ABC - Politics News
Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy told reporters on Friday that, despite President Donald Trump’s recent mixed signals on gun sale background checks, he believes the White House is still committed to working on a comprehensive anti-gun violence proposal.

Murphy, who spoke with Trump by phone last week, said Trump “told me personally that he was indeed serious about moving forward together on what he called meaningful background check legislation.”

“The president told me that he knew that Republicans in the Senate wouldn't support it unless he supported a background checks measure and he was committed to finding a way forward,” Murphy said.

But then, Murphy said, Trump made comments later this week that seemed to suggest he was “once again backing away from his commitment to work on background check legislation.”

Murphy said he was in contact with the White House as late as Thursday night and said he believes the White House is still on board with finding a background check reform solution.

But it’s unclear which measure the White House supports and if it would include implementing universal background checks or simply expanding on current background checks.

Congress has not passed any sweeping gun reform legislation since the 1990s. Lawmakers have tried and failed numerous times, notably after the 2012 shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 school children were killed by a gunman. Murphy was the US senator for Connecticut at that time.

Other proposals the White House is potentially weighing, according to Murphy, include a federal grant program that would assist states in implementing the “Red Flag” law, which Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C,. and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., support. The state law typically permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.

The White House could also consider two background check bills passed by the House in February.

One of the bills would establish new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties. The other bill would extend the review period for the FBI to complete its background checks for gun purchases from three days to 10 days.

“I am skeptical that these efforts are going to bear fruit,” Murphy said Friday. “I think it’s very hard to negotiate with this White House when the president’s public positions seem to change by the day.”

“I'm sure there will some there will be some people who will say I'm naive to think that we're going to end up getting a proposal through that will significantly expand background checks and be able to get 60 votes in the Senate, but I'm going to try,” he added.

Murphy said he believes Trump has the “instinct to lead” but he’s talking to the gun lobby “more more frequently than he’s talking to me.”

“If this, you know, all seems like a ruse, an attempt by the president to make it look like he's doing something without actually moving the ball down the field, I think we'll know that in fairly short order,” Murphy said.

Murphy acknowledged that public support for passing a universal background check is at an all-time high and it’s very likely Republicans are keeping this in mind heading into the 2020 presidential election cycle.

“If you want to win the presidency in 2020 you can't be in the pocket of the gun lobby,” Murphy said. “If you win a seat for Congress in the 2020 elections, you can't be owned by the gun industry. You have to show that you are willing to take them on.”

Murphy said he thought it was “interesting” that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is “opening the door” to a background checks bill in the Senate because McConnell likely recognizes the issue of guns could be a real “political vulnerability” for his caucus.

“The only way that we pass a bill in the Senate is if there is a proposal with words on a piece of paper that the president says he's for and says it for more than 24 hours at a time,” Murphy said.

He added: “If Donald Trump gets behind a background checks reform bill, it will pass the Senate.”

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(NEW YORK) -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential campaign is calling on the Democratc National Committee to revise its list of debate qualifying polls in an effort to help the Hawaii Congresswoman qualify for the upcoming third DNC debate hosted by ABC News.

According to the criteria that the DNC set forth, 2020 candidates must meet the donor threshold of 130,000 unique donors and 2 percent in 4 DNC qualified polls. Gabbard has exceeded the donor threshold but needs two polls to meet the debate criteria.

The Gabbard team is citing what they describe as several irregularities in the selection and timing of the DNC sponsored polls. The campaign points out “Gabbard has exceeded 2% support in 26 polls, but only two of them are on the DNC’s “certified” list.

In a press release, the campaign says many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC “certified” polls.”

Additionally, they have polled at or above 2% in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two different early primary states: The Boston Globe which is the largest circulated paper in New Hampshire and The Post and Courier in South Carolina.

Gabbard, who is a major in the Army National Guard is still currently in Indonesia for a two week military training, during which time she is unable to work with her campaign in any capacity. Gabbard will return to the campaign trail on August 27.

Another issue the Gabbard campaign is highlighting is the lack of polls that have been released following the second debate. After the first debate, the campaign highlights that 11 polls were released however that number shrank to just four polls after the second debate.

The Gabbard campaign also notes that only two polls were released in the two weeks following the second debate. The campaign stressed that the lack of polls that have been released are “particularly harmful to candidates with lower name-recognition. Delayed poll releases are an advantage for high-name recognition candidates such as Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.”

This isn’t Gabbard’s first run in with the DNC, in 2016, she stepped down from the party after serving as Vice Chair to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders. Following her endorsement, Gabbard was outspokenly critical of the DNC, having clashed with then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz over the DNC’s debate schedule resulting in Gabbard being disinvited from the first debate in 2015.

At the time Wasserman Schultz claimed that Gabbard’s complaints were a distraction.

Also earlier this week, Gabbard threw her support behind a failed attempt to call for the DNC to support a Climate Change debate.
Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

sanfel/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- Combat veteran Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who wanted to add “president” to his long list of accomplishments -- four tours of duty in Iraq, three Harvard degrees, four years in the U.S. Congress -- announced on Friday that he's dropping out of the 2020 presidential race.

Struggling to meet the Democratic National Committee's requirements, Moulton missed both the first and second Democratic presidential debates and isn’t expected to meet the threshold for the third debate next month hosted by ABC News in partnership with Univision.

During his speech Friday at the DNC's summer meeting in San Francisco, Moulton is expected to tell the committee, "Though this campaign is not ending the way we hoped, I am leaving this race knowing that we raised issues that are vitally important to the American people and our future."

"For the first time in my life, I talked publicly about dealing with post-traumatic stress from my four combat tours in Iraq," he continues, according to prepared remarks from his campaign.

In June, Moulton told ABC News he wasn’t worried about making the debates because he was seeing momentum on the ground and didn’t think meeting the DNC’s donor metrics was “a good use of resources.”

During his 123-day presidential bid, Moulton campaigned in nine states where he held at least 56 events and focused mostly on national security, national service and mental health.

The Bronze Star recipient brought an unmatched passion for service to the 2020 presidential race by continuously hosting veteran and military themed events: roundtables with JROTC students, military family groups, town halls with veterans, American Legion and VFW visits and most recently, Moulton visited the Veterans Community Project, a Kansas City based nonprofit that builds tiny houses for homeless veterans.

Opening up about his own experience with PTS (post-traumatic stress), Moulton launched a “Veterans Mental Health” tour and released a mental health plan that advocated for a national mental health hotline, routine mental health check-ups for active duty military personnel and veterans, and called for funding for yearly mental health screenings for high schoolers.

Moulton also used these past four months, in part, to repeatedly point out President Trump’s lack of military experience, with the most recent comment being at the Iowa State Fair last week when a fairgoer yelled “Go Trump!” and the Marine replied “If you want a draft dodger, he’s your guy.”

So what's next for Seth Moulton? The congressman is expected to run for reelection in Massachusetts’ 6th Congressional District and to relaunch his PAC, Serve America, which helped elected 21 new Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018.

"While this is the end of my campaign, it is certainly not the end of our efforts," he will say this afternoon. "I will once again be running for Congress in the 6th District of Massachusetts, my home, and I can’t wait to get back at it."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

adamkaz/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign team on Thursday angrily disputed a report in a British tabloid that campaign chairman Brad Parscale is profiting excessively from his work for Trump.

Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh rejected as false anonymous allegations in The Daily Mail that Parscale was getting a cut of 2020 campaign donations.

"The suggestion that he is siphoning off a percentage of donations is a lie," Murtaugh said in a statement. "To report that because he -- or anyone -- is paid any amount by the campaign means he is receiving a 'percentage' of donations is deceptive and deliberately inflammatory. The same could be said for anyone receiving a paycheck from the campaign."

A spokesperson for The Daily Mail issued a single-sentence statement to ABC News late Thursday night in response to the Trump campaign's contention Parscale is not getting a percentage of 2020 Trump campaign donations.

"We stand by our reporting," spokesman Sean Walsh said in an email.

The campaign spokesman said Parscale had made plenty of money selling startups. And Parscale has previously acknowledged that he has made sizable sums through his campaign work for Trump. He reportedly told The Daily Mail that working for the president since 2015 has made him a "wealthy man."

"I make no secret about the fact that working for the Trump family made me a wealthy man well before I ever became President Trump's campaign manager," he said, according to the tabloid. "The president is an excellent businessman, and being associated with him for years has been extremely beneficial to my family."

Parscale has varying interests in companies that do campaign work, although details about his compensation from those firms remain unclear because they're privately held. He was involved in the creation of a firm called American Made Media Consultants, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. That firm has received more than $5 million from campaign committees supporting Trump in this election cycle, according to public filings. Parscale tweeted in February that he does not own the company and receives "no percentage of any ad buys from the campaign."

Parscale sits on the board of a separate firm called Data Trust, according to published reports, a firm that's been paid $2.5 million from the RNC this campaign cycle, the party's election filings show.

Murtaugh said in a phone interview with ABC News Thursday evening that Parscale holds a stake in only one vendor being used by the Trump campaign itself during this election cycle. That company, Parscale Strategy, provides a wide range of fundraising and web services, including digital consulting, web development and video production. It's been paid a combined sum of almost $10.5 million from the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the two joint fundraising committees between the campaign and the national party committee. It is not known how much of that went to Parscale himself.

In the nine months since the president's 2020 reelection campaign began, Parscale has spent millions on Florida real estate.

Public records indicate that Parscale bought a $2.4 million canal-front property in Fort Lauderdale on Jan. 3, 2019. Three months earlier, he spent $895,000 on a three-bedroom condo nearby. An investment company he set up with his parents, called Parscale Properties, also purchased another Fort Lauderdale condo in 2018 to the tune of $1,075,000. Murtaugh said Parscale's parents oversee the investments.

Even before the latest tabloid report, the real estate purchases, totaling nearly $4.4 million, have drawn attention to the wealth Parscale and his companies have accrued through working for Trump and his campaign.

In March 2018, ABC News reported that Parscale's companies had billed the Trump 2016 campaign and the Republican Party for more than $100 million since he first became involved with the campaign in 2015. Most of those payments went to a San Antonio firm he ran when he first began working for Trump called Giles-Parscale. It's difficult to know how much of that money went to Parscale himself. A sizable portion was passed through to pay for digital advertising that the firm helped purchase for the campaign.

In early 2015, before Trump announced he was running for president, Parscale was tapped to set up the Trump's campaign website in just two days. He had never worked in politics before, but he would go on to be an architect of the Trump campaign's digital strategy and a big player in Republican online operations before being promoted to 2020 campaign manager in February 2018.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Kameleon007/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- "Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun," President Donald Trump said soon after the recent mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that left 31 dead.

Under pressure to take action, the president has repeatedly tried to shift the cause of mass shootings away from guns and toward mental illness.

Experts say that's completely wrong.

"He's scapegoating people with mental illness as the cause of the problem completely inappropriately," Jeffrey Lieberman, chair of the Department of Psychology at Columbia University, told ABC News.

Trump was asked Wednesday by ABC News' Kyra Phillips why everyone shouldn't have to go through a background check before purchasing a gun.

"I want guns to be in the hands of people that are mentally stable. People that are insane, people that are sick up here," Trump said, pointing to his head, "I don't want them to get a gun."

Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, told ABC News that the president's remarks are an attempt to avoid talking about guns and instead take advantage of a belief held by many Americans that mass shooting suspects must be "crazy."

"What we know is that the majority of these mass shooters, did not have one of the major diagnosable psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression, that we know of," Swanson said.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent less than 1 percent of the yearly gun homicides in the U.S. A 2015 study looking at 235 mass killings determined that 22 percent of the perpetrators were considered mentally ill. And research shows that people with a mental illness are more likely to harm themselves than others, and are often the victims of violent crime.

"To the extent that there is an association, which there is between gun violence and mental illness, it's one contributor of many contributors, and it's the only one that has a ready solution," Lieberman said. "And the solution is providing better health care."

Motivation behind mass shootings

Following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Trump gave his now-standard response.

"I don't want people to forget that this is a mental health problem," Trump said. "I don't want them to forget that, because it is. It's a mental health problem."

But mental illness is just one of many motivators of gun violence, experts say. Others include domestic and foreign terrorism, race hatred or ideologies, disaffected loners and disgruntled employees, according to those who've studied mass shootings.

While experts agree that there is a relationship, they say that Trump's comments overstate the correlation. A 2015 study by Swanson found that even if mental illness was completely eliminated as a risk factor, violence would decrease by only about 4 percent.

He argues that Trump's comments tying mental illness to gun violence is part of strategy to create a "them versus us" mentality.

"It's creating this boundary and saying we're on this side, and those people over there are to blame," Swanson said. "What better boundary could you think of then building an asylum and locking them all up in there, and it's just not going to work."

Would more mental hospitals work?

As Trump quickly changed the subject from background checks to mental illness, he called for more mental hospitals, suggesting mentally ill homeless were responsible.

"I remember, growing up, we had mental institutions," Trump said Sunday. "A lot of them were closed. And all of those people were put out on the streets. And I said — even as a young guy, I said, 'How does that work? That's not a good thing.' And it's not a good thing. So, I think the concept of mental institutions has to be looked at."

"President Trump's comments about it's all a mental health problem and we need to build more mental hospitals and go back to the asylum movement is just 100 percent wrong," Lieberman said.

Marvin Swartz, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral Sciences at Duke University, agreed, telling ABC News that while there is a need for more beds in mental institutions, that hospitalization is not a feasible solution to preventing mental illness.

"We do have a shortage of beds, but the problem with that is finding a mass shooter is finding a needle in a haystack," Swartz said. "So, to prevent an act of violence by that needle in a haystack, you would have to hospitalize the entire haystack."

How Trump's comments affect the mental health community

The White House has been briefed on a proposal to develop a way to identify early signs of mental illness that could lead to violent behavior, according to the Washington Post.

When reporters on Wednesday pointed out to the president that other countries with similar levels of mental illness don't have similar numbers of mass shootings -- and why access to guns in the U.S. isn't to blame -- Trump focused his answer on video games.

"There are many, many things in play," he said. "People are talking about videos. People are talking about lots of different things. But we do have a way of bringing what we already have ... we have many, many people that are unable to buy guns right now. Many people are unable to buy guns. We have background checks. But there are loopholes in the background checks."

While experts would be happy to see deficiencies in the mental health system taken more seriously on the federal level, Swanson said it is disappointing that such needs seem to get addressed only after a mass shooting.

"This drives mental health stakeholders bonkers because they really want to have this conversation about improving mental health care in the United States, but the only time we get to talk about it is when there is some horrifying mass casualties," Swanson said.

Swanson added that this puts mental health advocates in a bind. Even though the president is potentially proposing an increase in funding for mental health care, which advocates support, his simultaneously tying improvements to gun violence, Swanson said, is forcing advocates to "make a deal with the devil in order to get something important done."

"It's just the wrong reason. It's really part of a solution to a different problem," he said.

Trump's statements are not only wrong but can discourage those on the fence about getting treatment for their mental illness, according to Swartz.

"His comments are really stigmatizing," Swartz said. "And I think it makes it hard for people to accept that they have a mental illness if they're going to be lumped in with what Trump calls deranged killers."

He added, "There is no correlation between the number of psychiatric beds and the generosity of outpatient treatment and rates of homicide across the country. The only thing that is correlated is the rate of gun ownership in the United States."

There was strong reaction as well from National Alliance on Mental Illness Acting CEO Angela Kimball. "The president should be talking about better care and earlier access to intensive treatment, not revisiting the shameful institutions of our past," she said in a statement.

"Words matter, Mr. President. 'These people' are our friends, neighbors, children, spouses. They're not 'monsters,' 'the mentally ill' or 'crazy people' -- they're us. Talking about reinstitutionalization only further marginalizes and isolates the 1 in 5 people with mental illness. Instead, we need to be talking about the power of early treatment and effective intervention to change lives," she said.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

krblokhin/iStock(DENVER) -- Onetime 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper launched his campaign to unseat GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., Thursday morning, entering a crowded Democratic primary to challenge the vulnerable Republican incumbent.

"I know changing Washington is hard but I want to give it a shot," Hickenlooper said in a new video announcing his Senate campaign. "I'm not done fighting for the people of Colorado."

The former governor, who dropped out of the even more crowded presidential Democratic field just a week ago, in his Senate campaign video took direct aim at Washington politics and Gardner.

"I don't think Cory Gardner understands that the games he's playing with Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are hurting the people of Colorado," Hickenlooper said. "We ought to be working together to move this country forward and stop the political nonsense."

Hickenlooper enters an already crowded Democratic primary in Colorado's Senate race where 11 other candidates are competing to win the party nomination to challenge one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbent in 2020. But the former governor is already seen as one of the more viable Democrats in the race because of his existing recognition boosted by his seven-month presidential run.

One of the Democrats running for the Colorado Senate race, former U.S. Ambassador Dan Baer, responded to the news of Hickenlooper's new Senate campaign saying "new voices" are "ready to lead" the state in a statement.

"There are new voices ready to lead across our state and in the U.S. Senate, voices who understand that there is no back to normal, there’s only forward to normal. That’s why I was running yesterday, and that’s why I’ll be running tomorrow," Baer said in a statement.

The news of Hickenlooper's Senate run doesn't come out of the blue: In May, Hickenlooper expressed confidence in his potential candidacy in the Senate race during an interview with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," touting his record in the state as "both as an entrepreneur in the private sector, but also as a mayor and a governor."

And just two days before Hickenlooper ended his presidential campaign, 314 Action, a federal PAC, launched a “Draft Hick for Senate” campaign, urging the former governor to end his presidential candidacy to run for Senate.

As more 2020 Democrats are ending their presidential bid, Hickenlooper was the first - and potentially, not the last Democratic presidential candidate to wind up running for Senate in his home state. Shortly before Hickenlooper announced his Senate bid, fellow Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington announced Wednesday night his decision to drop out of the presidential race.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

liveslow/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is dropping out of the 2020 presidential race.

He made his announcement on MSNBC Wednesday night.

"It's become clear that I'm not going to be carrying the ball, but we're going to make sure somebody is," he said on "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Inslee was the first governor to declare a run for the White House in March. He made combating climate change the crux of his campaign.

In a Twitter thread, Inslee shared a clip of his announcement and wrote, "I know you agree that our mission to defeat climate change must continue to be central to our national discussion -- and must be the top priority for our next president. But I’ve concluded that my role in that effort will not be as a candidate to be our next president."

He claimed a victory in championing climate change.

"Many of the campaigns started with little attention to climate, but since our campaign began, we’ve seen almost every serious candidate put out a climate plan; we’ve seen climate come up in both debates; and we now have two networks hosting nationally-televised climate forums," he wrote.

He also said he would have more to say about what comes next for him in the days ahead.

"I will continue to lead, to demand bold action, and to do everything in my power to ensure the fight to defeat climate change stays at the top of the national agenda," he tweeted.

This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

claffra/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- As the Trump administration dismisses concern from some economists that the U.S. economy is heading for a recession, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal deficit will grow to $960 billion this year before climbing above $1 trillion in 2020 -- two years earlier than a projection earlier this year.

The non-partisan agency periodically publishes reports that present projections of what federal deficits, debt, revenues and spending -- and the economic path underlying them -- would be for the current year and for the next decade under existing laws covering taxes and spending.

In its fresh report, the CBO warns that annual deficits will soon increase above the average over the past 50 years.

"Although both revenues and outlays grow faster than GDP over the next 10 years in CBO's baseline projections, the gap between the two persists," the CBO noted in its summary statement of its report. "As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public is projected to grow steadily, from 79 percent of GDP in 2019 to 95 percent in 2029 -- its highest level since just after World War II."

After enacting a bipartisan spending agreement early this month, the CBO's estimate of the deficit for fiscal year 2019 grew by an additional $63 billion, while the 10-year cumulative deficit increased another $809 billion higher than an estimate released in May -- totaling more than $12 trillion of deficits in the next 10 years. CBO's baseline projections of primary deficits -- deficits excluding net outlays for interest -- for that period increased by a total of $1.9 trillion.

 The CBO blames $1.7 trillion of that increase on the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, and about $255 billion more due to the supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and border security this year.

"A range of developments, such as unexpected changes in international conditions, business confidence or productivity growth, could make economic outcomes differ significantly from our projections," CBO Director Phillip Swagel said. "Prospective changes in trade policies add to the projections' uncertainty."

The CBO projects that the GDP will grow by 2.3% in 2019 as a result of a strong labor market, low unemployment and rising wages.

But by next year, the agency predicts the economy's growth will fall below its long-term historical average, averaging just 1.8% GDP over the next four years.

"I've said it once and I'll say it as many times as I have to, we HAVE to cut spending," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. tweeted.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday that ongoing investigations into the death of Jeffrey Epstein have not produced information that contradict the medical examiner's determination that Epstein died by suicide.

"I have seen nothing that undercuts the finding of the medical examiner that this was a suicide," Barr told reporters, following a roundtable at a Dallas boxing gym where he was promoting the Department of Justice's Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative. "Epstein's death, I think we will see, was a suicide and I do think there are some irregularities at the [Metropolitan Correctional Center]."

Barr said that the DOJ, FBI and Inspector General investigations into Epstein's death are, "well along," but added that there have been some unanticipated delays.

"A number of the witnesses are not cooperative," Barr said. "A number of them required having union representatives and lawyers before we could scheduled interviews."

Barr added that he expected he will "soon" be able to provide initial results of the investigations to Congress, as well as to the general public.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump on Wednesday hit back at Denmark's prime minister for calling his idea about the U.S. buying Greenland "absurd," blasting her comment as "nasty" and accusing her of "blowing off the United States."

Trump spoke after abruptly cancelling his planned visit to Denmark via Twitter Tuesday night.

"I looked forward to going but I thought the prime minister's statement that it was 'absurd,' that it was an absurd idea, was nasty," he told reporters as lef the White House for a trip to Kentucky. "I thought it was an inappropriate statement. All she had to do was say, 'No, we're not interested.'"

He said the prime minister spoke "in a very sarcastic, nasty way."

"Don't say what an absurd idea that is," Trump said. "She's not talking to me, she's talking to the United States of America."

He said they would still meet sometime in the future, though.

"We'll do it another time," he said.

Trump mentioned Harry Truman as having the same idea, saying it's been talked about "for years." Trump said, for him, it was "just an idea, just a thought."

"I thought it was not a nice statement, the way she blew me off, because she was blowing off the United States," Trump said.

Earlier Wednesday, Denmark's prime minister said she was "disappointed and surprised" that Trump had called off his visit.

The White House had said that Trump would travel to Denmark and Poland over the Labor Day weekend, but Trump wrote in a tweet Tuesday night that he would postpone the Denmark leg after Frederiksen dismissed his suggestion that the United States was interested in purchasing Greenland.

"Based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting," Trump tweeted.

Frederiksen has previously rejected the possibility of selling Greenland to the United States. Greenland is a autonomous territory of Denmark.

The prime minister on Wednesday again rejected the idea of selling Greenland and said the issue should not serve as a distraction.

"This does not change the character of our good relations, and we will, of course, from Denmark, continue our ongoing dialogue with the U.S. on how we can develop our cooperation and deal with the many common challenges we are facing," Frederiksen said.

 Trump was slated to meet with Denmark's queen during his trip, and on Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Danish royal household told ABC News the household was "surprised" by the trip cancellation. The spokesperson would not comment further.

It seems that the cancellation took the U.S. ambassador in Copenhagen by surprise, too. Just hours before Trump's tweet, Ambassador Carla Sands tweeted, "Denmark is ready for the POTUS @realDonaldTrump‬⁩ visit!"

Sands later followed up in a second tweet Wednesday to say Trump "values and respects" Denmark and "looks forward to a visit in the future."

 The State Department referred questions about the cancellation to the White House, but defended Sands, saying her tweet "goes to show the strength of the relationship that our ambassador has with the government, and we continue to work together."

"I think it's sad, honestly, because this is just not the way you treat an ally," Rufus Gifford, who served as U.S. ambassador to Denmark during the Obama administration, told CNN. And to cancel the trip in this way is just a shame. It's absolutely a shame."

Trump has cancelled overseas trips or stops before.

He nixed a trip to Davos, Switzerland, in January, citing the partial government shutdown in the U.S., and cancelled stops in Peru and Colombia in April 2018 to deal with a Syrian chemical weapons attack.

He also called off a planned trip to London to inaugurate a U.S. embassy complex in January 2018, saying he was unhappy with the Obama administration's sale of the previous embassy building. And he reportedly cancelled a stop at Israel's Masada in 2017 because he could not land a helicopter atop the mountain fortress.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

zrfphoto/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump doubled down Wednesday on his controversial assertion that Jewish Americans who vote for a Democrat are "very, very disloyal to Israel and the Jewish people," continuing his effort to make support for Israel a political wedge issue ahead of the 2020 election.

The day before, while attacking Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib and other Democratic congresswomen of color who had been critical of Israel's policies, Trump told reporters that he thought "any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."

Asked on Wednesday to clarify to whom they were being disloyal -- as critics called his comments anti-Semitic -- the president said he was referring to Israel and the Jewish people in general.

“In my opinion, if you vote for a Democrat, you're being very disloyal to Israel and you're being very disloyal to Jewish people," Trump told reporters before departing the White House en route to Kentucky.

Historically, Jews have overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates.

 Seventy-nine percent of Jewish voters cast a ballot for a Democrat in the midterms last year, according to exit poll data. In the 2016 presidential election, 72% of Jews voted for Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

An analysis of ABC News data in 2018 found that 41% of Jews identified themselves as liberals, more than any other religious group.

"Let’s be clear: What @POTUS said was #antiSemitic," the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, wrote on Twitter, about Trump's initial remark. "The charge of disloyalty or dual loyalty has been used against Jews for centuries. Almost a year after the #Pittsburgh shooting, as #antiSemitism continues to rise, it’s bewildering that we still need to have this conversation."

 Asked Wednesday by a reporter if his comments about “disloyalty” were anti-Semitic, Trump replied that they were not.

"It's only anti-Semitic in your head," he told the reporter.

Democratic lawmakers lashed out against the president.

"When President Trump uses a trope that has been used against the Jewish people for centuries with dire consequences, he is encouraging—wittingly or unwittingly—anti-Semites throughout the country and the world," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement Wednesday. "Enough."

Democratic 2020 candidates blasted his initial comments as offensive and anti-Semitic. Former Vice President Joe Biden said Trump's remark was "inexcusable" and "beneath the office" of the president, while Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., contrasted Jewish teachings about love and kindness with what he called Trump's efforts "to try to divide us against each other, to demean and degrade us."

"I am a proud Jewish person and I have no concerns about voting Democratic," Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., tweeted. "And in fact, I intend to vote for a Jewish man to become the next president of the United States."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Photos597/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration on Wednesday rolled out a new plan that would allow the government to detain migrant families traveling with children indefinitely, effectively calling for an end to the federal government's agreement with a court more than 20 years ago that it wouldn't hold children for long periods of time because it's so detrimental to their health.

The proposal is the latest move by President Donald Trump to try to curb an unprecedented tide of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border and raises questions about whether the administration has the capacity to care for families, which have been arriving in the tens of thousands each month. There was no doubt the move would be challenged in court and could be blocked by a judge before it would have a chance to take effect.

“The government should not be jailing kids, and certainly shouldn’t be seeking to put more kids in jail for longer,” Madhuri Grewal, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told reporters that the new rules were about returning "integrity" to U.S. immigration.

"No child should be a pawn in a scheme to manipulate our immigration system,” he said in a news conference on Wednesday. Details of the plan were first reported Tuesday by ABC News.

At issue is an agreement the U.S. government made with a federal court in 1997 after lawyers representing migrant children, including a girl named Jenny Lisette Flores, filed a lawsuit objecting to their treatment in custody. The resulting "Flores Settlement Agreement" limited the time children could be held in custody to 20 days and required safe and sanitary conditions.

President Trump and Republicans have long claimed that the 20-day restriction has encouraged migrants to bring their children, knowing that they can't be held for long and will eventually be allowed to enter the U.S., where it can take months or years for their asylum cases to wind their way through court. President Barack Obama had at one point asked a judge to allow families to be detained together and was denied.

"The problem is, you have 10 times more people coming up with their families. It's like Disneyland now," Trump told Fox News last April.

Immigration advocates counter that forcing children to spend what could be months in detention would be traumatizing, and that the administration is poorly equipped to care for them. Since last year, seven children have died after having been in U.S. custody, six of them exhibiting flu-like symptoms that advocacy groups blame on overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement currently maintains three "family residential centers" where the children would be held with their parents -- two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania. But Congress has refused additional money to expand those centers.

McAleenan said the centers would care for the children and include such amenities as a library and video games.

“A gilded cage is still a cage and I think keeping these families in these facilities is definitely contrary to what should actually happen which is families being released in alternative detention," said Joann Bautista, a policy associate at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

The administration initially proposed doing away with the Flores settlement last fall. A draft rule published in September would have allowed for the long-term detention of families with "dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors." Those proposed rules languished, however, as the administration confronted a massive uptick in undocumented border crossings that's only recently began to slow down. The updated final regulation, to be published Friday, is expected to make the rule final although a judge would have the opportunity to block it.

Under the new plan, there is no specific cap on how long children could be detained with their parents. The families could try to get parole or bonded release, an option currently available to some immigrant detainees.

Congressional Democrats signaled they would fight the idea. Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the plan was "illegal" and violated American values on the treatment of children.

"This regulation will allow the Administration to dramatically expand family detention and indefinitely lock up children," he said in a statement. "The Administration’s rule will put even more stress on our immigration system and add to the chaos the Administration continues to create."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Kameleon007/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- March for Our Lives, the student-led activist group founded by survivors of the 2018 Parkland, Fla., high school mass shooting, on Wednesday proposed sweeping new gun control measures and called on 2020 presidential candidates to endorse its “Peace Plan for a Safer America.”

“Gun violence is destroying our generation. This is simply unacceptable,” the group said.

The group's first public plan since the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton earlier this month includes some familiar proposals to curb gun violence as well as more ambitious ones to address what the student call a “a national public health emergency.”

The plan calls for raising the age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, creating a national licensing and gun registry, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as well as implementing a mandatory gun buyback program.

The group also proposed implementing a new role with the next presidential administration called the National Director of Gun Violence Prevention who would report directly to the president on issues on gun violence prevention.

Former Texas congressman and 2020 presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke quickly responded to the release of the plan tweeting, “Following the lead of the students marching for their lives, and for all of ours, we will end this epidemic. I support their Peace Plan For A Safer America—and I call on everyone else in this race to do the same.”

After the Parkland shooting in which 17 students and staff were shot dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, the March for Our Lives group took to the streets and organized hundreds of thousands of Americans, including children, student activists, concerned parents and angry teachers, to march in Washington, D.C., and cities across the country, demanding an end to gun violence and for federal lawmakers to act.

Their calls for action seemed to go unheeded by lawmakers as Congress has failed to pass any comprehensive control laws since then.

“We know this seems ambitious given Washington’s apathy to decades of bloodshed in our schools, neighborhoods, and even our houses of worship,” David Hogg, one of the faces of the March for Our Lives movement, tweeted Wednesday morning. “Policymakers have failed, so survivors are stepping up. The #PeacePlan is written by the generation that’s only ever known lockdown drills. But we WILL be the last. We’re not just fighting against the status quo, we’re fighting for real change, for justice, for peace.”

In the days following the Parkland shooting, during a listening session with teachers and students, Trump signaled that he was going to act on universal background checks.

"We’re going to be very strong on background checks. We’re going to be doing very strong background checks,” Trump said in 2018.

In the wake of the the El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, mass shootings, Trump again seemed to note that he was open to legislation on background checks and said that his administration and Congress were talking about gun control reform.

However, a few weeks after saying, “we have to have very meaningful background checks,” Trump on Tuesday appeared to back off on any new push background checks, and repeated his assertion that mental illness is the actual problem.

“We have strong background checks right now,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “But we have sort of missing areas and areas that don't complete the whole circle. And we're looking at different things and I have to tell you it's a mental problem, I said it 100 times, it's not the gun that pulls the trigger, it's the person that pulls the trigger.”

Trump had a lengthy conversation Tuesday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive for the National Rifle Association, multiple senior level sources confirm to ABC News.

The president told LaPierre he does not support universal background checks, the sources said, but that does not mean background check legislation is off the table.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

devonanne/iStock(ST. LOUIS) -- Kelli Dunaway knows her decision to be sworn in on a Dr. Seuss book pushed back against tradition.

That is, in part, why she did it -- and it's the same reason why she wanted to run for a seat in the St. Louis County Council election: She wanted to try something new.

"I think we need to do so much of that in our politics and in our policy," she told ABC News Wednesday. "Just because we've done things the way we've always done them is no reason to keep doing them that way."

Dunaway, a Democratic activist, was elected Aug. 6 as a councilwoman for District 2 on the St. Louis County Council. A week later, she had her swearing in ceremony, accompanied by her two children, 7-year-old Bella and 5-year-old Liam, and the Dr. Seuss 1990 classic Oh, The Places You'll Go.

In the days after she was sworn in, images of her holding her right hand above the book with her left hand on it flooded the internet. The St. Louis Post Dispatch first reported on Dunaway's swearing in.

Her decision wasn't met without backlash. In a Facebook post thanking her supporters and speaking on her decision to choose Dr. Seuss, a slew of commenters said she was making a mockery out of the position because she didn't use a Bible. There is no law in Missouri that requires council members be sworn in on a Bible.

Doug Moore, the spokesman for St. Louis County Council, confirmed to ABC it's not a requirement to use any text, though many use the Bible, and elected officials just have to raise their right hand to swear in. Still, he allowed, "It's unusual to use Dr. Seuss, for sure."

Another Facebook commenter pointed out criticism Dr. Seuss and his books faced in recent years over his portrayal of people of color.

Dunaway ignored most of the disparaging comments, but thanked the woman who made her aware of the criticism. She told ABC News she believes it's important for the country to understand and accept "how we have all been influenced by a racist society," an issue she plans to make a priority as a councilwoman.

"The only way to truly face a problem and deal with it is to admit you have one, and I think that's where we're stuck right now," she said. "I think so many of us don't want to even admit that racism is part of the problem, but it's the biggest part of a lot of problems."

She plans to address racial inequity, especially in a city that she described as suffering from widespread racial segregation, during her time in Council.

"There are certain parts of St. Louis County that have been left behind, while other parts have really had great growth and development and I want to focus on some of those left behind areas," she said.

About 9.8 percent of people in St. Louis County are living under the poverty line, according to 2017 data from Data USA. Of that 9.8 percent, black people make up the majority of those living in poverty despite only accounting for 24 percent of the population.

The book, she hoped, would resonate with the people of St. Louis County with its message, paired with her effort to carry out that message.

"I am going to do my best every day to do what's right for everybody. I believe we are better than our current political climate might suggest and I will always be working to make that better, and I'll do the work. That's the message of the book, right?" she said. "If you have brains in your head and you have feet in your shoes, you do what you do"

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- Nearly a year after her husband's death, Cindy McCain said the current Republican Party is "not the party of Abraham Lincoln ... nor the party of Ronald Reagan."

In an interview with ABC's Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl, McCain spoke about the legacy her late husband, Sen. John McCain, left in American politics, and focused on his willingness to work across the aisle. A year later, McCain said she doesn't see anyone picking up and carrying the mantle of staunch bipartisanship the way her husband did.

"That was a tough torch to carry and, as John said, there were many lonely days because he always said what was on his mind," she told Karl.

McCain added that her husband "never did anything deliberately to be hurtful or anything. … I don't see anybody carrying that mantle at all, I don't see anyone carrying the voice -- the voice of reason."

That sentiment appeared to extend to one of the late senator's closest friends and colleagues, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who's widely considered to be one of President Donald Trump's closest allies.

"Lindsey has his own political career to worry about and his own political life," McCain said. "I would just hope that in the long run, everyone would begin to move in the right direction, including Lindsey or anybody else."

"Lindsey's a part of my family," she added. "He's a good friend and I cannot, [and] will not, be critical of Lindsey."

Despite her comments about the Republican Party as a whole, McCain did not call out Trump directly even with his frequent attacks on John McCain, including after his passing.

When asked about an incident in May, in which the White House requested that the name of the U.S.S. John McCain be covered up ahead of Trump's visit to Japan, Cindy said, "I don't know who directed it."

Navy leadership didn't go through with obscuring the ship's name, and Trump denied having any information about the request.

Cindy McCain said she called around seeking more information but realized she was "never going to find out."

"What concerns me is that it happened at a United States naval warfare ship," McCain said. "Those fine men and women on that ship did not deserve that."

McCain also seemed to allude to some of the Trump administration's most controversial policies, including on immigration.

"You know this country is made up of immigrants," she said. "We're made up of people of every color, every creed, and that's what makes us special."

When asked by Karl how she thought John McCain would have reacted to the "send her back" chants that broke out at a "Make America Great Again" rally in North Carolina, referring to four Democratic congresswomen, McCain said her husband "would not have accepted it."

"I'm quite certain he would have spoke out about it," she said. "These are American citizens -- these are our citizens."

Trump allowed the chants to last more than 10 seconds without saying a single word. Later, he said he disagreed with "send her back" chants.

"We are from all walks of life, and they have just as much a right to be here as we do," Cindy McCain said. "That's not what this country was founded on."

In addition to the political speed bumps facing the Republican Party, Cindy McCain noted that there is "trouble on both sides of the aisle."

"The Democrats have their own problems, as well, and I know they feel the pressure on their side too, because they are talking about it," McCain said without elaborating further.

In hope of helping overcome divisiveness in politics, McCain and her family are launching a new initiative called "Acts of Civility" that aims to use her husband's story to go beyond politics and inspire people to engage with one another on critical issues, thoughtfully and constructively.

A major effect of incivility, Cindy McCain said, has been the proliferation of mass shootings across the country. She didn't comment specifically on gun control policy, but said it's an issue worth addressing with urgency.

"These shootings are our response to this incivility, and our response to things that are occurring around them," she said, adding, "All of this has to be taken into consideration in our country. I mean our country is not well right now, [and] we need to get our act together."

Ultimately, however, McCain said she believes the country will overcome its current difficulties.

"I believe in America. I believe so much in this country, and I know John did too," she said. "I believe this pendulum is going to swing back. I don't know when, but I just don't believe that we're going to stick right here on the side that's just disruptive and mean and non-progressive in any way."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


On Air Now
Greg Morgan
Greg Morgan
2:00pm - 7:00pm
The Greatest Hits Of All Time

Hits FM Facebook