iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- In the final weeks of the 2018 midterm campaign, Republican candidates across the country have released ads touting concerns about maintaining protections for people with pre-existing conditions, even as their party and the current administration have moved repeatedly to weaken the anti-pricing-discrimination laws.
In more than 20 competitive districts from California to Iowa to North Carolina, Republicans in tight federal House and Senate races have released new television and digital ad spots that look similar to one from Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio.
"Steve Chabot is fighting to help reduce health care premiums by up to 30 percent and guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions have access to quality care," the advertisement states.
But like many Republicans, Chabot voted repeatedly to roll back the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- at one point co-sponsoring a 2013 bill to repeal the health care law, including protections for people with pre-existing conditions that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on a previous diagnosis.
Chabot also voted in favor of the 2017 American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican bill intended to replace the ACA.
The AHCA failed to pass in the Senate, but would have eliminated premium limits on those with pre-existing conditions set under the ACA, often referred to as "Obamacare."
Though those with pre-existing conditions would not have been denied coverage outright, an analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than 6 million people who fall into that category would likely face higher premiums and surcharges under the Republican plan.
“Republicans have voted consistently to protect those with pre-existing conditions and Democrats saying otherwise are not telling the truth,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Matt Gorman, in a statement to ABC News.
Democrats argue that the claims in the Republicans' ads, including Chabot's ads, are misleading. While the AHCA would have prevented insurers from limiting access to those with pre-existing conditions, the increasing costs could have unintentionally forced many off their plans anyway, health care experts warned.
"Democrats have used facts to aggressively define the terms of the health care debate,” said Molly Mitchell, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Facing the toughest re-elections of their careers, House Republicans have resorted to outright lies about their health care records.”
According to data gathered by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and confirmed by ABC News, the following Republicans in competitive races, Chabot included, all voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and pass the ACHA, but have also, in the final months of their midterm campaigns, released ads targeted to people with pre-existing conditions:
Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.
Rep. John Faso, R-N.Y.
Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio
Rep. George Holding, R-N.C.
Rep. French Hill, R-Ark.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Pa.
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas
Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan.
Rep. David Young, R-Iowa
Several others have made similar claims in interviews and debates, according to ABC News research.
On Chabot’s campaign website, the congressman asserts that “the American people deserve better than Obamacare,” arguing that “costs continue to skyrocket and far too many people are unable to purchase coverage for their families.”
But when his health care issue statement pivots to note that his supported legislation “guaranteed coverage with pre-existing conditions,” it says nothing of the associated projected cost increases.
“The goal of the Republican plan is to bring insurance premiums down,” wrote Chabot in a May 2017 blog post.
In addition to legislation in Congress, the Trump administration, too, has made it easier for insurance companies to discriminate against people based on medical history.
One such action includes a move to extend the sale of short-term insurance policies, specifically limited by the Obama administration. The short-term plans are not subject to the same regulations and requirements as other, longer-term insurance plans, meaning that not only can those with pre-existing conditions be denied access to these plans outright, but by taking people without previous medical diagnoses out of the larger market, those with conditions who need more fulsome insurance will likely see a hike in their rates.
Republicans argue that the changes are acts of deregulation, intended to wrest control of the industry from the federal government's hands and allow for more competition.
“Restoring consumer choice... would provide more affordable alternatives and allow for consumer options in the event individuals in that market develop illnesses,” wrote a group of 35 Republican senators, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., in a letter to Trump Cabinet officials this summer encouraging the change.
Earlier this month, Democratic senators forced a vote to try and stop the administration from expanding the sale of these short-term plans, but the proposition failed in a 50-50 vote along party lines. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote with Democrats on the issue.
According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 82 percent of Americans consider health care to be a top-tier issue for them this election cycle, and by a margin of 53-35, voters say they trust Democrats more on the issue.
The Trump administration also supported several states this year in a lawsuit filed against the federal government claiming that parts of the current Obamacare law are unconstitutional, including, specifically, the protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
Josh Hawley, the current attorney general of Missouri and the state's Republican candidate for Senate, is one of 20 GOP state officials who joined a federal lawsuit earlier this year that could end Obamacare and those protections. Hawley, like many Republican House candidates, has come under considerable attack this month for a last-minute health care ad that shows him with his family.
"Earlier this year we learned that our oldest [son] has a rare chronic disease, a pre-existing condition. We know what that is like," Hawley says in the ad. "I support forcing insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions."
The ad prompted some rebukes when it first aired.
"Republicans have never lacked for chutzpah, which is what it takes to file a lawsuit intended to take away protections for pre-existing conditions, and then run a soft-focus ad about how committed you are to protecting those with pre-existing conditions," Washington Post opinion writer, Paul Waldman, wrote last month.
Hawley, like some other Republicans, has argued that protections for afflicted groups and the continued enforcement of the ACA are not mutually exclusive.
“We don’t have to have Obamacare in order to cover people with pre-existing conditions,” Hawley told reporters as he defended the balancing act on a press call earlier this month. He added he had no regrets about being a part of the lawsuit.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
ABC News(HOUSTON) -- In the midst of a fiery and critical U.S. Senate race in Texas, Republican Senator Ted Cruz and his opponent Democrat Rep. Beto O’Rourke each sat down with ABC News’ Paula Faris ahead of the November midterm election, opening up about presidential ambitions, the politics of immigration and President Donald Trump.
Cruz, who just two years ago was running against Trump for president, deflected questions about his 2016 campaign trail battles with Trump. At different times during that campaign, Cruz called Trump "utterly amoral," "a serial philanderer" and a "pathological liar."
Nor was he inclined to respond to Trump's campaign trail attacks on him.
“Look, I have no interest in revisiting the comments of 2016,” he said -- calling the campaign "bare-knuckle" with "hard shots on all sides."
During the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, Trump attempted to link the father of the Texas senator, Pastor Rafael Cruz, to Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
Faris, who asked Cruz if he would consider Trump a friend or a foe, stopped short of answering the question.
“He's the president," said Cruz. "I work with the president in delivering on our promises.”
'A country to save'
When Faris asked the elder Cruz if he had moved past the president’s insults, he suggested that it was not the time to be dwelling on the past.
“We have a country to save," he said. "We have a state to save. And we need to put away our petty differences and stand shoulder to shoulder.”
Trump -- who has endorsed Cruz’s campaign -- is scheduled to arrive into Houston for the senator’s Monday rally. Cruz, in turn, said he would campaign for the president during his 2020 re-election bid.
When Faris asked if the senator would say unequivocally that he would serve his entire second term, Cruz said “absolutely.”
Cruz has wavered on this point in the past.
With the 2020 presidential race drawing nearer, there was at least one thing opponents O’Rourke and Cruz could agree on.
When asked if he would ever run for president, O’Rourke said no, partly in deference to his family.
“We can't be out on the road for another two years. Nor would I want [to]. Nor do I think that's right,” he said, in reference to his wife and two young kids.
“We've seen the consequence of a junior senator who leaves the state to pursue the presidency -- leaves our priorities. our opportunities, our needs -- behind," O'Rourke said, in a veiled reference to the unsuccessful presidential campaign that Cruz -- Texas's junior senator -- ran in 2016.
"I want to make sure that I'm there -- every single day, for every single one of us.”
ABC NewsWith immigration taking center stage in Texas politics and a caravan of asylum seekers heading for the southern U.S. border with Mexico, Cruz believes law enforcement should intervene.
“If you've got 4,000 people trying to cross illegally at one point, of course we should have the law enforcement resources to stop that," Cruz said. "That's simple, common sense.”
“If things are so desperate -- in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador -- that someone would risk their lives to come here, then what can we do to improve conditions there?”
Early voting in Texas begins on Monday.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- As part of an aggressive campaign swing in the final weeks of the 2018 midterms, Sen. Bernie Sanders will return to the state of Iowa this weekend, looking to boost a Democratic congressional hopeful that is trying to flip the state's most conservative district to blue.
Sanders will campaign on Saturday and Sunday with J.D. Scholten, the Democratic candidate in Iowa's 4th Congressional District against GOP Rep. Steve King, a conservative provocateur and fervent supporter of President Trump known for his hard-line rhetoric and positions on immigration.
The district is the most Republican in the state, according to statistics from the Iowa secretary of state. And despite his penchant for generating controversy, King has only failed to win 60 percent or more of the vote in his district during his nearly 16-year congressional career.
Then-candidate Donald Trump won the district by more than 27 points in the 2016 election, but Scholten, a first-time candidate and former professional baseball player, has significantly out-fundraised King in the final stretch of the campaign, hauling in more than four times the $151,673 King raised in the third quarter of 2018, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
FiveThirtyEight rates the race as "Likely Republican," giving King a seven-in-eight chance to win re-election.
The swing begins in the far western part of the state with a rally in Sioux City, with additional events planned in Fort Dodge and Ames, including a Social Security town hall and an appearance at the Iowa State University homecoming parade, according to Scholten's campaign.
King once again sparked outrage this week by praising a candidate for Toronto mayor, Faith Goldy, who appeared on a podcast produced by a Neo-Nazi website during last year's white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Scholten condemned King's support for Goldy, writing on Twitter, "Once again, Steve King spends more time supporting far-right leaders in other countries than he does focusing on the needs of the people of our district."
The Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper, endorsed Scholten in his challenge to King last week, sharply criticizing the Republican incumbent.
"This one’s a no-brainer for any Iowan who has cringed at eight-term incumbent King’s increasing obsession with being a cultural provocateur," the Register's editorial board wrote, "In his almost 16 years in Congress, King has passed exactly one bill as primary sponsor, redesignating a post office. He won’t debate his opponent and rarely holds public town halls. Instead, he spends his time meeting with fascist leaders in Europe and retweeting neo-Nazis."
GovTrack, a site that tracks the activities of the U.S. Congress, confirms that King has indeed only been the primary sponsor of exactly one piece of legislation: H.R. 2758, which redesignated a post office in Glenwood, Iowa, as the "William J. Scherle Post Office Building."
Sanders' swing sparks 2020 speculation
The trip for Sanders is part of an aggressive, nine-state campaign blitz that the Vermont senator's team announced last week and began on Friday with a campaign rally in Bloomington, Indiana, for congressional candidate Liz Watson.
"It is a diversity of Democrats on the list from some people who are unabashedly progressive to some who are progressive but not totally aligned with Bernie on every issue," Jeff Weaver, Sanders' former presidential campaign manager and current adviser, told ABC News in a phone interview last week.
Sanders is also campaigning in South Carolina on Saturday, and has stops planned in Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and California in the coming weeks, as speculation that he could be mounting another presidential bid in 2020 continues.
But Sanders is not the only 2020 Democratic contender visiting Iowa in the coming days.
California Sen. Kamala Harris is making her first trip to the Hawkeye State early next week, where she will rally with congressional candidate Cindy Axne in the state's 3rd Congressional District and other Democratic hopefuls during her two-day swing.
Harris is set to campaign in the central and eastern parts of the state, including stops in Des Moines, Cedar Falls, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids.
“There is so much on the line this year,” Harris said in a statement released by the Iowa Democratic Party this week. "We have seen how Republicans sow the seeds of hate and division throughout our country over the last two years."
"Now it’s time to hold them accountable, at every level of government -- and Iowans know that better than anyone. I’m excited to be coming to Iowa to make sure everyone uses the most powerful tool we can as Americans -- our votes -- to make real change in Iowa and in our country."
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Ralph Freso/Getty Images(MESA, Ariz.) -- As a caravan of about 3,000 migrants from Central America heads toward the U.S. border, President Donald Trump blamed the Democrats on Friday for the surge in illegal border crossings at a rally in Mesa, Arizona.
“Democrats believe that illegal border crossers should be set free,” Trump said, though he did not identify any Democrats who have said this by name. “Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens.”
Trump was stumping for Republican candidates in the state where security along the U.S.-Mexican border is a critical issue for voters.
“Democrats want to throw your borders wide open to criminals; I wanna build a wall,” Trump said. “The Democrats don’t care that a flood of illegal immigration is going to bankrupt our country.”
Arizona is the second stop on the president’s western swing. On Thursday, Trump stumped for Republicans in Montana. On Saturday, he heads to Elko, Nevada, for another rally.
Trump won Arizona by a little over 3 percentage points in the 2016 general election. Republican Senate candidate Rep. Martha McSally is neck to neck in the polls with her Democratic challenger, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, to fill the seat vacated by Republican Sen. Jeff Flake.
The outcome of the hotly contested race could determine which party controls the Senate. The Republicans currently control the Senate by a two-seat majority.
Even though Sinema has positioned herself as a moderate, Trump called her a “far-left extremist” who would vote along party lines on Friday. He claimed that Sinema is against the border wall and supports sanctuary cities, even though Sinema has called for increased border security, including a physical barrier, but has called the wall “an 18th-century solution.”
“A vote for Kyrsten Sinema is a wasted vote, but more importantly, it's a dangerous vote,” Trump said to the raucous crowd.
Trump did not mention the death of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi.
He did return to attacking Sen. Elizabeth Warren over her Native American ancestry. For the second straight rally -- in a state with the country's second-largest Native American population -- he attacked the Massachusetts senator for taking a DNA test that strongly supported she had an "unadmixed Native American ancestor" in her pedigree from six to 10 generations ago.
“We're gonna have to come up with another name; I can't use the word Pocahontas anymore,” he said. “I have more Indian blood than she has, and I have none.”
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump is wading into California's water wars, demanding speedy action by the federal government to divert much-needed water resources to Republican-leaning farmers in California's central valley — a move sure to infuriate left-leaning environmentalists on the west coast.
Signing a presidential memorandum in Arizona Friday afternoon, the president set into motion a plan that's expected to benefit farmers who have complained about water restrictions intended to protect endangered fish and other species.
“This is a vital action ... to improve access to water in the American West,” President Trump said, signing the memorandum. “They've taken it away, they have so much water and they don't know what to do with it and they send it out to sea.”
Republicans quickly responded, calling the decision a clear win for communities in the West.
Environmentalists argue that diverting water to farmers will decimate endangered Delta smelt and Chinook Salmon. The president’s action Friday will speed up the environmental review and approval process needed to create the infrastructure needed to divert the water.
Earlier this year, as 17 fires ravaged California, Trump falsely claimed that the state government was mismanaging water supplies that should be available to fight the infernos, even though firefighters there said access to water was not a problem.
Environmentalists feared at the time that the president was using the wildfires as a smokescreen for wading into a deeply controversial fight between farmers and conservationists.
The memo Trump signed Friday calls on the Interior Department and Commerce Department to speed up infrastructure projects, including water desalination and recycling, and clarify how to manage water while continuing to follow environmental laws and the Endangered Species Act.
“The big problem was the federal approvals that were un-gettable and now they are very gettable and we're going to have them in a very short period of time,” Trump said.
“This will move things along at a record clip, and you have a lot of water, I hope you enjoy the water that you're going to have ... great for the farmers, great for the people, great for recreation,” Trump said.
The president’s action is sure to anger the local authorities in California, who will see this as federal overreach, but it's also sure to please his political allies in the state with midterms just two-and-a-half weeks away.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Credit: Architect of the Capitol(PHOENIX) -- Arizona was represented by an American war hero for decades, and now the military is playing a role in Arizonans’ search for their next senator as well.
The Senate seat that will be filled by the state’s first female senator come November is not the one left open by the passing of Sen. John McCain, but his military legacy, and the pride that Arizonans put in military service, is clear.
Bumper stickers denoting military branches are a regular sight in Phoenix. Earlier this month, a stall selling flags at the state fair prominently displayed the iconic black-and-white flag dedicated to prisoners of war and those missing in action. Arizona prides itself as the state with the sixth-highest number of active duty Air Force personnel, according to June 2018 figures from the Department of Defense.
Military pride has permeated the Senate campaign between Republican Rep. Martha McSally and Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, and their ties to the military has become an issue for supporters.
McSally was the nation’s first female fighter pilot to serve in combat, and hints of her 26 years of service have trickled in throughout her campaign.
She uses militaristic language in her speeches, likening parts of the campaign to air wars and ground wars, and talking about her current "deployment" in Washington. She wore a silver pendant of an A-10 Warthog plane for the debate on Monday. And most recently, President Donald Trump noted her service in an email that he sent to her supporters ahead of their rally together in Mesa on Friday night.
The military theme extends into the crowd as well, as supporters at a recent rally wore t-shirts with the phrases “fly, fight, win” and “Martha’s wingman.”
At that rally, where she stood alongside former Gov. Mitt Romney on Oct. 12, she said that “part of our culture as veterans” means that “we just run into gunfire, not away from it. We’re the ones that run into the toughest battles.”
She’s now battling Sinema, regularly drawing a contrast between their levels of service by calling it a contest between “a patriot and a protester.”
In that, McSally is referencing Sinema’s time protesting the Iraq War in 2003, before she started her political career. Sinema’s protesting past was the subject of one of the most damning ads of the Arizona election, wherein Sinema is shown protesting in a pink tutu while McSally is pictured in her Air Force uniform.
To leave the comparison at that, however, would be misleading.
Sinema has personal ties to the military as well, as one of her brothers is a Marine and another is a sailor. She also has made veteran’s affairs issues a focus of her work in Congress, and was one of the leaders calling for reform at the VA in the spring of 2014 after news broke of misconduct at the Phoenix VA — it had happened before McSally was in Congress.
Where voters stand will be determined on election day, when exit polls will show which voters listed the military as their top priority and which candidate gets their vote.
For Chris Brant, a McSally supporter, he has a personal connection to the A-10 Warthog, a plane that McSally flew while in uniform and allocated appropriations funds for while in Congress.
Brant is originally British, a veteran of the Royal Marines, and became a U.S. citizen in 1983.
“The A-10 came in and rescued wounded Royal Marines in Afghanistan,” Brant said, while wearing a green Royal Marines beret and a red McSally t-shirt at the rally with Romney.
Brant’s niece, Adrenne Kelley, 37, accompanied him to the event and also cited McSally’s “honorable service” as a selling point. Kelley’s spouse is a U.S. Marine.
Vermelle Bibler, a 76-year-old McSally supporter, identified herself as a Gold Star widow who appreciates McSally’s service.
"I always lean toward somebody in the military plus I like her better than Kyrsten Sinema," Bibler said.
That said, the appreciation of McSally’s service extends across party lines.
"I support the fact she was a military person, and the fact that I'm proud of her that she's a woman. However, that's where my support ends," Bernie Williams, a Democrat protesting the McSally-Romney rally, told ABC News. "However, that’s where my support ends.”
Gregg Gordon, 71, is a disabled veteran who was injured while fighting in the Vietnam War. He and his wife, Linda, opened the doors to their home to volunteers who used their home as a base of operations for a door-knocking event for Arizona Democrats on Sunday, Oct. 14.
He said that his support for Sinema stems from his respect for her work in addressing the crisis at the Phoenix Veteran’s Affairs Office in 2014. He worked there at the time and remembers seeing Sinema and McCain visit the VA to make sure the issue was addressed.
“They cared about veterans and what happened,” Gordon said.
Caleb Hayter, 28, is a member of a group called Veterans for Sinema. An Afghanistan veteran and a current Congressional constituent of McSally’s, he said that he respects McSally but is going to be voting for her opponent.
“I’m not begrudging Congresswoman McSally’s service and I think she has every right to talk about her service. I appreciate her service," Hayter said. "However, what I’m looking at this November is two different ideas of what service should be as a U.S. senator. I think that if a person is going to serve in politics as an elected official, then they have to put the interests of their constituents first.”
He added, “Because of her record and her ideology I wouldn’t trust her to put the interests of veterans ahead of the interests of her fellow ideologues and her campaign donors."
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Roman Babakin/iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Federal authorities have charged a Russian woman for allegedly taking part in a Russian plot to influence public opinion over the upcoming 2018 midterms elections and other politically-charged events inside the United States, the Justice Department announced Friday.
“The strategic goal of this alleged conspiracy, which continues to this day, is to sow discord in the U.S. political system and to undermine faith in our democratic institutions,” the U.S. attorney overseeing the case, Zach Terwilliger of the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement.
According to prosecutors, 44-year-old Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova of St. Petersburg, Russia, served as the chief accountant of a $35 million effort to conduct “information warfare” against the United States and elsewhere using social media and other online sites.
Operating under an umbrella organization called “Project Lakhta,” Khusyaynova and her alleged conspirators used fake identities online to pretend to be “ordinary American political activists,” prosecutors said.
Their postings did not exclusively reflect one ideological viewpoint, and the operatives were directed to create “political intensity through supporting radical groups” and to “aggravate the conflict between minorities and the rest of the population,” the Justice Department said.
They allegedly focused on such topics as immigration, gun control and the Second Amendment, the Confederate flag, race relations, LGBT issues, the Women’s March, and the NFL national anthem debate.
And, according to the Justice Department, they “took advantage of specific events in the United States to anchor their themes,” including the racially-motivated shooting at a Charleston, South Carolina, church three years ago that left nine people dead, and the Charlottesville ‘Unite the Right’ rally last year that left one woman dead.
Project Lakhta is allegedly funded by Russian oligarch and associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, and two companies he controls. Those companies have been indicted in a separate case by special counsel Robert Mueller for allegedly taking part in the massive Russian campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. They have pleaded not guilty to the charge against them and are fighting the case in court.
In his own statement, FBI Director Chris Wray said the case “serves as a stark reminder to all Americans: Our foreign adversaries continue their efforts to interfere in our democracy … [and] we must remain diligent and determined to protect our democratic institutions and maintain trust in our electoral process.”
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
ChrisBoswell/iStock/Thinkstock(BISMARCK, N.D.) -- Courtney Yellow Fat, a tribal council member for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, has lived on a reservation for most of his life – a community which historically hasn't used street names or addresses and instead relies on post office boxes.
So, a few years back when he made the 90-minute trek to the state capital of Bismarck to the department of motor vehicles for an updated license, he felt he had no choice but to make up one on the spot.
"Sitting Bull Street, I think," he said of the street address he gave for his state-issued driver's license.
His tribal issued ID is correct because he has since gotten an actual street address listed for 911 purposes and he plans to add that address to his driver's license.
Still, it's a complicated matter for thousands of Native American voters in North Dakota who, because the Supreme Court last week allowed the state to implement its strict voter ID law, now find themselves scurrying to make sure they have identification with street address so their votes will count. According to studies commissioned by Native American rights groups who sued North Dakota over the new law, roughly 35 percent of that population doesn't have an acceptable ID with a residential address.
Nevertheless, Yellow Fat and other tribal leaders are optimistic that the ruling will galvanize Native American voter turnout.
"I believe and I hope it's going to have the opposite effect of suppression because the people here are so used to fighting uphill battles against the U.S. government," he said.
The question of whether Native American votes will be counted is an especially relevant one in the upcoming midterms because, in less than three weeks, Yellow Fat and Native Americans across North Dakota will be among the nation’s most important groups in an election likely to help determine Senate control.
North Dakota’s voters are the most powerful in the country, according to FiveThirtyEight’s voter power index. A vote in North Dakota has more influence on which party will control the Senate majority than a vote in any other state, a point not lost on Yellow Fat.
“After the election of Sen. Heitkamp is when a lot of this came up through the legislature. And to us it’s clearly suppression of our votes,” Yellow Fat said.
The ability to have those Native American voters' ballots count is especially important for Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's re-election bid.
She won her first election in 2012 by fewer than 3,000 votes thanks in part to Native American voters who cast their ballots under less restrictive voting laws. The court decision makes her already tough reelection bid against popular Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer even harder than it already has been.
Native Americans comprise two percent of the national population, but make up a larger share of North Dakota’s population at just over five percent. The state is also home to five reservations, which often vote in large numbers for Democrats and serve as a chunk of the state Democratic Party’s base.
Secretary of State Al Jaeger, the defendant in the voter ID lawsuit, told ABC News voter suppression is not the intent of his office or the voter ID law.
“I can look you straight in the eye and I will tell you that nothing has ever happened in this office to target anybody. That's not what I was elected to do,” Jaeger said. “I took an oath of office to follow the laws of the state of North Dakota and I try my best every day to do that.”
Jaeger said his office is entirely focused on making voting accessible to anyone who wants to do so.
“I don't have time to try to figure out how to disenfranchise anybody in the state of North Dakota because all of our efforts to make sure that anyone who wants to vote will be able to vote.”
Heitkamp countered Jaeger’s view in an interview with ABC News after Thursday night’s Senate debate. She said the law by its nature blatantly disenfranchises Native Americans by requiring a residential street address.
“Why would we ever disenfranchise a Native American veteran who only has a P.O. box that everybody knows when they walk into the polling booth, they know exactly who that person is, they know that they're a North Dakota resident. That's why we don't have registration in North Dakota because we don't have this problem and anyone who says this isn't about disenfranchising Native Americans is not being honest,” the senator said.
Jaeger said that the P.O. box requirement was meant for the state to verify that voters who live in a given precinct get a ballot specific to where they live and that votes are not supposed to be cast by people who do not actually live in the precinct.
“It becomes very difficult if somebody just comes in with a P.O. box because we have no way of knowing which ballot that they should receive,” Jaeger said, giving examples of how election issues vary in different towns across the state. “Voting is tied to a residential address, and so there's a lot of different ballots.”
Although a lower court sided with the Native Americans before the state’s June primary, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have both ruled in recent weeks that the state can move ahead with its law for its stated purpose, namely combatting voter fraud.
Voter fraud, however, has been virtually nonexistent in North Dakota, with the Secretary of State’s office saying that the number of fraudulent voter cases found have been in the single digits in both the 2012 and 2016 elections.
Jaeger, however, said that the numbers do not mean they can rule out the existence of voter fraud, citing voters in 2016 who voted without IDs and were unable to be matched by his office, in the weeks after the election, back to a home address they’d written down when they voted.
“Their ballot was counted and we can't find them anymore. From my position that's a concern. Because that means the integrity of the election may have been compromised,” Jaeger said.
The first effort at a voter ID law in North Dakota passed in 2013, within a few months of Heitkamp’s victory. A court win by tribal members prevented the law from taking effect for the 2016 election.
Last year, the Republican legislature worked with the secretary of state’s office on a new bill. The bill allowed voters without an ID showing a residential address to vote, but would only count their vote if they could prove their address to election officials within six days of the election.
Tribal activists submitted to the state legislature statistics detailing Native Americans’ difficulty in getting an acceptable ID.
The bill passed with overwhelming support from the Republican majority.
Court documents indicate the state did not consult with tribal governments about the impact of the bill on Native Americans, even after tribal members won their 2016 case.
Activists have accused Republican legislators and state election officials of erecting barriers to voting for the state’s mostly Democratic Native American population. North Dakota’s two majority-Native American counties both supported Heidi Heitkamp with nearly 80 percent of the vote when she first ran in 2012.
In a statement this week, the leaders of the four largest tribes in North Dakota opposed the law, calling it “suppressive” and accused the state of attempting to disenfranchise Native American voters.
“We believe the requirement of a physical, residential property with a street address was intended to disenfranchise Native American voters. To combat the disenfranchisement of our members, we intend to ensure that our members that lack residential street addresses can obtain them so that they may exercise their right to vote,” the statement read.
“We encourage all tribal people to come out to vote on November 6th even if you do not have a qualifying ID,” the statement added. “We will not be silenced by the blatant attempts to rob our people of our voice.”
Heitkamp and Cramer both addressed the voter ID ruling in their debate Thursday night.
Heitkamp accused the state legislature of deciding that “there are certain people in North Dakota that they don’t want to vote,” and that the law countered the state’s values, expressing hope that votes from Native Americans will count.
Cramer said North Dakota, as the only state without voter registration, needs to make sure voters demonstrate they live where they say they do and noted that “the integrity of the ballot box is very precious.”
Jaeger said it should be up to the tribes to provide proper qualifying identification to citizens on the reservation who have not sought them.
“I certainly hope that the appropriate authorities will see that their people have that since it’s so essential for everything that’s done.”
In an interview with ABC News, Mike Faith, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said he expected people to see the court ruling as a challenge that will drive people to come to the polls.
“With this ruling, I think it actually energized more people to go out. They want to be challenged for not voting, I think they’re going to go meet that challenge and I think they’re going to get out to the polls. That is our outlook,” Faith said.
But others on the reservation are wary.
Bill Left Hand, who has lived on the reservation most of his life with his five children — and now their children, said he is concerned people may not be able to vote because of the address requirement.
But he expressed approval for the tribe’s efforts to increase awareness about the new law.
“Standing Rock tribe is making every effort they can to inform the people of that and I’m also encouraging a lot of people to get out and get their address updated and to come and vote because that’s what we need, our voices to be heard most of all,” he said.
Faith and other tribal leaders in North Dakota are coordinating ahead of election day to ensure that Native Americans on the state’s five reservations will be able to vote. Four Directions, a Native American voting rights advocacy group, has put forward a proposal agreed to by tribal leaders to help residents secure acceptable forms of ID to present at the polls.
“As long as you provide a name and you’ll be at a physical residence, [the state] will honor a tribal letterhead as an ID for that person to vote,” said OJ Semans, Four Directions’ executive director. “We’re working with the tribes getting tribal officials to be at polling places or setting up an office near the polling places so people can get a tribal letterhead, get their IDs and go vote.”
Semans says his message for the state and people outside North Dakota is that the tribes will vote.
“It’s real simple. At the end, you tell them — Standing Rock will vote. Spirit Lake will vote. Turtle Mountain will vote. Sisseton-Wahpeton will vote. All of the tribes are united in ensuring that our tribal members are able to participate in this democratic process.”
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images(SMITHTOWN, N.Y.) -- Federal authorities have arrested a New York man for allegedly threatening to attack two U.S. senators over their support for Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was almost derailed by an allegation he sexually assaulted a woman three decades ago while they were in high school.
74-year-old Ronald Derisi of Smithtown, Long Island, was arrested Friday morning on charges of threatening a federal official, according to court records.
Prosecutors allege that on the same day Kavanaugh and his accuser testified in separate sessions to a Senate panel, Derisi left two threatening voicemails at offices associated with a lawmaker only identified in charging documents as "Senator 1."
In one of the messages, he allegedly expressed his opposition to Kavanaugh and said he had a "present" for the senator: "It's a nine millimeter."
Then, after the U.S. Senate voted along largely along partisan lines to confirm Kavanaugh, Derisi left 10 voicemails for a second unidentified senator.
"Maybe you should go back to [your home state],” he allegedly said in a message on Oct. 7. “We'll be in touch soon, see ya soon, see ya soon."
The investigation was led by the U.S. Capitol Police.
“Representative democracy cannot work if elected officials are threatened with death for simply doing their job,” the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Donoghue, said in a statement. “The First Amendment - the pinnacle of American achievement - protects debate, disagreement and dissent, not death threats.”
According to U.S. Capitol Police, Derisi was previously arrested for leaving threatening voicemails at an unidentified victim’s home and office three years ago. He pleaded guilty to local charges in the case.
Friday's development comes after a threatening letter that the writer claimed was contaminated with ricin was sent to the Bangor, Maine, residence of GOP Sen. Susan Collins early Monday afternoon, the senator's communications director, Annie Clark said. Collins' husband reportedly later said the letter mentioned her vote in favor of Kavanaugh.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
3drenderings/iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Paul Manafort, the onetime Trump campaign chairman, arrived in court on Friday for a hearing about his sentencing date in a wheelchair.
Manafort is currently in detention in an Alexandria, Virginia jail awaiting sentencing on a host of charges brought by Mueller’s prosecutors in two separate jurisdictions as part of his investigation into Russian meddling during the 2016 campaign.
Manafort’s defense attorney, Kevin Downing, told the judge that Manafort’s health has suffered as a result of his incarceration.
“We do think there are significant concerns with Mr. Manafort’s health and much of that has to do with the terms of Mr. Manafort’s confinement,” Downing said. It was not immediately clear what ailment Manafort has suffered.
He will be sentenced for on February 8, 2019 for various financial crimes after a jury found him guilty in August. He is still awaiting sentencing on the two separate counts of conspiracy to which he plead guilty in September.
After a grueling two-week trial in Virginia this August in which Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts for financial crimes related to his unregistered lobbying work in Ukraine, Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining ten counts when the jury determined it was hopelessly deadlocked.
With another trial on separate charges against Manafort looming in Washington, D.C., the judge granted a request from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team for more time to decide whether to retry or dismiss the remaining charges in Virginia. But then the case took a twist.
Legal teams for Mueller and Manafort announced that they had negotiated a plea agreement in which Manafort would plead guilty to two of the charges against him in Washington, D.C. as well as the remaining ten charges from the first trial in Virginia. Prosecutors, the agreement notes, could eventually argue for the dismissal of the Virginia charges depending on the level of his cooperation in ongoing investigations.
A joint status report with regard to sentencing in the D.C. case is due November 16.
Judge Ellis was not inclined to give prosecutors an additional extension to decide whether to refile the ten counts that jury deadlocked on in his courtroom. He wrote in a filing earlier this month that both the prosecution and defense appeared to anticipate that Manafort's sentencing would "be deferred until cooperation was complete." Ellis took exception to the sentencing timeline, calling that part of the agreement “highly unusual” in a recent court filing.
“In this District, the government’s decision to retry a defendant on deadlocked counts is always made in a timely manner and sentencing occurs within two to no more than four months from entry of a guilty plea or receipt of a jury verdict,” the judge wrote. “This case appears to be no different from any other case in which the defendant is cooperating and that cooperation is expected to extend beyond a scheduled sentencing date.”
It wasn’t the first time he had locked horns with Mueller’s team. From the time he took on the special counsel's financial crimes case against Manafort, Ellis has repeatedly jousted with prosecutors and questioned their motives for bringing the case against President Trump's former campaign manager. At one pre-trial hearing, the 78-year old jurist said the real reason for the dogged pursuit of crimes dating back more than a decade was to get Manafort "to sing,” divulging anything he might know about the President.
During the trial, Ellis regularly pushed prosecutors to "expedite" their case, to drop items he thought irrelevant, and to dramatically curtail the use of pictures and exhibits illustrating Manafort’s lavish lifestyle, telling jurors, "We don't prosecute people because they have a lot of money and throw it around." The judge in Manafort's D.C. case had also said she planned to limit this type of evidence in the D.C. trial.
Ellis launched barbs at the prosecution, and at one point — in a rare admission — instructed jurors during the trial to put aside his own remarks from the day before saying that he was “probably wrong."
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
ByoungJoo/iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- The United States and South Korea said Friday they have decided to suspend another joint military exercise to give more breathing room for ongoing denuclearization talks with North Korea.
The Pentagon announced Defense Secretary James Mattis and South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo had agreed to put off this year's version of Vigilant Ace, a large-scale air exercise slated for December.
"Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis and Minister of National Defense Jeong Kyeong-doo decided to suspend Exercise VIGILANT ACE to give the diplomatic process every opportunity to continue," said Dana White, the chief Pentagon spokesperson.
"Both ministers are committed to modifying training exercises to ensure the readiness of our forces," she added.
Both Mattis and Jeong had met earlier Friday in Singapore on the sidelines of the ASEAN security meeting.
Last year's version of the annual Vigilant Air exercise included the participation of 230 aircraft and more than 12,000 personnel. Some of the United States Air Force's most sophisticated aircraft participated in the exercise, including the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters.
Occurring just days after North Korea's successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the east coast of the United States, North Korea blasted the exercise as being a provocation.
The suspension of this year's Vigilant Air exercise marks the second time that the U.S. and South Korea have agreed to put off an annual large-scale military exercise in the wake of the Trump-Kim summit in Singapore this past June.
Trump's pledge to stop 'war games' with South Korea throws critical exercises into question
A month after that summit, the United States and South Korea announced they would suspend the large Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise scheduled for August.
Mattis has said the "good faith effort" of suspending that exercise was not open-ended and that he wanted to wait and see how future negotiations with North Korea progress before making a decision about future large-scale exercises, particularly the Foal Eagle exercise scheduled for the spring.
In September, Mattis said there had suspension of previous exercises had had a "negligible" effect on the readiness of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.
White said on Friday that Mattis and Jeong "pledged to maintain close coordination and evaluate future exercises."
Mattis consulted Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya ahead of the joint U.S. and South Korean announcement. White said "they reaffirmed their commitment to regional security."
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call(BISMARK, N.D.) -- The first debate in a Senate race that could shape up to be one of the most critical in the country was largely an argument over which candidate would be less beholden to politics and stand up more for the people of North Dakota.
“I ran six years ago and I said, ‘I’m not joining any team.’ I’m not 100 percent with anyone other than North Dakota,” said Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in the debate against her Republican challenger Rep. Kevin Cramer.
But Cramer sought to paint a different picture, calling Heitkamp’s bipartisanship an “illusion.”
“Donald Trump stands with North Dakota more often than Heidi Keitkamp stands with North Dakota,” he said during the debate, which aired across the state Thursday night.
Heitkamp is a Democrat running for re-election in a state President Donald Trump won handily in 2016. It is forcing the senator to maintain a tough balance, and recent public polling shows Heitkamp behind Cramer by double digits -- a fact she likes to say was also reported when she won in 2012 by only about 3,000 votes.
Because Democrats need to not only defend 10 seats in states Trump won in 2016, but also pick up two seats in reliably Republican states in order to take control of the chamber, Heitkamp’s seat is key.
According to FiveThirtyEight’s voter power index, North Dakota’s voters are the most powerful in the country.
And in order to come out victorious, Heitkamp will have to win over voters on both sides of the aisle and go up against the Trump-endorsed Cramer, who benefits from the president’s popularity in the state.
“When one team is so much better for North Dakota than the other team, you don’t abandon the good team half the time just to say you’re only with ‘em half the time,” Cramer said, knocking Heitkamp’s work across the aisle.
“[Trump’s] on the right side of North Dakota, that’s what matters,” he said.
Speaking after the debate, Heitkamp called the strategy “ridiculous.”
“When you look at my history and my record with the president, I’ve attended many signing ceremonies, worked with the administration. He knows that,” said Heitkamp, who votes in line with Trump around 54 percent of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker.
“And so, you know, I think people see through that,” she added.
Heitkamp hammered her moderate voting record in the debate, shedding light on her bipartisan accomplishments and diverting Cramer’s attempts to pair a vote for him with support for the president.
“I think it’s interesting that Congressman Cramer talks about President Trump. Why not talk about what you’ve done, why not talk about your accomplishments, why not about your bipartisan credibility?” asked Heitkamp.
“Because when you look at rankings, no matter what he says, I’m 50th-most conservative and 49th-most liberal,” Heitkamp said.
She compared moderates in the Senate to “connective tissue in between that stops gridlock” and said they are the ones “trying to get things done and do get things done.”
But Cramer called it a “tricky game.”
“This is the thing, she's with them when we don't need her. She's never been with them when we needed the vote. And that's the problem,” he said in an interview after the debate.
The #MeToo movement has also played a role in each of the two candidates’ campaigns, and Cramer was quick to hit Heitkamp for voting "no" on Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“You vote against Brett Kavanaugh when 64 percent of your constituents want you to vote for Brett Kavanaugh?” he asked rhetorically in an interview after the debate.
He also called out Heitkamp for running an advertisement that inadvertently outed women who were victims of sexual assault, which she opened the debate by apologizing for.
“I just thought it was really important to begin, to just say, ‘I'm sorry,’” Heitkamp said of the decision to use her opening statement to apologize.
Asked if the mistake might lose her votes with Independent women, a key bloc of support in the state, Heitkamp said it wasn’t about votes.
“This really for me isn't about the election. This is about, ‘I made a bad mistake, my campaign made a bad mistake, and I need to own it, and I need to do everything possible to fix it,” she said.
“So that's not about getting votes or losing votes. That's about making amends,” she added.
But while Cramer criticized the intent of the ad as a play toward “identity politics,” he also addressed his own comments over the #MeToo movement that landed him in hot water recently. In comments to The New York Times, he said the women in his family “cannot understand this movement toward victimization” because they are “tough.”
Heitkamp responded tearfully, when first asked about Cramer’s comments in early October, and said her own mother, a victim of sexual assault, was no less tough because of it.
“We say all politics is local, I think all politics is personal,” Heitkamp said after the debate Thursday. “In North Dakota, what they want is they want someone who has integrity, they want someone who knows how to talk to people and knows the opportunities that we should be pursuing for the state.”
Cramer, speaking separately, pointed to a different quality he thinks voters appreciate -- and defended his comments to The New York Times.
“What I think North Dakotans like is they like common sense,” he said.
“And when a movement becomes so extreme that it's now hurting the very cause and the people that it states that it's helping, North Dakotans see through that quickly. And when you call it out, in Washington they think it's a gaffe. Here they think it's somebody talking to them,” Cramer said.
Both Heitkamp and Cramer also described health care and tariffs as key issues for voters in the state. Heitkamp is aiming to preserve the Affordable Care Act while Cramer wants to replace it, and Heitkamp is against Trump’s tariffs while Cramer supports the president’s efforts.
“Tariffs are a key issue in the media, and they are a key issue certainly to the people directly affected, but even most of them, soybean farmers, as an example, strongly support Donald Trump,” Cramer said.
“I used to say I’m the chief bitcher about these tariffs because they are so wrong for North Dakota,” Heitkamp said in contrast. “These tariffs are going to decimate a very critical and important market for one of our most important cash crops: soybeans.”
Over the summer, the Trump administration announced tariffs of 10 percent on more than $200 billion of imported Chinese goods. The response from China hit Trump country specifically, with tariffs on billions of dollars of American products, including soybeans.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Outgoing U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley poked fun at President Donald Trump, his longtime rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other high-profile politicians in a lighthearted speech on Thursday.
Haley showed off her aptitude for keeping a secret last week with a shocking resignation announcement, but she displayed a brand new talent during her speech in New York City on Thursday as she assumed the role of a comedian for the night.
"Two years ago Trump was here and made some waves with his remarks, so last year you went with Paul Ryan, who’s a Boy Scout and that’s fine, but a little boring. So this year, you wanted to spice things up again,” she quipped after being introduced as the “next president of the United States.”
Haley kept the crowd entertained during her keynote speech at the Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a fundraiser for impoverished children, and she even touched on the president’s ongoing feud with Warren, D-Mass., over the senator's Native American ancestry.
“I get it, you wanted an Indian woman, but Elizabeth Warren failed her DNA test,” joked Haley, whose parents emigrated from Punjab, India. “Actually, when the president found out that I was Indian American, he asked me if I was from the same tribe as Elizabeth Warren.”
Haley, who will keep her post at the U.N. until the end of the year, acknowledged that she had tough shoes to fill as keynote speaker, an honor most-recently bestowed to House Speaker Ryan, Trump and Hillary Clinton.
“I really am super excited to be at the Al Smith Dinner. As a member of the Trump Cabinet, it is a thrill to be out to dinner without being harassed,” Haley said. "Actually the president called me this morning and gave me some really good advice.
“He said if I get stuck for laughs, just brag about his accomplishments. It really killed at the U.N., I got to tell you." she added, referring to an incident at the U.N. General Assembly last month when audience members laughed after Trump said his “administration has accomplished more than almost any in the history of our country.”
Haley also made light of her role as America’s ambassador in a joke about “the most important thing” she learned working under Trump.
“I learned that the U.N. has 193 member nations, 180 of which are mad at us on any given day, and the most important thing I learned is that with all of our differences there is still one thing that unites all 193 countries: At one point every single one of them was paying Paul Manafort,” she said, referring to Trump’s former campaign chairman, who was convicted on federal money laundering charges.
The former South Carolina governor also delivered punchlines about rapper Kanye West and Trump’s embattled attorney general, Jeff Sessions.
"Jeff Sessions wanted to be here but he recused himself," she said. "Actually I saw Jeff Sessions earlier today, but not in New York, I saw him on LinkedIn looking for a job."
The Al Smith Dinner, a white-tie gala featuring prominent politicians, was one of Haley’s first appearances since announcing her resignation in an Oval Office meeting with the president Oct. 9.
“She’s done a fantastic job and we’ve done a fantastic job together,” Trump during the meeting. “We’re all happy for you in one way, but we hate to lose you.”
Haley said her working with the U.N. was an “honor of a lifetime" and said she would continue to support Trump as “a private citizen.”
"I expect to continue to speak out from time to time on important public policy matters, but I will surely not be a candidate for any office in 2020,” she said following her announcement. “As a private citizen, I look forward to supporting your re-election as president and supporting the policies that will continue to move our great country toward even greater heights."
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
ABCNews.com(WASHINGTON) -- President Trump on Friday said he had no regret for making light of Rep. Greg Gianforte's physical assault on a reporter at a Montana rally Thursday night.
"No, that was a different league, a different world," Trump said on Friday when asked whether he regretted Thursday's comments -- made amid outrage he's expressed over the alleged murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"That was a tremendous success last night in Montana and Greg is a great person, he’s a tough cookie, and I’ll stay with that," Trump said, again offering praise for the congressman who body-slammed a reporter last year as he campaigned during a special election for Montana's at-large congressional seat. The incident was caught on audiotape. Gianforte went on to win the election and is now up for reelection.
"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" Trump said to cheers Thursday night.
"I was in Rome with leaders when I heard about it, and I heard that he body-slammed a reporter," Trump said.
Trump said he was afraid Gianforte would lose after the moment, but then recalled, "Wait a moment, I know Montana."
Gianforte pleaded guilty and was sentenced to community service for the incident. He apologized on the night of his election victory, saying, "When you make a mistake you have to own it."
For Trump, the Montana Senate race is personal.
Trump came to Montana on the attack against Tester, a two-term Democratic senator, who is in a close race against Matt Rosendale, the current state auditor.
The president has made it his mission to unseat Tester, whose office publically released information about alleged misconduct that led to White House physician Adm. Ronny Jackson’s failed nomination to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jackson denied allegations of misconduct and that he overprescribed medications, but eventually withdrew his name from consideration. Trump never forgot.
“That’s really why I’m here,” Trump said. “I can never forget what Jon Tester did to a man of the highest quality. It was vicious.”
The president spoke at length about immigration and falsely said that Democrats are supporting a caravan of immigrants traveling up from Central America.
“They wanted that caravan and there are those who say that caravan didn’t just happen, it didn’t just happen. A lot of reasons that caravan -- 4,000 people -- but I just want to thank the Mexican government because they’re stopping it hopefully before it ever gets to Mexico,” Trump said.
“As you know, I’m willing to send the military to defend our Southern border if necessary all because of the illegal immigration onslaught brought by the Democrats because they refuse to acknowledge or to change the laws -- they like it,” Trump said.
Trump said that the midterm elections will be “an election of Kavanaugh, the caravan, law and order and common sense -- that’s what it’s going to be.”
At times, the president veered off script, talking about the first lady’s trip to Africa and controversy over her pith hat (“I think she bought it in Los Angeles!”) and fake allegations he wears a toupee (“He wears a hair piece”).
But then he would swerve back on course to talking about Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test in a state home to many Indian reservations: “It’s too bad because I can’t call her Pocahontas anymore.”
While Trump comfortably won the Big Sky state by 20 points, Tester, a moderate Democrat, maintains a slight lead in what has become one of the most expensive political contests in the small state’s history as millions of dollars have poured into Montana. It’s the president’s third trip to Montana, and Tester is only a few points ahead of Rosendale in recent polls.
Tester has touted a bipartisan record in the Senate, even publishing a full-page newspaper ad at the beginning of the summer thanking the president for signing 16 of his bills into law on everything from government waste to veterans affairs.
“We can’t let Jon Tester and the radical liberal agenda win, they’ll go after President Trump,” Rosendale said.
While the president’s ire toward Tester is rooted in Jackson, many of the voters ABC News spoke with before the rally began didn't seem to know his name.
“I really don’t have any thoughts about him,” Jeffrey Stenger from Polson, Montana, told ABC News.
His wife Lynn jumped in, to remind him he was the White House physician who “got in a spat with Tester.”
“He has a good instinct of reading people, even in the beginning of the election he called people out and said the truth. So far, he hasn’t lied to me,” Stenger said.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump told reporters Thursday that he is concerned Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi might be dead.
"It certainly looks that way to me," Trump said as he departed from Joint Base Andrews. "It's very sad. Certainly looks that way."
While U.S. officials are awaiting the results of three investigations, the president said he feels confident "we should be able to get to the bottom fairly soon." He added that he would consider "severe" consequences if oil-rich ally Saudi Arabia was involved.
Vice President Mike Pence went a step further during a stop in Denver earlier in the day and vowed: "the world deserves answers."
"If what has been alleged has occurred. If an innocent person lost their life at the hands of violence, that's to be condemned," Pence said. "If a journalist, in particular, lost their life at the hands of violence, that's an affront to a free and independent press around the world. And there will be consequences. But we'll wait for the facts, we'll wait for all the information to come in."
The comments from the president and vice president were some of the strongest from the pair to date in the wake of mounting questions over the journalist's fate. It also adds to the drumbeat of American politicians and business leaders demanding answers and, in the meantime, withdrawing support from Saudi-sponsored functions.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took to Twitter Thursday to announce his withdrawal from a Saudi-hosted, major investment forum called the Future Investment Initiative, sometimes referred to as "Davos in the Desert". He said he made the decision after speaking with President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Several business leaders and media companies have also pulled out of the event over concerns about the Khashoggi episode, including Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, Viacom CEO Bob Bakish, Virgin and its CEO Richard Branson, venture capitalist and AOL co-founder Steve Case, LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, Bloomberg Media, and CNN, among others.
Earlier in the day, Pompeo said he told President Trump that the Saudis should have “a few more days” to complete their investigation into Khashoggi’s disappearance.
“We made clear to them that we take this matter with respect to Mr. Khashoggi very seriously,” Pompeo said following his nearly hour-long briefing with the president. “They made clear to me they too understand the serious nature of the disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi. They also assured me that they will conduct a complete, thorough investigation of all of the facts surrounding Mr. Khashoggi and they will do so in a timely fashion and that this report itself will be transparent for everyone to see, to ask questions about, and to inquire with respect to its thoroughness.”
Trump echoed Pompeo's comments shortly after, tweeting that the secretary of state met with him Thursday morning and discussed in "great detail" the investigation and meeting with the crown prince.
Pompeo again stressed several times in his statement the “long strategic relationship” the U.S. shares with Saudi Arabia and their status as an “important counter-terrorism supporter.”
He said between the Turkish and Saudi investigations they expect “a complete picture will emerge for what actually transpired here.”
Pressed why the Saudis should be entrusted with an investigation into themselves, Pompeo said: “We’re all going to get to see the work product.”
“We're all going to get to see the response the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes with this,” Pompeo said. “All of us will get a chance to make the determination... whether it's fair and transparent in the way they made a personal commitment to me and the Crown Prince made a personal commitment to the president when he spoke to him the night before last.”
Pompeo's comments also come amid ongoing speculation that Turkey may have audio tapes that reveal what happened to Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and royal insider who has been missing for over two weeks after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Pompeo met with Turkish President Erdogan and Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu Wednesday but refused to express any doubt or skepticism about the legitimacy of a Saudi investigation into Khashoggi’s disappearance.
Following that meeting, Trump stressed that his earlier comments about Saudi Arabia's denials of any involvement in Khashoggi's disappearance were not an attempt to give the oil-rich ally cover.
“No not at all, I just want to find out what's happening,” Trump told reporters.
Khashoggi, who had been living in the U.S., visited the consulate to file paperwork for his wedding and has not been seen since. Turkish officials allege Khashoggi, who has written critically about the Saudi government, was killed, which the Saudis have fiercely denied.
Turkish officials say that a hit squad of 15 Saudis flew to Istanbul for just hours surrounding Khashoggi’s disappearance, and they reportedly claim to have audio recordings of Khashoggi being interrogated and murdered.
Trump told reporters Wednesday the U.S. has asked for the recordings “if it exists.”
“We don't know if it exists yet. We'll have a full report when Mike [Pompeo] comes back, that's going to be one of the first questions I ask him,” he said in the Oval Office.
In his first sit-down interview with U.S. media, a close friend of Khashoggi's described to ABC News what he'd been told in briefings by Turkish security officials.
"I talked with some Turkish government and security officials and they said Jamal was killed. I didn't know what to do. I really couldn't answer. Then I called a few colleagues, again security officials, trying to have them verify it, saying 'Is this really true?'" Turan Kislakci said Wednesday. "They said, 'Yes, Turan, and let's tell you even beyond that, he was killed in a very barbaric way.' I was shocked. They not only kill him in the consulate, but also in a barbaric way."
Khashoggi warned of increasing efforts to silence the media in the Middle East in a column he wrote just before he vanished earlier this month. The "final column" was published online Wednesday.
Karen Attiah, global opinions editor for The Washington Post, wrote that Khashoggi’s translator sent the article a day after the journalist disappeared while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2.
Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.