Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security is bracing for as many as 18,000 migrants per day at the southern border if Title 42 is revoked, according to senior DHS officials who briefed reporters on Tuesday.

The DHS official said they have “no idea” when Title 42, the controversial Trump administration policy that deports single adults under the auspices of a public health emergency, will be lifted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently conducting a review of Title 42, which must be completed by March 30. An announcement on whether it will be renewed is expected soon thereafter.

Officials said they have run through three scenarios and the highest level of migrants coming across the border per day was 18,000. They stressed it is only a prediction and they are prepared for anything. DHS has also established a joint information center with officials from across the federal government.

“I think it’s unclear what the impact of Title 42 potentially lifting in the coming days, weeks or months would be on migratory flows, but we need to be prepared for considering a potential contingency, which is that the lifting of Title 42 could increase flows and so that is definitely part of this planning process,” one senior DHS official said.

ABC News obtained a strategic plan outlining the steps DHS will take in “response to irregular migration patterns.”

The 16-page document specifically says the lifting of Title 42 will likely “cause a significant increase along all United States borders — primarily along the Southwest border.”

“The DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) produced projections for post-Title 42 Southwest Border encounters describing low, medium, high, or very high encounter scenarios,” the document says. “These scenarios underpin planning assumptions that generate requirements which in turn drive operational execution. Based on these projections the SBCC is currently planning for 6,000, 12,000 (high) and 18,000 (very high) encounters per day.”

In the event of large migration numbers along the border, Customs and Border Protection is prepared to more than double their air and bus transportation capabilities and beef up CBP agents at surge points.

The agency is looking at ways to make the situation more tenable if an influx of migrants does come, such as establishing an online preregistration system and sending more CBP officers to the border.

The department is setting up temporary facilities in anticipation of high migrant levels.

There was an average of 5,892 apprehensions along the southwest border each day in February, according to CBP data, an increase from 2021 when there were an average of 4,753 per day for the calendar year.

“We are now seeing 40% of our monthly encounters coming from countries that are not Mexico, or the Northern Triangle countries of Central America. That is frankly unprecedented and something that is concerning not just to us, but to the government of Mexico and other countries in the region,” one senior official told reporters, noting that they are seeing an influx of Nicaraguan, Cuban and Venezuelan nationals.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Politicians and family members are calling on Congress to step up and do more to help soldiers who were affected by potentially deadly diseases caused by toxic burn pits.

The Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs held a hearing Tuesday with Secretary for Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough testifying to discuss the Honoring our PACT Act, a bill that would expand veteran health benefits and improve care for illnesses brought on by burn pits and toxic exposure.

Burn pits are any open-air swaths of land dedicated to incinerating waste. They were commonly used on U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to dispose of items like medical waste, human waste, rubber, plastics and other materials that emit toxic fumes. Such items would be centralized in a given burn pit and lit ablaze with diesel or jet fuel.

The PACT Act would broaden the list of the conditions presumed to be related to one’s tenure of service. At present, eligible veterans receive disability payments for such conditions, but qualifying for benefits related to non-presumed conditions mandates they prove their illness is directly linked to their military duties.

The bill was passed by the House in early March, with 34 Republicans joining every Democrat in voting for it, but has yet to be voted on by the Senate.

Veterans Affairs has already been running a pilot program to establish protocol for creating new presumptive conditions, according to McDonough. The pilot, which is slated to end in April, uses “all available science” and claims data to determine new guidelines.

“Upon completion of that, which I anticipate is yet this spring, we’ll submit the whole thing for you to see, and you can see both what we’ve proposed and what the outside review of what we’ve proposed finds,” he said at the hearing. “The bottom line, in my view, about our new presumptive process is that we have to put the veteran at the center of the process, and we have to increase the sources of science available for us to make the decisions that we need to make.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., quickly pushed back on whether this approach really centered the process around veterans, noting that while broader coverage can be more expensive, it at least allocates resources toward actual benefits.

“I would hope that we can all agree that if we’re spending $1 on VA health care, spend that on health care, not a bureaucracy to determine whether or not the veteran in fact, was exposed or not,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., aired concerns echoed by critics of the bill, including several other Republican Congress members, saying, “[The PACT Act] also includes provisions that perhaps will stretch the VA beyond its operational capacity, effectively providing no guarantee that veterans will be able to access the benefits promised.”

McDonough acknowledged these concerns and stated the department has recently hired 1,742 new claim adjudicators to help ameliorate the current backlog of 240,000 claims. More adjudicators and staff would need to be hired to help ensure the promises of the PACT Act if passed, he said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, later recognized this need and stated it was Congress’ duty to give Veterans Affairs the resources to implement the act, as veterans currently pay the price not only financially but also logistically.

“I think one of the most difficult aspects of what we require of veterans to make the service connection evident is that they bear the burden of proof, and whoever has the burden of proof has a really high burden,” Hirono said.

The Senate committee estimated that up to 3.5 million veterans who served after Sept. 11 could have experienced exposure, and many may be suffering from illnesses that have yet to be diagnosed.

Prior to the committee’s hearing, Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., held a press conference Tuesday outside the Capitol to address the urgency of passing the PACT Act. They were joined by several veterans, advocates and families of soldiers who died due to toxic exposure-related illnesses. Comedian Jon Stewart, who has long advocated for increased funding for those suffering from diseases brought on by burn pits, also attended the rally.

Schumer described the importance of the PACT Act as a nonnegotiable step in bringing closure and healing.

“We refused to face up to one of the biggest costs of those wars, and that is the health care needs of veterans who fought and sacrificed on our behalf,” he said. “It’s our job to make sure we take care of them once they come back.”

Gillibrand specifically talked about the link between exposure and disease, in the context of Sept. 11 survivors, first responders and witnesses.

“We know what toxins were released at these burn pits. We know that the smoldering toxins set fire by jet fuel, of plastics, of human waste, of medical waste, of building materials, of clothing, of any type of item, computers, electronics that could be burned,” Gillibrand said. “Those are the same things that were burned on 9/11, so that’s why we know the toxins that were released cause these cancers. And that’s why having a presumption that if you served and you’re sick, you are covered. That is our promise.”

Danielle Robinson, whose husband Heath served in Iraq and died from a rare kind of lung cancer in 2020, spoke about her devastating loss and described staying by his side during his last moments in hospice.

“I need all of you senators to understand what it is like to lay on the floor underneath your dying husband for seven hours, helping him die,” Robinson said.

While for many it is too late, Robinson called on senators to pass the PACT Act in the name of helping veterans currently battling illness, as well as those who may be diagnosed in the future.

“If you pass this Honoring Our PACT Act, you’re going to help so many veterans who are in the same situation, on hospice right now, for those that may have to come and hopefully to take care of those that have cancers that can be curable,” she said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon is seeing “small numbers” of Russian troops repositioning to the north of Kyiv but is not labeling it a withdrawal as Russia has characterized it. Instead, it believes the troops might be used in an offensive elsewhere in Ukraine, possibly into the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

After holding talks with Ukrainian negotiators in Turkey, Russia’s defense ministry said it was withdrawing forces from around Kyiv and Chernihiv as “a good faith” measure in the talks. However, the move coincided with the Russian military’s lack of success in its moves on the two northern cities.

“We’re seeing a small number now that appears to be moving away from Kyiv,” John Kirby, the Pentagon’s top spokesman, told reporters Tuesday. “This on the same day that the Russians say they’re withdrawing, but we’re not prepared to call this a retreat, or even a withdrawal. What they probably have in mind is a repositioning to prioritize elsewhere.”

“It’s certainly not a significant chunk of the multiple battalion tactical groups that Russia has arrayed against Kyiv,” Kirby said. “It’s not anywhere near a majority of what they have arrayed” around Ukraine’s capital.

He noted the Russians have said in recent days that it has made the Donbas area a priority.

“We believe that it is likely more repositioning to be used elsewhere in Ukraine. Where exactly we don’t know,” he said. “We all should be prepared to watch for a major offensive against other areas of Ukraine. It does not mean that the threat to Kyiv is over. “

Kirby expressed similar skepticism about the Russian announcement from other top Biden administration officials, including President Joe Biden.

“We’re not taking anything they say at face value,” Kirby said. “We’re not we’re not prepared to buy the Russian argument that it’s a withdrawal. Again, our assessment is that their intention is to reposition forces and bolster their efforts elsewhere.”

Though Kirby said Russian troops had repeatedly failed in their military objectives in Ukraine, particularly in taking Kyiv, he declined to characterize the Russian move as a defeat.

“I don’t think we’re prepared to slap a bumper sticker on this thing right now,” Kirby said. “I mean, there are still people dying. There’s still bombs falling. There’s still missiles flying. And they’re still give and take on the battlefield. So I don’t think we’re ready to call it one way or another here.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Gen. Tod Wolters, the top U.S. military commander in Europe, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Russia’s invasion was “a pivotal moment in Europe with generational implications” that had strengthened the NATO alliance.

Wolters said American troop levels in Europe had risen from 60,000 to 100,000 due to the invasion and said more troops might be needed.

“My suspicion is we’re going to still need more,” Wolters said. “And obviously, there’s always a mix between the requirement of permanent versus rotational and there are pluses and minuses of each one. We’ll have to continue to examine the European contributions to make a smart decision about where to go in the future.”

During his press conference Tuesday, Kirby announced some Marine forces that had recently participated in NATO’s Cold Response exercise in Norway would be redirected to Lithuania and Eastern Europe. The Marine units included a command and control unit being sent to Lithuania along with 10 FA-18 fighters and several C-130 transport planes.

Wolters praised Ukraine’s military and its ability to stall Russian military operations throughout the country, especially through the weapons systems being provided by the U.S. military.

“I think we can, and we will continue to maintain our support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” Wolters said. “… We’ve made dramatic improvements in our information and sharing and intelligence sharing.”

That support has included the key delivery of American-made Javelin anti-tank weapons and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that have helped the Ukrainian military stall the progress of Russian troops throughout Ukraine.

Wolters said the supply line of weapons to the Ukrainians had been successful and had not come under attack. “They’ve been delivering right to the right location at the right time,” Wolters said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden has signed the Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act into law Tuesday, making lynching a hate crime under federal law.

“It was pure terror, to enforce the lie that not everyone — not everyone belongs in America, not everyone is created equal,” Biden said. “Terror, to systematically undermine hard fought civil rights, terror, not just in the dark of night but in broad daylight. Innocent men, women and children, hung by nooses, from trees, bodies burned and drowned, castrated.”

Congress failed to pass anti-lynching legislation over 200 times before the bill finally moved forward this year. The bill is the first legislation of its kind in more than 100 years to be signed into law.

Lynchings were used to murder and terrorize the Black community in the U.S., predominantly in the South, from the 1880s to 1960s, the NAACP states.

Of people who were killed in lynchings, Biden said: “Their crimes? Trying to vote, trying to go to school, trying to own a business, or preach the gospel.”

The Equal Justice Initiative, a racial justice advocacy and research organization, has documented nearly 6,500 racial terror lynchings in the U.S. between 1865 and 1950.

Under the bill, an offense can be prosecuted as a lynching when the offender conspires to commit a hate crime that results in someone’s death or serious bodily injury under this bill. This includes kidnapping and aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to kidnap, abuse, or kill.

A perpetrator can be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison for lynching alone, raising the maximum sentence by 20 years from previous versions of the legislation.

The act is named after 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was kidnapped, beaten and killed in Mississippi in August 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman.

Till’s cousin, Reverend Wheeler Parker, Jr., thanked legislators for enshrining this bill into law.

“My cousin was a bright, promising 14-year-old from Chicago,” Parker said in a statement to ABC News. “My family was devastated that no one was held responsible for the abduction, torture, and murder of Emmett. But we are heartened by this new law, which shows that Emmett still speaks in powerful ways to make sure that no one can get away with a racist crime like this ever again”

Till’s death remains a symbol of racism and brutality against Black people in the U.S.

“While this will not erase the horrific injustices to which 10s of 1000s of African Americans have been subjected over the generations, nor fully heal the terror inflicted on countless others, it is an important step forward as we continue the work of confronting our nation’s past in pursuit of a brighter and more just future,” said Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor.

Biden also recalled recent acts of violence against Black people, including the fatal killing of Ahmaud Arbery.

“The law is not just about the past. It’s about the present and our future as well,” he said.

Black Americans remain the most targeted group in the U.S. when it comes to reported hate crimes. They made up 2,871 of the 8,263 reported hate crimes in 2020 — or 34% — according to the FBI.

The Senate passed the bill unanimously on March 7.

Members of Congress applauded the bill’s progress following several years of attempts to pass it. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., who has been sponsoring such a bill since the 115th Congress, said that the bill is one step toward correcting “historical injustice.”

“By passing my Emmett Till Antilynching Act, the House has sent a resounding message that our nation is finally reckoning with one of the darkest and most horrific periods of our history and that we are morally and legally committed to changing course,” said Rush after the House passed the bill in February.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration on Tuesday warned the U.S. Supreme Court that “survival of the nation is at stake” in a dispute with the state of Texas over a federal law meant to protect military service members from job discrimination after completing a tour of duty.

The case involves a former Texas state trooper and Army reservist, Le Roy Torres, who was deployed in 2007 to Iraq, where he suffered lung damage from exposure to burn pits. Upon return to civilian life, Torres was effectively forced out of his old job after the troopers refused to accommodate his medical condition.

The government says the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, gives military reservists and National Guard members the ability to sue employers who deny them the right to return to work after serving the country.

The Pentagon says the mechanism is critical for recruitment of an all-volunteer force that is increasingly reliant on National Guard members and reservists.

“These are people who work for civilian employers at the same time they have jobs. They’ve never been more important to the military than they are right now,” said Assistant Solicitor General Christopher Michel.

“One of the first questions that people like that will ask when they’re considering whether to join the military is, ‘well, do I get to keep my job?” Michel told the justices. “It really does matter in the real world for the Army to be able to tell them, ‘yes, your employer does have to do that.'”

Texas argues it is protected from employment discrimination claims by service members in state courts because of state sovereign immunity under the Constitution. The claim is rooted in the meaning of Congress’ constitutional war powers, which the state argues do not extend to lawsuits.

“No one disputes the importance of war powers or that USERRA [the law] advances constitutional ends,” said Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone. But “neither precedent nor history show that the states authorized Congress to use the means of subjecting states to private damages actions by delegating the ends of raising an army to Congress.”

The gravity of the case did not appear lost on the justices on the bench, a majority of whom appeared inclined to side with Torres and the government. But their views were not always clear and did not break along traditional ideological lines.

“This has the potential of being a pretty important case for the structure of the United States of America,” declared Justice Stephen Breyer, the only member of the high court to have served on active duty.

“We have to be thinking about the next 50 years,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “It’s important to recognize the ability to wage war successfully is getting people to sign up.”

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the federal government had broad leeway in managing and protecting its military force, noting the very existence of the Constitution followed the failure of the Articles of Confederation to do the job.

“The strongest argument is the very reason the [Constitutional] convention was called,” Roberts said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared to be the most skeptical of Torres and the administration’s argument, disputing the necessity of state discrimination suits for building and maintaining an army.

“If it’s essential to the war powers… that an individual be able to sue the state, in this case for forms of discrimination, why wouldn’t it be equally essential to allow veterans to sue for making sure our highway are in good order so that we can deal with invasions on the West Coast? I mean, that was the whole point of the interstate highway system,” Gorsuch hypothesized.

“What’s the limit?” he said later.

The trial court in the case sided with Torres and the government, but a federal appeals court reversed it.

The administration repeatedly warned Tuesday that rejecting Torres’ claim could discourage public employees nationwide — who now disproportionately make up members of the Guard and Reserves — from enlisting in the military in the first place.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The late Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican in the history of the House of Representatives, was remembered by Capitol Hill colleagues on Tuesday as his body lies in state in National Statuary Hall.

Young died at 88 on March 18 after losing consciousness on a flight to Seattle as he was heading back to Alaska with his wife, Anne, his office said. He is also survived by his two daughters, Joni and Dawn.

Young’s casket arrived on the Hill just before 11 a.m., and lawmakers, including Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, gathered nearby to watch the honor guard carry him up the east front steps. A small group of family, including his wife with her hand over her heart, waited near the top of the stairs for the arrival procession.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office said a formal ceremony will be open to the Young family and invited guests on Tuesday before all members of Congress are welcomed to visit Young as he lies in state, an honor reserved for the more revered Americans.

President Joe Biden’s scheduled afternoon trip to pay his respects on Tuesday marks the third time as president he has visited Capitol Hill for a former congressional colleague’s funeral service. Biden also visited former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole, R-Kansas, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., and he left the presidential campaign trail in 2020 to honor the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.

“Don’s legacy lives on in the infrastructure projects he delighted in steering across Alaska,” Biden said in a statement. “In the opportunities he advanced for his constituents. In the enhanced protections for Native tribes he championed. His legacy will continue in the America he loved.”

Young was one of 13 House Republicans to vote for Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill late last year.

Pelosi said in a statement that Young’s “reverence and devotion to the House shone through in everything that he did,” calling him “an institution in the hallowed halls of Congress.”

Young, who was “dean of the House” when he died, was first elected to Congress in 1973. Reelected to his 25th term as Alaska’s only member of the House in 2020, he was known for a brusque style and for bringing federal investments home to Alaska.

He said in 2016: “I’ll defend my state to the dying breath, and I will always do that and they know that.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will sign the Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act into law Tuesday, making lynching a hate crime under federal law.

Congress failed to pass anti-lynching legislation over 200 times before the bill finally moved forward this year. The bill is the first legislation of its kind in more than 100 years that will be signed into law.

Lynchings were used to murder and terrorize the Black community in the U.S., predominantly in the South, from the 1880s to 1960s, the NAACP states.

The Equal Justice Initiative, a racial justice advocacy and research organization, has documented nearly 6,500 racial terror lynchings in the U.S. between 1865 and 1950.

Under the bill, an offense can be prosecuted as a lynching when the offender conspires to commit a hate crime that results in someone’s death or serious bodily injury under this bill. This includes kidnapping and aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to kidnap, abuse, or kill.

A perpetrator can be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison for lynching alone, raising the maximum sentence by 20 years from previous versions of the legislation.

The act is named after 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was kidnapped, beaten and killed in Mississippi in August 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman.

His death remains a symbol of racism and brutality against Black people in the U.S.

“While this will not erase the horrific injustices to which 10s of 1000s of African Americans have been subjected over the generations, nor fully heal the terror inflicted on countless others, it is an important step forward as we continue the work of confronting our nation’s past in pursuit of a brighter and more just future,” said Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor.

Black Americans remain the most targeted group in the U.S. when it comes to reported hate crimes. They made up 2,871 of the 8,263 reported hate crimes in 2020 — or 34% — according to the FBI.

The Senate passed the bill unanimously on March 7.

Congressmembers applauded the bill’s progress following several years of attempts to pass it. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., who has been sponsoring such a bill since the 115th Congress, said that the bill is one step toward correcting “historical injustice.”

“By passing my Emmett Till Antilynching Act, the House has sent a resounding message that our nation is finally reckoning with one of the darkest and most horrific periods of our history and that we are morally and legally committed to changing course,” said Rush after the House passed the bill in February.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign from the nation’s highest court as a growing number of Democrats demand he recuse himself from some cases following revelations that his wife urged then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to help overturn the 2020 election results.

Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called on Democrats to explore impeachment if he doesn’t step down — noting that Thomas was the lone dissenting vote on the court earlier this year to block the Jan. 6 committee from obtaining Trump White House records.

“Clarence Thomas should resign. If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment,” she wrote in a tweet Monday morning.

“Congress must understand that a failure to hold Clarence Thomas accountable sends a loud, dangerous signal to the full Court – Kavanaugh, Barrett, & the rest – that his acts are fair game,” she added. “This is a tipping point. Inaction is a decision to erode and further delegitimize SCOTUS.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign—and urges Democrats to explore impeachment if he doesn’t. https://t.co/OgLydDrOXF pic.twitter.com/oQrCdK7kta

— ABC News (@ABC) March 29, 2022

The call from Oscaio-Cortez comes on the heels of two dozen other congressional Democrats sending a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Thomas on Monday evening requesting the justice recuse himself in all cases related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election. The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also asks Roberts to create a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court by April 28, “that includes (1) enforceable provisions to ensure that the Justices comply with this Code and (2) a requirement that all Justices issue written recusal decisions.”

While it’s unlikely that Thomas would resign or Democrats would have enough support to impeach him, calls from Ocasio-Cortez and other high-profile Democrats could pressure more to pressure party leaders to take up the issue ahead of the midterms.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., meanwhile, defended Thomas’ ability to rule fairly on Friday during a press conference at a House GOP retreat.

“I think Justice Thomas could make his decisions like he’s made…every other time. It’s his decision based upon law,” McCarthy said.

On Monday, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also called on Thomas to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases, telling reporters it would be “for the good of the court” and added that the committee might take action after Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the situation “a textbook case for” recusal in an interview with This Week co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview on Sunday.

Sources familiar with text messages sent from Virginia “Ginni” Thomas to Meadows, which were obtained by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, confirmed their authenticity to ABC News. The content of the messages was first reported by The Washington Post and CBS News.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 10 after the election was officially called for Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs,” Meadows wrote. “Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, John Santucci and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack recommended on Monday that the full chamber hold senior Trump White House officials in contempt of Congress for their refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas for records and testimony related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The panel released a 34-page report on Sunday laying out congressional investigators’ interest in Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, and how both Trump loyalists rebuffed requests for their cooperation, ahead of Monday night’s vote on whether to refer the matter to the House.

Both men “stonewalled” the committee, Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Monday.

“They’re not fooling anybody. They are obligated to comply with our investigation. They have refused to do so. And that’s a crime,” he said.

A successful House vote would send the referrals to the Justice Department, which would decide whether to pursue criminal charges. Each contempt charge could carry up to a $100,000 fine and up to one year in jail.

Navarro, who officially served as a trade adviser to then-President Donald Trump in the White House’s West Wing, produced a report alleging that the presidential election was stolen from Trump — which he said Trump distributed to all Republican members of Congress prior to Jan. 6.

The committee said it had evidence that Navarro’s work was distributed by then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and attorney John Eastman, who also worked on Trump’s effort to overturn the election results.

The committee wrote in its report that Navarro also worked closely with Trump ally Steve Bannon to delay Congress’ certification of the election and to overturn the results, a plan Navarro dubbed the “Green Bay Sweep” in his book, “In Trump Time.” According to the committee, Navarro spoke to Bannon on Jan. 6, encouraged Trump associates to contact Trump ally Roger Stone to discuss Jan. 6 plans, and encouraged hundreds of state legislators to “take action” ahead of the certification of the election results.

The Justice Department has indicted Bannon for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena. The trial for Bannon, who has pleaded not guilty, could begin this summer.

The DOJ has not taken action on a referral from the House over Meadows’ refusal to fully cooperate with the committee’s subpoena.

Navarro has repeatedly rebuffed the committee and has refused to comply with its subpoena, arguing that Trump invoked executive privilege over their communications, even though he detailed parts of his work in his book — and even though President Joe Biden, as the current commander-in-chief, declined to invoke privilege over his testimony.

“My position remains this is not my Executive Privilege to waive and the Committee should negotiate this matter with President Trump.” Navarro said in a statement Sunday, in response to the committee’s report. “If he waives the privilege, I will be happy to comply; but I see no effort by the Committee to clarify this matter with President Trump, which is bad faith and bad law.”

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., on Monday called Navarro a “key witness” who had “written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of Jan. 6, and yet he does not have the courage to testify here.”

The Supreme Court previously rejected Trump’s claims of privilege and refused to block the committee from some Trump White House records. The panel has also argued that Navarro’s election-related work was not done in his capacity as a government official and would not be covered by executive privilege.

“We want to talk to Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro about their roles in an attempt to overturn an election. The American people didn’t pay their salaries to do that,” Thompson said, dismissing their claims of privilege.

The committee wrote in its report that Scavino, a deputy chief of staff and longtime Trump aide, was “uniquely positioned to illuminate” Trump’s knowledge and actions leading up to Jan. 6.

Scavino also played a central part in amplifying Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread election fraud in his role managing the then-president’s Twitter and other social media accounts.

“President Trump, working with Mr. Scavino, successfully spread distrust for our courts — which had repeatedly found no basis to overturn the election. And Trump’s stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on Jan. 6. On this point, there is no doubt — the Committee has videos, interviews, and sworn statements from the violent rioters demonstrating these facts,” Cheney said.

According to the committee’s report, the panel has obtained evidence that Scavino spoke to Trump “several times” on Jan. 6 and was with him at the White House as he faced public and private calls to help stop the violence at the Capitol.

Pointing to his online presence and links to Trump’s following on social media, the committee said it had “reason to believe” that Scavino “may have had advance warning of the possibility of violence on Jan. 6,” given online activity on pro-Trump forums that suggested potential violence in Washington.

“Whether and when the President and other senior officials knew of impending violence is highly relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation and consideration of legislative recommendations,” the committee wrote.

The panel issued three subpoenas to Scavino — including one delivered by U.S. Marshals to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida — and agreed to delay his deposition and document production deadline half a dozen times last year. Yet the committee said in its report that Scavino had “not produced a single document, nor has he appeared for testimony.”

Scavino also sued Verizon in January to stop the carrier from turning over his cell phone records to the committee.

Although Scavino, Navarro, and several other Trump allies have refused to cooperate with the probe, investigators have questioned more than 750 witnesses, including senior Trump White House and administration officials, as the committee works to wrap up the first phase of its inquiry ahead of public hearings and the issuance of a final report later this year.

“We’re now in a critical phase of our investigation,” Cheney said.

An attorney representing Scavino did not respond to requests for comment from ABC News.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Dick Durbin, is calling on Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases following reports that Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, had exchanged texts with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election results.

Durbin said Monday that the development “raises a serious question about conflict of interest for Justice Thomas.”

“To think that he would consider a case where his wife is frequently contacting the chief of staff for the president and giving advice on matters that are going to be ultimately litigated by the court,” he told reporters on Capitol Hill. “For the good of the court, I think he should recuse himself from those cases.”

Sources familiar with the text messages, which were obtained by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, confirmed their authenticity to ABC News. The content of the messages was first reported by The Washington Post and CBS News.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 10 after the election was officially called for Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs,” Meadows wrote. “Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

The Supreme Court then declined to block the Jan. 6 committee from obtaining Trump White House records in January over the objection of only one justice: Clarence Thomas.

Pressed as to whether the Senate Judiciary intends to take action on or investigate the matter, Durbin said the committee would have those discussions once they deal with the pending nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court.

“There’s plenty of time and plenty of reason for us to debate this in the future,” Durbin said. “But for the time being. I want to make sure this vacancy is filled with Judge Jackson.”

Durbin added there are “a lot of things for which we will discuss” after Jackson’s confirmation vote, but that he is “troubled to say the least by the disclosures about what Justice Thomas’s wife has been doing.”

President Biden, meanwhile, is attempting to stay out of the debate over whether Thomas should recuse himself, saying Monday at a White House event unveiling his budget that he would “leave that to two entities.”

“One, the January 6th committee and two the Justice Department. That’s their judgment, not mine to make,” Biden said.

The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack is also debating whether or not to ask Ginni Thomas for her voluntary cooperation and is meeting on Monday evening to discuss whether to hold former Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress for their refusal to comply with subpoenas.

Sources say there are others on the panel who believe the committee should take the more aggressive step of attempting to compel her testimony via subpoena.

Pressed further on Monday to take his own position, the president was unwavering.

“I told you those things get into legal issues. That, in fact, I told you I would not tell the Justice Department what position to take or not take. And I’m not going to instruct the Congress either,” he said to reporters.

The messages — more than two dozen between Thomas and Meadows in November of 2020, and one from Jan. 10 — were among the thousands of pages of text messages, emails and documents Meadows voluntarily turned over to the committee last year, before he reversed course and decided not to cooperate with the inquiry.

Thomas did not respond to an earlier request for comment from ABC News. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment on the messages or their contents.

“There were some eyebrows raised when Justice Thomas was that lone vote,” said Kate Shaw, ABC News Supreme Court analyst and Cardozo Law professor. “But he did not explain himself, so we don’t actually know why he wished to take up the case.”

There are no explicit ethics guidelines that govern the activities of a justice’s spouse, experts say, but there are rules about justices avoiding conflicts of interest. Federal law requires that federal judges recuse themselves from cases whenever their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Benjamin Siegel, Devin Dwyer, Justin Gomez and Libby Cathey contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.