Politics

(RICHMOND, Va.) — A more closely divided electorate than a year ago, underwater ratings for President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump alike and a popularity deficit for the Democratic candidate define the hard-fought, off-year contest for Virginia governor in preliminary exit poll results.

Among challenges for the Democrats — who’ve won all statewide races in Virginia dating to 2013 — is the lack of personal appeal of their candidate: former Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Just 45% see him favorably, versus 52% unfavorably, in exit poll results so far. Republican Glenn Youngkin does better on this score, 53-43%, favorable-unfavorable.

Compounding McAuliffe’s challenges are negative views of Biden’s job performance; more Virginia voters disapprove than approve, 54-45%. Intensity, which can influence turnout, is particularly poor for Biden: Nearly twice as many “strongly” disapprove of his work in office, 45%, than strongly approve, 24%.

Given those views, turnout has shifted from a year ago. Virginia voters report having split evenly between Biden and Trump in 2020, 46-46% — indicating that many Biden supporters were sitting this contest out, since he won the state by a 10-point margin.

Trump, for his part, is no more of an attraction: He’s seen favorably by 42% in these preliminary results, unfavorably by 53%, an 11-point negative score. Youngkin kept Trump at arm’s length in the campaign, as did McAuliffe with Biden (save two joint campaign rallies), for reasons that seem evident.

These are preliminary exit poll results, including early voters, and can change as data are updated throughout the evening.

The race is being watched as an early test of Democratic vulnerabilities under Biden, with an eye toward the 2022 midterm elections. More Virginia voters say a reason for their vote was to show opposition to Biden (29%) than support for him (21%). Still many more, 47%, say he wasn’t a factor in their choice for governor.

In terms of preliminary exit poll estimates among voter groups:

The suburbs are a key battleground in Virginia, as elsewhere. A big group — they account for more than six in 10 voters — suburbanites are tipping slightly toward Youngkin in preliminary exit poll results, 53-47%.

Robust turnout by college-educated voters is one factor for McAuliffe. College graduates account for 49% of voters in preliminary exit poll results, up 6 points from last year’s presidential election, and McAuliffe is winning 58% of this group. Youngkin, for his part, does strongly among those without a college degree, outperforming Trump a year ago.

Youngkin may have done himself a favor by keeping Trump at a distance. Among the majority of Virginia voters who hold an unfavorable opinion of Trump, 2 in 10 are voting for Youngkin regardless. About half as many Biden disapprovers are backing McAuliffe, 9% percent.

Youngkin made education a centerpiece of his campaign, arguing for parental input and against critical race theory. Just fewer than a quarter of voters pick education as the top issue in their vote — second only to the economy — and Youngkin is winning them by 56-44% in these preliminary results.

This is the first election in which Virginia has offered early in-person voting, from mid-September through Saturday, and the exit poll estimates that 27% voters availed themselves of it — a group in which McAuliffe won 57%, countered by strong results for Youngkin among Election Day voters.

Youngkin is winning 87% of white evangelical voters, the largest share of white evangelicals for a Republican in Virginia in exit poll data in gubernatorial or presidential elections dating to 2008. They make up more than a quarter of the electorate.

Voters’ criticisms extend to the major parties overall, indicating more vulnerability for the Democratic Party — 52% call it too liberal — than for the Republican Party, called too conservative by fewer, 43%.

On specific issues, though, the electorate itself is not so easily categorized. Fifty-eight percent in these preliminary results favor legal abortion and 54% support employer mandates for coronavirus vaccines, both closer to McAuliffe’s views than to Youngkin’s. On the other hand, 54% say monuments to Confederate leaders on government property should be left in place.

Youngkin sought to make parental involvement in school curricula a key issue, striking a chord; 53% of voters say parents should have “a lot” of say in what their child’s school teaches.

Voters divide in choosing the most important of five issues facing Virginia: the economy and jobs (33%), education (23%), taxes (15%), the pandemic (14%) and abortion (9%). It’s notable that the economy finishes as the top issue even as 56% rate it positively — and also that the pandemic trails as a top concern.

Youngkin, a former private equity executive, and McAuliffe run closely in trust to handle the economy, 42-40% in these preliminary results. Youngkin opens a 4-point edge in trust to handle crime, 42-38%; McAuliffe counters with a 7-point lead in trust to handle the pandemic, 43-36%. Neither approaches majority preference on any of these, given the numbers who trust both or neither.

The poll, conducted for ABC News and its media partners, includes interviews conducted both in advance of Election Day, to capture the views of early and absentee voters, and among in-person voters today. Results will be adjusted to reflect the official results after votes are counted.

In an additional potentially key measure of turnout, white Virginians account for 74% of voters in exit poll results so far, compared with 67% in 2020, when Trump won them by 8 percentage points. Members of racial and ethnic minority groups are 26% of voters in these data, vs. 33%last year, when Biden won them by a vast 53 points. That said, minority voters accounted for about the same share of turnout, 28%, when McAuliffe won the governorship in 2013.

Preliminary data indicate a dearth of young voters and a surfeit of those age 65 and older. Still, another shift suggests potentially higher turnout in the more Republican-leaning central and mountain regions of the state. And one region flipped — Richmond/Southside, from +14 for Biden in 2020 to +6 for Youngkin in these results.

In partisan preferences, Democrats and Republicans are evenly matched, 35-35% in these preliminary results, with independents — likely the decisive group — making up the rest.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(RICHMOND, Va.) — Virginia voters had a choice: They could continue the commonwealth’s more than a decade-long streak of backing Democratic candidates at the statewide level, or they could reestablish Virginia as a battleground where Republicans can not only compete — but win.

Tuesday’s election determines three statewide officeholders and which party controls the state legislature’s lower chamber. The stakes, as defined by the candidates at the top of the ticket, extend far beyond one state.

“The eyes of the nation are on us. Why? … We all know that as Virginia goes, so goes the nation,” Glenn Youngkin, the Republican nominee for governor, said at a rally over the weekend. “We are going to send a shockwave across this country, and there’s not going to be a Democrat in any seat anywhere in this nation who’s going to think that his or her seat is safe.”

The gubernatorial race was the marquee race of the year. It was the first competitive contest since Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump in the Oval Office, and both men loom large over the race.

Months ago, it looked like Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic nominee who first served as Virginia’s governor between 2014 and 2018, was on his way to a comfortable win in a state that trended blue under Trump’s presidency and delivered Biden a win by a 10-point margin. But going into Election Day, the matchup is a dead heat.

McAuliffe, who has pledged to build on Democrats’ progress over the last eight years, told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl in October that he hopes his race will “set the tone” for the Democratic Party heading into the midterms when its members have to defend their slim majorities in the House and Senate.

Rather than trying to divorce its fate from the off-year election, the national party has gone all in for the Democratic ticket, investing a record $5 million and sending top surrogates to campaign with McAuliffe. Those surrogates, which include President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama, have made it clear: Virginia is a political bellwether.

“What happens in Virginia will, in large part, determine what happens in 2022, 2024 and on,” Harris said, stumping for McAuliffe on Friday. “Don’t let Virginia be an experiment.”

Youngkin, a former private equity executive who ran as a political outsider, opted for a different strategy, mocking his opponent for bringing in “fellow career politicians” as he mostly campaigned alone.

Mark Rozell, the dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, said McAuliffe’s strategy is indicative of the enthusiasm gap polls have consistently shown exists between Republican and Democratic voters.

“The McAuliffe campaign is bringing in all these big-name national figures to try to drive up the Democratic turnout,” Rozell said in an interview. “(They’re) worried that the Democratic base is asleep right now.”

State Sen. Creigh Deeds, who beat McAuliffe in the 2009 gubernatorial primary, told ABC News that Tuesday’s contest is “a turnout election.”

“Terry was an energetic and effective governor for four years. He left office popular. I think it’s still his race to lose,” Deeds said. “It’s just about our turning people out. The votes are out there. If they get them out, he’ll win, but it’s on all of us to make sure that it happens.”

Former Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy lost to McAuliffe in the June Democratic primary, but she’s since rallied around McAuliffe’s campaign and through her political action committee, Virginia For Everyone, has contributed to the Democrats’ voter engagement efforts.

“Running for office, it’s all about the ground game,” she said in an interview. “We are mobilizing a multiracial, multigenerational coalition of supporters and voters. … We all are committed to making sure that we get the Democratic ticket statewide and down ballot races elected because failure is not an option.”

Youngkin, however, was banking on Democratic failure.

His campaign’s momentum can be traced back to the final debate in September when McAuliffe said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” Youngkin pounced, launching a “Parents Matter” mobilization effort and centering his closing message around this issue by defining himself as an advocate for parents and McAuliffe as someone who isn’t.

Sarah Isgur, a GOP strategist and ABC News contributor, said the schools issue is an enthusiasm driver for voters, and even if Youngkin doesn’t win, Republicans have already learned it’s an effective message going into the midterms.

McAuliffe has pushed back on Youngkin’s narrative of him on this issue, accusing his opponent of using education “to divide Virginia” and using students as “political pawns.”

Painting Youngkin as a divisive and extreme candidate has been central to McAuliffe’s attacks against Youngkin. He’s done that by linking the GOP nominee to Trump, who’s deeply unpopular in Virginia, and warning he will bring Trump’s policies to the commonwealth.

The tactic forced Youngkin to perform a delicate dance of embracing Trump enough so as not to alienate the former president’s base, but not so much that he turned off moderates and independents. Trump endorsed Youngkin after he secured the nomination, but he never appeared with the nominee on the trail. While Youngkin campaigned heavily on “election integrity” — an issue inextricably tied to Trump — during the primary, he’s since pivoted to other issues with appeal beyond the base.

“Unfortunately for McAuliffe, I suppose, Donald Trump is a somewhat diminished figure. … he isn’t the threat that he was the previous four years in which Democratic turnout in Virginia was off the charts,” Rozell said.

Rozell said Youngkin has also benefited from an amenable Trump base: “They’re not pushing him to go all in 100%, 100% of the time on their issues.”

Trump’s willingness to mostly sit this race out, has “unquestionably allowed Youngkin to consolidate the Republican vote and focus on the independents — something that a lot of other Republicans haven’t had the luxury to do,” Isgur said.

If McAuliffe’s strategy of tying Youngkin to Trump fails, she added, the silver lining for Democrats is that they have the opportunity to rethink messaging ahead of the midterms.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — They’re cheap, easy to produce and can make guns more dangerous in minutes.

Gun modifications are becoming a problem for the country as the number of shooting incidents linked to automatic weapons is on the rise, according to two U.S. senators.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are pushing the federal government to take action and sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland last week voicing their concerns.

Specifically, they are looking for the Department of Justice to investigate the sale and distribution of “auto sears” and other conversion devices. When an auto sear is installed into a semi-automatic firearm, the weapon will fire multiple rounds as long as the trigger is pulled instead of just one round.

The modifications can be done in under a minute and require “little technical expertise,” according to the senators who cited a Minneapolis Star Tribune article that included interviews with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives about the mods.

Klobuchar and Booker expressed concern about how easy it is for one to acquire or make these modification devices, “in part due to the ease and accessibility of 3-D printing and the availability of cheap imported conversion devices from countries like China, which can be purchased for as little as $19 each.”

The letter noted that Minneapolis has seen a spike in the use of automatic weapons in the last year. The Minneapolis Police Department’s data found that there have been 72 incidents involving automatic weapon discharge in 2021 so far compared to five during the same time last year, according to the senators.

The Minneapolis Star Tribute reported that seven people were injured in a shooting in August where an automatic weapon was used. Over 100 bullets were fired during the incident, according to the police.

Klobuchar and Booker asked the Department of Justice to provide them with the agency’s current plans to address the rise of gun modification devices, as well as any strategies at curbing illegal sales the agency is considering.

The senators are also looking for responses from the Department of Justice in addressing the availability of 3-D printing technology for auto sears as well as information on its coordination with local law enforcement on the issue.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice told ABC News the office received the senators’ letter but didn’t have an immediate comment.

ABC News’ Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Tuesday that Democrats have reached a deal on a measure aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs as part of President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” package.

This is one of the last major remaining hurdles for agreement on the reconciliation effort to pass the sweeping social and climate policy measure, and Schumer said that Arizona Democratic Sen. Sinema, a holdout on prescription drugs, supports this new plan.

The deal includes: Direct government negotiation on the price of insulin and a smaller universe of drugs that are no longer protected from competition; a cap on out of pocket prescription drug expenses for seniors at $2,000 annually; if the cost of a drug rises faster than inflation, that manufacturer would pay a rebate penalty to Medicare (this penalty would apply to all drugs both in Medicare and in commercial insurance.

“We’ve heard this from people across the country who have serious illnesses and can’t afford their medicine,” Schumer said. “What a painstaking position to be in, it’s horrible. Today we’ve taken a massive step forward in helping to alleviate that problem. “

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(GLASGOW, Scotland) — President Joe Biden’s spent his last hours on his overseas trip with a news conference to tout U.S. climate policies and close out what he called “significant progress” made at the COP26 summit — but he was also forced to respond to Democratic infighting over his climate change policies at home.

“Mister President, you’re touting on this visit the $1.7 trillion plan that includes climate but your party is still not united behind it,” a reporter said, raising progressives battling with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., over the social spending package Democrats seek to pass through reconciliation — which would need every Democratic Senate vote. “Today, he said he never signed off on the framework. So, do you have a specific commitment from Senator Manchin to support your Build Back Better bill — yes or no — and how do you respond to those criticisms?”

“Number one, I’m not going to talk about the specifics of my conversations,” Biden replied. “He will vote for — in this proposal what he has anticipated and that is looking at the fine print and the detail of what comes out of the house in terms of the actual legislative initiative. I believe that Joe will be there.”

Although there’s no definite sign a vote on the already Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill will pass the House soon, progressives say they trust Biden to deliver 51 Senate votes he promised on the larger social spending bill, and the president offered an optimistic outlook, despite Manchin’s new concerns that it would cost a lot more than claimed.

“Seventeen Nobel laureates and economists said it’s going to lower inflation and raise wages and increase competition and create two million jobs in a year, et cetera, and so I think that Joe is looking for the precise detail to make sure nothing got slipped in — in terms of how the legislation got written that is different than he acknowledged he would agree to, but I think we’ll get this done,” Biden said.

He took the same tone when asked about election day in Virginia — where the race for governor is being considered a litmus test for former President Donald Trump’s influence on voters while Democrats’ agenda is stalled.

Asked if a Democratic loss could signal real losses for the party in the midterms, Biden said, “We’re going to win.”

“The race is very close. It’s about who shows up, who turns out, and grant it, I did win by a large margin, but the point of the matter is that I think, this is going to be what we all knew from the beginning. This is going to be a tight race,” he said, acknowledging results may be slow because of the stiff competition. “I think we’re going to win New Jersey as well.”

“The off-year is always unpredictable, especially when we don’t have a general election going on at the same time,” he added. “But having said that, I don’t believe, and I’ve not seen any evidence that whether or not I am doing well or poorly, whether or not I’ve got my agenda passed or not is going to have any real impact on winning or losing. Even if we had passed my agenda, I wouldn’t claim we won because Biden’s agenda passed,” Biden said.

In brief remarks ahead of taking questions, Biden touted the U.S. as leading the way with initiatives such as reducing methane emissions and deforestation.

He said investing in a clean energy future will take a whole society effort and is both an economic and “moral imperative.”

Earlier in the day, the president emphasized innovation of new technologies, and the adoption of existing ones, to galvanize the fight against climate change. He talked about deforestation and how the U.S. will meet carbon emission goals after the White House announced a new plan for methane reduction which he said more than 100 countries have signed, too.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Two months to the day after allowing Texas to impose a near-total ban on abortions, the Supreme Court on Monday was openly skeptical of state law SB8 over concerns about its unprecedented enforcement mechanism and what it could mean for other state attempts to limit constitutional rights.

The Texas law, which bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, delegates enforcement to everyday citizens — rather than state officials — who can file civil lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an unlawful procedure. Its state sponsors deliberately intended to circumvent federal court review, knowing that such a ban on its face violates constitutionally-protected abortion rights.

A majority of justices, during the more than three hours of oral arguments on Monday, signaled that Texas abortion providers have a strong case for asking federal courts to put SB8 on hold.

“There’s a loophole that’s been exploited here, or used here,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, referring to a 1908 Supreme Court case — Ex parte Young — that established a precedent for people to sue state officials in federal court for alleged constitutional violations.

Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who both voted in September with the five-justice majority allowing SB8 to take effect, voiced particular discomfort with the idea that a state could outsource enforcement of a law to citizens in an attempt to circumvent precedent.

“So the question becomes, should we extend the principle of Ex parte Young to, in essence, close that loophole?” Kavanaugh said. He added that the “whole sweep” of the case suggested such an outcome.

“I think there is language in Ex parte Young that favors you,” Barrett told the abortion providers’ attorney Marc Hearron.

It was not clear how quickly the Supreme Court will hand down a decision in the case. Clinics across Texas have said they have discontinued most abortion care services while the legal battle plays out.

If the justices side with the Texas abortion providers, they could return the case to a federal district court for proceedings, or the court itself could issue an order blocking SB8 as litigation continues.

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone insisted that state officials have nothing to do with SB8 enforcement and that state courts are the proper venues to litigate challenges to SB8 on a case by case, plaintiff by plaintiff, basis. Fourteen state suits are underway. Those individual cases could ultimately end up in federal court, Stone said.

Petitioners want “an injunction against SB8, the law, itself,” said Stone. “They can’t receive that because federal courts don’t issue injunctions against laws but against officials enforcing laws. No Texas executive official enforces SB8 either, and so no Texas executive official may be enjoined.”

Justice Elena Kagan took direct aim at Texas’ argument, warning that allowing the state’s scheme to stand would be an open invitation to other states to circumvent other disfavored constitutional rights.

“Essentially, we would be like, you know, we are open, you are open for business. There’s nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same-sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don’t like, go ahead,” she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the inability of citizens to preemptively defend their constitutional rights because the Texas law doesn’t have a clear enforcer until an individual claim is made.

“It’s a question of anybody having the capacity or ability to go to the federal court because nobody is going to risk violating the statute because they’ll be subject to suit for [a significant financial sum]. That — that takes a lot of fortitude to undertake the prohibited conduct in that case. And under the system, it is only by undertaking the prohibited conduct that you can get into federal court,” Roberts said.

While many justices did appear open to federal curbs on SB8, there was no clear consensus on who their opinion should target or who a federal court could enjoin.

“What relief are you requesting?” Kagan asked Hearron.

“We are requesting an… injunction against the commencement or the docketing of lawsuits against the [state court] clerks across the State of Texas, as well as injunctive relief against the state executive officials for their residual authority to enforce SB8,” Hearron replied.

Several justices seemed disinclined to enjoin judges or clerks from simply doing their jobs, which are not inherently adversarial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that issuing an injunction against the attorney general of Texas could effectively cover all citizens who might bring lawsuits under SB8. They are “acting in concert” with the state, Sotomayor insisted.

“Why wouldn’t these private individuals be considered private attorneys generals?” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “One thing that seems rather implicit on the other side is that they are in effect, if not in designation by law, attorneys generals because they are enforcing a statewide policy.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said a federal court could target any “potential private plaintiffs” in Texas. “The state incentivizes their conduct,” she said. “No constitutional right is safe” if such a model is allowed to stand.

The implications for other constitutional rights and for Supreme Court precedents and authority were of particular concern to Kavanaugh, who could play a decisive role in disposition of SB8.

He cited free speech rights, freedom of religion, and Second Amendment rights, as potentially under threat, referring to an amicus brief filed by a conservative firearms group worried about a decision upholding SB8.

“The theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights,” Kavanaugh said.

The justices seemed broadly disengaged with arguments by the Biden administration — in a separate challenge to SB8 argued Monday — that the federal government has sweeping ability to challenge a discriminatory state law in federal court.

“Has the U.S. government ever asserted ‘equity’?” wondered Justice Neil Gorsuch skeptically.

“Is there any instance in which the U.S. can do what it’s doing now?” questioned Thomas.

The court is expected to issue an expedited decision in the coming days or weeks.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Just before the 2020 presidential election, a bus carrying Biden-Harris campaign staffers and volunteers through Texas was tailed by Trump supporters, some of whom were “driving in a way that appeared to be an attempt to push the bus off the road onto the shoulder,” according to court documents.

A lawsuit was filed Friday by former Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis and two former campaign staffers who were on the bus, along with the bus driver, alleging negligence by the San Marcos Police Department.

“For at least ninety minutes, including during the entirety of the stretch of I-35 inside the San Marcos city lines, the Trump Train pursued and terrorized the Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit alleges. “Plaintiffs tried to get help. They repeatedly called 911. They requested police escorts. San Marcos refused to help.”

The suit alleges that the San Marcos Police Department laughed and refused to provide assistance when a staffer called in to report the situation on Oct. 30 2020. ABC News has reached out to the police department for comment.

“I am so annoyed at New Braunfels for doing this to us,” a dispatcher said to one of the police officers over the radio, according to a 911 transcript included in court documents. New Braunfels is a city next to San Marcos, and the bus was heading over the city line.

“They have their officers escorting this Biden bus, essentially, and the Trump Train is cutting in between vehicles and driving — being aggressive and slowing them down to like 20 or 30 miles per hour,” the dispatcher reportedly said. “And they want you guys to respond to help.”

Matt Daenzer, a corporal with the department who is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, reportedly replied, “No, we’re not going to do it. We will close patrol that, but we’re not going to escort a bus.”

The dispatcher, according to the transcript, told Daenzer the caller was “really worked up over it, and he’s like breathing hard and stuff, like, ‘they’re being really aggressive.’ OK. Calm down.”

Daenzer agreed and reportedly told the dispatcher, “Yeah, well, drive defensively, and it’ll be great.”

When the dispatcher informed the campaign staffer who called 911 for help that the San Marcos Police Department would not provide a police escort, the unnamed staffer replied, “They’ve cut in on me multiple times. They’ve threatened my life on multiple occasions with vehicular collision. I would like an escort immediately.”

The lawsuit alleges the “Trump Train” went unchecked without any police escorting the bus.

“Despite these multiple calls for help from Plaintiffs and others, for the roughly 30 minutes it took to drive through San Marcos on the main highway that runs through it, there were no officers from San Marcos or any other police cars in sight — not on the I-35 exit or entrance ramps, nor on either side of the highway,” it states.

When then-President Donald Trump learned about the situation after videos of the incident were posted to Twitter, he retweeted a video and wrote, “I LOVE TEXAS!,” the court documents also state.

Also listed as defendants in the lawsuit are San Marcos Director of Public Safety Chase Stapp, San Marcos Police Department Assistant Chief of Police Brandon Winkenwerder and the City of San Marcos.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, accustomed to spending her life behind the scenes, told ABC’s The View on Monday that she’s taken control of her story with the release of her new memoir, Both/And.

“After 25 years of living most of my life in public service and in public, I felt like somebody else was telling my story. And if you let somebody else tell your story, they’re writing your history. And for me, writing the book, was just such an incredible therapy,” she said in an exclusive daytime interview.

“I thought it’s a good story to share, and maybe it’ll help some women and some brown girls and some Muslims,” added Abedin, who is of Indian and Pakistani descent.

Among reported details in her new memoir, Abedin recalls an incident from her twenties — she’s now 45 — in which she says, following a Washington dinner that she writes was attended by “a few senators and their aides,” one senator invited her up to his apartment for coffee, asked her to get comfortable on the couch, and then kissed her without her consent — describing it not as a “sexual assault” as some headlines have stated, but as an “uncomfortable situation.” Some have said she should identify the person in case others might make similar allegations.

“He plopped down to my right, put his left arm around my shoulder, and kissed me, pushing his tongue into my mouth, pressing me back on the sofa,” she writes in the book, saying the senator apologized when she pushed him away and said he had “misread” her “all this time.”

“Why not name him?” asked The View co-hosts Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin.

“I chose to include my full truth,” Abedin replied. “I did bury that incident. I think back in the 2000s — that is just how you had to act. I mean, to me, one of the surprising things to myself is that I apologized, myself. The way I reacted is, I said, ‘I’m sorry,’ and I left, and I don’t think this is you know exclusive to being in politics,” she said.

She defended her decision not to name the senator, saying this is her story, not his.

“I totally buried the story until I was watching Doctor [Christine Blasey] Ford on TV — literally being questioned for her convenient memory,” she said, apparently sarcastically, referring to Ford’s testimony during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, “and as I see her being questioned, that memory comes flooding back to me.”

Abedin first entered “Hillaryland,” as she called it, when she started as a White House intern in 1996 before following the former Democratic nominee for president first back to the Senate and then to the State Department. She served as a top adviser to Clinton on both of her campaigns for president but not without some costs to her own personal life and mental health, she says.

“When you put this book down and read the last page, and maybe half the country will disagree with me, but this woman is an extraordinary human being, aside from the fact that she was the most qualified person, in my opinion, to ever run for president. Full stop. Period,” she said of Clinton.

The View co-hosts asked about a detail in the book in which Abedin describes considering walking off a subway platform in 2019, and Abedin went back to her headspace in the wake of the 2016 election.

“I did not have balance in my life. My work was my life for much of it. And it was only when I stepped off the treadmill and realized I had to deal with all this anger — because I had so much anger and bitterness towards my spouse for so much of my early marriage and after, you know, the first scandal,” she said. “I just wanted my life back.”

“At the end of the campaign, I was kind of on my own. I was alone, a single parent, and so it was I had my hard moment, and that’s when I realized I needed help. And I got it,” she said.

Following the sexting scandals of her then-husband, embattled former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., Abedin became enveloped in controversy when her emails became a large part of the 2016 presidential campaign after the FBI announced days before the election that investigators would re-examine Clinton’s use of a private email server. It was determined that Abedin had forwarded some emails to personal devices used by both she and her then-husband.

Co-host Sara Haines asked Abedin to respond to those who might question why she stayed with her disgraced ex-husband for so many years.

“I think a lot of people now when they look back at my marriage, they’re looking at it from 2021 perspective, which is hindsight is 20/20,” she replied. “If I’d written this book in 2017 or 2018, when maybe it would have been more newsy, I think it would have been an angry or bitter book because I had to go through that process.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Exactly two months after allowing Texas to impose a near-total ban on abortions, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday was taking a closer look at the groundbreaking state law deliberately designed by its sponsors to evade constitutional review in federal court.

SB8, which outlaws most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, has succeeded — at least temporarily — because it is enforced through an unprecedented scheme that deputizes private citizens to bring lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an unlawful abortion.

The arrangement has made it difficult for abortion clinics, patients and their advocates to preemptively show concrete harm in court and identify whom, specifically, a court should enjoin from bringing lawsuits.

During two hours of scheduled oral arguments, which were livestreamed to the public, the justices were expected to examine whether abortion rights advocates and the federal government have the ability to sue Texas over the law given the way it’s designed.

State officials insist they have no role in implementation of the law and therefore cannot be targeted in court. They also claim that it does not impose an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion care, since they are still free to do so up to six weeks of pregnancy and can freely travel out of state to seek services elsewhere.

Texas abortion providers argue SB8 has had a chilling effect on clinics and imposed irreversible harm on women patients, many of whom don’t have the financial means to travel long distances to seek abortions. They also warn that if the law stands, copycat bills in other states could threaten other constitutionally-protected rights without any chance of legal recourse.

The Justice Department, which filed suit in a separate case against the law this fall, said the federal government has also been directly harmed by the law and has a responsibility to defend the rights of all citizens from plainly unconstitutional state laws under the Supremacy Clause.

A federal district court judge in early October sided with the DOJ, saying SB8’s enforcement mechanism created “offensive deprivation” of a constitutionally-protected right. Several days later, a panel of appeals court judges put the decision on hold.

SB8 will remain in effect across Texas until the Supreme Court rules. The court’s decision to expedite the case demonstrates rare speed not seen since the Bush v. Gore case in 2000; a ruling is widely expected before the end of the year.

The design of SB8 makes it unique from similar pre-viability abortion bans enacted by other states for which enforcement is handled by state officials; those have all been subsequently blocked by federal courts.

A majority of Supreme Court justices in early September said “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” made it difficult to intervene in the Texas case, even though “serious questions” about the law’s constitutionality exist.

Longstanding precedent clearly renders the six-week abortion ban unconstitutional. The scope of abortion rights in America are not directly under review by the court in the Texas cases, but the justices are scheduled to revisit Roe v. Wade in a separate case from Mississippi set for December.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ROME) — President Joe Biden reflected on progress he made with other world leaders at this weekend’s G-20 summit, including ways to combat climate change, as the event wrapped up in Rome on Sunday.

Kicking off his first solo press conference in four months, Biden characterized his meetings over the last five days as “productive” and said America has reclaimed its role on the world stage working with its allies.

Biden touted goals that were accomplished during the summit, including endorsing the global minimum tax and coordination addressing the supply chain crunch.

During the summit, Biden highlighted American leadership on the world stage, a campaign pledge he was looking to deliver on.

“I’m looking forward to continuing to make progress on critical global issues as we head off to Glasgow because of what we’ve seen again here in Rome, what I think is the power of America showing up and working with our allies and partners to make progress on issues that matter to all of us,” Biden said

The president in particular lauded his in-person meetings with the world leaders.

“There’s really no substitute for face-to-face discussions and negotiations among the leaders when it comes to building understanding and cooperation,” Biden said. “When you’re looking at someone straight in the eye when you’re trying to get done — they know me, I know them, we can get things done together.”

He also spoke about his meeting with the E3 countries — France, Germany and the U.K. — on the state of the Iran nuclear program and returning to the table for negotiations.

“We came together to reiterate our shared belief that diplomacy is the best way to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, and we discussed how best to encourage Iran to resume serious good faith negotiations,” Biden said of the meeting.

This story is developing. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.