Trump calls himself ‘father of IVF,’ doubles down on ‘enemy within’ remarks in town hall
(GEORGIA) — Former President Donald Trump sat down with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner on Tuesday night in front of an all-female audience in Cummings, Georgia, where he addressed several issues aimed at appealing to women voters including the child tax credit, the economy and reproductive rights — calling himself the “father of IVF.”
Speaking in front of a friendly audience of more than 100 women of all ages, Trump attempted to court suburban women in Georgia’s Forsyth County — a reliably-red county where Democrats have made gains in recent years.
Recently, Trump has worked to connect with women voters — the largest voting bloc in the 2024 election — by suggesting they’ll be “safer” under a Trump administration, that he will be a “protector” of women and they “will no longer be thinking about abortion” if he wins the White House.
During the event, which aired Wednesday morning, Trump was asked about his positions on abortion access and in vitro fertilization — key voter issues after the Supreme Court overruled Roe vs. Wade in 2022. Trump himself often brags about his role in the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the case that secured the constitutional right to abortion.
“Oh, I want to talk about IVF. I’m the father of IVF,” Trump blurted.
Sen. Katie Britt, who introduced the IVF Protection Act, explained IVF to the former president, according to Trump.
“Within about two minutes, I understood we’re totally in favor of IVF. I came out with a statement within an hour, a really powerful statement with some experts, really powerful,” he said, adding that “we really are the party for IVF. We want fertilization.”
Trump reiterated his position on abortion where he suggested he has turned the power back to the states.
“It’s back in the states, where they can have the vote of the people. It’s exactly where they want to be. Remember this, this issue has torn this country apart for 52 years. So we got it back in the states, we have a vote of the people, and it’s working its way through the system, and ultimately it’s going to do the right thing,” Trump said.
At one point, Trump suggested that some states have to redo their abortion laws, referencing rape, incest and exceptions.
“Actually called himself the ‘father of IVF’ and if what he meant is taking responsibility, then yeah, he should take responsibility for the fact that one in three women in America lives in a Trump abortion ban state. What he should take responsibility for is that couples who are praying and hoping and working towards growing a family have been so disappointed and harmed by the fact that IVF treatments have now been put at risk,” Harris told reporters.
Trump’s comment was also quickly picked up by women championing the abortion-rights movement such as EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood Action Fund where they called it “deeply out of touch with the vast majority of the American people.”
“Let’s call this charade what it is: a last-ditch attempt to deceive voters,” said Jessica Mackler, president of EMILYs List, calling it an “insult to women everywhere that he thinks they’ll fall for his bogus attempt to rebrand on abortion.”
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said Trump “cannot be trusted — not with our bodies, our lives, or our futures.”
Trump also doubled down on his rhetoric where he suggested to Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that “the bigger problem is the enemy from within” when answering a question on whether he thought the November election would be peaceful.
Trump’s comments in the previous week suggest that the military would handle his political adversaries if he became president. Faulkner played the video clip during the town hall, to which Trump replied, “if we have to.”
He continued, doubling down on his rhetoric, “I thought it was a nice presentation” and saying he wasn’t “unhinged” as Harris claimed during an Erie, Pennsylvania, rally earlier this week.
“It is the enemy from within, and they’re very dangerous,” Trump said to Faulkner.
At one point in the town hall, Faulkner described the Democrats’ prebuttal of the event, mentioning the family of Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died of complications following her abortion in the state — with a ProPublica report saying her death was a direct result of the state’s six-week abortion ban.
Thurman’s family was on a press call with Sen. Raphael Warnock, and when Faulkner asked about that call, Trump — instead of acknowledging the Thurman family and Amber Thurman’s death — quipped that the Fox News town hall he was currently participating in would “get better ratings.”
(WASHINGTON) — On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a stern warning to those who would seek to harm election officials.
“I will reiterate again today, these cases are a warning if you threaten to harm or kill an election worker or official or volunteer, the Justice Department will find you and we will hold you accountable,” Garland said at a press event.
But more than three years after the Department of Justice announced a task force to “promptly and vigorously prosecute” offenders who threaten election workers, lawmakers and election officials have raised concerns about the federal government’s ability to effectively prosecute cases and deter threats ahead of the November election.
Election officials and advocates have criticized the task force for what they call a lack of transparency regarding its investigations, saying there have been yearslong delays in providing accountability, and that the task force has brought far too few cases following an onslaught of threats related to the 2020 election.
Of the more than 2,000 threats referred to the FBI by election workers, the Justice Department has opened 100 investigations, according to figures released in April. In total, the task force has charged 20 people and landed 15 convictions.
The numbers are modest, in part, because many of the threats received by election workers are protected by the First Amendment. But that’s done little to reassure the community of election workers and officials who have been left disillusioned by threats and harassment.
“It makes it really difficult to want to do the job when it also feels like your community, your state and your nation have turned on you,” said Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors. “You never know really if what you’re submitting is being investigated. You never really have any understanding of why something isn’t investigated.”
When reached for comment, a DOJ spokesperson highlighted the task force’s work engaging with election workers through more than 100 meetings and trainings, as well as helping FBI field offices and U.S. attorneys’ offices expand their capacity to investigate threats to election workers.
And ahead of the November election, Garland said “task force representatives” will be on the ground meeting with election workers and hosting events with the FBI to address issues and potential crimes.
But as Election Day approaches and threats to election workers persist, calls for action from the Justice Department have grown louder. In July, Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Georgia, launched an inquiry into the DOJ’s work protecting election workers, and a group of senators last month wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland saying that “more must be done to counter these persistent threats and ensure that election workers can do their jobs.”
As part of their inquiry, the group of senators asked the DOJ to tell them how many threats have been identified by the task force and the number of ongoing investigations and prosecutions. As of this week, the Justice Department had not responded to their request for more information about the task force’s progress.
‘Help is on the way’
The DOJ’s task force was launched in 2021 as election officials faced a torrent of threats related to the 2020 election. Led by the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, the group was tasked with reviewing individual reports of threats, then partnering with United States attorney’s offices and FBI field offices to investigate and prosecute those cases.
“A threat to any election official, worker, or volunteer is, at bottom, a threat to democracy,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco wrote in a memo to prosecutors in June 2021. “We will promptly and vigorously prosecute offenders to protect the rights of American voters, to punish those who engage in this criminal behavior, and to send the unmistakable message that such conduct will not be tolerated.”
Election officials rejoiced, hoping the highly publicized announcement might serve as a deterrent and stem the tide of threats that was flooding their offices. At the time, 17% of local election officials reported having being threatened due to their job, while 32% reported feeling unsafe, according to a survey of election officials conducted in April 2021 by the bipartisan Brennan Center for Justice.
“When the DOJ announced a task force, we were thrilled in a lot of ways, because it was like, ‘Oh, there’s going to be help. Help is on the way,'” said Cohen.
But in the three years since the announcement, election officials have continued to face heightened threats, including physical violence, fentanyl-laced letters, swatting incidents, threatening voicemails, and violent threats on social media.
According to a May 2024 survey conducted by the Brennan Center, nearly 40% of local election officials reported experiencing threats, harassment, or abuse — a marked uptick from earlier surveys.
“The pressures that my colleagues fall under nationwide — over things that are literally unfounded — has become hard to deal with every day for folks who didn’t sign up for that kind of pressure,” said Dag Robinson, the county clerk in Harney County, Oregon.
‘Justice is not swift’
Despite the fanfare it received in 2021, the task force got off to a sluggish start. A year after it was formed, the Justice Department had only charged four cases despite reviewing over 1,000 referrals involving hostile or harassing contact, then-Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite told a meeting of election officials in 2022. Only 5% of referrals resulted in actual investigations.
While the task force’s success rate improved slightly over three years — charging 20 individuals, achieving 15 convictions, and losing one case — multiple election officials told ABC News that the modest number of cases compared to the thousands of threat referrals is disheartening.
“I could certainly recognize that my friends and colleagues across this country don’t feel supported,” said Julie Wise, the director of elections for King County, Washington.
In Colorado, officials say Secretary of State Jena Griswold has been the subject of thousands of abusive, harassing, and threatening communications over the last two years, including frequent messages calling for violence against her.
“You have a family, Jena,” one user said on social media “Think about that before you continue.”
Of the 1,140 threats referred to the Department of Justice by Griswold’s office since January 2023, 13 have led to investigations, and one case has been prosecuted, according to her office.
Election officials across the country say that in some instances, charges have been announced two or three years from the time a threat was made.
“It seems as though justice moves slowly, and I have seen that some clerks who were assaulted or threatened from the 2020 election just were [only recently] able to give their victim impact statements for the sentencing of those individuals — so justice is not swift.” said Barb Byrum, county clerk in Ingham County, Michigan.
‘Legally off the hook’
In response to election officials’ concerns, Justice Department officials say that charging cases requires a high burden of proof — and many of the threats targeting election workers are protected speech under the First Amendment. To land a conviction in a threats case, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements are likely to be reasonably perceived as threatening — known as “true threats.”
“One of the biggest challenges in bringing these criminal cases is parsing what is a true threat from what is constitutionally protected speech,” according to Jared Davidson, counsel at nonprofit Protect Democracy.
Statements that are vague, hyperbolic, or figurative can be hard to prove as threats in a criminal setting, where defense attorneys can parse out the meaning of a statement to create reasonable doubt, said Davidson.
For example, the phrase “We’re going to take you out” could be perceived in multiple ways depending on the context of the statement, according to Eugene Volokh, a professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law.
“In context, that could mean ‘kill you,’ or it could mean ‘throw you out of office,'” Volokh said.
“A ‘vast majority’ of the communications directed at election officials, however offensive, are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be prosecuted,” then-Assistant Attorney General Polite said in 2022.
After prosecutors charged a Nevada man who, following the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, allegedly made multiple calls to the Nevada secretary of state’s office — including saying that they were “all going to … die” and wishing they would “all go to jail for treason” — a jury acquitted the defendant, illustrating the challenge of proving a true threat.
Adding to the challenge of bringing these cases is a 2023 Supreme Court decision that clarified the standard for true threats by finding that a defendant needs to have some awareness that their statement would be viewed as threatening.
“If you say something ambiguous and you don’t even realize that it might be perceived as a threat, you’re legally off the hook,” said Volokh.
Cohen, who said she has been publicly raising these concerns since early 2022, told ABC News that situation has led many election officials to believe that reporting threats can be “pointless,” which has led many of them to no longer refer threats to the task force. A 2024 Brennan Center survey showed that 45% of threats to election workers are unreported.
“It’s just hard not to feel, in some ways, like no one is taking this seriously,” Cohen said.
(NEW YORK) — An archery hunter who was knocked down and bitten by a bear while hunting elk with his friend has survived the surprise attack, officials said.
The incident occurred on Sunday morning when the hunter and his friend were hunting elk west of Henrys Lake in Island Park, Idaho, approximately 15 miles west of Yellowstone National Park, and were attacked by an adult male grizzly bear.
During the surprise encounter in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest near the Divide Creek Road, one of the hunters was “knocked down and bitten by the bear,” according to a statement from Idaho Fish and Game regarding the incident.
“Both men were able to utilize their sidearms to shoot the bear, deterring the attack and killing the bear,” Idaho Fish and Game said. “The hunters were able to call 911 and the injured individual was transported by helicopter to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center where he is being treated for non-life-threatening injuries.”
Idaho Fish and Game say they responded to the scene where the attack happened after coordinating with Fremont County Sheriff’s Office, Caribou-Targhee National Forest and Emergency Medical Service teams and that conservation officers conducted a “thorough investigation and determined that the hunters acted in self-defense during a surprise encounter with the bear from a very close distance.”
“I am extremely grateful that both of these individuals survived this encounter,” said Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Matt Pieron. “I have had the opportunity to speak with the injured hunter and his family and they are truly wonderful people. I wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries and the trauma these two hunters experienced.”
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, it is illegal to kill bears unless it is in a situation that requires self-defense.
“Grizzly bears in the 48 contiguous states are currently protected as a threatened species. It is illegal to harm, harass or kill these bears, except in cases of self-defense or the defense of others,” U.S. officials said. “Grizzly bear conservation is complex and only made possible through a variety of partnerships with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, state wildlife agencies, Native American Tribes, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.”
Idaho Fish and Game took the opportunity to remind people about safety procedures when hunting, suggesting that people venturing out in to the wilderness in north Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone area should always carry bear spray and keep it readily accessible, always hunt with partners and make each other aware of plans, keep an eye out for grizzly bear signs like fresh tracks, retrieve meat as quickly as possible and hang it — along with food and garbage — at least 200 yards from camp and 10 feet off the ground, and finally, by making noise when not hunting, especially around creeks and thick vegetation because “most attacks occur by inadvertently surprising a bear at close range.”
(PAWLET, Vt.) — A son has been arrested for the murder of his father, his father’s wife and her teenage son, who were found shot to death at their Vermont home, police announced Friday.
The triple homicide was discovered early Sunday. Officers responded to a report of a “suspicious person” and the investigation led them to a home in the town of Pawlet, Vermont State Police said.
Inside they found the three deceased victims — Brian Crossman Sr., 46, who was a Pawlet government official; his wife, Erica Crossman, 41; and her son and his stepson, Colin Taft, 13, police said. They were killed sometime early Sunday morning inside their home, police said.
Crossman Sr.’s son — Brian Crossman Jr., 23, of Granville, New York — now faces counts of aggravated murder in connection with the fatal shootings of his father, stepmother and stepbrother, Vermont State Police said Friday.
“The Vermont State Police investigation identified significant evidence that linked Crossman Jr. to the killings, including digital information, statements, injuries, and various interviews,” Vermont State Police said in a statement.
New York State Police located Crossman Jr. and took him into custody. He is being detained without bail pending an appearance before a judge in New York to initiate proceedings for his extradition to Vermont, police said.
Police have not released any details on an alleged motive in the killings.
He was set to appear in court in Glens Falls, New York, Friday afternoon. It is unclear if he has an attorney at this time.
It is unclear when he will return to Vermont, police said.
All three family members died from gunshot wounds and their deaths have been ruled as homicides by the Vermont Chief Medical Examiner’s Office, police said. Crossman Sr. was shot in the head and torso, Erica Crossman was shot in the head and her son had multiple gunshot wounds, police said.
Crossman Sr. had joined the Pawlet Select Board this year, where he served as a liaison to buildings and development and to the town’s highway department, according to the town’s website.
Pawlet Select Board Chair Mike Beecher remembered him as a “friend and neighbor” and a “hardworking community member.”
“This tragedy that struck him and his family has also hit our community hard, and we are shaken and grieving,” Beecher said in a statement Tuesday. “Our hearts go out to everyone affected by this devastating loss. The town of Pawlet will work to get through this as we always get through hard times, by supporting each other and doing our best to carry on.”
Pawlet, a town of about 1,400 people, is located in western Vermont on the New York state line.