(NEW YORK) — Prosecutors on Monday told the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s federal classified documents case that a limited gag order was necessary to prevent the former president from inviting a “violent act” on the law enforcement agents involved in the case.
As assistant special counsel David Harbach attempted to demonstrate that Trump was aware of the “predictable response of some of his supporters” when he made false statements about FBI’s August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago — including a campaign statement that President Joe Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger” — Judge Aileen Cannon challenged the prosecutor to produce evidence and justify the constitutionality of the proposed gag order.
“The most important thing is it talks about an event that is central to this case in utterly misleading terms,” Harbach argued. “The government is at a loss to conceive any possible reason Mr. Trump would say something so false … and inviting of retributive violence.”
“Where on the attachments do you see a call for violence?” Cannon responded after criticizing prosecutors for not producing ample evidence of a pattern of conduct from Trump’s other criminal and civil cases.
Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and took steps to thwart the government’s efforts to get the documents back. Trump has denied all charges and denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.
Cannon pressed Harbarch on the argument that a modification of Trump’s release conditions — rather than a standalone gag order like in the former president’s federal election interference case — would avoid issues related to the First Amendment.
“Do conditions of release still need to comport with the Constitution?” Cannon asked. “The First Amendment is in the Constitution.”
Cannon also expressed skepticism about the impact of Trump’s statements on the law enforcement officers, highlighting that any public filings included redactions for the names and identifying information of law enforcement agents. Harbach responded by arguing that some agents were previously doxed, and described Trump’s recent statements as “beyond irresponsible.”
Harbach argued that there is “ample danger between now and trial … that some sort of violent act will occur” because of Trump’s conduct, and said that Cannon needed to impose the restrictions on Trump’s speech to protect the integrity of the proceedings. When Cannon suggested waiting until trial to impose any restrictions on speech, Harbach argued immediate action was necessary.
“That die has already been cast … by defendant’s conduct,” Harbach said.
The first hour of the hearing grew contentious at times, as Cannon pushed Harbach for evidence and details.
“I don’t appreciate your tone,” Cannon told Harbach at one point. “I expect decorum in this courtroom at all times.”
“I didn’t mean to be unprofessional. I apologize for that,” Harbach later said
The request for a gag order by the special counsel follows a month of escalating rhetoric from Trump about federal agents’ use-of-force policy during their August 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate for classified documents.
In a filing last month, Smith argued that Trump’s statements that law enforcement officers were “complicit in a plot to assassinate him” were intentionally false and misleading, and “put a target on the backs of the FBI agents.”
Trump’s defense attorneys responded to the request by claiming that prosecutors have failed to demonstrate that Trump’s statements resulted in any material threats or harassment against law enforcement.
Echoing the former president’s defense against the limited gag order in his New York criminal hush money case, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the proposed gag order — which they describe as a “shocking display of overreach and disregard for the Constitution” — amounts to political interference by limiting Trump’s statements ahead of this week’s presidential debate and the Republican National Convention in July.
“[T]he motion is a naked effort to impose totalitarian censorship of core political speech, under threat of incarceration, in a clear attempt to silence President Trump’s arguments to the American people about the outrageous nature of this investigation and prosecution,” defense lawyers said in a June filing.
The gag order hearing, being conducted by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, follows a continuation this morning of Friday’s hearing in which defense attorneys are seeking to have the documents case dismissed on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.
‘False and extremely dangerous’
Trump’s recent public statements related to the Mar-a-Lago search, during which agents found more than 100 documents with classified markings, have emphasized the use-of-force policy in place during the raid, which Trump has repeatedly associated with “Biden’s DOJ.”
Prosecutors argue that law enforcement employed the Department of Justice’s standard use-of-force policy, which allows the use of force “when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
In filings, Smith also emphasized that the search was scheduled in the off-season when Trump and his family were not present at Mar-a-Lago and that it was conducted with coordination with Secret Service and Mar-a-Lago staff — and that Trump’s lawyer was notified before the search was executed.
In a rare public rebuke, the FBI issued a statement last month to confirm that law enforcement used standard protocols related to use of deadly force during the raid, adding that, “No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland also described accusations that the DOJ authorized Trump’s assassination as “false and extremely dangerous” and added that the same policy was in place during the search of President Biden’s home during the investigation into his retention of classified documents.
Threats against law enforcement
Prosecutors have emphasized that the proposed gag order against Trump would be narrowly limited — solely prohibiting Trump from falsely speaking about “FBI agents intending to murder him and his family” — in order to protect the safety of law enforcement officials.
To illustrate the threat against law enforcement officials, prosecutors claimed that Trump’s rhetoric encouraged a supporter to make threats to an FBI agent associated with the Hunter Biden case, including threatening that supporters would “hunt you down” and “slaughter you” if Trump does not win the 2024 election.
Prosecutors also argued that a Trump supporter attacked an FBI field office in Cincinnati with an AR-15 and a nail gun in August 2022 after the raid on Mar-a-Lago — an attack which prosecutors say was partially inflamed by Trump’s comments on social media after the raid.
Defense lawyers wrote that Trump has engaged in his “constitutionally protected campaign speech” and that prosecutors have failed to prove that Trump’s statements have directly resulted in threats or harassment.
In addition to highlighting two examples of threats or violence, prosecutors broadly argued that Trump’s inflammatory language about the raid has created a “combustible atmosphere” that poses an immediate risk to law enforcement.
“No court would tolerate another defendant deliberately creating such immediate risks to the safety of law enforcement, and this Court should not wait for a tragic event before taking action in this case,” prosecutors said in a filing last week.
Trump’s other gag orders
Trump has generally been unsuccessful in challenging the gag orders imposed in his other criminal and civil cases, occasionally securing stays of the orders but failing to overturn the orders as unconstitutional.
New York’s highest court declined to take up Trump’s challenge to the gag order in Trump’s civil fraud case, which prohibited Trump from making comments about judicial staff.
Last week, the same court declined to immediately consider Trump’s challenge to the gag order in his New York hush money case — which prohibits Trump from making statements about jurors, witnesses, and others involved in the case — after determining that “no substantial constitutional question is directly involved” in Trump’s challenge. A mid-level appeals court last month found that the gag order “properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice.”
Trump also unsuccessfully challenged the gag order in his federal election interference case that prohibited from making statements about prosecutors other than Smith, witnesses, and courthouse staff.
“Given the record in this case, the court had a duty to act proactively to prevent the creation of an atmosphere of fear or intimidation aimed at preventing trial participants and staff from performing their functions within the trial process,” a panel of Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C., wrote in an order last year upholding the gag order.
Culture’s Biggest Night has just gotten a little bigger. Added to the lineup of the BET Awards 2024 is Grammy-winning actor and recording artist Will Smith. He’ll be taking the stage to debut a brand-new song.
“From his start as a rapper to The Fresh Prince to being a box office king as one of the Bad Boys, Will Smith is truly a global icon, and we are honored to welcome him back to grace the BET Awards stage,” Connie Orlando, EVP of specials, music programming & music strategy at BET, said in a statement. “We look forward to Will adding to yet another defining night for the culture that is not to be missed.”
Will, who stars in the recently released Bad Boys: Ride or Die, joins performers GloRilla, Ice Spice, Latto, Ms. Lauryn Hill & YG Marley, Muni Long, Sexyy Red, Shaboozey, Tyla, Victoria Monét and BET Amplified stage performer Tanner Adell.
Taraji P. Henson will serve as host, and Usher will receive the Lifetime Achievement Award.
The BET Awards 2024 will air live on BET on Sunday, June 30, at 8 p.m. ET.
(NEW YORK) — Active shooter incidents in the U.S. declined by 4% from 2022 to 2023, according to new statistics released by the FBI on Monday.
In 2023, the FBI designated 48 shootings as “active shooter incidents,” compared to 50 in 2022, according to the FBI’s 2023 Active Shooter Report.
Last year also saw the number of those killed decrease from 313 in 2022 to 244 in 2023, according to the report. The shooters were largely male.
The FBI says from 2019 to 2023, there were 229 active incidents, which is an 89% increase from the previous five-year period.
The deadliest active shooting incident in 2023 was the Lewiston, Maine shooting, which left 18 dead in October 2023 after a gunman opened fire in two locations in the small Maine town.
California had the largest number of active shooting incidents with eight. The locations of the shootings were open spaces, places of businesses and education centers.
Law enforcement engaged in 12 incidents that resulted in the deaths of 13 law enforcement officials, the report said. In 58% of the incidents, the shooter had no connection to the location of the shooting, per the FBI.
(NEW YORK) — In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, litigation has been critical in restoring access to abortion care — but it has not been a successful path in all states.
At least 14 states have ceased nearly all abortion services and seven other states have restrictions in effect, limiting access to the procedure.
State courts around the country have been the site of battles over how to regulate abortion care — with abortion rights advocates making a number of different arguments in their efforts to restore access to care.
“Litigation also serves a very powerful role in educating the public. We’ve seen a lot of what the harms and the dangers of abortion bans are,” Jennifer Dalven, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, told ABC News.
One kind of challenge that has been made in lawsuits challenging abortion bans has been asserting a right to abortion under state constitutions. There have been five court rulings on cases of this nature since Roe was overturned.
In South Carolina, the court found that abortion is not protected under the privacy clause of the state’s constitution.
In Idaho, the court found that abortion is not protected under an unalienable rights clause in the state constitution.
In Indiana, a court found that the state constitution does not have protections for abortion but said there are protections for the life and health of the mother.
In Oklahoma, the court found that the state constitution protects abortion to preserve the life of the mother, but the courts did not speak on whether the right to abortion could be broader — an issue that could still be addressed in the future.
In North Dakota, the court found that the state constitution protects abortions to preserve the life and health of a pregnant woman — but the court did not speak to whether the right to abortion could be extended further.
Rulings are also pending in other states — including Utah, Wyoming, Wisconsin and New Mexico. Litigation has blocked bans in Utah and Wyoming while litigation continues.
“The courts there have been asked to decide whether their constitutions protect the right to abortion, and they have not issued final decisions, yet,” Amy Myrick, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told ABC News.
Colorado, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota will have an abortion question on the ballot in November.
“At the ballot every single time, voters have been asked whether they want to protect access to abortion, they have said yes, and that includes in conservative and battleground states, like Ohio, Michigan and Kansas,” said Dalven.
Active lawsuits in North Dakota, Idaho, Tennessee and Indiana are asking courts for protections for abortions to preserve the life and health of mothers in medical emergencies.
“If those cases go well, it’s not that the state court is going to declare a right to abortion, instead — hopefully — they will clarify the law and increase access for people who are facing horrible medical crises,” Myrick said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling in a pivotal lawsuit brought by the Biden Administration against Idaho over its strict abortion ban. The lawsuit claims that the ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) — a federal law that mandates that facilities receiving medicare funds must provide patients with “stabilizing” emergency health care.
“The most extreme outcome would be they hold that EMTALA doesn’t preempt state law broadly,” Myrick said.
“Every state that has an abortion ban has a lot of nuance and specificities about what’s in that ban, so [the ruling] will still be pretty fact-specific as to how each ban interacts with EMTALA — even if they found that state law was going to prevail,” Myrick added.
The high court already issued a decision on abortion medication, preserving nationwide access.
A lawsuit brought in Texas by 22 women suing the state over its multiple abortion bans, saying their lives were put in danger due to the bans was dealt a blow last month, when the state Supreme Court issued a decision pushing back against the claims made by women in the lawsuit.
The court argued, in part, that a lower court judge overstepped when she permitted abortions “for any ‘unsafe’ pregnancy,” according to the ruling.
“All pregnancies carry risks. The law limits permitted abortions to address life-threatening conditions ‘aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy.’ While merely being pregnant may increase a mother’s risk of death or injury, pregnancy itself is not a ‘life-threatening physical condition’ under the law,” the court wrote.
“In differentiating ordinary risks attendant to pregnancy — those that can be treated short of an abortion — from conditions for which the law permits an abortion, the Legislature drew the line at ‘life-threatening physical condition.’ Because the trial court’s order opens the door to permit abortion to address any pregnancy risk, it is not a faithful interpretation of the law. A trial court has no discretion to incorrectly interpret the law in ordering a temporary injunction,” the court wrote.
Similar lawsuits brought by women over state abortion bans are pending in Idaho and Tennessee.
Kate Cox, a Texas woman who had asked the court for an emergency abortion to preserve her fertility, was denied abortion care for a pregnancy with a severe anomaly. Cox left the state to access abortion care.
Litigation in Kansas, Montana, Alaska, Michigan and Ohio is also fighting state abortion restrictions.
Dalven argues that abortion is an issue that needs to be resolved at the national level — with legislation, warning that if Donald Trump is elected into office, Republicans could use a 150-year-old law, called the Comstock Act, to ban abortion nationwide.
The law, which remains on the books, is an anti-obscenity law that, among other things, “makes it a crime to mail anything that’s ‘indecent, filthy, or vile’ or ‘intended for producing abortion,'” according to the ACLU.
The law could prevent abortion pills, medical instruments, ultrasound machines and other devices used in abortions from being sent by mail.
“His allies have promised to use a law from the 1800s to ban abortion nationwide,” Dalven said.
Joe Biden speaks, as President Donald Trump, left, listens during the U.S. presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, Oct. 22, 2020. (Morry Gash/AP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — When President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump face off in Thursday’s presidential debate, it will be a replay of 2020, but at the same time, much different now in 2024.
Hosted by CNN, the debate comes at a crucial time as undecided voters work to decide how to cast their ballots in what’s expected to be a close contest in November. It’s also an opportunity for Biden and Trump to highlight their competing visions for the United States should they become president.
It’s the earliest ever in a presidential race, taking place before the Republican and Democratic conventions in July and August — when both Trump and Biden will officially accept their party’s nominations.
The showdown is scheduled to go 90 minutes with two commercial breaks. There will be no live studio audience — a major change from previous debates.
How to watch
Moderated by CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the debate will air Thursday, June 27 at 9 p.m. EDT/8 p.m. CDT/6 p.m. PDT.
It will air live on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español, CNN Max and stream without a cable login necessary on CNN.com.
CNN made the debate available to simulcast on additional broadcast and cable news networks in the United States.
It will be simulcast on ABC and ABC News Live with pre-debate coverage beginning at 8 p.m. EDT on the network and 7 p.m EDT on ABCNL.
ABC News Digital and 538 will live blog the latest from the debate stage as it happens and provide analysis and the biggest takeaways from the night.
What are the ground rules?
CNN recently shared its rules for the debate, which both Biden and Trump agreed to.
Biden and Trump will stand at lecterns decided earlier by a coin flip. Their microphones will be muted unless it is a candidate’s turn to speak, CNN said, which is likely to limit how much the candidates can interrupt each other.
Though it’s yet not clear who will control the ability to mute the candidates’ microphones, the moderators “will use all tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion,” according to the network.
According to CNN’s rules, Biden and Trump won’t be allowed to use any props or pre-written notes, but will be given paper, a pen and water. Their campaign staffs will not be allowed to interact with them during the debate.
To meet CNN’s debate qualifications, candidates had to appear on enough state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold needed to win the presidency. Also, they must receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.
CNN announced on Thursday that Biden and Trump met those requirements — meaning third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. won’t make it on the stage.
What is the debate format?
The candidates will not give opening statements, CNN confirmed to ABC News.
They will each have two minutes to answer moderators’ questions. They also will have one minute for rebuttals and responses to the rebuttals. Flashing red lights will warn them when they have five seconds left, and then turn solid red when their time has expired.
CNN has not yet given specifics about topics to be discussed.
How will this debate be different?
This isn’t the first time Biden and Trump have squared off at a debate: The pair squared off twice during the 2020 election, but this time the circumstances are considerably different. Both now have one presidential term under their belts — and several controversies as well.
This is Trump’s first debate since he was found guilty of 34 felonies in his New York hush money criminal trial. In the run-up to this debate, it’s something the Biden campaign has seized on through a $50 million advertising blitz, and many will be watching to see how Biden addresses Trump’s conviction.
It is also unclear if Trump will bring up Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son recently convicted on felony gun charges. Trump brought up Hunter Biden during their 2020 debate — and has many times since then.
Biden’s job approval rating will be ripe for Trump’ attacks as well, with about 56% disapproving as of June 20, according to 538’s polling average.
Trump will almost surely blame Biden for allowing a surge of migrants at the southern border, claim he’s caused inflation and mismanaged foreign conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
In addition to Trump’s conviction, Biden may hit Trump for his comments surround the Jan. 6 attacks at the U.S. Capitol.
Reproductive rights are another key issue for voters where Biden is likely to draw a comparison between his approach and Trump’s. The former president has taken credit for the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overrule Roe v. Wade.
When is the next presidential debate? And what’s next?
The June 27 debate marks the first of two debates Biden and Trump have agreed to. The second will be hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10.
Photography by Keith Getter (all rights reserved)/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Flooding in northwest Iowa, caused by heavy rainfall, has impacted 1,900 properties, leaving hundreds destroyed, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds told reporters Sunday.
During a media briefing, Reynolds said there had been 250 water rescues on Saturday, and over 1,000 residents had to be sheltered overnight.
Beginning on Friday, some areas were hit with up to 15 inches of rain, resulting in severe flooding.
Rivers crested several feet above record levels from the floods of 1993, and 16 flood gauges recorded historic levels, Reynolds said.
As of Saturday night, the Department of Natural Resources reported that 10 water systems and 21 wastewater systems had been affected by the flooding.
Reynolds, who took an aerial tour of the region, said Sunday the devastation is severe and widespread.
An initial disaster emergency proclamation for Sioux County was declared earlier in the weekend, according to Reynolds. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard was directed to set up a helicopter for rescue missions. Homeland’s Urban Search and Rescue teams were deployed for water rescues, she said.
On Sunday, Reynolds submitted a request for an expedited Presidential Major Disaster Declaration. In that request, they’re asking for additional federal assistance for nine counties and public assistance for 22 counties.
The governor’s director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, John Benson, said they are still working tirelessly because the situation is far from over. The forecast calls for more rain in the coming week, and the river gauges in the Missouri River are quickly rising, Benson said.
With the additional rain, flooding could continue to be an issue and may impact other parts of the state as well, Reynolds said Sunday night.
In addition to northwest Iowa, west central Iowa, southwest Minnesota, northeast Nebraska, central South Dakota, east central South Dakota, south-central South Dakota, and southeast South Dakota all have a hazardous weather outlook, according to the National Weather Service.
Streams, creeks and rivers are “in moderate to major flood stage leading to continued road closures,” per the NWS.
