Mark Meadows asks Supreme Court to intervene in Fulton County case, citing Trump immunity decision
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Meadows, the one-time chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, is continuing his monthslong effort to move the Fulton County criminal case against him into federal court, asking the Supreme Court in a new appeal to intervene on a lower court’s ruling they claim was “dangerously” wrong.
In a filing, dated Friday, Meadows’ attorneys say the lower court erred when it rejected Meadows’ request to move his case out of state court and into federal court, in part by pointing to the court’s recent landmark ruling granting Trump some immunity for official acts
“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” the 47-page filing states.
Meadows for months has sought to move his case into federal court based on a law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting “under color” of their office.
Both a lower court and appeals court have rejected that claim, with one judge writing that Meadows’ actions charged in the indictment “were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign” and not his official duties.
Now, Meadows has appealed the issue up to the Supreme Court, arguing the appeal court’s ruling that the statute does not apply to former officers “defies statutory text, context, history, and common sense.”
“The decision [of the lower court] is not just wrong, but dangerously so,” Meadows’ attorneys continued, again referencing Trump’s immunity ruling. “The Court should grant review, or at the very least vacate and remand in light of Trump.”
The Fulton County election interference case against Trump and 14 others is largely on pause pending an appeal of the disqualification issue. An appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for December.
Meadows has pleaded not guilty.
The historic Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity referenced by Meadows’ lawyers outlined the boundaries of presidential power, making clear for the first time that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for “core” official acts but have no immunity for “unofficial” acts.
(NEW YORK) — Much of the work of election campaigning goes on beneath the radar, where campaigns fight furiously to identify and register potential supporters and ensure their participation. Identifying likely voters, as such, is a moving target — but with absentee voting now beginning, an initial look reveals some intriguing patterns.
As previously reported, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by a slight 4 percentage points, 50-46%, among all adults and registered voters alike, and by 6 points, 52-46%, among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. While those numbers are virtually identical, closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters — notably, those younger than 40, younger women in particular and Black people.
This analysis, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that support for Harris goes from 54% of all adults younger than 40 to 64% of those identified as likely voters. Trump’s support, meanwhile, drops from 42% of adults in this age group to 33% of those likely to vote.
That shift is driven largely by women: Harris’ support increases from 60% of all women younger than 40 to 73% of those in this age group who are likely to vote. Trump sees a corresponding drop in support, from 35% among all women younger than 40 to 24% of those likely to vote.
Harris has 82% support among all Black people, rising to 93% among those who are likely voters. Trump, for his part, goes from 15% support among all Black people to 7% among those who are likely to vote. Harris also gains among liberals.
Countervailing movement in Trump’s direction doesn’t reach the level of statistical significance in any group. He has, for example, 52% support among all 50- to 64-year-olds (his best age group) and 56% among likely voters in this group. He goes from 85% to 88% among conservatives and from 52% to 54% among people who don’t have a four-year college degree.
But it’s not all about who receives more support in likely voter groups; it’s also about the size of those groups. Harris, for example, leads Trump by 23 points, 60-37%, among likely voters with four-year degrees — and, as such, benefits from the fact that this group makes up 45% of likely voters, vs. 35% of the general population.
Trump pushes back with his 10 point likely voter advantage among white people: they account for 61% of all adults but 71% of likely voters. He’s also aided by a lower prevalence of adults younger than 40; they make up 36% of all adults vs. 25% of those identified as likely to vote.
All told, it’s the combination of group sizes and preferences among groups that add up to keep the race a close one. Likely voters are defined here, in part, by people saying they are certain to vote. Motivating them actually to do so is what both campaigns are all about — starting now.
(WASHINGTON) — Republican calls are mounting for sharper focus by former President Donald Trump on inflation and immigration, worried that his penchant for personal attacks and scattered stances on social issues could serve as distractions in his quest to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris.
In key down-ballot races, however, Republicans are still fighting on the culture-war battlefields.
Red- and purple-state Republican Senate challengers are leaning on issues such as transgender rights and “wokeism” to define battle-hardened Democratic incumbents as too liberal and chip away at longstanding brands among their electorates.
The dynamic serves as a recognition that while Trump needs to win over swing voters in purple states, a Republican Senate majority hinges on GOP strongholds like Montana and Ohio, where boiling the race down to a conservative-versus-liberal matchup allows those states’ partisan bents to take over.
“If you’re running against a Democrat who’s running underneath Trump [on the ballot] in a state where Trump’s going to win overwhelmingly, then you have every reason to try to drive a shirts-and-skins election,” said GOP strategist Scott Jennings. “Get everybody into their corners, don’t let them think that ticket splitting is a good idea or something they should even consider.”
Republicans are bullish on their opportunities to unseat Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. They’re also hoping to expand a future majority by winning seats in purple states such as Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and they’re not just relying on kitchen-table issues to do it.
Senate Leadership Fund, the top GOP Senate super PAC, released ads in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania Tuesday knocking Democratic incumbents there for what they said was support for allowing “biological men” to compete in “women’s sports.”
Tim Sheehy, the Republican nominee to take on Tester, also knocked Democrats in his opening ad over “drag queen story time on our military bases” and said he was running “to get this woke crap out of our military.” At his speech at this summer’s Republican convention, Sheehy started his speech by saying, “My name is Tim Sheehy. Those are also my pronouns.”
And Bernie Moreno, the GOP nominee in Ohio, wrote on his website that he’s running in part to “end wokeness and cancel culture,” and a supportive super PAC had hammered one primary opponent as being untrustworthy for being a “champion for trans equality.”
The tactics are all part of a strategy to tear down in-state images of Democratic candidates — Tester and Brown in particular — as bipartisan dealmakers and instead remake them as nothing more than run-of-the-mill liberals in states where the overall partisan makeup makes such labels untenable. And if they’re successful Republican candidates, can just ride on Trump’s lengthy red-state coattails.
“It’s code for liberal,” one GOP strategist working on Senate races said of the recent ads. “It’s less about the actual trans issue itself and more about what their support for that issue actually says about their overall worldview.”
“Ohio and Montana are the inverse of almost every swing state Senate race of the last three cycles. And what I mean by that is, it’s not a question of, can Republicans reach beyond the Trump base to win over voters who didn’t support Trump? Neither Tim Sheehy nor Bernie Moreno needs a single voter to vote for them who isn’t already voting for Trump,” the person added.
Multiple Republican strategists boasted of poll numbers they’d seen of the popularity of GOP stances on transgender issues. A second operative working on Senate races said it was the “better testing and often the best testing message in surveys” they’d seen, and Brad Todd, another GOP strategist, said two campaign’s he’s working on are planning on releasing ads of their own on the topic.
And for Republican candidates like Sheehy, Moreno and Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania, all of whom can’t compete with the name recognition of their multi-term Democratic opponents, social issues offer an avenue to signaling alignment with voters looking to learn more about them.
“You do have to check some boxes with some voters so that they cross that threshold of, ‘Well, is this even someone that is culturally aligned with me enough to consider?’ And that issue right there for a lot of more culturally conservative voters is one that definitely pops,” Jennings said.
The moves mark a stark contrast with the conventional wisdom in the presidential race, where Republicans are pushing Trump to focus on the economy and border security and leave aside issues such as transgender athletes, gender-affirming care for minors and his scattershot stances on some women’s reproductive rights matters. Still, some references to culture-war issues could prove advantageous, according to Republican strategists.
“I do think [in the presidential race], voters look to it more as a wrong track/right track on the economy. They see the president as the person steering the ship of economic state and in charge of sovereignty,” Todd said. “I think because those issues are so closely tied to the president and Republicans have an advantage on both of them, that’s why you don’t see as much discussed there. But they would be fair game.”
To be certain, Republicans are not hinging their Senate prospects solely on red meat, telling ABC News that it’s just one piece of the puzzle and that burnishing their own credentials on kitchen table issues is also critical.
“The type of people could vote for Donald Trump and Jon Tester, Donald Trump and Sherrod Brown, we know those people exist. They’re going to start to say, ‘OK, I get it. Tester is Biden, Brown is Biden. So, what do you got for me? What’s my alternative? Give me something,'” said a third GOP strategist working on Senate races. “You just can’t be generic Republican versus a liberal, because that’s been tried, and that clearly doesn’t work against Tester and Brown.”
Still, the person added, “you got to have more than one arrow in your quiver, and that’s the cultural stuff. There’s a place for it in these races.”
Some Democrats swatted away concerns that Republicans’ messaging was as potent as they claimed.
“Does anyone base their vote on this issue? How many people has this actually happened to?” Democratic strategist and former Senate aide Jon Reinish asked of transgender rights issues. “I’m expecting it is slim to probably none.”
But other Democrats told ABC News that transgender rights and other culture war topics could be potent in red states and made sense as a strategy where simply keeping GOP voters in line could deliver Republican victories — and with them, likely the Senate majority.
“Those are just redder states where I think the culture war stuff just gets more traction and playing to your base can get you over 50%,” one Democratic pollster said. “So, it does not surprise me at all to take that tact in these redder states.”
(BEAVER COUNTY, Pennsylvania) — The local SWAT team assigned to help protect former President Donald Trump on July 13 had not had any contact with the Secret Service agents in charge of security before a would-be assassin opened fire, those officers told ABC News.
It was a critical part of the planning and communications failures that ended with a gunman killing one man, critically injuring two more and wounding Trump as he delivered a speech just days before accepting the Republican presidential nomination.
“We were supposed to get a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service members whenever they arrived, and that never happened,” said Jason Woods, lead sharpshooter on the SWAT team in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
“So I think that was probably a pivotal point, where I started thinking things were wrong because it never happened,” Woods said. “We had no communication.”
In their first public comments since the assassination attempt, the SWAT team on the ground that day and their supervisors spoke exclusively with ABC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Aaron Katersky. It is the first time any key law enforcement personnel on-site July 13 have offered first-hand accounts of what occurred.
They explained that they did what they could to try to thwart the attack but now have to live with the failure.
The episode last week led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. And, in the wake of the assassination attempt, a series of law-enforcement, internal and congressional probes have been announced – with communications and coordination a key focus of investigators’ attention.
The Secret Service, whose on-site team was supplemented as usual by local, county and state law-enforcement agencies, was ultimately responsible for security at the event.
Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi declined to respond directly to the comments from Woods and his colleagues. He said the agency “is committed to better understanding what happened before, during, and after the assassination attempt of former President Trump to ensure that never happens again. That includes complete cooperation with Congress, the FBI and other relevant investigations.”
Woods told ABC News he would have expected to have seen more coordination with the Secret Service and to have had greater communication between their team on the ground that day and the agents with Trump’s detail. The first communication between their group and the Secret Service agents on the scene that day, he said, was “not until after the shooting. By then, he said, “it was too late.”
Woods and the rest of the Beaver County sniper team were in position by mid-morning July 13, hours before Trump was set to take the stage at the Butler Farm Show grounds, outside Pittsburgh. The site is studded by a complex of warehouses, some clustered just outside the position where metal detectors were set up that day.
Gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, sparked suspicion among the Beaver County SWAT team but was still able to evade law enforcement and take position on the roof of the very building where county snipers had been posted. Though their sniper had taken pictures of Crooks and had called into Command about the suspicious presence — within an hour Crooks opened fire on the former president less than 200 yards from the stage.
Beaver County Chief Detective Patrick Young, who runs the Emergency Services Unit and SWAT team, said collaboration is key when lives are on the line.
“I believe our team did everything humanly possible that day,” Young said. “We talk a lot on SWAT that we as individuals mean nothing until we come together as a team.”
Watch: ABC News’ exclusive first interview with the local SWAT team on the ground during Trump’s assassination attempt, airs in its entirety on “Good Morning America” on Monday, July 29, at 7 a.m. ET.