIME: Some new developments out of New Mexico where you had a public official who was removed from office after participating in Jan. 6. Explain to us the circumstances surrounding that and what that means now going forward.
NAWADAY: Well, what basically happened was there was a county commissioner in New Mexico who had been convicted federally for his participation in the events of Jan. 6. And a private citizens group brought an action to disqualify him from holding office as a public commissioner, as a public official.
And the basis for that is under the 14th Amendment, there’s a disqualification clause which says that if you are a public official and then you commit insurrection, you can no longer hold public office. So this is pretty groundbreaking. This is the first time, I believe, since the 1800s, that this disqualification clause has been used. So it could potentially be groundbreaking.
PRIME: Before I let you go, I want to go back to Trump just really quickly. We’re, of course, getting everybody’s opinion here. Everybody has one with regard to, do you think that Trump will ultimately be indicted?
NAWADAY: I think there is so much evidence there that in any other case, somebody would have charged this.
(NEW YORK) — Hillary Clinton expressed her concern over the classified documents seized at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate last month, sharing a warning that “every American” should be concerned.
On Wednesday, the former secretary of state joined “The View” alongside daughter Chelsea Clinton to share about their new docuseries, “Gutsy” on Apple TV+ premiering on Friday. Before delving into their new show, which highlights some of America’s biggest heroines, they weighed in on one of the nation’s hottest topics: the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and the documents found at the residence.
The FBI executed a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home on August 8. According to the inventory list unsealed Friday by a federal judge, agents gathered more than 11,000 documents or photographs without classification markings that were described as property of the U.S. government.
Hundreds of the documents retrieved during the search were considered confidential, secret and top-secret documents, as well as more than 40 empty folders with either “CLASSIFIED” banners on them or labeled “Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide.”
ABC News previously reported that the FBI remains concerned about classified records that could still be missing even after their search of Mar-a-Lago.
On “The View,” Hillary Clinton said the seized documents from Mar-a-Lago “should be taken really seriously.”
“It should concern every American, because those documents and the empty folders as they were marked suggest that there was really important secret information that is essential to our country’s defense and security,” she said.
Clinton went on to explain how classified documents were securely shared with her during her time as secretary of state under former President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013.
“A military courier would come into my office. It would be an emergency. There wouldn’t be time to get to the White House and have an emergency meeting in a SCIF,” she explained. “Usually a man — it was always a man, I remember — walked in, he would have a briefcase locked to his wrist.” A SCIF is a U.S. government–approved secure facility where sensitive information can be looked over by government officials.
“He would come into my office and he would say, ‘You have to look at this immediately, secretary.’ He would unlock the briefcase; he would stand there; he would give me this document that had really delicate, secret information about something of importance,” she continued. “I would read it, then I would sign that I read it. It would go back into the locked box attached to his wrist and off he would go.”
With that knowledge, Clinton was left puzzled as to how sensitive documents could be moved at all. “I don’t understand how [Trump] was permitted to take them, even to the residence, let alone to a country club in Florida,” she said.
Clinton went on to say that the country doesn’t have a clear understanding of what was in the seized documents, but reminded viewers on the daytime talk show that “people literally die to get our government information. They go to prison. They get exiled.”
“The idea that this would have been done, I hope everybody takes really seriously,” she added.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted a request from Trump’s legal team to appoint a special master to review documents seized in the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. The judge’s order halts all reviews of the documents by the Justice Department in its criminal investigation.
When co-host Joy Behar asked Clinton if Trump should be indicted over the documents found in his Mar-a-Lago estate, she said that she didn’t want to “prejudge.”
“I have been prejudged wrongly enough. I’m not going to judge somebody else, and so I think the key is what the facts and the evidence are, what the FBI and the intelligence community learn about these documents, how they ended up there, who else saw them,” Clinton responded.
She went on to explain how the public should have “two minds” about the investigation. “No one is above the law, and the rule of law in a democracy … has to be our standard.”
The public “should not rush to judgment,” Clinton continued, but “we should be concerned about it, and we should follow the facts and the evidence.”
Chelsea Clinton also weighed in on South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham claiming political violence would break out if Trump were to be indicted over mishandling of presidential records.
“I’m very worried about our country,” she said. “Sen. Graham and others … should know better and should be more responsible with their platforms.”
“After the white nationalist insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, we know that there are people who believe that violence is an acceptable tool, even in our democracy, even in the 21st century in the United States of America,” she continued.
“I’m very concerned and I’m very disappointed in the senator,” Chelsea Clinton said. “I hope that others do not follow his lead.”
Every episode of ABC’s award-winning talk show “The View” is now available as a podcast! Listen and subscribe for free on Apple Podcasts
(WASHINGTON) — A vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor “in coming weeks,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.
Democrats are concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may pave the way for same-sex marriage, contraception and other privacy rights to be dismantled.
“Let’s remember why a vote on the Respect for Marriage [Act] is necessary,” Schumer said. “Millions upon millions of American women had their right taken away by the extremist MAGA Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision. And in a concurring opinion Justice Thomas opened the door for the Supreme Court going even further.”
“When some Republicans say the vote is unnecessary, it won’t happen — they said the same thing about Roe,” Schumer continued.
Democrats want to pass the bill quickly, Schumer said, and would prefer to do so in a stand-alone vote. But they would need at least 10 Republicans to back the bill in order for it to overcome the filibuster and pass.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, are working with Republicans to shore up enough votes. The two recently penned an op-ed in The Washington Post telling their colleagues it’s time to “get the job done.”
“But let me be clear, a vote will happen,” Schumer told reporters Wednesday. “A vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor in the coming weeks and I hope there will be 10 Republicans to support it.”
Democrats were considering a riskier option to codify same-sex and interracial marriage by attaching the bill to a must-pass continuing resolution to keep the government open past Sept. 30, an aide familiar with the matter told ABC News on Tuesday. But Schumer and other Democrats appeared to change course on Wednesday.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told ABC News, “Not gonna happen” when asked if the marriage bill would be added to the temporary government funding bill.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday that the government funding bill should be as “clean as possible” in order to move forward without controversy.
Baldwin and Collins also said they prefer the stand-alone bill route, and are currently working on an amendment to appease Republican concerns about the legislation.
“We’re looking at an amendment that would strengthen the language in the bill to make crystal clear that it does not in any way infringe upon religious liberties, and it also would correct a drafting error in one part of the bill that makes very clear that marriage is between two individuals,” said Collins, adding that some Republicans have expressed concern that the bill might lead to “polygamous marriage” though that is not allowed in any state in the country.
Asked if she were confident she had the support of 10 Republicans, Collins said, “I’m never confident until the role is called, but we’re making good progress. There’s a lot of sincere interest, but obviously people want to see the amendment and have input into the amendment.”
The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House in a bipartisan vote of 267 to 157 in July. Forty-seven Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill.
The legislation repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, “marriage” as between a man and a woman. It also provides additional legal protection for same-sex or interracial couples.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at the time called the bill’s passage “another step to defend freedom for the American people.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama are returning to the White House Wednesday, reuniting with now President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden to unveil their official portraits and introduce the artists behind them — a long-held secret in Washington after an unusually long wait for their reveal.
“President Biden and Dr. Biden are honored to have former president Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama back to the White House for the unveiling of their portraits, which will hang on the walls of the White House forever as reminders of the power of hope and change,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.
The ceremony is returning to the White House after a 10-year hiatus. It was then-President Obama who last held such a ceremony, when he welcomed back former president George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush for an unveiling of their official portraits back in 2012.
The public unveiling of presidential portraits as we know it today started in 1978 during the Carter administration, according to White House Historical Association President Stuart McLaurin.
“The Carters were the first to invite the Fords back for the reveal of their portrait. Prior to that, they were just kind of hung up when they were done,” McLaurin said.
Since then, an unofficial tradition began of the current president hosting their most recent predecessor at the White House for the event with few exceptions — events that have often been bipartisan with some good-natured ribbing.
“George, I will always remember the gathering you hosted for all the living former presidents before I took office, your kind words of encouragement. Plus, you also left me a really good TV sports package. I use it,” Obama joked in 2012 of George W. Bush.
The tradition was notably broken during the Trump presidency, with the former president eschewing the event — a perhaps unsurprising decision, given Trump’s baseless claims that Obama spied on his 2016 presidential campaign, and was not born in the United States.
Despite the wait, McLaurin said the event at the White House on Wednesday will be “happy, positive” moment for the Obamas.
“There’s a sense of anticipation and excitement about it. And the President and First Lady who are depicted in those portraits have seen them of course, but the reality of having them unveiled in full scale size right there in the East Room of the White House. It’s just a moment — it’s almost like a Christmas morning,” he said.
The process for creating the portraits begins at the end of an outgoing president’s term, with the selection of an artist they’d like to complete their portrait. The White House Historical Association, a non-profit, non-partisan organization started in 1961 by first lady Jackie Kennedy, then contracts the artist to complete the historic image.
According to McLaurin, it typically takes three to four years for the portraits to be completed, but there is no hard and fast deadline for the process.
The Obama portraits have been completed for “a few years,” he said.
As for Trump’s official portrait, McLaurin said the artists have been identified and contracted for the former president and first lady’s portraits, but did not have more details about where in the process they are.
“Typically they would have conversations or they would talk about style and process and things in the background. Sometimes presidents or first ladies put things that have some meaning or purpose or tell a story behind them,” McLaurin said.
“I don’t know how much of that has happened with the Trump’s. I do know that their artists have been identified,” he added.
After its creation in 1961, the White House Historical Association undertook the task of acquiring portraits for every former president and first lady to complete the collection of iconic images of the nation’s leaders.
“You know, with the Founding Fathers and the early presidents, Americans did not know what their presidents looked like,” McLaurin said. “Americans depended on these images that were created and disseminated across the United States.”
“In contemporary modern presidents, we are supersaturated every day with what they look like. So, to me, the interesting take on these portraits is this is really how a president and a first lady see themselves and how they want to be remembered,” he added.
Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Steve Bannon, former adviser to former President Donald Trump, is expected to surrender to prosecutors in New York on Thursday, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.
The details of the charges are unclear, however, the sources confirmed to ABC News that the charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office stem from the federal prosecution of Bannon over “We Build the Wall,” an online fundraising campaign for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In the federal case, Bannon was accused of defrauding donors and using the money for personal expenses.
Trump pardoned Bannon on his final day in office but two codefendants who did not receive pardons pleaded guilty.
The pardon only applies to the federal case and does not preclude the state charges, the specifics of which were not immediately clear.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had no comment when reached by ABC News.
Bannon, via a spokesperson, issued a statement to ABC News Tuesday, saying, in part, “This is nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system.”
The Washington Post first reported the news.
Bannon, who served as Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, was found guilty in July of 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 2021.
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged him with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress.
(AUSTIN, Texas) — Texas has spent over $12 million as of mid-August in busing migrants to New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, a spokesperson for the Texas Division of Emergency Management told ABC News.
The state agency utilizes a contract to charter the buses, which include private security, the spokesperson said.
Abbott has sparred with the Democratic mayors of the three cities, who have accused him of using immigrants as pawns in his political agenda. The governor began the busing program after the Biden administration overturned a pandemic-era order restricting migrant entry numbers to the U.S.
Chicago became the latest city to unknowingly receive migrants as of last Wednesday. Mayor Lori Lightfoot called for unity in the situation and slammed the busings as “inhumane” and “not the Christianity and the teachings of the Bible that I know.”
“My frustration comes from the actions of the governor of Texas,” Lightfoot said at a press conference held Sunday following the arrival of another bus of migrants. “There could be a level of coordination and cooperation but he chooses to do none of those things and instead tries to send human beings…not cargo, not freight, but human beings across the country,” she added.
A spokesperson for Abbott said Chicago has received over 150 migrants on 3 buses so far from Texas. Abbott has no plans to stop anytime soon, the spokesperson said, calling on Mayor Lightfoot to take it up with President Joe Biden.
“Attacking the Governor’s commitment to his faith is a pathetic political ploy to change the conversation away from Mayor Lightfoot’s unwillingness to uphold her city’s self-declared sanctuary status,” Abbott’s press secretary Renae Eze said in a statement provided to ABC News. “Where was Mayor Lightfoot’s outrage and condemnation of President Biden as he flew plane loads of migrants across the country and dropped them in communities in the cover of night?”
The statement added, “Instead of lowly personal attacks on the Governor and complaining about a few dozen migrants being bused into her sanctuary city, Mayor Lightfoot should call on President Biden to take immediate action to secure the border—something the President continues failing to do.”
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
Then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki in April told reporters the migrants on the buses are processed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and “are free to travel.”
New York City Mayor Eric Adams called Abbott’s actions “the worst type of politics” in an interview with “Nightline” last month.
“It’s hateful politics to raise his national profile and, you know what, you should not be doing it by taking away the respect and dignity of people who are in need,” Adams said.
Abbott responded by calling Adams a “hypocrite” because “New York City is a self-declared ‘sanctuary city.'”
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser was denied a request last month from the Pentagon for help from the National Guard in dealing with the crisis.
(WASHINGTON) — Tuesday is primary day in Massachusetts, where attention turns to the GOP gubernatorial race between a Donald Trump-backed hopeful and a more “pragmatic” politician as Republicans aim to keep control of the executive office. Polls close at 8 p.m. ET.
With state Attorney General Maura Healey now the presumptive Democratic nominee after clearing the field in her primary, all eyes are on who will face her. Former state Rep. Geoff Diehl, who has the support of Trump, is going up against businessman and political newcomer Chris Doughty for the Republican nomination.
Diehl won the state party’s endorsement earlier this year and has positioned himself as the more conservative choice as well as focusing on issues like infrastructure, expanding housing options and supporting law enforcement. He also cast doubts on the 2020 presidential election, opposed COVID-19 mandates and supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Diehl previously ran against Elizabeth Warren in the 2018 Senate race but lost by 24%.
Meanwhile, Doughty has focused on three main areas throughout the primary season: lowering taxes, keeping the statehouse balanced and making Massachusetts more affordable for people to live in. He has described himself as both a “moderate” and as “pragmatic, common sense [and] … fiscally conservative.”
Even though Massachusetts is considered a Democratic stronghold in many ways — it hasn’t voted for a Republican president in nearly 30 years — the state has a long history of electing GOP governors, including an unbroken 16-year stretch from 1991-2007.
The incumbent, Charlie Baker, is widely popular in the state but decided not to seek a third term and has not endorsed either candidate in Tuesday’s primary.
After primaries in Illinois and Maryland, the race is the latest example of Republican voters in blue states having to choose between two different types of conservatives as they hope to either retain control of the governorship or retake it after the last election.
Whoever wins the GOP primary, history could be made in Massachusetts if Healey is victorious in November. If she wins, Healey would be Massachusetts’ first elected female governor and first openly gay governor.
