FBI command post ‘triaging’ election threats to share with state and local partners
ABC News
Since Nov. 1, an FBI command post has been operating 24/7 and will continue to for at least nine days to to ensure the election is safe and secure.
“This command post is an opportunity for us to bring people together, all the different subject matter experts here in the FBI at headquarters and in the field, and we bring in our partners so the intelligence and threats that come in, and we can disseminate that information to the key partners, which is state and local officials around the United States,” said Jim Barnacle, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.
The command post is staffed with 80 people from more than a dozen agencies from the U.S. Capitol Police to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
The FBI is focused on criminal threats, such as threats to election workers, foreign malign influence, cyberthreats and acts of violence.
Barnacle said there have been some foreign operations that they have seen as well as “some attempted cyber attacks.”
“Russia, China and Iran are seeking to influence us, government, policy and politics for their benefit, they are also looking to undermine democracy, sow discord and undermine Washington’s standing in the world,” he said.
Last week, the intelligence community found that Russian actors were behind a video purporting to show Haitian migrants voting in Georgia. MORE: Law enforcement on alert for Election Day threats, new report says
Also in Georgia, there was a denial of service attack on the secretary of state’s office. Officials are ready for those incidents to occur and stress there is no material impacting on voting, Barnacle said.
“The FBI is looking at all those threats that come in here in the command post,” he said. “We’re triaging that information.”
Barnacle said the FBI learned from its 2016 and 2020 operations and have improved its communications. When it comes to physical threats, he said it’s important for state and locals to have the information they need to act.
“We’ve learned our lessons in the past,” he said. “We are trying to share information.”
The FBI isn’t monitoring social media and wants to ensure the First Amendment is followed, but when threats are made that is when they step in.
People are more aware about how to report things that happen than in years past, but that has resulted in only a smaller uptick in reporting incidents, he said.
“That’s what we’re asking people to do when they see a threat of violence or they see a foreign malign influence operation, we’re asking people, if they see threats of violence or they see criminal activity, to report that to state and local election officials and law enforcement,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans had mixed reactions to President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he would nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be secretary of Health and Human Services in his administration.
Kennedy has been an anti-vaccine activist and founded the Children’s Health Defense, a prominent anti-vaccine nonprofit that has campaigned against immunizations and other public health measures like water fluoridation. Medical experts expressed concerns about a rise in medical misinformation through Kennedy’s candidacy.
HHS oversees major health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, among others.
Rep. John Duarte, R-Calif., raised concerns about the pick, saying, “Well, all my kids are vaccinated and I hope he’s not going to move against one of the most life-saving technologies in the history of the world.”
Asked if Kennedy was the right choice, Duarte responded, “I don’t know.”
“I’d like to see more of his opinions and more of his thoughts in different matters, but the anti-vaccine mantra scares me a lot,” he said.
There was no immediate reaction from senators, who would vote on Kennedy’s nomination.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise didn’t clearly answer a question about his reaction to the selection of Kennedy, noting only that Trump was moving “fast” with his nominations.
“Clearly President Trump is moving fast to get as many people appointed as possible. It shows he’s carried through on the mandate the voters just gave him. To lay out his cabinet. To get to work,” Scalise said.
Scalise evaded a question about his position on the vaccine misinformation that Kennedy has espoused: “Ultimately, President Trump’s agenda….” Scalise pivoted.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, laughed when asked for an opinion, saying “It’s the president’s prerogative. I am not a senator.”
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, called the news “fantastic.”
“Robert’s a friend now for a few years, we’ve been talking a lot,” Roy said.
Roy said there’s a need to be “disrupting the corruption” in federal health agencies, which he expects Kennedy to accomplish.
Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., celebrated the news: “Oh my gosh, I’m so excited.”
Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., called Kennedy’s selection a “great pick.”
“Good pick on the president’s part, as all of them have been, and he’ll do a good job,” Norman said. “People say, ‘Well, he’s a Democrat.’ Look, he’s got an interest, he’s got an interest, a passion for the medical field. He’ll do a good job in it.”
Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-SD, took a more moderate position on the selection of Kennedy.
“I don’t mind disrupting. I mean, clearly, I think sometimes these big agencies get into some group think and I think it’s perfectly healthy to have some conventional wisdom challenged. Clearly, the Senate’s going to want to understand what is his vision for the agency,” Johnson said, adding that he wants to understand more about where Kennedy’s “scientific background is.”
Asked if he trusted Kennedy on public health, Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn. said “absolutely,” adding that “I think we need to broaden our horizons a little bit.”
(PENNSYLVANIA) — From the moment he arrived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, after being named former President Donald Trump’s running mate, it was clear that one of Sen. JD Vance’s primary roles was to help deliver battleground Pennsylvania for the former president.
The day Vance was announced as Trump’s vice presidential pick in July, Trump told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jon Karl that he was “going to leave [Vance] in Pennsylvania.”
Pennsylvania’s importance in this election can’t be overstated — it’s a crucial swing state with 19 coveted electoral votes where Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are neck and neck. Whoever wins the state is very likely win the presidential election. During the 2020 election, Pennsylvania was the state that sealed the presidency for President Joe Biden.
It is essentially a dead heat between Harris and Trump, with the former president barely leading Harris 47.9% to 47.8%, according 538’s latest polling average in the state.
The importance of Pennsylvania and other critical Rust Belt battleground states was reiterated in Vance’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in July.
“I promise you one more thing, to the people of Middletown, Ohio, and all the forgotten communities in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio and every corner of our nation, I promise you this: I will be a vice president who never forgets where he came from,” Vance, and Ohio native, said at the RNC.
Vance’s background is similar to those who live in Pennsylvania, which he shared in his book, “Hillbilly Elegy” and talks about often on the campaign trail.
Over the past few months, Vance has worked hard to court voters in Pennsylvania. When visiting the state, he often emphasizes his background growing up in the Rust Belt state of Ohio, which borders Pennsylvania, and touches on the top issues important voters in the state. That Rust Belt connection is something the Trump campaign is banking on to help the former president win in the state.
“JD Vance is more than just an eloquent voice on the campaign trail to break down how Kamala broke everything from our economy to our southern border, and how President Trump will fix it and get our country back on track,” Kush Desai, the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania spokesperson, told ABC News in a statement.
“His upbringing and life story are an inspiration to countless working-class Americans left behind in Kamala’s America who want a better life for themselves, their families, and their communities — Sen. Vance is personal testament to the future that a Trump-Vance administration has in store for our country.”
In the final two days before Election Day, Vance will have visited Pennsylvania twice. It will also be the state where he will hold his final campaign event before Election Day.
Similarly, Harris will also be holding her final campaign event in the state, signifying the critical role the state plays in securing the presidency.
“Harris will spend the day crisscrossing Pennsylvania, making her final pitch to Pennsylvania voters and mobilizing them to return their ballots and get to the polls on Tuesday. The final swing marks the Vice President’s 18th trip to Pennsylvania since launching her candidacy in July,” a campaign spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News.
Since joining the Republican ticket, Pennsylvania is the state Vance has visited the most, making 16 visits to the state and taking part in a total of 19 campaign events, according to ABC’s tracker of the senator’s campaign schedule. (Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, has visited the state nine times, according to ABC’s tracker of his events.)
While campaigning in Pennsylvania, one of the issues Vance often hits on is fracking, an important industry in the state. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris supported a ban on fracking, but has backed away from that stance since becoming the Democratic nominee. Vance has also emphasized the loss of manufacturing jobs, bringing them back from overseas, often arguing that unleashing American energy would drive down the cost of manufacturing.
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, told ABC News in a statement that American working families have been hit hard by the policies of the Biden-Harris administration and has worked to bring Trump’s message to voters in Pennsylvania.
“Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we are going to unleash a new golden age of American prosperity and Pennsylvania will be at the center of it all,” Martin told ABC News.
(WASHINGTON) — Politicos in Washoe County, Nevada, proudly refer to their home as “the swingiest county in the swingiest state,” where voters in the sprawling and sparsely populated swath of desert might very well tilt the scales of a deadlocked presidential election in November.
But Washoe has also carved out a reputation as the epicenter of a troubling nationwide trend: County officials refusing, for one reason or another, to certify election results.
Despite a legal requirement to accept the vote tally and pass the results along to state election officials, county supervisors in at least eight states have bucked this ministerial duty in recent election cycles, according to one watchdog group, prompting concern among democracy experts that it could upend voters’ faith in the election process.
“What was a sort of wild and desperate idea in 2020 has caught on with certifying officials in the last couple of elections,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit think tank. “It won’t be a successful tactic to overturn the outcome of our election, or to stop certification. But it will cause chaos and distrust in the meantime.”
In Washoe County, two members of the county board of commissioners have emerged as symbols of the broader dispute over vote certification: Alexis Hill, the Democratic chair of the board, and Michael Clark, a Republican commissioner. During board meetings, the two sit less than ten feet from each other on the dais. But when it comes to just about everything else — including the role of the commission in certifying election results — they are miles apart.
Hill, 41, lives just blocks from downtown Reno, the county’s most populous city, with her husband and 3-year-old daughter. Most days, she commutes to the county offices on her e-bike. Clark, 73, decamps each day to his ranch near Washoe Lake, where he tends to his horses, mules and dogs. On weekends, he rides his Harley.
‘A dark afternoon’
In the commissioners’ chambers, Hill and Clark regularly tangle over budgets and policy. But no issue fires them up more than election integrity. And in July, Clark and two Republican colleagues made national headlines when they refused to certify the outcome of two local races — prompting fears of what might come to pass in November.
“It was a dark afternoon,” Hill told ABC News’ Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran. “Decisions like that, they break institutions … they make people believe that we don’t have a fair and free election.”
Clark relented a week later under “extreme duress,” he explained at a commission meeting in July. The state’s attorney general had threatened him with felony prosecution for failing to execute a duty of his office.
In an interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran, Clark said he is not an election denier, but believes county election officials have failed to properly maintain the voter rolls. Clark pointed to thousands of mail-in ballots that were sent out to registered voters but returned to the county as undeliverable, which he characterized as evidence of poor recordkeeping by the registrar of voters.
“I believe that the people that are running the registrar of voters office can’t keep accurate records,” Clark said in the interview. “When I see sloppy bookkeeping, I don’t trust it.”
Washoe County Manager Eric Brown has acknowledged that the returned ballots might represent voters who had moved, thereby complicating their ability to vote — but he said at a recent meeting that the county had upgraded its voter registration system, which he said “has enhanced tracking and certification capabilities.”
“Moving forward, keeping track of voter records is going to be — we’ll be able to do that much more accurately,” Brown said.
Clark also said his vote to not certify results in July — which was the third time in his two-year tenure on the commission that he did so — was precipitated by what election experts have called erroneous legal advice from a county attorney who told commissioners to vote their conscience.
Clark’s vote “shocked” the state’s elections chief, Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar.
“It is a ministerial duty to certify the election,” Aguilar, a Democratic, told ABC News’ Terry Moran. “If there are concerns and questions about the election — about the election process, about the election administration — [the commission has] the power to schedule an agenda item to have a conversation about how elections work.”
‘That’s just not their job’
All fifty states make election-certification by county officials a mandatory duty of their job to prevent local partisan politicians from meddling in election results. Election disputes, which frequently arise, are typically resolved through audits, recounts, and the courts.
“It may seem odd to people that [the county officials] who are certifying the election aren’t necessarily the ones that investigate all the things that happened in the election,” Morales-Doyle said. “But that’s just not their job.”
But in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, when former President Donald Trump sought to challenge the outcome of the vote, some county officials have refused to certify results.
It began in Wayne County, Michigan, where Trump reportedly pressured two county officials to not certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to the Detroit News. In the intervening election seasons, more than two dozen officials in eight states, including key swing states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, have followed suit, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
In Arizona, two Republican supervisors in Cochise County were charged with felonies for delaying certification of the 2022 midterm election until a court ordered them to do so. Both have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to go to trial next year. Both also remain in their seats on the county board.
And in Georgia, a state judge this week issued a directive that county officials cannot block the certification of votes due to allegations of fraud or error, ruling that officials “have a mandatory fixed obligation to certify election results.”
‘How you undermine democracy’
Back in Nevada, election officials say they are preparing for any possible challenge to the upcoming election results.
“So is this a contagion?” Moran asked Aguilar. “Do you see this happening in other counties this time around?”
“It may, but I think we are prepared, and we have been preparing for the last 18 months to address any issue that comes up. This was one of them,” Aguilar said. “I’ve been working extremely hard with the attorney general to anticipate some of these situations.”
“We have pre-drafted legal filings — kind of like a Mad Libs, right?” Aguilar said. “You know the county, you fill in the county name, you fill in the date, you fill in the facts. And you file that thing as soon as you can before the Nevada Supreme Court.”
Experts say the failure of county officials to certify results is unlikely to succeed in delaying or altering the outcome of the presidential election. But that does not mean it should not alarm American voters.
“Every time this has been tried before, courts have put a quick end to it. And they will again this year,” Morales-Doyle said. “But what it might do is undermine the public’s faith in our process. And that’s really damaging in and of itself.”
“That’s really harmful,” he said. “Democracy works because people have faith in the outcome of their elections. If you undermine that enough, that’s how you undermine democracy.”
In Washoe County, Hill said she would “absolutely” certify the results, regardless of the outcome in the presidential race or in her own reelection race for commissioner.
“I feel like we are ready to go for this general election. And I have no concerns,” she said. “I do believe that there are really good people who are trying to hold the house together.”
Clark, for his part, offered a more reserved commitment.
“Are you going to certify an election in November?” Moran asked him.
“Well, I guess I’m going to have to,” Clark said. “I don’t want to have an argument with the attorney general. The attorney general and the state of Nevada have much deeper pockets than I have.”
ABC News’ Hannah Prince contributed to this report.
