(WILMINGTON, Dela.) — Rep. Liz Cheney will make a last high-profile stand against Donald Trump when the House Jan. 6 committee holds its final public meeting Monday — as sources say it’s preparing to recommend the first-ever criminal charges against a former president.

It’s cost the Wyoming Republican her political career to take on Trump, but she’s said she has no regrets — making the case she has a higher mission: to keep him from ever regaining the White House.

After voting to impeach Trump, and then accepting an invitation to serve on the select committee, she lost her No. 3 House GOP leadership position and ultimately, her congressional seat.

But in doing so, she also won unlikely supporters as she exposed what she called Trump’s seven-point plan to steal the election and admonished her Republican colleagues who, she said, lacked the courage to do the same.

“In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution — and that oath must mean something,” Cheney said to open the first prime-time public hearing in June. “Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

“The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president — except one,” she added. “As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure what happened on Jan. 6 never happens again, to set aside partisan battles to stand together to perpetuate and preserve our great republic.”

Cheney is one of two Republicans on the nine-member panel, but unlike Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who announced last year he wouldn’t seek reelection, Cheney continued her campaign while serving on the committee, embracing her role as a key player. After her primary loss In August, she told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that if had she wanted to save her career and keep the House seat she’d held for nearly six years, it would have required something she was unwilling to do: “Lie about the election,” she said.

While each of the committee’s nine members took turns leading the congressional hearings, it was Cheney’s clarity and conviction that often stole the spotlight, with her acting very much like a criminal prosecutor trying a case against Trump.

“Liz really was the star,” Norman Ornstein, political scientist and senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute told ABC News. “And she was the star first because the name, the intellect, the fact that you’d be hard-pressed to find anybody more conservative than her. All of that added to the impact of her power.”

“The fact that she has been fearless in this process, knowing it would very likely cost her her seat, as it did, knowing that she was going to get death threats and more, she made it very clear that the priority here for her was protecting democracy against people trying to destroy it, including Donald Trump,” he added. “All of that, plus the masterful way she handled the performance that she did on the committee, that’s quite a legacy.”

Former Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock, a Republican and ABC News contributor who served in the House with Cheney and donated to her reelection campaign, believes the committee was able to secure witnesses they might otherwise have had difficulty with because of Cheney’s reputation.

“Because she knows all the players here, and had known them, she didn’t let them hide,” Comstock said. “I think she understood, at the end of the day, if we drag these people in, they aren’t going to fall on the sword for him.”

Here are some of Cheney’s most memorable moments:

Focus on Trump’s ‘premeditated’ action and inaction

Over the course of several hearings, Cheney was careful not to admonish the half of the country that supported the former president but to keep the focus on Trump himself as someone she said preyed on his supporters by feeding them lies. She said Trump knowingly created the false impression that America was threatened by an outside force, asking his supporters to fight for him, despite the fact that it was “all complete nonsense.”

“Donald Trump knows that millions of Americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation were it threatened. They would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. And he is preying on their patriotism,” she said. “And on Jan. 6, Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our Capitol and our Constitution.”

“President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” she said.

While exploiting his supporters, she said, Trump refused to answer calls to stop the Jan. 6 assault, even pleas from Republican allies, to do what she said his oath of office required.

“He refused to defend our nation and our Constitution. He refused to do what every American president must,” she said. “In the days after Jan. 6, almost no one of any political party would defend President Trump’s conduct. And no one should do so today.”

Cheney told her Republican colleagues who supported Trump that they, too, were deceived.

“It can be difficult to accept that President Trump abused your trust. That he deceived you. Many will invent excuses to ignore that fact. But that is a fact,” she said at the close of the committee’s sixth public hearing. “I wish it weren’t true. But it is.”

Argues Trump ‘not an impressionable child’ or ‘willfully blind’

Because intent needs to be proven in criminal prosecutions, Cheney repeatedly argued that Trump — as the nation’s most powerful person — was in a “unique position” as president to be “better informed about the absence of widespread election fraud than almost any other American.”

With this, she said, there can be no defense that Trump was “duped or irrational.”

“President Trump is a 76-year-old man, he is not an impressionable child,” she said in a hearing over the summer. “Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices … Donald Trump cannot escape responsibility by being willfully blind. Nor can any argument of any kind excuse President Trump’s behavior during the violent attack on Jan. 6.”

Comstock also noted how Cheney relied on Trump’s inner circle to repeatedly establish he was told he had lost and told to do more on Jan. 6, potentially helpful to prosecutors in a trial.

“She’s a prosecutor, and she was prosecuting this case very carefully. She has established that all of those witnesses who told him he lost — who told him there was no legal case for him to pursue — they’re all Republicans,” Comstock said. “So, his campaign manager [Bill Stepien], [former Attorney General] Bill Barr, [former Trump adviser] Kellyanne Conway, his daughter [Ivanka Trump], all of these witnesses who are going to testify to this when there is a trial, they’re all Republicans.”

She repeated at the committee’s last hearing in October that their evidence has shown Trump to be the central cause of Jan. 6, despite having had countless chances to acknowledge the facts presented to him.

“He had all of this information, but still he made the conscious choice to claim fraudulently that the election was stolen, to pressure state officials to change election results, to manufacture fake electoral slates, to attempt to corrupt our Department of Justice, to summon tens of thousands of supporters to Washington,” she said. “The vast weight of evidence presented so far has shown us that the central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, Donald Trump, who many others followed. None of this would have happened without him.”

Praises witnesses as braver than ’50-, 60- and 70-year-old men’

Throughout the hearings, Cheney made a point to thank the live witnesses for appearing, noting they might have been under immense pressure to not comply. She took particular time to praise the women who showed up.

“She understood, maybe in a way the men on the committee might not have, the misogyny of Donald Trump,” Comstock told ABC News. “She knew that Trump was going to attack these women witnesses in a different way than he attacks men. She knew how dangerous that was for them, having seen it herself too, so she took care in protecting those witnesses, but also praising their bravery and really recognizing how difficult this was for them.”

After the committee heard from Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows who was 25 when she testified, Cheney praised Hutchinson and the other women who she said showed more courage than a tranche of older men who should know better.

“She sat here alone, took the oath and testified before millions of Americans,” Cheney said of Hutchinson. “She knew all along that she would be attacked by President Trump and by the 50-, 60- and 70-year-old men who hide themselves behind executive privilege. But like our witnesses today, she has courage and she did it anyway. Cassidy, Sarah and our other witnesses, including Officer Caroline Edwards, Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, are an inspiration to American women and to American girls.”

“The fact that Cassidy had testified in the first place,” Comstock added, “I think, largely is because of how the hearings were being run, because she trusted Liz — and Liz, once she had testified, basically called out Pat Cipollone since he hadn’t yet.”

At the close of the committee’s following hearing, Cheney appeared to issue a warning directly to Trump.

“After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation — a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump’s call, and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us. And this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice,” Cheney said. “Let me say one more time: we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously.”

“I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns,” Cheney said at another point.

Warns it could happen again

Cheney hammered home to the American public watching that the reason the committee put thousands of hours into investigating the attack was not for partisan political purposes but to prevent another Jan. 6.

And it could very well happen again, she said.

“Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way,” she said at the last hearing in October. “What happens when the president disregards the court’s rulings as illegitimate, when he disregards the rule of law? That, my fellow citizens, breaks our republic.”

Speaking directly to the camera in the committee’s hearing in October, she echoed the warning attributed to founding father Ben Franklin when asked whether America was a monarchy or a republic: “a republic, if you can keep it.”

“Consider whether we can survive for another 246 years. Most people in most places on Earth have not been free. America is an exception,” she said. “And America continues only because we bind ourselves to our founders’ principles, to our Constitution.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WILMINGTON, Dela.) — President Joe Biden and his family on Sunday marked a solemn anniversary: 50 years since a car crash killed his first wife, Neilia, and their baby daughter, Naomi.

The White House said Biden and first lady Jill Biden attended a “private family memorial Mass” at St Joseph on the Brandywine, their family’s church in Wilmington, Delaware.

Afterward, according to reporters traveling with the president, the Bidens went to the adjoining cemetery. Neilia, Naomi and Beau Biden, the president’s older son who died of brain cancer in 2015, are all buried there.

Joining President Biden on Sunday were grandchildren Naomi, Finnegan, Maisy, Natalie and Hunter Biden, daughter Ashley Biden and son Hunter Biden, who was injured along with his older brother in the deadly wreck in 1972 that occurred while Neilia Biden had taken her kids out holiday shopping.

On Sunday, two of the family members carried large wreaths with them to the church cemetery, according to the travel pool.

The death of Joe Biden’s wife, daughter and older son have long shaped his approach to grief and empathy, he has said. The 1972 crash, weeks after he won his first Senate race, also partially defined his career in Congress.

“I was down in Washington hiring staff and I got a phone call from a first responder. They put a pretty young woman on the phone. She was so nervous, she said, ‘You gotta come home. There’s been an accident. A tractor trailer hit your wife and your three children while they were shopping,'” Biden recalled at an event in Newton, Iowa, during his 2020 campaign.

“My wife was killed and my daughter was killed,” he continued then. “And my two boys, but for the jaws of life and a rescue crew saving their life, would not have been around either.”

Beau and Hunter Biden were seriously injured after the wreck. Their dad took his oath as a senator by their hospital bedsides.

Shortly after the crash, then-President Richard Nixon called Joe Biden, according to a recording at Nixon’s presidential library. “I know this is a very tragic day for you, but I wanted you to know that all of us here at the White House were thinking about you and praying for you and also for your two children,” Nixon said.

“I appreciate that very much,” Joe Biden told him. Nixon went on to say, of Joe Biden’s wife, “I’m sure that she’ll be watching you from now on. Good luck to you.”

In the decades since, Joe Biden has spoken candidly of what grief did to him and how that experience helped him relate to others’ loss — to the torrent of anguish, anger and sadness that results.

Anecdotes of his empathy have drawn headlines over the years, with many resurfaced during his 2020 presidential campaign. Just under a month before the election, a 2002 apology letter Joe Biden sent to a woman — after his office continued to send letters to her late husband — went viral.

“I know from my experience how little words can mean at such a time but I know, as hard as it can be to believe, that time does heal,” he wrote to her.

In an appearance on Stephen Colbert’s late-night show in 2020, he connected his personal experience to his political work, particularly as the country grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The role of the presidency is to say, ‘Grieve. There’s a reason to grieve. You’ve had great loss,'” he said then. “‘But there will come a time, remind yourself, just be reminded that the time will come when you’ll think of your husband, wife, son, daughter, mom or dad, and you’ll get a smile to your lips before you get a tear to your eye.'”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — When the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack holds its final meeting Monday, the expected headline is whether it will make criminal referrals to the Justice Department or other outside entities — especially concerning former President Donald Trump.

The committee has been considering criminal referrals for multiple individuals who participated in efforts to attempt to overturn the 2020 election, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former White House attorney John Eastman, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and Trump’s former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, according to sources familiar with their discussions.

The panel’s nine members had debated for months the merits of sending one or several criminal referrals to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, along with referrals to other government agencies and even to bar associations.

A referral is not required to investigate Trump and his allies, nor does one guarantee it, but public hearings outlining Trump’s “seven-point plan” to overturn the 2020 presidential election have amped up pressure on Garland to bring criminal charges against Trump — the first in history against a former president. The Justice Department has already been conducting its own separate investigation into Jan. 6, which has included multiple former senior Trump White House staffers along with his close allies appearing before grand juries.

While referrals from the Jan. 6 committee might, on paper, end up being a largely symbolic gesture, experts told ABC News earlier this year that the move deserves careful consideration.

“I don’t think that there is any member of that committee who has any doubt about whether Donald Trump violated the law or questions the actual merits of a criminal referral,” said Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “What I suspect is that it has much more to do with trying to preserve Congress’ authority and not wanting division between those who are trying to hold Donald Trump accountable in Congress and the Justice Department.”

“But,” she added, “the calculation that says, ‘We will hold back, and therefore preserve our own authority,’ is mistaken.”

Pros and cons

With concerns that Republicans will paint any criminal referral, and any subsequent Department of Justice charges, as politically motivated, the committee could decide to leave its findings in a public report, which would then serve as an indirect “handoff” to the Justice Department, said Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law, who outlined some reasons that might give the committee pause.

“The downside with a referral could be that if Garland’s Justice Department does move ahead, that it would be perceived as potentially political by some parts of the American public,” he said. “It could be better for the Justice Department to appear more independent than seeming as though it’s responding to a direct referral coming out of the committee.”

On the other hand, Goodman said, while congressional referrals can’t compel action, “I think Garland has shown us time and again that he is reactive, not proactive — and what he reacts to are other institutions, forcing the question.”

After Trump announced last month that he is running for president a third time, Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the department’s criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful retention of documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, as well as key aspects of its probe into the events of Jan 6.

Trump, for his part, has called the Jan. 6 congressional committee “illegitimate” and their presentation a one-sided “smoke and mirrors show.” A criminal referral for Trump — and a potential indictment while he’s running for president — could have polarizing implications for the American public.

But Finkelstein, the ethics expert, said, “What’s at stake is the very structure of our democracy and our ability to hold public officials to the confines of the law.”

Ahead of the committee potentially sending formal criminal referrals, here’s a look at federal statutes the committee and experts say Trump and his allies may have violated:

Obstruction of an official proceeding – 18 U.S.C. § 1512

Over nine public hearings, the committee outlined an alleged “sophisticated seven-point plan” it says Trump and his allies engaged in with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, including “corruptly” planning to replace federal and state officials with those who would support his fake election claims and pressuring Pence to violate his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Acting on a plan with the intent to stop the counting of electoral votes would likely violate 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which makes it a felony to attempt to “corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding,” such as the certification of a presidential election, and comes with up to 20 years in prison.

“If there is enough evidence to prove that Trump knew he had lost the election, then it’s obvious that he was acting with corrupt intent,” Goodman said. “You can’t try to pressure the vice president to overturn the election if you know you actually lost.”

Committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney, raising texts sent to Meadows urging Trump to call for violence to stop on Jan. 6, has mirrored language in the statute to raise the question, “Did Donald Trump, through action — or inaction — corruptly seek to instruct or impede Congress’ proceedings to count electoral votes?”

The committee has attempted to make the case that even without a “smoking gun” such as Trump admitting on tape he knew the election was lost, a preponderance of evidence should have made that clear to him, and members will lead their case next to the potential legal culpability of Trump’s direct — and indirect pressure — on the Justice Department and state election officials.

Of the more than 900 individuals charged so far in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of the Jan. 6 riot, more than 300 have been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. Prosecutors have typically deployed the charge in cases where an alleged rioters’ conduct crosses beyond just unlawfully entering the Capitol during the riot and they can tie their words or motivations to interfering with the counting of the electoral college vote.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States – 18 U.S.C. § 371

This statute, also raised by Cheney over several hearings, criminalizes the agreement between two or more persons to “impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful government functions” and is punishable by up to five years in prison.

As part of the “seven-point plot” laid out, the committee argues Trump’s legal team violated this federal criminal statute when instructing Republicans in battleground states to replace Biden electors with slates of Trump electors and send those votes to Congress and the National Archives. (The Justice Department’s special counsel is also already separately investigating the alleged fake electors’ plot.)

While Trump’s intent to defraud would need to be proved for a conviction, experts interviewed by ABC News said, how Trump relates to other potential defendants would be considered when weighing potential criminal charges to bring, and they noted some of his closest allies appear to “have very significant criminal exposure.”

Eastman, the former Trump election attorney, drafted a plan for Trump to cling to power by falsely claiming Pence could reject legitimate electors. Meadows, allegedly with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, told then-Attorney General Bill Barr that Trump was “becoming more realistic” that he lost as they were “working on it.”

“If those individuals know Trump lost and indicated it, it’s going to be easier to prove the case against them,” Goodman said.

And if those close to Trump are charged, it may be easier to prove he agreed to participate in the conspiracy.

“For example,” Finkelstein said, “if John Eastman is found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States or obstruction of an official proceeding and Donald Trump was found to be in a conspiracy with John Eastman, the exact nature of his intent may not have to be the same as if he is a principal defendant because, under federal conspiracy law, he only needs to have agreed to the object to the conspiracy.”

Seditious conspiracy – 18 U.S.C. § 2384

Seditious conspiracy is defined as when two or more people in the U.S. conspire to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force” the U.S. government, or to oppose by force or try to prevent the execution of any law. It comes with 20 years in prison upon conviction.

Since use of force is an element of this crime, and Trump was not on the Capitol grounds during the attack, experts cautioned that the burden of proof might be more difficult in that regard.

“It must mean that Trump acted with foreknowledge and intend to use force and violence, and I think that’s going to be very hard to prove, though there is a lot of evidence that points in that direction,” Goodman said.

Members have tried to make the case that Trump was told some of the individuals that came to hear him speak were armed but that he didn’t care because, as Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified she recalled him saying, “‘They’re not here to hurt me.'”

The committee has argued that hundreds of Proud Boys and other militia groups traveled to Washington specifically for an insurrection, indicated by members marching on the Capitol before Trump even began speaking.

The Justice Department already secured major victories late this year with seditious conspiracy convictions of two far-right extremist group leaders: Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, a leader of the militia group’s Florida chapter. After a separate indictment this year charging five members of the extremist far-right group the Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy, one member, Jeremy Bertino, pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy in federal court in October — the first member to do so. The others have pleaded not guilty.

If the committee accuses Trump of conspiring with Proud Boys or other far-right extremist groups who are accused of organizing the Capitol attack, there’s more potential for a seditious conspiracy charge, which could then trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from serving in government.

Fraud by wire, radio or television – 18 U.S.C. § 1343

The committee also introduced evidence of Trump and his allies fundraising $250 million off fraudulent election claims, asking for money for an “Official Election Defense Fraud” fund — but the panel said no such fund existed — with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., casting the “big lie” as “a big rip-off.”

“Claims that the election was stolen were so successful, President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election,” said Amanda Wick, senior investigative counsel to the committee, in a taped video. “Most of the money raised went to this newly created PAC, not to election-related litigation.”

The allegation has raised questions over potential wire fraud charges, or the attempt to defraud another through physical or electronic mail.

However, experts told ABC News this charge might be more difficult to prove, going back to the question of Trump’s intent. Prosecutors would have to convince a grand jury that Trump intended to mislead.

“He can say, ‘I wasn’t in charge of setting up those fundraising efforts, I didn’t know that they were potentially illegal,'” Wehle said. “So that’s a thornier case.”

To charge or not to charge

The experts ABC spoke with agreed the Jan. 6 committee has made a compelling case so far, and that the onus is on Garland and the Justice Department to follow the roadmap it’s laid out.

They argue the rule of law is at risk.

“The committee’s public hearings have raised the stakes enormously for the country, in the sense that the criminal activity shown to have gone on is so brazen, that if the Justice Department does not enforce the law in this case, it really does further erode the rule of law and democracy,” Goodman said.

“Even if the effort fails, at least there’s a message sent that there is a cop on the block,” Wehle added. “Because we’re headed for a very, very dark era of American history if something doesn’t happen.”

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — California Sen. Alex Padilla on Sunday pushed back against what he called “Republican rhetoric” around the expected expiration of Title 42, a pandemic-era policy which allows the expulsion of migrants on public health grounds.

“Here’s the biggest frustration for all the Republicans rhetoric about chaos at the border: No. 1, they have yet to come forward with a plan of how to better handle this scenario,” Padilla, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration, citizenship and border safety subcommittee and the first Latino to represent California in the chamber, told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

“No. 2, they have not been willing to commit the additional resources that the departments and agencies say that they need to handle this big influx,” Padilla said.

While Republicans say President Joe Biden has not been clear and forceful enough in his immigration policies, Padilla argued otherwise — while calling Title 42 a health policy that no longer served its purpose.

“It’s past time for Title 42 to be gone,” he said. “The administration has made it clear that while Title 42 is technically lifted, they’re ready to put in place a system at the border that keeps them fairer but also more orderly and more safe.”

Raddatz asked Padilla about immigration comments from his state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, that California is overwhelmed, with systems that will “break” without Title 42.

“The fact is, what we’ve got right now is not working and it’s about to break in a post-42 world unless we take some responsibility and ownership,” Newsom told ABC News Chief National Correspondent Matt Gutman earlier this month.

On “This Week,” Padilla admitted that the rollback will be a challenge and hinges in part on the funding and operations of the departments that oversee immigration at the southern border. He also directed some blame at former President Donald Trump, claiming Trump’s administration underfunded immigration agencies.

“I appreciate Gov. Newsom’s frustration. He and I spoke just a couple of days ago,” Padilla said.

Raddatz pressed Padilla several times for clarity about what he thinks conditions will look like after Title 42.

“Do you expect everything to just go smoothly on Wednesday? Give us a sense of what will happen in your state, given what Gavin Newsom has said, for these first couple of weeks when they do expect 18,000 people a day crossing the southern border,” Raddatz said.

“We will, I’m sure, see the departments begin to make every effort to maintain the safety, the orderliness, the fairness of people seeking asylum or having other determinations that they’re coming for other reasons or in other places,” Padilla said.

Conservatives like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have said Title 42 — which has been used to remove people more than 2.4 million times — should remain in place or risk an overwhelming amount of immigration at the southern border. The policy ending “will likely increase” migration flows, the Department of Homeland Security said last week.

Critics of the restriction say it prevents people from lawfully making asylum claims as they try to enter the U.S.

Last month, a judge ruled Title 42 should be lifted by Wednesday, finding that it had minimal impact on public health.

On Friday, a federal appeals court turned down some GOP-led states’ efforts to force the Biden administration to keep Title 42 in place. The states, including Texas, are expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Padilla told Raddatz on Sunday that “we do need to invest more in border safety and security.” But, he said, “we’ve got to do it in a smart way” in contrast with Republican calls to focus on erecting massive, continuous physical barriers. “The years we lost to the ‘build the wall’ debate was foolish,” he said.

“We know that whether it’s migrants — whether it’s you know, whatever the Republicans are afraid of, contraband, etc. — comes primarily through ports of entry. And so that’s got to be the first and foremost focus on border safety dollars,” Padilla said.

He has authored a number of immigration reform measures and has led efforts to try to get an immigration fix into an omnibus spending bill that Congress is currently considering.

On “This Week,” Padilla said that immigration policy should continue to be discussed by lawmakers.

“An individual, a family, coming to the border seeking asylum today is very different than the millions of immigrants who are in the United States already and have been here for years. Yes, in many cases undocumented, but working, paying taxes, raising families, contributing to the success of our economy, working in essential jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Padilla said. “They deserve better than to live in fear of deportation.”

“Can we separate the need to do right by them from addressing somebody coming to the southern border next week?” he continued. “Republicans, are they willing to do that as well?”

Raddatz asked Padilla if bipartisan compromise on immigration, which has repeatedly failed in Congress before, was possible.

He noted the current political climate but said, “God, I hope so, because the ideas are already there.”

ABC News’ Luke Barr and Quinn Owen contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — With prominent Republicans in Congress calling for more scrutiny of aid to Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia’s invasion, the country’s ambassador to the United States said Sunday that “we actually welcome the transparency and accountability.”

“We’re working with Congress on a very strong bipartisan basis. … And there is a number of systems already in place. The NATO system on the security systems, but also the full reporting on the budget support,” Oksana Markarova told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz. “So, we look forward to continuing doing that. And, actually, we really count on Congress continued support, especially for 2023.”

The Biden administration and lawmakers have already directed nearly $50 billion in 2022 alone. Congress may add more Ukrainian support to a year-end government funding measure.

GOP Rep. Michael McCaul said in a “This Week” appearance last month that while most members on both sides of the aisle support those efforts, Republicans “have a voice now” — as the incoming House majority — and will provide more oversight of the spending.

The Biden administration maintains that efforts are already underway to make sure funds and munitions are being properly administered and Congress instructed watchdog agencies at the State Department and Pentagon to track the aid as well.

Beyond what the U.S. has already provided, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has for several months asked President Joe Biden for Patriot missile defense systems for several months now.

Ukrainian officials have said these advanced air defense systems are needed in response to Russia’s intensified missile strike attacks, including on civilian infrastructure providing needed resources. The defense systems could be imminently transferred from the U.S. to Ukraine, pending approval, ABC News reported last week.

“During the last two months … there is a massive attack on civilian infrastructure: 50% of the energy is destroyed of the energy grid. We have to stop it. And the only way to do it is with increased number of air defense everywhere in Ukraine,” Markarova said on “This Week.”

Raddatz asked about the Russian embassy warning of “unpredictable consequences” if the U.S. agrees to send the enhanced defensive arms.

“This is very cynical of them. I mean, they have attacked a peaceful country,” Markarova responded, claiming that Russia has been committing “all atrocities” and “war crimes.”

Markarova said the focus should be on winning the war and holding Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials accountable. Raddatz asked if — despite Ukraine’s successes in recent months with its counter-offensive — she was worried about a new offensive from Russia in the winter or new year, and Markarova said she was.

“We just have to be proactive and together, with all of our friends and partners, we are thankful for all the support that we are getting to continue to stay the course, liberate the territories and defend Ukraine,” she said.

She also said Ukraine was on alert for the possible involvement of the Belarusian military to the north, supporting Russia. Last week, Belarus’ president, Alexander Lukashenko, announced an unscheduled check of the army’s readiness.

“The people in Belarus do not want to be part of this war. … And, hopefully, you know, they will be able to stay away, at least from the direct involvement in this war, and stop what they’re doing already,” Markarova said.

She repeated what President Zelenskyy has also vowed: to oust Russian forces from Crimea, which Putin annexed from Ukraine in 2014, and reclaim the peninsula that the Russian leader prizes.

“That seems like a clear red line for Vladimir Putin,” Raddatz pressed. “How do you take back Crimea?”

Markarova again attacked Russia’s illegal actions, but Raddatz pushed her to respond to the difficulty of a Ukrainian military operation there.

“Everything is very difficult. And, ultimately, we are paying a higher price for liberating our land and our people,” Markarova said. “But there is no other option because we know what happens under Russian occupation. They are killing and torturing and destroying Ukrainians.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(EL PASO, Texas) — With Title 42 expected to be lifted in a matter of days, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he anticipates catastrophe at the southern border.

“If the courts do not intervene and put a halt to the removal of Title 42, it’s gonna be total chaos,” Abbott told ABC’s “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

Texas is part of a coalition of Republican-leaning states that has pushed to keep Title 42 in place despite the Biden administration and civil liberties advocates saying it’s time for the hardline policy to end.

A federal appeals court on Friday denied the GOP states’ effort, putting the administration on track to lift the COVID-19 pandemic-related immigration restrictions on Wednesday.

Though that date could change if the Supreme Court decides to intervene. The GOP states are planning to file an appeal to the nation’s highest court on Monday, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, one of the Republican officials seeking to keep Title 42 in effect, confirmed to ABC News.

Title 42, put into place by the Trump administration, has been used since the early weeks of the global health crisis to expeditiously expel most migrants and asylum-seekers from the southern border. The Biden administration first sought to end the policy in May, pointing to improving pandemic conditions.

Raddatz pressed Abbott on how to justify keeping Title 42 in place when it is a public health order, not official immigration policy.

“Whether it’s COVID or some other issue, when you have people coming in from across the globe, without knowing at all what their health status is, that almost by definition is a public health risk,” Abbott responded. “There’s every reason to keep that in place.”

But immigration advocates and those fighting to repeal Title 42 have questioned the GOP states’ motive for wanting to keep the policy in place.

“They have been fighting to end COVID restrictions everywhere since the beginning. And now all of a sudden, they want a public health restriction solely when it comes to asylum-seekers. I think the real game here is that they’re trying to close the border,” said Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s challenge to Title 42, in a statement.

Abbott in particular has taken a tough approach to border security. He launched “Operation Lone Star” to crack down on crossings, and has bused more than 14,500 migrants from his state to Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York and other Democrat-led cities.

Critics slammed the latter move as callous, stating Abbott was using migrants as political pawns. Abbott defended the busing, telling Raddatz border communities are overwhelmed.

“The very reason behind this is because communities like Del Rio and Eagle Pass and others, they were having thousands of people dumped off into their communities … and they don’t have the capability of dealing with that vast number of migrants,” he said. “I removed them to locations that self-identified as sanctuary cities that have the capability and the desire to help out these migrants. And so that’s exactly what’s taking place.”

Economic and political crises in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and other nations have fueled record migration to the U.S.

“Do you look at them and think, you know, some of those people really do deserve to be here?” Raddatz asked.

Abbott said valid asylum-seekers are being “pushed further and further and further back the line every single day with the thousands of illegal immigrants coming across the border.”

A surge of migrants is expected at the southern border once Title 42 is lifted, adding to the influx of migrants border communities like El Paso are already experiencing with the policy still in place.

The Biden administration insists they’ve been preparing for the end of Title 42, pointing to the hiring of more Border Patrol staff and contractors. Biden officials are also pushing back on claims from Abbott and other Republican officials that the end of Title 42 equates to an open border.

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard President Biden say, ‘We have an open border, come on over,'” Raddatz said. “The people I have heard say it are you, are former President Trump, are Ron DeSantis. That message reverberates in Mexico and beyond. So they do get the message that it is an open border and smugglers use all those kinds of statements.”

Abbott argued that malicious actors have seized on Biden’s border policies since he became president.

“It was known from the time that Joe Biden got elected that Joe Biden supported open borders,” Abbott said. “It is known by the cartels, they have sophisticated information. Whether or not the Biden administration is going to enforce the immigration laws or not is known across the world but most importantly, known among the cartels.”

ABC News’ Quinn Owen contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.