(WASHINGTON) — President-Elect Donald Trump teased pardoning some of the Jan. 6 rioters on Day 1 of his administration, telling his supporters that they will be “very happy” with his decision.
“Tomorrow, everybody in this very large arena will be very happy with my decision on the J6 hostages,” Trump said Sunday at his rally at Capital One Arena. “Very happy. I think you’ll be very, very happy. I would say about 99.9% in this beautiful arena.”
A violent mob of pro-Trump protesters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, fighting with officers, breaking into offices and destroying property.
After the attack on the U.S. Capitol by rioters seeking to overturn the 2020 election, more than 1,580 people were charged criminally in federal court, according to the Department of Justice. Over 1,000 have pleaded guilty.
Trump’s team has drafted a list of potential pardons for Jan. 6 defendants to issue on Day 1, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News on Sunday.
The pardons could come very soon after Trump is sworn in at the Capitol Rotunda. One option that has been discussed is to issue these pardons inside the Capitol.
Trump said last March that he was “inclined to pardon many” of the rioters.
“I can’t say for every single one, because a couple of them, probably they got out of control,” he said on social media at the time.
Nearly 1,600 individuals have faced charges associated with the Capitol attack, according to figures released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
That includes 608 individuals who have faced charges for assaulting, resisting or interfering with law enforcement trying to protect the complex that day, the office said. Approximately 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the riot, the DOJ has said.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office said it is evaluating whether to bring charges in roughly 200 cases that have been referred to them by the FBI, about 60 of which involve potential felony charges involving allegations of assault or impeding law enforcement.
At least 221 individuals have been found guilty at contested trials in U.S. District Court, the DOJ said. Another 40 individuals have been convicted following an agreed-upon set of facts presented to and accepted by the Court.
President Joe Biden on Monday issued preemptive pardons to potential targets of the incoming Trump administration, including lawmakers who served on the House Jan. 6 Committee.
Trump, in his 2024 campaign, repeatedly vowed “retribution” on his political enemies, specifically singling out lawmakers like Liz Cheney, who investigated the attack on the Capitol. Trump said Cheney and other committee members should be put in jail.
ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — In a final lame-duck push, the Senate will attempt to pass legislation aimed at providing full Social Security benefits to millions of Americans this week.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in floor remarks Monday he’d push for a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act before the week is out.
“We will vote and every Senator will choose. Where are you? Do you stand on the side of public retirees who deserve their benefits, or bungle this golden opportunity by blocking this bill?” Schumer said in a floor speech.
The closely-watched legislation repeals provisions that limit the ability of some retirees who also collect pensions from claiming social security benefits. Among those impacted are retirees who at one time worked as firefighters, teachers, postal worker, a police officer, or in other public sector jobs. A provision that limits the benefits allotted to those workers’ surviving spouses would also be eliminated.
The legislation already passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in November, but Congress would need to act this week to avoid having to restart the process of passing the legislation in the new year.
The bipartisan bill has 62 Senate cosponsors, all but ensuring that it would have the necessary 60 votes it needs to overcome the Senate filibuster and pass.
It has strong advocates on both sides of the aisle.
“It is unfair to penalize Americans who have taught our children, protected our streets, and ran into burning buildings,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate’s Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, said in a post on X earlier this month.
But there is some concern among Republicans about the cost of the bill and the increased strain it could put on the already underfunded Social Security trust fund.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that the bill would increase the deficit by $196 billion and increase the rate at which the Social Security trust fund becomes insolvent.
As a result, there could be challenges on the floor that limit the ability to expedite passage of this bill. And there’s certainly a time crunch to consider.
The Senate isn’t short on things to accomplish during this last week of the lame-duck session. It is currently working to process the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. Senators must also approve a government funding bill before the end of the week if they wish to avert a shutdown.
If the Social Security Fairness Act is challenged in a way that slows the process of its passage, the Senate may run short on time to get this done.
It is not yet known when the Senate will vote on this legislation.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s final report lays out in no uncertain terms federal prosecutors’ position that Donald Trump — who is set to be inaugurated president in less than a week — would have been convicted on multiple felonies for his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election, had voters not decided to send him back to the White House in the 2024 election.
That was one of the primary conclusions included in Smith’s final report on his election interference investigation, which the Justice Department released early Tuesday morning after a federal judge, late Monday night, cleared the way for the report’s release.
The report lays out the probe that resulted in Trump being charged in 2023 with four felony counts of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The case, as well as Smith’s classified documents case against Trump, was dropped following Trump’s reelection in November due to a longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” the report said. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
After conducting interviews with 250 witnesses voluntarily, calling 55 people to testify before the grand jury, executing dozens of subpoenas and search warrants, and sifting through a terabyte of publicly accessible data, Smith’s team concluded they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed multiple federal crimes when he attempted to overturn the election, the report said.
“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report said.
For the first time, the report shed light on the internal deliberations of the prosecutors who sought to prove that Trump “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort” while navigating the uncharted legal territory of charging a former president.
While prosecutors considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act, Smith wrote that he opted against the approach because of the “litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.” According to the report, prosecutors worried that Trump’s actions did not amount to an insurrection because he was already in power — rather than challenging a sitting government — when the riot took place. Smith also noted that his office did not obtain “direct evidence” of Trump’s “intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”
Smith also noted that the case against Trump presented unique challenges, including Trump’s “ability and willingness” to use social media to target witnesses, courts, and prosecutors with “threats and harassment.” Like any other case involving a conspiracy, prosecutors also expressed concerns about convincing witnesses to cooperate while the defendant still exerted influence and command over his alleged co-conspirators.
“That dynamic was amplified in this case given Mr. Trump’s political and financial status, and the prospect of his future election to the presidency,” the report said.
Despite those concerns, Smith’s report laid out how prosecutors planned to rebut Trump’s expected arguments to secure a conviction, laying out a play-by-play for how a trial would have proceeded had Trump lost the election.
If the former president argued that he acted in good faith when he claimed there was election fraud, prosecutors would present “strong proof” that Trump himself knew his claims of fraud were false. The report noted that Trump repeatedly noted in private how he lost the election, including berating Vice President Mike Pence for being “too honest” to challenge the results, telling his family “you still have to fight like hell” even if he lost the election, and remarking to a staffer, “Can you believe I lost to this f’ing guy?” after seeing Biden on television.
“This was not a case in which Mr. Trump merely misstated a fact or two in a handful of isolated instances. On a repeated basis, he and co-conspirators used specific and knowingly false claims of election fraud,” the report said.
If Trump argued he was following the advice of his lawyers, prosecutors planned to present evidence showing that his lawyers were acting as accomplices to the crime, preventing Trump from legally being able to employ the argument.
And if Trump argued that he was just using his First Amendment right when he challenged the election, prosecutors planned to highlight that Trump employed his statements to commit other crimes, including using false statements to defeat a government function, obstruct an official proceeding, and injure the right to vote.
“The Office was cognizant of Mr. Trump’s free speech rights during the investigation and would not have brought a prosecution if the evidence indicated he had engaged in mere political exaggeration or rough-and-tumble politics,” the report said. “The conduct of Mr. Trump and co-conspirators, however, went well beyond speaking their minds or contesting the election results through our legal system.”
In the report, Smith also detailed multiple interviews with various so-called “fake electors” who he said sought to cast votes for Trump — and admitted they would not have done so “had they known the true extent of co-conspirators’ plans.”
Smith told how investigators obtained Signal messages where “Co-Conspirator 4” — previously identified by ABC News as former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark — sent a message to Rep. Scott Perry saying he had received a highly classified briefing on foreign interference in the 2020 election that “yielded nothing” to support allegations of a stolen election.
“Bottom line is there is nothing helpful to P,” Clark’s message said, according to the report.
The report cites the handwritten notes of former Vice President Mike Pence that the special counsel obtained, about which Smith wrote, “In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification; he even falsely told Mr. Pence that the ‘Justice Department [was] finding major infractions.'”
Regarding the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the report said that probe only “comprised a small part of the Office’s investigative record, and any facts on which the Office relied to make a prosecution decision were developed or verified through independent interviews and other investigative steps.”
Volume One of Smith’s final report was released to the public early Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, following a weeklong court battle, ruled Monday that the Justice Department could release it.
Trump’s former co-defendants in his classified documents case, longtime aide Walt Nauta and staffer Carlos De Oliveira, had sought to block the release of both the classified documents volume and the Jan. 6 volume, but Cannon — who last year dismissed the classified documents case — allowed the public release of the Jan. 6 volume after determining that its contents have no bearing on the evidence or charges related Nauta and De Oliveira in their ongoing case.
After conferring with Smith, Garland determined that he would not publicly release Volume Two pertaining to the classified documents investigation because Nauta and De Oliveira’s cases were technically still on appeal.
In the classified documents case, Trump pleaded not guilty in 2023 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. The former president, along with Nauta and De Oliveira, pleaded not guilty in a superseding indictment to allegedly attempting to delete surveillance footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
Smith resigned as special prosecutor on Friday after wrapping up the cases and submitting his report to Garland.
Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin said Sunday that President Donald Trump is the only one who has the ability to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate to end the war with Ukraine.
“Putin knows the one person that can truly change the war is the United States,” Mullin told co-anchor Jonathan Karl on ABC News’ “This Week.” “If we went all-in for Ukraine, if we went all-in with the resources we have, from air superiority to the weapons that we can deploy to Ukraine, Putin knows at that point he would be in an extremely negative position.”
“I think that being the opportunity for President Trump to talk to Putin and say, ‘Listen, we want to end the war. We don’t want to have to engage more, but we’re not going to allow you to move forward. So let’s negotiate a peace deal here, or you’re going to force our hand to be farther involved.'”
Trump announced via social media on Wednesday that his team would begin negotiations with Putin to end the nearly 3-year-long war. Trump said he and Putin discussed an end to the war in which Ukraine cedes territory captured by Russia and gives up its ambitions to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), two major concessions for Ukraine.
Many world leaders argue Trump has given into Putin’s demands before negotiations begin. Trump added that he informed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about his call with Putin after it concluded.
Trump originally made no mention of whether Ukraine would be involved in negotiations, but later said that they would “of course” be involved.
National security adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff will travel to Saudi Arabia this week, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Waltz, Rubio and Witkoff are expected to meet with top Russian officials, multiple sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The specific timing of the trip is not clear, and it is unclear whether Ukraine will be involved in the talks.
Mullin said he is looking for a scenario in which both parties are present at the negotiating table.
“I know the negotiations are moving forward, and we want to have Ukraine and Russia both at the table, and I think the negotiations go better if both sides are looking for a peace deal, because they’re at a neutral position,” Mullin said.
“What President Trump is doing here is actually really smart. He’s meeting with Zelenskyy. He’s having conversations with him. You’re seeing [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio. You saw, you saw that the senators and representatives both met with Zelenskyy while they were in Munich, and you’re seeing them also meeting with Putin in Saudi Arabia,” Mullin said. “What that is doing, Jon, is, that’s putting both people, getting them in separate rooms, talking about what they will accept, and then finding out a negotiation path forward before you bring them to the table. A lot of times, bring people to the table too fast, Jon, it’ll blow up.”
Mullin also defended Elon Musk’s efforts to overhaul the federal government.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began directing mass layoffs after their deferred resignation program ended on Feb. 12. Initially, DOGE has its sights set on probationary employees, individuals with only a couple of years of service, which is nearly 200,000 government workers.
“Anytime you take over a situation, like Elon Musk has had many opportunities and many experiences with taking over businesses, you have to start cutting some of the fat. And unfortunately, the number one expense we have in the United States government right now is payroll,” Mullin said.
Karl noted that the largest expenses in the federal budget are for entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Musk has promised transparency in his actions, and many Democratic lawmakers have called for him to testify in front of Congress. Whether he does should be left to Trump, Mullin said.
“That’s up to President Trump. Keep in mind, President Trump put in Musk to be a consultant, just like many successful corporations around the world, including myself, that have hired consultants to come in and look at it from an unbiased perspective,” Mullin said.
