(NEW YORK) -- Jurors in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial on Thursday were played a recording found on Michael Cohen's phone, in which the two appeared to be discussing the alleged plan to pay off a former Playboy model who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with Trump.
The conversation, which took place on the morning of Sept. 6, 2016, was played Thursday as part of the testimony by expert witness Douglas Daus, who handles the processing of electronic devices for the Manhattan district attorney's office.
Cohen, Trump's former attorney, secretly recorded the conversation, which lasts about two minutes, during which he and Trump seem to discuss making a $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal to keep her quiet about the alleged affair, which Trump has denied ever took place.
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David," Cohen can be heard saying on the call, appearing to refer to National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
Cohen seemed to be speaking about a shell company he created to originally pay American Media Inc., the National Enquirer's publisher, before the deal went through.
On the phone, Cohen is heard saying he had "spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with funding" referring to the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization.
"So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?" Trump can be heard asking in the recording.
At one point during the conversation, Trump suggested making the payment in cash.
"No, no, no, no, no, I got it," Cohen responded.
American Media Inc. paid McDougal $150,000 to stay silent about her story in the summer of 2016. Trump did not end up reimbursing them, as they'd originally discussed, after Pecker backed out of the deal.
In the defense's cross-examination of Daus, Trump attorney Emil Bove attempted to raise doubt about the integrity of the material on Cohen's phone, suggesting it has been "subject to the risk of manipulation" somewhere in the chain of custody.
Bove also questioned Daus on why the recording abruptly ends.
Daus suggested that he heard in the recording that another call was coming in, but could not say with certainty why the call ended.
"You don't have firsthand knowledge of why it cuts off," Bove said.
During redirect, Daus told prosecutor Christopher Conroy he did not see any evidence of tampering with Cohen's phone.
"Did you see any evidence of tampering or manipulation on any of the data that you pulled related to the recording…," Conroy asked.
"I did not," Daus said.
The recording is expected to come up again during the trial, potentially when Cohen is called to testify.
(TEXAS) -- Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar and his wife were indicted Friday on charges of conspiracy and accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities, the Justice Department announced.
Prosecutors allege Cuellar and his wife, Imelda Cuellar, began accepting the roughly $600,000 in bribes beginning as early as December of 2014 from an oil and gas company owned by Azerbaijan's government as well as a bank headquartered in Mexico City.
While Cuellar's wife allegedly propped up sham front companies on the promise of providing consulting services to the two companies in order to launder the payments, she "performed little to no legitimate work under the contracts" all while Rep. Cuellar was promising to use his office for the benefit of Azerbaijan's foreign policy as well as influencing "high-ranking" officials in the executive branch to benefit the Mexico City bank, according to the indictment.
According to the indictment, Cuellar influenced a series of legislative measures regarding Azerbaijan's conflict with neighboring Armenia, inserted language favored by Azerbaijan into legislation and committee reports governing certain security and economic aid programs and consulted with representatives of Azerbaijan regarding their efforts to lobby to the U.S. government.
Cuellar once served as a co-chair of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, and repeatedly met with Azerbaijan officials, including the ambassador of Azerbaijan, Elin Suleymanov in that role.
As for the Mexico City bank, Cuellar is alleged to have accepted bribes in exchange for influencing federal regulation of the financial industry to benefit the bank and its affiliates, according to the indictment.
Also, the indictment said Cuellar allegedly "advised and pressured" executive branch officials regarding anti-money laundering enforcement practices that threatened the bank's business interests, supported legislation that would have blocked federal regulation of the payday lending industry and supported revisions to money-laundering statutes favored by the Mexican corporate conglomerate to which the bank was a member.
The Justice Department said Cuellar and his wife made their initial appearance Friday before a magistrate judge in Houston.
Cuellar his wife are each charged with the following offenses and if convicted, face maximum penalties as indicated: two counts of conspiracy to commit bribery of a federal official and to have a public official act as an agent of a foreign principal (five years in prison on each count); two counts of bribery of a federal official (15 years in prison on each count); two counts of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud (20 years in prison on each count); two counts of violating the ban on public officials acting as agents of a foreign principal (two years in prison on each count); one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering (20 years in prison); and five counts of money laundering (20 years in prison on each count).
Earlier Friday, Cuellar claimed innocence.
"I want to be clear that both my wife and I are innocent of these allegations," Cuellar said in a statement. "Everything I have done in Congress has been to serve the people of South Texas."
Rep. Cuellar will take a leave as ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee while "this matter is ongoing," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' spokesperson Christie Stephenson.
Rep. Cuellar is entitled to his day in court and "the presumption of innocence throughout the legal process," Stephenson added.
Cuellar, who represents Texas' 28th Congressional District along the U.S.-Mexico border, has been in Congress since 2005.
ABC News' Lauren Peller and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) -- Columbia University is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education following allegations of discriminatory treatment of Palestinian students and their supporters.
Palestine Legal, an advocacy group centered on Palestinian Rights, filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of four students and the student group Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine with the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Columbia University declined to comment on the pending investigation. Columbia University is one of eight schools that the DOE has opened an investigation into over alleged Title VI violations concerning shared ancestry discrimination since April 22, as protests nationwide escalated. This is at least the second investigation into shared ancestry discrimination since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
Shared ancestry cases refer to discrimination complaints based on ancestry, ethnic characteristics, and citizenship or residency of a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity -- this could include Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other forms of discrimination.
An investigation into a school does not imply that the OCR has made a determination on the merits of the complaint, according to the DOE's website.
The complaint from Palestine Legal hinges on the school calling for NYPD officers to enter the campus to help quell protests, a move that led to the arrest last week of over 100 students who were protesting Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
However, the complaint further details allegations of discrimination and harassment against Palestinian students, Arabs, Muslims, and students advocating for Palestinians – including a January attack on protesters with a "chemical-based weapon.”
The New York Police Department told ABC News at the time of the attack that protesters smelled a foul odor and began to feel nauseated, accompanied by headaches, during a protest Friday. Students for Justice in Palestine said several students were hospitalized or sought medical care following the incident.
Victims reported symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, chest and abdominal pain and headaches.
Students also say they have been the target of death threats, harassment for wearing keffiyehs or hijab, doxxing, stereotyping and differential treatment by high-ranking administrators.
Student protesters opposed to Israel's war in Gaza have been camping out on the Columbia University campus since April 17 to call for the university to financially divest from companies and institutions that “profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine,” according to an online statement from the group Columbia University Apartheid Divest.
The encampment grew as University President Minouche Shafik attended a contentious congressional hearing about antisemitism on Columbia's campus.
One day after the hearing, Columbia asked students to leave their encampments. When students refused, Columbia University gave the NYPD the green light to clear the protesters and police in riot gear arrested more than 100 protesters for trespassing.
New York City officials, including NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban, said that protesters who were arrested "were peaceful" and "had no resistance whatsoever."
In a statement following the protests, Shafik said that the encampment "violates all of the new policies, severely disrupts campus life and creates a harassing and intimidating environment for many of our students."
Student protesters denounced the arrests, as well as growing suspensions faced by students who have been suspended in connection with pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
"We have knowingly put ourselves in danger because we can no longer be complicit in Columbia funneling our tuition dollars and grant money into companies that profit from death," Columbia University Apartheid Divest said in a statement.
Tensions have been high on college campuses nationwide since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on Oct. 7, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel. The Israeli military then began its bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
In the Gaza Strip, at least 34,000 people have been killed and more than 77,000 others have been wounded by Israeli forces since Oct. 7, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health.
In Israel, at least 1,700 people have been killed and 8,700 others injured by Hamas and other Palestinian militants since Oct. 7, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Since the first round of arrests, the encampment grew and pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a hall on campus, leading to further arrests.
"Students and outside activists breaking Hamilton Hall doors, mistreating our Public Safety officers and maintenance staff, and damaging property are acts of destruction, not political speech," said Shafik. "Many students have also felt uncomfortable and unwelcome because of the disruption and antisemitic comments made by some individuals, especially in the protests that have persistently mobilized outside our gates."
Columbia University has continued to face backlash from the several sides of debate surrounding the Israel-Gaza war, and is also facing litigation from a group of Jewish students who say that the university violated its safety protocols by allowing the encampment on school grounds.
Shafik has been under fire for Columbia's handling of antisemitism allegations on the college campus.
"Safety is paramount and we would do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of our campus," Shafik said at the congressional hearing on antisemitism on April 17. "We must uphold freedom of speech because it's essential to our academic mission, but we cannot and shouldn't tolerate abuse of this privilege to harass and discriminate."
(VIRGINIA) -- A former government official in Virginia has been charged for allegedly submitting false tips to the FBI and accusing seven of his coworkers of participating in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, newly unsealed court records show.
Miguel Zapata was taken into custody Thursday after prosecutors accused him of using the FBI's anonymous tip website to report the allegations about his colleagues, several of whom were members of an unnamed intelligence agency.
According to his arrest affidavit, Zapata said his former colleagues were tied to groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys and even accused some of sharing classified information with the extremist groups in what he described as a coordinated plot to overturn the government.
When agents ran down the tips, they were easily debunked, according to the court records.
It's not clear why Zapata falsely targeted his former colleagues or why he is no longer employed by the U.S. government.
He has not yet entered a plea and was released on bond following a hearing before a federal magistrate judge in Washington, D.C.
A public defender listed as representing Zapata did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.
Views divided on Israel-Hamas War. -- ABC News/Ipsos
(WASHINGTON) -- Nearly four in 10 Americans in a new ABC News Ipsos poll say the United States is doing too much to support Israel in its war with Hamas, up from about three in 10 in January. And more trust former President Donald Trump than President Joe Biden to handle the issue, though few call it critical in their choice of a candidate.
With protests raging across U.S. college campuses, views on U.S. policy are fragmented. About a third of Americans say the U.S. is doing too little to help protect Palestinian civilians caught up in the war -- yet a quarter say it's doing too much. The rest, 38%, see the U.S. effort in this regard as about right. Those results are little changed from January.
On Israel, there has been a shift: Early this year, 31% said the U.S. was doing too much to support Israel in its war with Hamas, while today 38% say so, up 7 percentage points. Twenty percent see too little U.S. support for Israel and 40% call this about right.
Ideological gaps are profound on both questions, with liberals far more apt than others to say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel and too little to protect Palestinian civilians. Notably, given campus protests, views among young people are similar to those among all adults, and it's older people, not the youngest, who are more likely now than in January to say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel in the war.
The survey was produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, with fieldwork by Ipsos. In terms of domestic politics, it finds that 37% trust Trump more than Biden to handle the issue; 29% trust Biden more, an 8-point gap. Notably, 33% don't trust either Biden or Trump to handle it.
Still, salience is low. Just fewer than half of Americans, 48%, say the war between Israel and Hamas will be an important issue to them in the November election, including 12% who say it will be one of the single most important issues. As is not uncommon with foreign affairs, it ranks a distant last in importance out of 10 issues tested in the survey.
Watch "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC Sunday morning for more results from the survey.
Groups
While protests are centered on colleges, it's ideology that most sharply differentiates attitudes on U.S. policy toward the Israel-Hamas conflict. Fifty-one percent of liberals say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel in the war; that drops to 38% of moderates and 28% of conservatives. (It peaks, at 56%, among those who call themselves very liberal.)
On civilian casualties in Gaza, the inverse holds true, with even broader gaps. Fifty-nine percent of liberals (including 69% of those who are very liberal) say the U.S. is doing too little to help protect Palestinian civilians. That falls sharply to 29% of moderates and 17% of conservatives.
Partisanship is a factor as well. Forty-three percent of independents and 40% of Democrats say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel; this falls to 29% of Republicans. Conversely, 47% of Democrats say the U.S. is doing too little to help protect Palestinian civilians. Thirty-six percent of independents share this view, falling off sharply to 15% of Republicans.
By age, regardless of the protests on college campuses, views on U.S. policy among adults aged 18-24 are largely consonant with those among all adults. Older people, though -- especially seniors -- are less apt than others to say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel.
Change
The 7-point shift since January in views on policy toward Israel occurred chiefly in the political center and ideological center-left -- among independents and people who say they're "somewhat" liberal. Seeing the U.S. as doing too much to support Israel is up 13 points among somewhat liberals and 11 points among independents, while essentially unchanged among very liberals and conservatives alike. It's also up more sharply among college graduates (+11 points) than non-graduates (+5) and among women (+10) as opposed to men (+5).
Additionally, the view that the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel is virtually unchanged since January among 18- to 24-year-olds. It's among people aged 25 and older that this attitude has increased.
Methodology
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 25-30, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,260 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
The survey was produced by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.
(WASHINGTON) -- The diverse group of names from politics to activists and entertainment include Biden’s 2020 Democratic primary opponents and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Vice President Al Gore, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Elizabeth Dole and recent Biden Climate Envoy and former Sec. of State John Kerry.
The “grandmother of Juneteenth,” Opal Lee, and Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard who was abducted and brutally killed in 1998 because he was gay will also be honored.
Oscar award-winning actress Michelle Yeoh, swimming legend Katie Ledecky, “the most decorated female swimmer in history,” and Dr. Ellen Ochoa, the first Hispanic woman to go into space during a nine-day mission on the shuttle Discovery in 1993 will also be awarded the nation’s highest civilian honor.
The White House said in a statement that the people who were selected to be honored on Friday have “built teams, coalitions, movements, organizations, and businesses that shaped America for the better. They are the pinnacle of leadership in their fields. They consistently demonstrated over their careers the power of community, hard work, and service.”
(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden on Thursday spoke from the White House on college protests happening across the nation in connection with the Israel-Hamas war.
"We've all seen images, and they put to the test two fundamental American principles," Biden said from the Roosevelt Room. "The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld."
It marked the first time Biden directly addressed the issue since his brief comments to reporters on April 22, before the escalation of suspensions and arrests at several campuses. At the time, he said he condemned both antisemitic actions and those who didn't understand the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.
Biden has faced pressure from Republicans, who are seizing on party unity against university leaders and as staunch supporters of Israel to go after divided Democrats, to step up his response to recent events.
The president is well aware the protests present a real political liability for him, as Donald Trump also looks to capitalize on the moment, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce reported.
Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, said on the campaign trail Wednesday that what was unfolding on college campuses was a "shame and Biden should speak out ... because nobody knows where he is."
"We've often faced moments like this because we are a big, diverse, free-thinking and freedom-loving nation," Biden said on Thursday. "In moments like this, there are always those who rush in to score political points. But this isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment for clarity."
"So, let me be clear. Violent protest is not protected, peaceful protest is," Biden said.
He called out vandalism, trespassing, forcing the cancellation of graduation or intimidating people as not constituting peaceful protest. People should be able to earn a degree, he said, without fear of being attacked on their campus.
"It's basically a matter of fairness," the president said. "It's a matter of what's right. There is the right to protest but not the right to cause chaos."
Biden also emphasized there is "no place for hate speech or violence of any kind," including antisemitism, Islamophobia or discrimination against Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans.
As he left the room, Biden responded to two questions shouted by the press.
When asked if the protests have made him reconsider his policies in the region, Biden said "no."
ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang asked Biden whether the National Guard should be activated, to which he also responded "no."
Biden has tried to balance strong support for Israel with sympathy for Palestinians killed and suffering in Gaza, but has faced criticism from some Democrats and many Republicans on his approach to the fraught issue.
"I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions," Biden said on Thursday. "In America, we respect the right to protest, the right for them to express that. But it doesn't mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without destruction, without hate and within the law."
(WASHINGTON) -- The Commission on Presidential Debates is pushing back against suggestions from the Trump campaign that it move its general debate calendar up -- standing firm in its decision to hold the first broadcast on Sept. 16, 2024.
In a statement released on Wednesday, a day after Trump senior campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles released their own statement urging earlier debates, the commission correctly noted that its September event is the earliest it's ever conducted a debate. The previous record was set in 1980, when Republican Ronald Reagan and Independent John Anderson went head-to-head on Sept. 21.
Trump senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles on Wednesday evening made an additional statement on the commission saying its general debate schedule will remain unchanged this cycle.
The Trump advisers reiterated the campaign's willingness to work directly with the Biden campaign in organizing earlier debates, calling on "every television network" to host them "with or without the stubborn Presidential Debates Commission."
The commission noted that, "as it always does, the CPD considered multiple factors in selecting debate dates in order to make them accessible by the American public," including religious and federal holidays, early voting, and the dates on which individual states close their ballots.
The commission also pushed back against the Trump advisers' claims that "millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots" at the time of the first debate, noting that it "purposefully chose September 16 after a comprehensive study of early voting rules in every state," including taking into consideration North Carolina's Sept. 6 start to sending out mail-in ballots.
On Sept. 16, the day of the first debate, Pennsylvania voters can receive, complete and return ballots at their county boards of elections, CPD notes. Minnesota is one of the first states to offer in-person early voting, and voters there can begin to cast ballots on Friday, Sept. 20.
"The CPD has only one mission: to sponsor and produce general election debates that inform and educate the public. Our schedule is designed with that single mission in mind. The colleges and universities preparing to host these debates look forward to being part of an historic 2024 series of forums," the commission continued in its statement.
Following the first debate on Sep. 16 at Texas State University, the commission has announced plans to hold the second on Oct. 1 at Virginia State University and the third on Oct. 9 at The University of Utah in Salt Lake City. It plans to hold a vice presidential debate on Sept. 25 at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania.
Last week, President Joe Biden told Howard Stern on his Sirius XM show that he would be "happy" to debate former President Donald Trump, although he did not specify when. Trump and his campaign have used the moment to reemphasize their calls for earlier debates.
At rallies, before Trump speaks, the campaign directs supporters to turn their attention to the stage, where a second podium has been placed with a banner on it that says "Anytime. Anywhere. Anyplace," in reference to a previous statement from Trump regarding his willingness to face off against Biden.
Trump has previously attacked the commission, when in 2020 he claimed he would not accept any of their changes intended to enforce the rules and limit interruptions at the remaining 2020 presidential debates.
(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden is facing pressure from Republicans to more forcefully speak out on the college protests unfolding nationwide in connection to the Israel-Hamas war.
The campus unrest has created a political opportunity for Republicans, typically fractured on a number of issues but united against university leaders and as staunch supporters of Israel, to hold Biden's feet to the fire as he navigates a divided Democratic caucus.
"When will the president himself, not his mouthpieces, condemn these hate-filled little Gazas?" GOP Sen. Tom Cotton said on Wednesday alongside other Republican senators at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Biden himself last commented on the matter on April 22, when he said he condemned the "antisemitic protests" and also those who "don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians."
The White House announced on Wednesday that Biden will deliver a major speech on antisemitism next week at U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's annual Day of Remembrance Ceremony, but went to great lengths to avoid answering why he hasn't addressed what's played out at college and university campuses in recent days.
"The president is being regularly updated on what's happening," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Wednesday during the daily briefing. "He is monitoring the situation closely. So is his team. And I would just add that no president, no president has spoken more forcefully about combating antisemitism than this president."
Jean-Pierre pointed to Biden's past comments condemning antisemitism, including his sharp denouncement of the clash between white nationalists and counterprotesters that occurred in Charlottesville in 2017, a moment he's said prompted him to run for president.
Jean-Pierre also indicated Biden has not spoken to officials from the universities, telling ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers she had no calls to read out or share.
Peppered with questions about what Biden thought about recent developments, including the New York Police Department clearing protesters from Columbia University and reports of violence at UCLA, Jean-Pierre deferred to local officials and reiterated Americans have the right to peacefully protest -- though she made clear occupying a building does not meet that definition.
Americans "have the right to peacefully protest, as long as it's within the law and that it's peaceful," she said. "Forcibly taking over a building is not peaceful. It's just not. Students have the right to feel safe, they have the right to learn, they have the right to do this without disruption ... They have a right to attend their commencement without feeling unsafe."
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are ramping up their rhetoric this week on the protests and against the administration.
House Republicans on Tuesday announced a coordinated effort among committee chairs to investigate how university leadership has dealt with the protests. Notices have gone to the presidents of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to appear before the Education Committee on May 23.
Senate Republicans joined in the criticism on Wednesday with a press conference of their own on the college protests, which they painted as "chaos."
The college protests had been largely peaceful for weeks, officials said, but intensified recently following arrests and clashes at some schools. Officials in New York said protesters unaffiliated with Columbia University have been escalating violence.
Pro-Palestinian students and protesters have called for their colleges to divest from funding Israeli military operations amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Some Jewish students have called the demonstrations antisemitic and said they fear for their safety.
Republican senators called for various responses, including that the federal government revoke student visas for overseas students involved in protests and that the Education Department investigate and possibly withhold funding to schools if they can't protect students.
"We're serious about this," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the chamber's top Republican. "We're going to take a look at what legislatively we might do to deal with this problem."
Biden was also a target of GOP remarks, some of whom suggested he was acting out of political calculus.
"Why are the university presidents and why is this president turning his head from the violent crimes going on?" said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.
"He is catering to a handful of votes in Michigan," Marshall said. "He is totally politically driven rather than doing the right thing."
(WASHINGTON) -- A group of bipartisan members of Congress are demanding answers from Formula One owner Liberty Media after an American team backed by racing legend Mario Andretti was excluded from the most prestigious motor racing series in the world.
The FIA, which is Formula One's governing body, initially accepted Andretti Global's push to join the grid. However, Formula One Management (FOM), the commercial rights holder of the sport, denied Andretti's planned entry in the sport, stating the team could not be competitive in time for upcoming races. F1 cited several competitive concerns, and stated that "the presence of an 11th team would not, in and of itself, provide value to the championship."
In a letter to Liberty president and CEO Greg Maffei, the 12 U.S. representatives said they have "concerns with the apparent anti-competitive actions that could prevent two American companies, Andretti Global and General Motors (GM), from producing and competing in Formula 1."
The partnership between Andretti Global and General Motors would have entered into competition the only American-built and designed engine in Formula One, according to the letter.
The letter goes on to accuse FOM of possibly violating American antitrust laws, saying it is "unfair and wrong to attempt to block American companies from joining Formula 1."
Rep. John James, a Republican from Michigan where General Motors is based, is leading the fight. The letter is signed by 11 other representatives -- both Democrats and Republicans -- from Texas, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida.
The lawmakers sent three questions to Liberty Media, asking how the FOM's rejection fits with the requirements of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and what the rationale is for the dismissal of Andretti's team.
The letter asks, "The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlaws unreasonable restraints on market competition to produce the best outcome for the American consumer. How does FOM's denial of Andretti Global and GM, American-owned companies, square with Sherman Act requirements, since the decision will benefit incumbent European racing teams and their foreign automobile manufacturing affiliates?"
Andretti, a former Formula One world champion, met with members of the House on Tuesday to gain support for his team, and spoke at a press conference outside the Capitol on Wednesday to argue for his team's participation in the sport.
"We want to be able to represent the United States on a world stage in Formula One," Andretti said.
He added, "We have all the tools available, all we need is the absolute green light."
"America demands its due. If you want access to our markets, if you want access to our fans, you must grant access to our companies, you must grant access to our automotive workers, you must grant access to Americans themselves," Rep. James said.
Liberty Media declined ABC News' request for comment.
Formula One's fanbase in the U.S. has grown dramatically and Andretti's lobbying visit to Congress comes ahead of this weekend's Miami Grand Prix.
"Participation of all Formula 1 teams-including any American teams-should be based on merit and not just limited to protecting the current line-up of race teams. This is especially true considering Formula 1's growing presence in the United States, including three Grand Prix motoring racing events in Miami, Florida; Austin, Texas; and Las Vegas, Nevada," the representatives' letter states.
(WASHINGTON) -- South Dakota's two-term Republican governor, Kristi Noem, has been widely promoted as a contender to be former President Donald Trump's 2024 running mate, with Trump himself saying that she was on his shortlist as of February.
"I like her a lot. I think she's great. Kristi's done a great job," he said last year.
But it appears that Noem is now on increasingly unsteady footing in Trump's eyes, in part because of a series of odd controversies and choices, multiple sources familiar with her and with Trump's deliberations told ABC News.
The negative headlines began in earnest in March, when a slickly produced video Noem released personally promoting an out-of-state dentist spurred a lawsuit claiming deceptive advertising -- and the scrutiny increased in recent days with the revelation in Noem's upcoming memoir that she chose to shoot one of her young dogs because she claimed it was "untrainable" and exhibited aggression.
(Noem's office has not commented to ABC News on the legal complaint related to the promotional video and she hasn't filed a response in court yet, records show.)
Those episodes, combined with what one of the sources familiar with the running mate talks called Noem's "over-auditioning" and questions about her judgment, appear to have seriously weakened her chances, at this point, of joining Trump's ticket.
"To a person, everyone agrees she killed her chances, pun intended," said Sean Spicer, Trump's first White House press secretary, who remains in touch with the former president's team.
"The bigger issue politically speaking is why anyone thought putting this in a book was a good idea -- editors, agent, etc.," Spicer added, referring to the anecdote about Noem's dog. "It's like a job applicant saying unprompted they stole office furniture during an interview."
Noem's office declined to comment for this story.
She has been open for months about her desire to join Trump as his running mate. In September, she said she would do it "in a heartbeat."
She was also an early Trump endorser, leaned into his no-holds-barred fighter mentality in her state and said she would back him even he were to be convicted of charges he faces in New York over 2016 hush money that prosecutors claim was paid to conceal allegations of an affair from voters. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
For a while, sources said, Noem's style and presentation helped keep her name in the conversation as a potential running mate despite some concerns about a past controversy involving how her daughter got a real estate license (Noem said she did nothing wrong and her daughter defended her "good name") as well as scrutiny of aspects of her personal life and whether she'd adopted too hard-line of a policy portfolio to help expand Trump's general election appeal beyond the GOP base.
But the talk around Noem began to turn in March after she published an unusual video on X endorsing, by name, the work she received from a Texas dentist.
That drew a lawsuit from the consumer advocacy group Travelers United under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, accusing her of "misleading" and "deceptive" advertising and claiming that Noem had a "financial relationship" with the dental practice and did not disclose such an agreement.
And then Noem stirred wider controversy through the weekend after an excerpt of her new memoir, set to be released next week, detailed her decision to kill her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, after Cricket demonstrated an "aggressive personality," including attacking a family's group of chickens, and being "out of her mind with excitement," Noem wrote in her book.
"I hated that dog," Noem wrote, calling Cricket "untrainable."
While the decision to personally shoot the dog was criticized by animal advocates as excessive and inhumane, Noem defended her choices and responded to the backlash by touting herself as a politically incorrect politician willing to be honest and make tough choices.
She said the decision to shoot Cricket was two decades ago.
"The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did," she wrote in a Sunday statement on X. "Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it's hard and painful."
State law also makes it a misdemeanor for someone to keep a dog who "chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal."
But Noem's explanation appeared to do little to allay growing worries about Noem among people around Trump.
"This is bad, this is dumb, she's disqualifying herself from the race, she clearly doesn't understand President Trump if she thinks doing these things that are garnering any type of media attention, whether it's negative or positive," said one person familiar, characterizing what they'd heard from Trump's aides..
This source, like others, asked not to be quoted by name in order to be more candid and because they weren't authorized to speak on the record.
"Multiple people in the Trump campaign said she's quickly disqualified herself," this person said of Noem.
Several sources who spoke with ABC News used the latest controversy to compare Noem to Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was a rising Republican star widely regarded as ill-prepared for the national spotlight when she joined the 2008 GOP ticket as the vice presidential nominee alongside John McCain.
"It's always been under the radar, this Sarah Palin comparison, and this feels like this could be the sort of thing that continues to make that comparison stronger," one former Noem staffer said. "It's a question around -- can you be taken seriously at the national level when stuff like this is distracting from that?"
Other sources suggested that Noem was never in serious consideration to be Trump's vice president and that all the media attention around her prospects was driven by her own allies -- but that even so, her apparent eagerness for the job rubbed Trump the wrong way.
"She's over-auditioning," said a second source who has discussed the VP pick with Trump himself.
"Trump doesn't like that. He doesn't like obsequiousness. He doesn't like ubiquitousness," this person said. "And the other thing is, if you're overly auditioning for VP, no matter who you are, you're not helping Trump with his current pile of needs."
Trump has a well-known habit of keeping his circle and opinions of his allies in flux. Top advisers have been shunned, then brought back into the fold.
Defenders also pointed out, like Noem did, that her dog Cricket was a working animal, not a typical pet.
And, some of the sources who spoke with ABC News warned, advisers' worries matter little compared to the opinion of Trump himself, who is said to be reluctant to permanently expel people from his orbit.
"Anybody who thinks they know who the next vice president of the United States is going to be, if their name isn't Donald John Trump, is talking without any knowledge. Donald Trump has already said there is no perfect candidate, and his criteria as he has publicly stated is that the person is ready to go on day one and, more importantly, they help him win," said a third source familiar with the so-called "veepstakes."
The Trump campaign itself issued a similar statement for this story, with spokesperson Brian Hughes saying that "anyone claiming to know who or when President Trump will choose his VP is lying, unless the person is named Donald J. Trump."
Beyond Noem, the longer list of contenders is thought to include Sens. Katie Britt, Ala., Marco Rubio, Fla., Tim Scott, S.C., and JD Vance of Ohio; Reps. Byron Donalds, Fla., and Elise Stefanik of New York; and Govs. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Arkansas' Sarah Sanders.
And Noem's apparent fall in contention will likely do little to blunt the jockeying to join Trump's ticket this November, particularly as the summer's national party convention nears -- with sources saying that's exactly how Trump wants it.
"Trump is very, very careful through his VP pick to not broadcast to the world, 'Herewith is the heir to MAGA,'" said the person who has discussed the issue with the former president. "He would prefer that everybody fight it out, to earn it to be the heir to the movement that he's built."
(WASHINGTON) -- The House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act on Wednesday amid unrest on college campuses.
The bill, which was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, passed 320-91.
The measure was led by Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., and had 15 Democratic co-sponsors. Many Republicans and Democrats who voted against the bill said it infringes on free speech.
It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Several Democrats took issue with the alliance's definition of antisemitism and some of the contemporary examples on antisemitism listed by the group. Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is Jewish, said he took issue with the bill because it would put the "thumb on the scale" in favor of one definition of antisemitism and could "chill" constitutionally-protected free speech. Nadler voted against the bill.
The definition of antisemitism has been fraught, especially amid the ongoing protests at colleges and universities across the country in connection with the war in Gaza. Student protesters critical of the Israeli government's military actions in Gaza have continued to face accusations of antisemitism, as politicians from across the ideological spectrum react to the widening demonstrations on college campuses.
The House's vote came as those college protests rage on. Many pro-Palestinian protesters are calling for their colleges to divest of funds from Israeli military operations, while some Jewish students on the campuses as well as elected officials have called the protests antisemitic and said they are scared for their safety.
Some Jewish students have long warned against conflating antisemitism with views critical of Israel's government and blanket portrayals of all protesters as antisemitic.
The college protests have been largely peaceful, officials say, though hundreds of students and faculty have been arrested at campuses across the country, primarily for trespassing. School administrators across the country have also said that some instances of violence have largely been connected to unaffiliated non-students.
Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson visited Columbia University, where the protests initially began, and stepped up his criticism of the college protests.
"Columbia is out of control," Johnson claimed.
During this visit, he joined some of his New York Republican colleagues in calling for Columbia University President Minouche Shafik to resign and suggested the National Guard be called to tamp down the demonstrations.
Johnson also called on President Joe Biden to speak more forcefully on the issue. Last week, Biden said he condemned "antisemitic protests" but also condemned "those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians."
The bill's approval comes a day after Johnson announced the House is expanding its investigation into antisemitism on college campuses and will look at federal funding specifically.
ABC News' Kiara Alfonseca contributed to this report.
(ATLANTA) -- A controversial Republican-backed bill that would criminalize state bail funds and expand the list of charges that require cash or property bail has been signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp.
"This bill carries out important bail reforms that will ensure dangerous individuals cannot walk our streets and commit further crimes," said Kemp, in statements provided by his office concerning the signing of the bill.
The bill adds roughly 30 charges that would be ineligible for release without a property or cash bond. These charges include unlawful assembly and obstruction of a law enforcement officer, and racketeering and conspiracy.
These are some of the charges that have been made against several "Cop City" protesters, who have been demonstrating against the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, which will be used for specialized training for both law enforcement and fire department service workers.
The bill would also make it a misdemeanor for "any individual, corporation, organization, charity, nonprofit corporation, or group in any jurisdiction" to submit bail for more than three people a year. Bail is the money a defendant must pay to get out of jail while they await a trial, according to legal research database Justia. It's collateral for the court to ensure that the defendant will return for the remainder of their criminal trial.
Bail funds and local advocacy groups often pay for arrestees linked to certain causes to be released from jail as soon as possible. For example, this could affect Southerners On New Ground, which bails out Black mothers and caregivers on Mother's Day or groups like the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, which bails out protesters who have been arrested during demonstrations. When Sen. Kim Jackson asked if the bill would impact her church congregation's ability to post bail as a charity, Sen. Josh McLaurin said that it would, according to the language of the legislation.
McLaurin – who is opposed to the bill – argued that this would force judges to set bail even in cases in which defendants would have otherwise been released on their own recognizance, including those who are charged with low-level or non-violent offenses. He added that it could worsen conditions in Georgia jails.
"We have to remember somebody is innocent until proven guilty when they're held pretrial," said McLaurin. "So, what that means is it is unconstitutional to use cash bail or pretrial procedure as punishment."
Republican Sen. Randy Robertson argued the legislation would make communities feel safer and address concerns about violence.
"Our county jails are not overpopulated with misdemeanants who cannot afford to make bond," he said, according to the local news outlet Georgia Recorder.
He also cited the Supreme Court case – Citizens United v. FEC – which ruled that restrictions on "independent expenditures" is a ban on speech.
(PHOENIX) -- Two Republican state senators are expected to join Democrats in Arizona on Wednesday to pass a bill to repeal the state's Civil War-era near-total abortion ban -- three weeks after the state Supreme Court ruled the law was enforceable and one week after the House passed its own legislation to roll back the restrictions that have stirred widespread controversy.
GOP state Sens. T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick have both indicated they will support the Democratic-led repeal effort, giving Democrats the necessary votes in the chamber.
Notably, Bolick is married to one of the state Supreme Court justices who voted to reinstate the 1864 law, which supersedes a 15-week abortion ban that was enacted in 2022 and which blocks all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman.
While Republicans in the state Senate could delay the repeal vote with procedural hurdles, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, has expressed confidence the repeal bill will pass Wednesday.
Hobbs has also expressed frustration that the Legislature didn't take action sooner, noting that unless the courts impose a pause on the 1864 abortion ban, there could be a monthslong gap between when it goes into effect and then its repeal kicks in.
As of Tuesday morning, the office of Attorney General Kris Mayes said the effective date for the ban has been pushed from June 8 to June 27, after the state Supreme Court rejected a motion to reconsider. If the ban is repealed by the Legislature, that move wouldn't take effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends, which must be by June 30, meaning the repeal of the 1864 law may not take effect until around Oct. 1.
Some Democrats have acknowledged "uncertainty" that at least two GOP senators will vote for repeal on Wednesday "because the Republican Party has moved to the extremes since Trump first got elected," Sen. Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat, said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.
Conservatives in the state House initially resisted efforts to fast-track legislation to undo the ban.
"Legislatures are not built for knee-jerk reactions," state House Speaker Ben Toma said during one floor session.
He has also said that "abortion is a complicated topic -- it is ethically, morally complex. I understand that we have deeply held beliefs, and I would ask everyone in this chamber to respect the fact that some of us who believe that abortion is in fact the murder of children."
Anti-abortion groups have also rallied around the state Capitol seeking to urge lawmakers to stick by the ban. Arizona voter Desiree Mayes, a Republican, told ABC News last mont that "if you really if you really believe that babies in the womb are precious and valuable, they deserve equal protection," she said, explaining she doesn't support exceptions for rape or incest.
But Democrats, locally and across the country have called out the ban -- as have some Republicans who otherwise say they oppose abortion, like Donald Trump. Three Republicans in the state House ultimately joined the Democratic minority to repeal the law.
"This is a stain on history that this ban even exists -- from a time when the age of consent was 10, from a time when women didn't have the right to vote," Arizona state Sen. Eva Burch, a Democrat, previously told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze.
Anti-abortion groups are encouraging supporters of the near-total ban to again gather on the Capitol grounds on Wednesday to pressure Republicans to stick together and not join Democrats. Meanwhile, Arizona for Abortion Access organizers continue to gather signatures for a potential ballot initiative that would go before voters in November and would protect abortion up to the point of fetal viability, around 24 weeks into pregnancy.
House Republicans are considering proposing their own ballot measures for November to counter the pro-abortion access initiative.
"We don't deserve to win the legislature if we cannot get it right on the basic tenets of our Republican platform, which is life," said state GOP Sen. Anthony Kern.
If the repeal bill does not pass the state Senate, Democratic Sen. Sundareshan said her party would "keep fighting" by reintroducing bills or motions.
"We'll do whatever is available to us to continue to fight to repeal this ban," she told reporters on Tuesday. "And we will continue fighting to repeal all of the bans that remain on the books."
(WASHINGTON) -- Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced Wednesday she will move ahead with her attempt to oust Speaker Mike Johnson from the House's top job -- though her plan seems doomed to fail.
The Georgia Republican, who first introduced a motion to vacate the speaker's chair in March, held a high-energy news conference outside the U.S. Capitol to say she will trigger a vote on the House floor next week.
"Mike Johnson is not capable of that job," she said. "He has proven that over and over again."
Greene, joined by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, aired a litany of grievances she has with Johnson, who she described as a Democratic speaker working against former President Donald Trump's agenda. At one point, Greene donned a red "Make America Great Again" hat as she addressed reporters and denied she was defying Trump, who hosted Johnson at Mar-a-Lago last month and said he was doing a "good job."
Greene and Massie were flanked by two blown-up poster boards featuring photos of Johnson embracing House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
She criticized Johnson for working across the aisle to avoid a government shutdown, passing a FISA extension and his recent ushering of $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through Congress. She called them three "betrayals" against the GOP caucus.
Johnson released a short statement in response to Greene's continued threat to try to remove him.
"This motion is wrong for the Republican Conference, wrong for the institution, and wrong for the country," Johnson said.
Greene's press conference came one day after House Democratic leadership announced that if a motion to vacate Johnson is brought to the House floor for a vote, they would vote to table the effort -- effectively saving the speaker from ouster.
The motion to vacate is unlikely to succeed as most Republicans have joined Democrats in vowing to spike it.
Greene has already passed up several opportunities to force a vote on her motion, which she said she initially filed as a warning to Johnson.
Still, Greene said she wanted lawmakers to go on record on this issue.
"I think every member of Congress needs to take that vote and let the chips fall where they may," Greene said. "And so next week, I am going to be calling this motion to vacate. Absolutely calling it. I can't wait to see Democrats go out and support a Republican speaker, and have to go home to their primaries and have to run for Congress again having supported a Republican speaker."
Greene continued, "And I also can't wait to see my Republican conference show their cards and show who we are because voters deserve it."
Asked why Greene is pledging to move forward with this in defiance of Trump, Greene told ABC News' Correspondent Elizabeth Schulze, "We have to have a Republican majority in January and under Mike Johnson's leadership we are not going to have one."
Greene's threat against Johnson has been looming for weeks. She did not specify what day next week she would force a vote. Asked by a reporter why she was not bringing it to the floor on Wednesday, Greene said she was giving members time to prepare.
Massie said they were also giving Johnson time to think and suggested, again, that he resign. Johnson flatly rejected Massie's previous call for him to step down.
Johnson has defended himself against the threat by stating that he's doing his job within the confines of the narrowest House majority in history. In a recent interview with NewsNation, Johnson said he didn't believe Greene was "proving" herself to be a "serious lawmaker" and that he didn't spend much time thinking about her.
Asked for her response to Johnson's comment, Greene said she was "not into personal attacks." Massie came to her defense, saying she "is the most serious representative up here."
Johnson was elected speaker in October after three weeks of a leaderless House following the historic removal of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The chaotic elections to replace McCarthy included unsuccessful runs from House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer.
Greene declined to name who she would like to see hold the gavel instead of Johnson.
"Anybody that's willing to fight for our agenda," she said. "Anyone who refuses to share the power with Hakeem Jeffries."
