(WASHINGTON) — In a major development, the House Jan. 6 select committee on Wednesday asked GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy to voluntarily cooperate with its probe.
In a letter, the committee asked him to voluntarily provide information.
It is not compelling him to provide information or sit before the committee at this time.
Chairman Bennie Thompson said in the letter that he believes McCarthy has relevant information that could speak into the facts, circumstances, and causes leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.
Thompson also wants information from McCarthy about events in the days before and after Jan. 6.
“You have acknowledged speaking directly with the former President while the violence was underway on January 6th,” Thompson writes.
“The Select Committee wishes to question you regarding communications you may have had with President Trump, President Trump’s legal team, Representative Jordan, and others at the time on that topic,” Thompson writes.
McCarthy has made multiple statements about Jan. 6 and about his conversations with Trump that day.
ABC News has reached out to McCarthy’s office for comment.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — As President Joe Biden prepared to head to Capitol Hill on Thursday to rally Senate Democrats on election reform, a visibly angry Republican Leader Mitch McConnell fired back Wednesday, saying that he didn’t recognize the man who delivered the fiery speech in Georgia on voting rights one day earlier.
McConnell characterized Biden’s speech — in which the president called for the Senate to change its rules by “whichever way they need to be changed” in order to pass Democrats’ voting bills — as “profoundly, profoundly un-presidential,” deeming the remarks a “rant” that “was incoherent, incorrect and beneath his office.”
The Kentucky Republican repeatedly took issue with Biden linking Republicans to Jim Crow-era legislation for standing in the way of election reform, as at least 19 GOP-led states have passed laws in the last year that experts at the Brennan Center for Justice say restrict voting access.
“We have a sitting president — a sitting president — invoking the Civil War, shouting about totalitarianism and labeling millions of Americans his domestic enemies?” McConnell said. “Yesterday, he poured a giant can of gasoline on the fire.”
Biden, one day earlier in Atlanta, spoke forcefully in favor of changing the Senate filibuster rule so that Democrats could pass two key voting bills that have stalled in the Senate.
“Nowhere does the Constitution give a minority the right to unilaterally block legislation,” Biden said. “The American people have waited long enough. The Senate must act.”
McConnell, in turn, closed his floor speech on Wednesday by imploring his colleagues — including an indirect call to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., whom he has courted to change parties — that it’s up to them to defend tradition in the Senate.
“Unfortunately, President Biden has rejected the ‘better angels of our nature.’ So, it is the Senate’s responsibility to protect the country. This institution was constructed as a firewall against exactly — exactly the kind of rage and false hysteria we saw on full display yesterday,” McConnell said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had promised to move toward a showdown on votes on Democrats’ voting legislation as soon as Wednesday.
The Democratic leader met Tuesday night with Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema — another Democrat who has not committed to a filibuster carveout but says she supports election reforms — and then with Manchin on Wednesday morning for around an hour as he navigates a way to push through Biden’s agenda.
While acknowledging he likely doesn’t have the votes to move the bills forward, Schumer said he wants to force a vote to put senators on the record to show Americans — and history — where they stand on the issue that Democrats call vital to democracy.
A recorded vote on those bills could be seen as the first move toward another vote on changing or eliminating the filibuster on the measures, which could potentially fall on Monday given the symbolism of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Ahead of his visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday, Biden in Atlanta on Tuesday attempted to shame the 16 sitting Republicans who voted to extend the Voting Rights Act before — to support voting rights now.
“Not a single Republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect America’s right to vote, not one,” he said. “Not one.”
While Biden, having served in Congress for 36 years, has defended the filibuster in the past, he changed his tune regarding election reforms, saying Tuesday that a minority of senators shouldn’t be permitted to block actions on voting rights for all Americans.
(NEW YORK) — An analysis of preliminary data published Wednesday indicates that many candidates for top election administration roles are fundraising at a record-setting clip, with some of the biggest hauls going to those who have made 2020 election denial a central tenet of their message to voters.
In Georgia, Michigan and Minnesota, the key battleground states where data is already available, “fundraising in secretary of state races is two and a half times higher than it was by the same point in either of the last two election cycles,” according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan organization that tracks elections and voting rights.
Brennan Center analysts credit increased political polarization and controversy over the 2020 election for the deluge of money flooding these races, which have historically been low-profile affairs involving modest sums of fundraising.
As chief election officials in many states — who often wield immense power over the administration of federal, state and local elections — secretaries of state have taken center stage as the nation grapples with core democratic issues.
“Formerly contested on dry issues of bureaucratic processes, these elections are being infused with substantive politics, with more and more candidates making election denial, or opposition to it, central to their campaigns,” the Brennan Center authors wrote.
“Indeed, as far as we are aware,” the authors continued, “this is the first time in the modern era that questions about the legitimacy of elections have played such a prominent role in contests for election officials.”
Many Republican candidates for election administrator posts are campaigning on the false notion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from President Donald Trump — a dangerous falsity that is rewarding those pedaling it most fervently, according to the Brennan Center analysis.
In Georgia, for example, where Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is seeking reelection in a crowded field, challenger Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., who, as a member of Congress, objected to certifying President Joe Biden’s victory, outraised all other candidates — including Raffensperger — through mid-2021.
Hice landed more than $500,000 in the three months after launching his campaign, the Brennan Center found, backed by a mix of small-dollar supporters and national GOP donors such as Richard Uihlein of Uline Inc. Hice has said that if 2020 was a “fair election, it would be a different outcome.”
In Michigan, however, a different story is emerging. Through mid-October of last year, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic incumbent, had raised $1.2 million — more than five times what she had brought in at that point in the 2018 contest.
Benson has attracted national attention for her outspoken criticism of Trump and those who have cast doubt on the 2020 presidential race.
“There is a growing understanding that what’s on the ballot in 2022 is, in some measure, nonpartisan election administration,” Larry Norden, a co-author of the report, told ABC News. “And that’s attracting a lot more money.”
While it is too early to identify the new sources of fundraising, Norden said one trend has already emerged: a flood of out-of-state donations. In Georgia, 22% of donations have come from donors based in other states, a marked uptick from 2018, when only 13% of donations came from elsewhere.
Some strategists say Trump’s proclivity to endorse loyalists up and down state and local ballots has motivated major national donors and political organizations to play a more active role in elections that, in past election cycles, would not have gotten their attention.
“[Trump and his allies are] trying to run out establishment Republicans and elect Trump loyalists at every level of government,” said Sarah Longwell, strategic director at Republican Voters Against Trump, a coalition of conservatives opposed to Trump. “Trump is running a widespread insurgent strategy that is meant to continue to undercut traditional Republican candidates.”
It is not uncommon for fundraising to increase each cycle with the cost of elections. But the amount of money being pumped into races for election administrators is unprecedented. In the coming weeks, new disclosure filings are expected to show how these campaigns fared in fundraising through the end of the year, allowing a better glimpse at where candidates stand now.
Wednesday’s reporting from the Brennan Center is the first installment in a forthcoming series on contests for governors, secretaries of state and local election officials — offices that carry an outsized role in administering the vote.
Analysts will examine fundraising trends and messaging in those races, with a particular focus on how candidates discuss the false notion that the previous election cycle was somehow compromised.
“Nowhere will this issue be more important than in the contests for the offices that will have a direct role in the administration and certification of election results,” the authors of Wednesday’s report wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack issued three new subpoenas on Tuesday to former Trump White House aides and associates, including a speechwriter who helped craft former President Donald Trump’s speech to supporters ahead of the Capitol riot.
The panel has subpoenaed GOP operatives Arthur Schwartz and Andrew Surabian, along with Trump White House speechwriter Ross Worthington.
“The Select Committee is seeking information from individuals who were involved with the rally at the Ellipse. Protests on that day escalated into an attack on our democracy,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in a statement. “We have reason to believe the individuals we’ve subpoenaed today have relevant information and we expect them to join the more than 340 individuals who have spoken with the Select Committee as we push ahead to investigate this attack on our democracy and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”
Both Surabian and Schwartz, who have ties to Donald Trump Jr. and have been in the former president’s orbit since he first ran for president, communicated with organizers and speakers at the rally on the National Mall, the committee said, pointing to records obtained by the panel.
“While we plan on cooperating with the Committee within reason, we are bewildered as to why Mr. Surabian is being subpoenaed in the first place,” Surabian’s lawyer, Daniel Bean, told ABC News in a statement. “He had nothing at all to do with the events that took place at the Capital that day, zero involvement in organizing the rally that preceded it and was off the payroll of the Trump campaign as of November 15, 2020.”
Schwartz and Worthington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to the committee, Worthington helped draft Trump’s speech that day to supporters — many of whom later marched across the National Mall to the Capitol after he encouraged them to do so.
Trump’s speech and intentions were a focus of debate during Trump’s second impeachment trial, when House Democrats charged him with inciting the riot.
His lawyers argued before the Senate that the president did not call for violence against lawmakers or Capitol Police.
The committee has asked all three witnesses to turn over records by Jan. 24 and appear for interviews at the end of the month, or early February.
To date, the panel has publicly disclosed 53 subpoenas, and investigators have obtained tens of thousands of pages of records, including some from the Trump White House, and text messages and emails provided by Mark Meadows, who served as Trump’s last White House chief of staff.
The committee, which is prepared to hold public hearings in the coming weeks, has also sought to voluntarily question GOP lawmakers involved in efforts to challenge the election results.
Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Scott Perry, R-Pa., have refused to cooperate with the inquiry, and the panel has not ruled out trying to compel their testimony.
The committee is also engaging with aides and associates of former Vice President Mike Pence, who Trump and others tried to pressure to overturn the election results while he presided over the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6.
Longtime Pence aide Marc Short has been subpoenaed by the committee, and his attorney continues to engage with the panel regarding testimony and cooperation.
Thompson also suggested in a recent NPR interview that the committee could request to interview Pence in the coming weeks.
(ATLANTA) — With less than 10 months until the 2022 midterm elections, President Joe Biden headed to Georgia on Tuesday to make his biggest push yet for national voting rights bills and called for changes to the Senate filibuster rule in order to get them passed.
“We have no option but to change the Senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster for this,” Biden said.
Recalling the “violent mob” that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, Biden characterized the attack, for the first time publicly, as an “attempted coup.”
“That’s why we’re here today to stand against the forces in America that value power over principle, forces that attempted a coup — a coup against the legally expressed will of the American people by sowing doubt and vending charges of fraud, seeking to steal the 2020 election from the people,” he said.
“Hear me plainly,” Biden told the group gathered in Atlanta. “The battle for the soul of America is not over.”
“We must make sure Jan. 6 marks not the end of democracy but the renaissance for our democracy,” he continued.
The president called out congressional Republicans, he said, for turning the will of the voters into a “mere suggestion” in the case of the 2020 presidential election.
Biden spoke Tuesday alongside Vice President Kamala Harris from the grounds of Clark Atlanta University and Morehouse College.
“We will fight to secure our most fundamental freedom — the freedom to vote,” Harris said, opening for the president. “And that is why we have come to Atlanta today — to the cradle of the Civil Rights movement, to the district that was represented by the great Congressman John Lewis, on the eve of the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”
Harris blasted Senate Republicans over what she characterized as exploiting “acane” Senate rules — in an apparent nod to the filibuster — to block Democrats’ election reform bills.
“We will fight to safeguard our democracy,” she added.
To that end, Biden announced he supported changing the Senate rules surrounding the filibuster in “whichever way they need to be changed to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights.”
Echoing his impassioned address on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection when he blamed former President Donald Trump and his supporters for holding a “dagger at the throat of democracy,” Biden’s remarks in Atlanta were expected to be a “forceful” call to action to protect voting rights.
“The president will forcefully advocate for protecting the most bedrock American rights: the right to vote and have your voice counted in a free, fair and secure election that is not tainted … by partisan manipulation,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki previewed in her press briefing Tuesday.
“He’ll make clear in the former district of the late Congressman John Lewis, that the only way to do that are (sic) for the Senate to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.”
In excerpts of the speech released Tuesday morning, the White House said Biden would pressure the Senate to act.
“The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation. Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice?” he was expected to say. “I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. And so the question is where will the institution of United States Senate stand?”
As he left the White House Tuesday morning, Biden told reporters asking about the political risk he’s taking given the Senate uncertainty, “I risk not saying what I believe. That’s what I risk. This is one of those defining moments. It really is. People are gonna be judged – where were they before and where were they after the vote. History is going to judge us, it’s that consequential. And so the risk is making sure people understand just how important this is just so important.”
Georgia is one of 19 states that have passed new restrictive voting laws since the 2020 election. There have been 34 such new laws in total across the country, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, and most of them in states controlled by Republicans.
Many of the new laws, fueled by false claims of widespread election fraud by the former president, take aim at mail-in voting, implement stricter voter ID requirements, allow fewer early voting days and limit ballot drop boxes.
The Brennan Center calculates that 13 more restrictive laws are in the works, including one in Georgia that would ban the use of ballot boxes altogether.
But Tuesday’s trip has been met with criticism from some voting groups that warned in a statement to the Atlanta Constitution-Journal that “anything less” than a finalized plan to pass voting rights in the House and Senate is insufficient and unwelcome.”
On Monday afternoon, The Asian American Advocacy Fund, Atlanta North Georgia Labor Council, Black Voters Matter Fund, GALEO Impact Fund and New Georgia Project Action Fund all said they won’t be attending the event and asked Biden and Harris to stay in Washington.
“We don’t need another speech,” said Cliff Albright, executive director of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “What we need is action – what we need is a plan.”
Notably, also not attending Biden’s speech is Stacey Abrams, the Georgia voting rights activist.
Biden said he spoke with her Tuesday morning and blamed it on a scheduling issue.
“I spoke with Stacey this morning. We have a great relationship. We got our scheduling mixed up. I talked to her at length this morning. We’re all on the same page and everything is fine.”
Biden’s speech will be the third he has delivered focused on the issue of voting rights. It comes after the president signaled in an interview with ABC “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir that he would be open to making a one-time Senate rule change to the filibuster that would allow a simple majority to pass new voting laws.
Psaki said the president would also directly address the issue of the filibuster.
“The president has spoken to this issue a number of times, as I’ve said before, including as recently as December where he said that, ‘if that is how we get this done, I’m open to that,'” Psaki said.
The president’s message, according to Psaki, will include a call to “ensure January 6 doesn’t mark the end of democracy, but the beginning of a renaissance for our democracy, where we stand up for the right to vote and have that vote counted fairly, not undermined by partisans.”
In her briefing, Psaki pushed back on criticism of the president, stressing that the speech Tuesday is focused on moving forward.
“We understand the frustration by many advocates that this is not passed into law yet. He would love to have signed this into law himself. But tomorrow’s an opportunity to speak about what the path forward looks like to advocate for – for this moving forward in the Senate.”
While Biden has signaled his openness to passing voting rights with a carveout to the filibuster, he would still need the support of all 50 Democratic senators to do so — which could prove challenging with holdout Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
“Look, I think that everyone is going to have to take a hard look at where they want to be at this moment in history as we’re looking at efforts across the country to to prevent people from being able to exercise their fundamental rights,” Psaki said when asked about Sinema’s opposition.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised a vote on voting rights legislation soon and warned that if Republicans filibuster the effort, he will force another vote by Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
The White House has insisted Biden will “work in lockstep” with Schumer to move a vote forward but are taking it “day by day.”
Republicans, meanwhile, oppose the proposed federal voting laws as what they deem a government overreach. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said Democrats are promoting a “fake narrative,” “fake outrage” and “fake hysteria” on voting rights “ginned up by partisans.”
Harris was tasked in June by the president to lead the administration’s efforts on voting rights reforms. Psaki said the vice president has worked to “help build a groundswell of support” and has been meeting with a number of advocates on the issue.
ABC News’ Meg Cunningham contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Senators from both sides of the aisle grilled top health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, on the latest COVID-19 guidance during a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee hearing Tuesday.
Democrats and Republicans both demanded better communication on rules for testing, isolation and quarantine.
“I’m not questioning the science… but I’m questioning your communication strategies. It’s no wonder that the American people are confused,” Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, who is also the ranking HELP Republican, said.
Committee chair Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said: “I have heard from so many people who find the latest CDC isolation and quarantine guidance confusing and hard to interpret.”
Murray pressed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky to provide not just “background” but a “straightforward” answer.
“If they are exposed to COVID-19 and they are completely boosted, they should — they do not need to stay home, but they should get a test at day five,” Walensky responded.
“If they have COVID, our guidance does not distinguish between your vaccination status. And our science has demonstrated that you’re maximally infectious two days before and two-to-three days after,” Walensky continued.
“By five days after your symptoms, if you’re feeling better, if your fever is better, if your cough and sore throat are better, then on day six you can go out,” Walensky said. “But you have to wear a mask — you have to wear a mask reliably and you should not go to places you can’t wear a mask. You probably shouldn’t go and visit grandma, you shouldn’t get on an airplane.”
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah asked for clarity on the latest definition of exposure.
“When you say what people have been exposed, please let us know what it means to be exposed. We’re in a room right now — I’m sure someone here has omicron. Are we all exposed? And therefore, need to get tested? What does it mean to be exposed? And when do we need to get tested?” Romney asked.
Fauci reiterated that the CDC guideline for exposure is if you are in close contact with someone with COVID-19 for “a period of 15 minutes at a time, or a total of 15 minutes over a 24-hour period.”
CDC guidance is to test on day five if you are exposed.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., brought up the scarce availability of N95 masks.
“Americans still can’t go to a local pharmacy and purchase an American-made N95,” Baldwin said. “So President [Joe] Biden has now personally urged Americans to upgrade the quality of the masks they wear — I want to know when the American people will be able to buy an American-made N95 mask?”
Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee that the Biden administration plans to sign a contract with a supplier by next month to get 140 million N95 masks per month.
Some 737 million N95 masks are in the national stockpile that could be provided to hospitals that need them, and those masks come from a dozen domestic suppliers, she said.
O’Connell said the plan is to reach an agreement with a company to create “warm-based manufacturing,” meaning the factory would be able to expand in times of high demand.
“We are very invested in N95 masks being made available. And we’ll continue to look — and I appreciate your support in getting us the American rescue plan dollars that we’re currently investing — and we’ll continue to look at the right ways to invest,” she said.
This hearing also featured another contentious exchange between Fauci and Republican Sen. Rand Paul.
Paul asked Fauci about his email correspondence and accused Fauci of trying to “attack scientists who disagree with you.”
Fauci responded, “you keep distorting the truth.”
“I brought together a group of people to look at every possibility with an open mind … you’re completely turning it around,” Fauci said.
Fauci said the purpose of the committee is to help the American public, but he said Paul instead chooses to “keep coming back to personal attacks on me that have absolutely no relevance.”
Fauci said Paul’s attacks are “for political reasons” and inspire “the crazies out there.”
Dr. Fauci, in another contentious exchange with Sen. Rand Paul, says Paul’s attacks against him “kindles the crazies out there, and I have threats upon my life, harassment of my family and my children.”
Fauci referenced the December arrest of a California man who, at a traffic stop, was allegedly found with an AR-15 style rifle, loaded magazines, boxes of ammunition and body armor. Prosecutors said the driver downloaded TikTok videos, compiling a list of people he allegedly wanted to kill, including Fauci and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Fauci and Paul have butted heads repeatedly. At a hearing in July 2021, Paul and Fauci got in a shouting match over COVID-19’s origins.
ABC News’ Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — When U.S. Army veteran Brian Snow drove 12 hours from his home in Indiana to Washington for then-President Donald Trump’s rally on the Ellipse Jan. 6 — amid chants of “stop the steal” — he came prepared for a fight. Clad in body armor, the father or four feared he could be attacked just for attending the event.
Still, he said, he felt called to be there.
“The president asked for people to come himself. So, you know, that’s what we do,” Snow said on that day a year ago, standing just outside the White House grounds.
But as that protest escalated into an insurrection, it was Trump’s supporters who turned to violence, brutally overtaking security forces to breach the U.S. Capitol and temporarily derailing the certification of the 2020 election.
Among those rioters were dozens of former members of the armed forces, as well as a handful of current service members sworn to protect the country and the Constitution. Roughly 70 of the 800 people who faced criminal charges in the wake of the attack had a military background.
While Snow calls violence against police officers “appalling” and did not storm the Capitol himself, he says he understands the motivation driving the military men and women who did. Because despite the more than 60 unsuccessful lawsuits filed by the former president and his allies, thorough reviews across six critical swing states, and zero documented evidence of widespread voter fraud, he still insists the election was “tainted.”
“If you feel like liberty is being trampled on, then you have a responsibility,” Snow said.
To the Pentagon, the elevated number of military-trained rioters motivated by these false claims is not coincidental, but a sign of extremism in the ranks–an enduring, nocuous problem thrown under a new spotlight by the events of Jan. 6th and one in urgent need of attention.
In the weeks following the attack, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered an unprecedented stand down across the armed services to address extremism. And in the final weeks of 2021, the Pentagon issued a new definition of prohibited extremist activities intended to identify radicalized service members and updated guidelines on social media, warning that “liking” or reposting extremist content could result in disciplinary action.
“The new definition preserves a service members right of expression to the extent possible, while also balancing the need for good order and discipline to affect military combat and unit readiness,” said John Kirby, the Pentagon’s top spokesman.
Additionally, military recruiters are now required to ask candidates about any connections they may have to extremist groups, and service members transitioning to civilian life are warned that they might be approached by these organizations.
While the impact of these measures remain to be see, many — like David Smith, a former Navy medic who served in Afghanistan — fear that without further action, the issue will only intensify.
“I think when we talk about extremism, we should actually like focus in on what the actual extremism is, which is white nationalism,” Smith said. “The military doesn’t want to have to actively address it.”
Smith happened to be passing out hand-warmers to homeless people near the Capitol on Jan. 6, and witnessed some of the rioters’ brutality firsthand.
“It was gut-wrenching,” Smith said, noting especially his fellow veterans among the mob. “To see them storming the building and to do so as if they had the authority to do so — it goes against everything and we swore an oath to protect.”
Smith is the founder of Continue to Serve, a grassroots organization dedicated to engaging former members of the military in lawful activism and community service centered on social justice issues. But he says many veterans are still vulnerable to being swayed by extremists.
“When we talk about veterans and their willingness to serve, they have an undying patriotism. And when politicians can manipulate that, that’s going to give them a lot of power,” Smith said.
Inaction, he predicts, will invite history to repeat itself.
“We’ve got to ensure that we’re creating mechanisms so that when people are getting out of the military, they actually have a place to go,” he said. “And they’re not falling into these groups where they are being indoctrinated and they’re being radicalized and they’re, they’re doing what they did on January 6th.”
(ATLANTA) — With less than 10 months until the 2022 midterm elections, President Joe Biden heads to Georgia on Tuesday to make his biggest push yet for national voting rights bills and is expected to call for changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules in order to get them passed.
Echoing his impassioned address on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection when he blamed former President Donald Trump and his supporters for holding a “dagger at the throat of democracy,” Biden’s remarks in Atlanta are expected to be a “forceful” call to action to protect voting rights.
“The president will forcefully advocate for protecting the most bedrock American rights: the right to vote and have your voice counted in a free, fair and secure election that is not tainted … by partisan manipulation,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki previewed in her press briefing Tuesday.
“He’ll make clear in the former district of the late Congressman John Lewis, that the only way to do that are (sic) for the Senate to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.”
In excerpts of the speech released Tuesday morning, the White House said Biden will pressure the Senate to act.
“The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation. Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice?” he was expected to say. “I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. And so the question is where will the institution of United States Senate stand?”
Georgia is one of 19 states that have passed new restrictive voting laws since the 2020 election.
There have been 34 such new laws in total accross the country, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, and most of them in states controlled by Republicans.
Many of the new laws, fueled by false claims of widespread election fraud by the former president, take aim at mail-in voting, implement stricter voter ID requirements, allow fewer early voting days and limit ballot drop boxes.
The Brennan Center calculates that 13 more restrictive laws are in the works, including one in Georgia that would ban the use of ballot boxes altogether.
Biden will be speaking alongside Vice President Kamala Harris from the grounds of Clark Atlanta University and Morehouse College, but the trip has been met with criticism from some voting groups that warned in a statement to the Atlanta Constitution-Journal that “anything less” than a finalized plan to pass voting rights in the House and Senate is insufficient and unwelcome.”
On Monday afternoon, The Asian American Advocacy Fund, Atlanta North Georgia Labor Council, Black Voters Matter Fund, GALEO Impact Fund and New Georgia Project Action Fund all said they won’t be attending the event and asked Biden and Harris to stay in Washington.
“We don’t need another speech,” said Cliff Albright, executive director of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “What we need is action — what we need is a plan.”
Biden’s speech will be the third he has delivered focused on the issue of voting rights. It comes after the president signaled in an interview with ABC “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir that he would be open to making a one-time Senate rule change to the filibuster that would allow a simple majority to pass new voting laws.
Psaki said the president would directly address the issue of the filibuster.
“The President has spoken to this issue a number of times, as I’ve said before, including as recently as December where he said that, ‘if that is how we get this done, I’m open to that,'” Psaki said.
The president’s message, according to Psaki, will include a call to “ensure January 6 doesn’t mark the end of democracy, but the beginning of a renaissance for our democracy, where we stand up for the right to vote and have that vote counted fairly, not undermined by partisans.”
In her briefing, Psaki pushed back on criticism of the president, stressing that the speech Tuesday is focused on moving forward.
“We understand the frustration by many advocates that this is not passed into law yet. He would love to have signed this into law himself. But tomorrow’s an opportunity to speak about what the path forward looks like to advocate for — for this moving forward in the Senate.”
While Biden has signaled his openness to passing voting rights with a carveout to the filibuster, he would still need the support of all 50 Democratic senators to do so — which could prove challenging with holdout Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
“Look, I think that everyone is going to have to take a hard look at where they want to be at this moment in history as we’re looking at efforts across the country to prevent people from being able to exercise their fundamental rights,” Psaki said when asked about Sinema’s opposition.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised a vote on voting rights legislation soon and warned that if Republicans filibuster the effort, he will force another vote by Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
The White House insists Biden will “work in lockstep” with Schumer to move a vote forward but are taking it “day by day.”
Republicans oppose the proposed federal voting laws as a government overreach, and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has said Democrats are promoting a “fake narrative,” “fake outrage” and “fake hysteria” on voting rights “ginned up by partisans.”
Harris was tasked in June by the president to lead the administration’s efforts on voting rights reforms. Psaki said the vice president has worked to “help build a groundswell of support” and has been meeting with a number of advocates on the issue.
ABC News’ Meg Cunningham contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — More than a year after the 2020 presidential election, the GOP is still covering numerous legal bills for the benefit of former President Donald Trump — and the price tag is ruffling the feathers of some longtime GOP donors who are now critical of Trump.
In October and November alone, the Republican National Committee spent nearly $720,000 of its donor money on paying law firms representing Trump in various legal challenges, including criminal investigations into his businesses in New York, according to campaign finance records.
Trump’s legal bills have sent the Republican Party’s total legal expenditures soaring in recent months, resulting in $3 million spent just between September and November. In contrast, the Democratic National Committee has been gradually winding down its legal expenses over the last few months.
Traditionally, national political parties have at times covered presidents and their advisers’ legal fees in matters related to their presidential campaigns. And throughout his presidency, the Republican Party has footed legal bills for Trump, his family members and his political allies, going back to the days of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 election, through the impeachment proceedings following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
But experts say the GOP’s recent payments of Trump’s attorney fees after he left the White House, for investigations that are not relevant to the next presidential campaign, is a very unusual move that’s indicative of the ongoing influence that the former president has over the party.
“Campaign finance law does not strictly prohibit a national party committee from paying for private legal expenses, but it is very rare for a party committee to use donor money in that way,” said Brendan Fischer, federal reforms director at nonpartisan government ethics group Campaign Legal Center.
“And it is entirely unprecedented for a national party committee to cover a former president’s private legal bills, especially when those legal expenses arise out of an investigation into activity that preceded Trump’s time in the White House, and when Trump is sitting on millions of his own PAC funds,” Fischer said.
RNC spokesperson Emma Vaughn told ABC News that the RNC’s executive committee approved paying for “certain legal expenses that related to politically motivated legal proceedings waged against President Trump,” while declining to comment on which specific cases are being paid for.
“As a leader of our party, defending President Trump and his record of achievement is critical to the GOP,” Vaughn said. “It is entirely appropriate for the RNC to continue assisting in fighting back against the Democrats’ never ending witch hunt and attacks on him.”
The RNC has so far paid three law firms on behalf of Trump, paying $328,000 to NechelesLaw LLP, $200,000 to van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin, and $172,000 to Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, according to its recent disclosure filings. The Washington Post reported that the RNC has agreed to pay up to $1.6 million of Trump’s legal bills.
Fischetti & Malgieri represents Trump in the parallel investigations by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and New York state Attorney General Letitia James into the business practices of Trump’s eponymous company. Vance and James have said their investigations are not politically motivated.
Susan Necheles of NechelesLaw reportedly joined the legal team representing Trump and the Trump Organization last summer. Michael van der Veen was part of Trump’s defense team during the impeachment proceedings after Jan. 6.
The law firm payments haven’t sat well with some Trump critics within the GOP.
“It is very disheartening to see RNC donors funding Trump’s legal bills,” former Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., told ABC News.
Rooney, who is among several Republican lawmakers who announced their retirement after clashing with pro-Trump forces within the GOP, was previously a U.S. ambassador to the Holy See under the Bush administration and a generous donor to the Republican Party, giving upwards of $1 million to various GOP candidates and groups over the years.
“I used to support the RNC quite a bit, especially when Reince Priebus was there,” Rooney said. “But I don’t see myself doing it right now because they keep giving money to Trump.”
Many Republicans are “exhausted and bothered by” Trump allies’ continued election challenges, Rooney said, “because all it’s doing is giving a lot of grist to people who want to oppose the Republican Party, at least the one that I used to know.”
“We’re getting tarred with this big lie and this claim of election fraud, and that is damaging our most important institution in our country — belief in elections,” Rooney said.
The RNC’s financial support of Trump’s legal bills also complicates the party’s vow to remain neutral ahead of nominating process for the 2024 presidential election. “The party has to stay neutral. I’m not telling anybody to run or not to run in 2024,” RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel said last January. She has since reaffirmed that Trump “still leads the party.”
Financial support notwithstanding, the GOP and Trump have not always had a smooth relationship over the past year. In the final days of Trump’s presidency, Trump told McDaniel he was leaving the GOP and creating his own political party, only to back down after McDaniel threatened to stop paying Trump’s legal bills for his post-election challenges, according to a book by ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl.
Both Trump and McDaniel have denied the story.
Not long after that, Trump and the party again clashed over the use of Trump’s name in fundraising appeals, with the GOP eventually reaching an agreement to use his name.
In addition to covering many of Trump’s legal bills, the RNC has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting lawsuits across the country “to ensure the integrity of our elections,” said RNC spokeswoman Danielle Alvarez.
Gearing up for the 2022 election cycle, the RNC has been building an aggressive nationwide “election integrity program,” engaging in election-related lawsuits in states like Georgia, Florida, Arizona and Texas, stationing state-directors in battleground states, engaging hundreds of attorneys at the state level and training thousands of poll watchers.
The party is engaged in 30 such “election integrity” lawsuits, Alvarez said, with financial disclosures showing payments of $500,000 to the law firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, more than $260,000 to McGuireWoods, and $243,000 to Consovoy McCarthy PLLC.
Even with all the legal expenditures, the RNC has continued to build a huge war chest over the past year. Backed by megadonors that include Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman and casino mogul Steve Wynn, the RNC ended November with more than $65 million in cash on hand.
(WASHINGTON) — As the omicron coronavirus variant sweeps the nation, the Biden administration on Friday will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to greenlight sweeping vaccination requirements for health workers and employees of large private businesses in an urgent push to slow the spread of the virus.
The justices will hear oral arguments in a pair of highly-expedited cases that could determine whether millions of doctors, nurses and health facility staff must be vaccinated to stay on the job, and whether thousands of employers must soon implement vaccine-or-testing programs for their workforces.
More than 205 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but tens of millions of others who are eligible have not received their first shot, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The rules are being challenged by separate coalitions of Republican-led states, industry trade groups, and religious organizations, which have accused the administration of an “unprecedented” and illegal power grab and infringement on individual rights.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which issued an emergency order in November requiring vaccinations of workers at facilities funded by Medicare and Medicaid, says the requirement “will save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month.”
“The Secretary found that unvaccinated staff at healthcare facilities pose a serious threat to the health and safety of patients because the virus that causes COVID-19 is highly transmissible and dangerous,” HHS writes in court documents.
The nation is now averaging nearly 1,200 new deaths from the virus each day, up by about 10% in the last seven days but a notably lower rate than a year ago, according to CDC. Nearly 828,000 Americans have now been lost since the pandemic began.
Two federal appeals courts have upheld the health worker vaccine mandate citing federal law that allows HHS to impose conditions on facilities that receive federal funds; a third, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, put the policy on hold.
“There’s something called the power of the purse. If we see a hospital, or a nursing home [that] … has some pathogen flying around that they’re not dealing with. We have the ability to say, ‘no, you can’t allow a Medicare beneficiary to go there because they’ll get sick or they’ll risk getting sick,'” said Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services during the Obama administration.
“We have to have those standards, and if you don’t have those standards, think about the absurdity of being having been forced to spend taxpayer money to send people to unsafe situations,” Slavitt said.
Twenty-two states already mandate COVID vaccinations for health care workers; 6 states explicitly ban them, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy.
Ten GOP-led states challenging the HHS mandate warn of “disastrous consequences” for health systems in rural areas with potential for widespread job losses over workers refusing to get the shot. “That’s quite the opposite of promoting patients’ ‘health and safety,’” they write in court documents.
The government argues vaccination will alleviate staff shortages by making it less likely health care workers contract the virus and get sidelined to recover.
In a separate case, the justices will also review an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule requiring private American businesses with 100 or more employees verify vaccinations or conduct weekly testing to ensure workplace safety starting next month.
“Unvaccinated employees face a ‘grave danger’ from workplace exposure,” the agency tells the court, quoting from the federal law it says authorizes the mandate. “The standard will save over 6,500 worker lives and prevent over 250,000 hospitalizations over the course of six month.”
The U.S. continues to average more new cases per day than at any other point in the pandemic, federal data shows.
Opponents call the requirement hastily-conceived and an “historically unprecedented administrative command” not authorized by Congress. They also warn of “irreparable harm” to businesses still recovering from the pandemic.
“Small business owners depend on the freedom to make decisions for their businesses and are managing several challenges right now such as the labor shortage supply chain disruptions,” said Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business legal center, which is challenging the rule. “This mandate will only exacerbate those issues and make it harder for small business owners. OSHA does not have the emergency authority to regulate American workers under such a mandate.”
They also argue that COVID-19 is not unique to the workplace or a “grave danger,” despite more than 828,000 deaths attributed to the virus in the U.S.
“Why those are certainly tragic numbers is that a lot of that is preventable,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “They’re some of the safest vaccines, and most studied vaccines that we have today, and they’re highly effective.”
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in December upheld the OSHA rule as lawful. The Biden administration says employers must enforce masking among unvaccinated employees starting Jan. 10; proof of vaccination or testing compliance begins Feb. 9.
No state currently has a vaccination-or-test rule for private employers, but 18 states have set the policy for state employees, according to NASHP.
Americans remain divided on the vaccine-or-test policy for employers and mandate for health workers at Medicare or Medicaid facilities. Six in 10 said they support the administration’s rules in a CNN poll last month, a finding that mirrors a Gallup survey earlier in the fall.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court has rendered mixed decisions on contested government COVID policies over the past year. In August, a majority of justices effectively struck down the CDC’s eviction moratorium as exceeding agency authority; they also repeatedly ruled against state public health restrictions on religious gatherings and capacity limits at churches.
But the high court has also shown deference to state and federal officials trying to respond to the pandemic, rebuffing a challenge to New York State’s vaccination mandate for health workers and denying student and parent appeals of school and university vaccination or testing requirements.
The cases before the court Friday are technically emergency applications for immediate — but temporary — relief, not final judgements on the merits of the mandates, which are still being litigated in lower courts.
A decision from the justices is expected in days or weeks, rather than months, given the expedited nature of the case and the ongoing public health emergency.
