Search for missing miner in flooded West Virginia coal mine enters 4th day
Allegheny Mountains (Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Rescuers are racing to find a miner who’s been trapped in a flooded West Virginia coal mine for days.
Crews are pumping out thousands of gallons of water per minute at the Rolling Thunder Mine to help locate the miner after the site flooded Saturday, according to West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey.
“Rescue operations continue at the Rolling Thunder Mine in Nicholas County, where crews are now pumping water at a rate of approximately 6,000 gallons per minute – a significant increase from earlier efforts as additional pumps became available,” Gov. Morrisey posted Tuesday on X.
“This is another step forward in the ongoing effort to reach the missing miner. As water levels continue to drop, crews are also advancing on the drilling portion of the rescue as they prepare for additional heavy equipment to arrive,” he added.
The identity of the miner has not been publicly released.
At a press conference Monday, Morrisey said dive teams were working to find pockets of air where the miner may be located.
“This has been an around-the-clock response since Saturday, and we’re going to continue to do everything imaginable to help,” said Morrisey. “We’re going to continue to push because we want to make sure that we give the miner every opportunity to live.”
Nicholas County Commissioner Garrett Cole posted a statement on Facebook Sunday night, saying that the missing miner was helping his crew escape to safety.
“According to state wide reporting, the missing miner is said to be a foreman of a crew who worked to ensure that everyone on his crew was getting out of the mine but got trapped behind,” he said.
Rolling Thunder Mine is operated by Tennessee-based Alpha Metallurgical Resources, which operates 19 underground and surfaces mines across West Virginia and Virginia, according to its website.
A spokesperson for Alpha Metallurgical Resources did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.
The weekend episode at Rolling Thunder Mine is the second mining incident in West Virginia this month, following the death of a miner at a different mine on Thursday, according to Morrisey.
“Our coal miners are among the hardest-working and most courageous people in our state. They represent the strength, humility, and resolve that define West Virginia. We owe these men and women an enduring debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they make every day to power our communities and our nation,” Morrisey posted on Facebook.
(WASHINGTON) — A Washington, D.C., man facing charges of assault of a federal officer after he allegedly threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent during a confrontation this week, worked for the Department of Justice at the time, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Sean Charles Dunn faces federal charges for allegedly throwing a Subway sandwich at a CBP agent who was patrolling with Metro Transit Police in northwest Washington around 11 p.m. on Sunday.
On Thursday morning, Bondi said Dunn had been fired from his job. Dunn worked as an international affairs specialist in the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, according to a DOJ official.
“I just learned that this defendant worked at the Department of Justice — NO LONGER,” Bondi said in a social media post. “Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony.”
Bondi added, “You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement.”
According to the criminal complaint, Dunn approached the officer while shouting “f— you! You f—— fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”
After several minutes of confrontation on Sunday, Dunn allegedly threw the sandwich, striking the officer in the chest, the complaint says. The alleged incident was apparently captured in a video posted to Instagram.
Dunn was apprehended after attempting to flee, authorities said, and later admitted to the incident while being processed at the police station, allegedly telling an officer, “I did it. I threw the sandwich.”
While Bondi said in her statement that individuals will “NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement,” last week the department publicly stood by Jared Wise’s continued employment at DOJ. Wise was pardoned by President Donald Trump while on trial for his participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Wise was allegedly seen on videos calling cops “Nazis” and screaming “Kill ’em!” at officers under assault by the pro-Trump mob.
“Jared Wise is a valued member of The Department of Justice and we appreciate his contributions to our team,” a Justice Department spokesperson told ABC News in a statement on Aug. 8.
ABC News reached out to Bondi’s spokesperson for comment following claims of Dunn’s dismissal.
The incident comes amid heightened tensions over federal law enforcement presence in the district. Trump recently deployed National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., declaring a public safety emergency and putting the Metropolitan Police Department under partial federal oversight for 30 days.
District Council Member Brooke Pinto, who chairs the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, expressed concern about the increased federal presence.
“It paints a picture of a city that is not my own and is not the experience of the vast majority of district residents and visitors,” Pinto told ABC News.
While Trump has cited rising crime as justification for federal intervention, police statistics show violent crime has actually decreased.
“Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year,” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said on social media.
The president maintained his stance, saying Wednesday, “Fighting crime is a good thing. … Instead of saying ‘He’s a dictator,’ they should say, ‘We’re going to join him and make Washington safe.'”
Dunn has not yet appeared in court. ABC News has reached out to his attorney, Sabrina Shroff, for comment.
U.S. National Guard in Washington D.C. (Kay Nietfeld/picture alliance via Getty Images)
(PORTLAND, Ore.) — A federal judge on Sunday extended her order blocking President Donald Trump from sending National Guard troops into Portland, continuing the legal battle over the president’s power to use the military on American cities.
Following a three-day trial last week, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the deployment of troops from any state’s National Guard into Portland through at least Friday.
Judge Immergut concluded that the attempt to send troops into Portland stemmed from exaggerated claims of violence in the city, where isolated protests were already contained by federal and local law enforcement.
“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.
Judge Immergut also concluded that the Trump administration likely violated a federal law that allows the takeover of the National Guard in the case of rebellion or invasion, as well as infringed on the state sovereignty of Oregon. The protests in Oregon, Immergut wrote, at most resulted in “sporadic isolated instances of violent behavior toward federal officers and property damage to a single building” and fell short of the standard definition of a “rebellion.”
“Defendants have not, however, proffered any evidence demonstrating that those episodes of violence were perpetrated by an organized group engaged in armed hostilities for the purpose of overtaking an instrumentality of government by unlawful or antidemocratic means,” she wrote.
The trial and decision follow a prolonged legal battle over the use of the National Guard in Portland. After Judge Immergut last month blocked the use of the Oregon National Guard, the Trump administration moved to send in troops from Texas and California.
She similarly blocked those troops from being sent into the city, and the Trump administration then appealed her order.
The Ninth Circuit briefly lifted her decision but agreed to rehear the case en banc, — when the entire court hears the case, rather than just a panel — thereby restoring the block on the deployment.
With both Immergut’s previously issued orders set to expire on Sunday, she issued a preliminary injunction tonight that will expire on Friday, at which time she plans to issue a complete ruling based on the testimony and evidence presented at trial.
(WASHINGTON) — Federal prosecutors investigating former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly making false statements to Congress determined that a central witness in their probe would prove “problematic” and likely prevent them from establishing their case to a jury, sources familiar with their findings told ABC News.
Daniel Richman — a law professor who prosecutors allege Comey authorized to leak information to the press — told investigators that the former FBI director instructed him not to engage with the media on at least two occasions and unequivocally said Comey never authorized him to provide information to a reporter anonymously ahead of the 2016 election, the sources said.
Comey, who was indicted last month on charges of making a false statement and obstruction related to 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is due to appear in a Virginia courtroom for the first time for his arraignment Wednesday — but Justice Department officials have privately expressed that the case could quickly unravel under the scrutiny of a federal judge and defense lawyers.
According to prosecutors who investigated the circumstances surrounding Comey’s 2020 testimony for two months, using Richman’s testimony to prove that Comey knowingly provided false statements to Congress would result in “likely insurmountable problems” for the prosecution.
Investigators detailed those conclusions in a lengthy memo last month recommending that the office not move forward in charging Comey, according to sources familiar with the memo’s contents.
Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist hand-picked to replace the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who resisted bringing prosecutions against Trump’s political foes, still moved forward in presenting the case before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, and secured two out of three counts she sought against Comey over his 2020 congressional testimony.
During grand jury proceedings, prosecutors have no obligation to present evidence favorable to a defendant — but such evidence must be handed over to the defendant before trial.
Halligan’s deputy raised similar concerns about the case the same week the former White House aide-turned-prosecutor asked a grand jury to indict Comey, bolstering the conclusion that no single piece of evidence could demonstrate that Comey lied to Congress and warning against relying on Richman, who she described to colleagues as a hostile witness, sources said.
Prosecutors further expressed concerns about the department’s ability to take the case to trial quickly due to problems identifying all the relevant materials that would need to be handed over to Comey’s lawyers, sources said. They also raised alarms over the potential for Comey’s defense to cite the statute of limitations for the case, which derives from testimony in 2017 and was only reinforced by Comey during his 2020 testimony in response to a question from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.
Comey, who is expected to plead not guilty to the charges, denies wrongdoing and has argued that he is being targeted for political reasons. His indictment came just days after Trump’s unprecedented demand that his Justice Department act “now” to bring cases against the former FBI director and others.
“Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, and Leticia??” Trump wrote in a social media post last month, directly addressing Attorney General Pam Bondi and referring to California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Halligan alleges that Comey intentionally misled Congress in 2017 and 2020 when he testified that he never authorized another person at the FBI to provide information to the media anonymously. The allegation is that Comey authorized Richman to speak to the press anonymously, contradicting his testimony.
Trump later accused Comey of breaking the law by sharing his memos, arguing they contained classified information, though Richman later told ABC News in a statement that none of the documents had any classification markings.
When prosecutors met with Richman in September, he told them that he never served as an anonymous source for Comey or acted at Comey’s direction while he was FBI director, sources familiar with his interview told ABC News. In at least two cases when Richman asked if he should speak with the press, Comey advised him not to do so, sources said.
Investigators who reviewed material from Comey’s emails, including his correspondence with Richman, could not identify an instance when Comey approved leaking material to a reporter anonymously, sources told ABC News.
Richman, a longtime friend of Comey, has previously acknowledged his role as an intermediary between Comey and reporters after Comey was fired from his role as FBI director, including leaking memos written by Comey about his interactions with Trump following his termination.
Federal prosecutors have focused their inquiry on Comey’s actions as FBI director — including the alleged leak of information about the Trump and Clinton campaigns ahead of the 2016 election — to find evidence that Comey intentionally mislead Congress.
As ABC News previously reported, career prosecutors in the office not only determined that the vast amount of evidence they collected in their investigation would be insufficient to convince a jury to convict him at a trial, but would also fail to meet a lower standard of reaching probable cause to even bring a case.
