ABC News Radio

artpipi/iStockBy SOO RIN KIM, ABC News

(WASHINGTON) -- As lawmakers and investigators dig into the roots of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the question of who funded one of the galvanizing forces behind pro-Trump efforts to challenge election results remains shrouded in mystery.

The nationwide "Stop the Steal" movement represented one of the most vocal efforts to contest the outcome of the 2020 election. The name, coined in 2016 by Donald Trump's longtime political adviser, Roger Stone, resurfaced during the 2020 race in a new effort led by far-right activist Ali Alexander, who is now the self-proclaimed national organizer of the "Stop the Steal" movement.

Multiple public and private entities -- affiliated and unaffiliated with Alexander -- championed "Stop the Steal," and there were hundreds of "Stop the Steal" events in the weeks following the election, leading up to the Jan. 6 rally in Washington that preceded the attack on the Capitol.

Some of those who bankrolled the post-2020 election challenges are known. MyPillow CEO and avid Trump supporter Mike Lindell supported legal efforts to overturn the election results. Publix Super Markets heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a prominent Trump donor, reportedly helped pro-Trump groups fund the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse.

But beyond the limited information contained in news reports about privately funded efforts, not much else has been publicly revealed about the funding of organizers and events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack.

"As the investigation into the Capitol insurrection moves forward, lawmakers and investigators will almost certainly try to follow the money," said Brendan Fischer, the Federal Reforms Director of Washington-based ethics group Campaign Legal Center.

Shortly after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, Alexander set up an entity named Stop the Steal LLC, according to attorney Baron Coleman, who registered the LLC on Alexander's behalf. As a privately held entity, the corporation is subject to very few disclosure rules.

But that's not the case with another "Stop the Steal" group. The Committee to Stop the Steal was set up as a political nonprofit just weeks before the 2020 election, with papers signed by a young law clerk from a California firm with links to Stone. The filings said the group's mission was to recruit poll watchers to "promote integrity in our electoral process."

As a tax-exempt nonprofit, the group is subject to the disclosure rules of the IRS, which requires such groups to publish details about their contributions and expenditures before and after an election, and through the end of the year. Such nonprofit disclosures are electronically filed and publicly available on the IRS website -- but no such documents from the Stop the Steal Committee are available on the site.

The group was set up by Ashley Maderos, whose now-deactivated LinkedIn page said she worked as a "provisional licensed attorney" at the Irvine, California, law firm of Jensen & Associates. Maderos is listed as the Committee to Stop the Steal's treasurer and custodian of records. Paul Rolf Jensen at one time represented Stone in a range of legal matters, including representing him and his earlier incarnation of the "Stop the Steal" group from the 2016 election in lawsuits brought by multiple state Democratic parties, alleging voter harassment. In several of those cases, federal judges rejected state Democrats' calls to restrain the Stop the Steal group's campaigns at polling places.

Jensen's name doesn't appear on the Committee to Stop the Steal's initial 2020 registration form to the IRS. The filing lists the organization's address as a UPS Store located near Jensen's offices. When reached by ABC News, Jensen declined to say whether Maderos works for his firm or whether his firm works for the Committee to Stop the Steal.

Nonprofits or their designated representatives are required by the IRS to produce copies of their contribution and expenditure reports upon request. Jensen declined, telling ABC News, "If you think I need to give you information, call a [expletive] cop." The following day, Maderos' LinkedIn page, which had indicated that she was a "provisional licensed attorney" at Jensen & Associates, was deactivated.

It’s unclear if there is any formal connection between the Committee to Stop the Steal and Jensen, who is not listed as an officer or an agent of the nonprofit in its initial IRS filing.

Salon, which first reported on the committee's missing disclosures on Friday, reported that when that publication called the law firm to inquire about the committee's filings, an unidentified employee of the firm said that Maderos no longer worked there, but would not say when she left, where she went, or what had become of the nonprofit group.

Neither Maderos nor Jensen & Associates have responded to further inquiries from ABC News.

A person familiar with the older, 2016 "Stop the Steal" organization, said the 2020 entity is essentially the same -- with "no formal connection" to Alexander's organization. And the source, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, said the Committee to Stop the Steal didn't file disclosure reports from 2020 because it was mostly dormant during the most recent presidential election, with no significant contributions or expenditures.

If in fact the committee didn't raise more than $25,000, it could be exempt from the filing requirements, campaign finance attorney Joe Birkenstock told ABC News. Or if the committee did not engage in any political activity leading up to the election, and instead operated only after the election, it may not have needed to comply with the IRS filing rules for political organizations, he said.

Birkenstock said that because he knows so little about the group's activities, he can't say whether those circumstances would have applied to the Committee to Stop the Steal.

The penalty for failing to file a contribution and expenditure report with the IRS on time would ultimately depend on the total amount of contributions and expenditures that did not get reported, according to IRS rules. Campaign finance attorney Caleb Burns told ABC News that in his practice, he has "not seen much in the way of IRS enforcement of these filing obligations."

In addition to the Committee to Stop the Steal, a similar-sounding group was formed after the election under the name Stop the Steal Political Action Committee. As a PAC, that organization falls under the reporting rules of the Federal Election Commission, not the IRS. It reported donations of $11,000, though it did not reveal the identities of its donors as it is required to do.

The PAC's treasurer, Patrick Krason, wrote in the filing that the organization was unable to gain access to donor information because its vendors stopped working with them after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

"This information is being refused to the PAC by the companies involved due to the companies choosing to unilaterally and without notice cancel the processing agreement and cut off all access to their platforms after the events of January 6," Krason wrote. He pledged to file an amendment with the information once the PAC obtains the donor information.

Krason told ABC News that he had not heard of the similarly-named nonprofit and that his PAC is not connected to it. He said his PAC was created as an independent expenditures group to challenge Republicans who voted against challenging the electoral votes, and that it never gave any money to Alexander's group.

Alexander, whose group was involved in the Jan. 6 rally, has sought to distance the Stop the Steal movement from the violent storming of the Capitol, saying that the chaos and civil unrest that resulted in five deaths was caused by miscommunication and confusion on the part of the rally's other co-organizers.

"In contrast to the chaos at the Capitol, the Stop the Steal movement for election integrity remained peaceful," Alexander wrote in a statement published on his Stop the Steal website.

"The premeditated actions of bad actors not only disgraced our Capitol but also disrupted both the Stop the Steal sponsored event at the Ellipse and the Stop the Steal organized event at Lot 8 on Capitol Hill permitted by US Capitol Police," wrote Alexander, who could not be reached by ABC News for further comment.

Stone never spoke at the Jan. 6 rally, but he promoted it heavily online, in media appearances, and in a speech to Trump supporters in Washington the night before, telling them the president's enemies sought "nothing less than the heist of the 2020 election."

But Stone has maintained that he played no role in "any unlawful acts" around the Capitol on Jan. 6, repeatedly saying that he "never left the site of my hotel until leaving for Dulles Airport" that afternoon. He has also decried attempts to ascribe to him the motives of the people around him.

"Any statement, claim, insinuation, or report alleging, or even implying, that I had any involvement in or knowledge, whether advance or contemporaneous, about the commission of any unlawful acts by any person or group in or around the U.S. Capitol or anywhere in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, is categorically false," Stone said in a statement to ABC News.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

uschools/iStockBy LUKE BARR, ABC News

(WASHINGTON) -- In prepared testimony she's set to deliver Thursday before the House Appropriations Committee, the acting U.S. Capitol Police chief defends the actions of her department on Jan. 6, but admits the force was "overwhelmed by thousands of insurrectionists" who made it inside the Capitol and had "internal challenges" as the assault was underway.

"But, at the end of the day, the USCP succeeded in its mission. It protected Congressional Leadership. It protected Members. And it protected the Democratic Process. At the end of a battle that lasted for hours, democracy prevailed," the acting chief, Yogananda Pittman, is expected to tell the committee.

Pittman, who was the assistant chief of police of the department’s Protective & Intelligence Operations on Jan. 6, says she was responsible for member details and the Department’s Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division (IICD).

She says the IICD came back with four "special assessments" of the situation ahead of Jan. 6 – all of which involved raw intelligence. Pittman says the final Jan. 3rd report concluded that militia members would be participating, would be armed, they’d target the joint session of Congress and "the threat of disruptive actions or violence cannot be ruled out."

The acting chief insists that while security officials were aware of that intelligence, it could not have predicted what occurred, adding that the Secret Service brought then-Vice President Mike Pence to Capitol hill.

"Although the Department’s January 3rd Special Assessment foretold of a significant likelihood for violence on Capitol grounds by extremists groups, it did not identify a specific credible threat indicating that thousands of American citizens would descend upon the U.S. Capitol attacking police officers with the goal of breaking into the U.S. Capitol Building to harm Members and prevent the certification of Electoral College votes," she says in her prepared remarks. "Nor did the intelligence received from the FBI or any other law enforcement partners include any specific credible threat that thousands of American citizens would attack the U.S. Capitol."

Pittman admits mistakes were made, including botched lockdown instructions and lack of use-of-force guidelines.

"We learned that despite the lockdown order simulcast over the radio, a lockdown was not properly executed," she explained.

Pittman says the department will review training on radio communications and lockdown procedures. One of the criticisms, mainly from the USCP union, is that leadership was not able to communicate with USCP officers who were fighting off the insurrectionists.

The acting chief also says that use of force guidelines were not clear.

"We also learned that officers were unsure of when to use lethal force on January 6th. We have provided guidance to officers since January 6th as to when lethal force may be used consistent with the Department’s existing Use of Force policy," she says.

She also notes that the "less lethal munitions" were not as successful in fending off intruders.

On Monday, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned in the wake of the assault, testified at a joint hearing by the Senate Rules and Senate Homeland Security committees that, after reviewing this intelligence, he increased the security precautions at the Capitol.

In her statement, Pittman says that, after reading the intelligence reports, the department increased member details from four to six, posted details outside of "certain" congressional leaders houses and equipped officers with assault weapons, deployed surveillance assets and worked to intercept "the radio frequency used by some demonstration groups and monitoring the communications of those groups."

In addition, Pittman says that the Department deployed USCP SWAT teams to monitor protesters and be on the lookout for firearms and restrict some access to the building.

In the end, all of this was for naught, she said.

"Despite the adjustment in its operations in response to the January 3rd Special Assessment, the Department was not prepared for the massive groups of violent insurrectionists that descended on the U.S. Capitol’s West Front just before 1:00 p.m. on January 6th," Pittman says. "While the Department was prepared to neutralize and remove individuals or groups engaging in civil disobedience or violence among the demonstrators, it was quickly overwhelmed by the thousands of insurrectionists (many armed) who immediately and without provocation began attacking officers, bypassing physical barriers, and refusing to comply with lawful orders."

Once the Capitol was breached, Pittman said the department’s focus turned to securing members and then to the physical security of the building.

Pittman walks through the difficulties in securing the open Capitol campus, noting that since 9/11 there has been a need to strike a balance between openness and security but adds that the department is currently reviewing a long-term solution.

"Even before September 11, 2001, security experts, including former USCP chiefs of police, argued that more needed to be done to protect the Capitol campus – although I doubt many would have thought it would be necessary to protect it against our own citizens," she says.

She does say the reviews will conclude Capitol security "must change and that the Department needs access to additional resources – both manpower and physical assets."

ABC News' Benjamin Siegel and Beatrice Peterson contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

uschools/iStockBy CHEYENNE HASLETT, ABC News

(WASHINGTON) -- Vivek Murthy, President Joe Biden's nominee to serve as U.S. Surgeon General, plans to tell Congress on Thursday that his top priority, if confirmed, will be ending the pandemic -- which has taken the lives of seven of his own family members in the U.S. and India.

"This is a moment of tremendous suffering for our nation. More than half a million people have lost their lives to COVID-19, including beloved members of my own family," Murthy will tell Congress, according to a copy of his testimony first obtained by ABC News.

In January, Murthy lost his great uncle, who he was very close with, an aide said. A second relative in the U.S. also died from the coronavirus and five of his family members in India.

As "America's doctor," the potential surgeon general would play a central role in crafting the public message on the coronavirus, which has claimed more than 500,000 American lives.

"If confirmed as surgeon general, my highest priority will be to help end this pandemic, work I've been doing over the past year with state and local officials, schools and universities, businesses, health care providers, and others," Murthy is expected to say.

"I have seen first-hand the importance of providing clear, science-based guidance to Americans on how to protect themselves and others," he will say, echoing Biden's motto, to lead with science.

For the past year of the pandemic, Murthy has advised many companies on public health measures, including Netflix, Airbnb, Estee Lauder and Carnival, the cruise ship company that had outbreaks on two ships last January and February.

Critics and watchdogs have raised issues with more than $2.5 million Murthy made from speaking at private events and advising private sector companies during the pandemic, while supporters say he has properly recused himself and meets the ethics requirements.

Murthy also advised Biden's campaign during the early months of the pandemic and was co-chair of Biden's coronavirus advisory team during the presidential transition.

Murthy has known the president for over a decade, dating back to his first time serving as surgeon general in the Obama administration. He made history then as the youngest appointed U.S. surgeon general and the first of Indian descent.

Back in 2014, Murthy's confirmation for the role was more fraught than it's expected to be this time around. At the time, the National Rifle Association lobbied against his nomination because of comments he had made referring to gun violence as a public health problem.

"Murthy's record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about the likelihood he would use the office of surgeon general to further his preexisting campaign against gun ownership," the NRA wrote on its website in 2014.

On Thursday, the former surgeon general will focus on the need to avoid partisanship, sharing examples of traveling to Alaska and Oklahoma in 2016 to meet with Republican senators and talk about the opioid crisis, telling Congress that he "would welcome the chance to once again work hand in hand with Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle."

Murthy will also highlight the lessons he learned from his parents, who opened a medical practice in Miami -- lessons the Harvard- and Yale-educated doctor has learned from practicing medicine himself.

"I learned to listen deeply to the patient in front of me, to look beyond any labels, and to see that person in their fullest humanity, knowing they were someone's mother, father, grandparent, child, sibling or friend," Murthy is expected to say.

Murthy will testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which will likely advance his nomination to the Senate floor for a vote in the next few weeks. He is expected to be confirmed, but because Democrats hold a slim majority, Murthy, like all of Biden's nominees, cannot afford to lose a single Democratic vote without picking up Republican support.

ABC News' Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Al Drago/Getty ImagesBy BENJAMIN SIEGEL, ABC News

(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump and his future with the GOP was the subject of an awkward clash Wednesday between two House Republican leaders.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy was unequivocal when asked if Trump should be speaking this Sunday at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference -- the large gathering of GOP and conservative leaders.

"Yes he should," McCarthy, who recently went to visit Trump in Mar-a-Lago, replied.

House GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the third-ranking House Republican, who voted to impeach Trump and became his target, gave a different answer.

"That's up to CPAC ... I don't believe that he should be playing a role in the future of the party or the country," Cheney said as she stood behind McCarthy.

Rep. Steve Scalise, the second-ranking House Republican, who also has visited Trump in Florida, shook his head.

McCarthy, who was at the microphone, had a pained look on his face when Cheney made her comment.

"On that high note, thank you!" McCarthy said to end the news conference.

Should former Pres. Trump speak at CPAC?

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: "Yes, he should."

GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney: "That's up to CPAC...following January 6, I don't believe that he should be playing a role in the future of the party, or country." pic.twitter.com/SdT9u2IniE

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 24, 2021

McCarthy is slated to speak Saturday at the CPAC convention in Orlando, Florida.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Al Drago/Getty ImagesBy MEG CUNNINGHAM, ABC News

(WASHINGTON) -- Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he believes President Joe Biden’s nominee for attorney general could look into conspiracy charges surrounding former President Donald Trump's potential involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

“Certainly we know that the activities of this group, this mob, this insurrection are being held to account by the Department of Justice, over 200 have been arrested and 500 under investigation,” Durbin told Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl and Political Director Rick Klein on ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast Wednesday.

In his Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing on Tuesday, attorney general nominee Merrick Garland told senators he plans to pursue leads “wherever the investigation takes us,” in response to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., encouraging Garland to look “upstream” for connections.

Durbin said he interpreted Garland’s answer as not ruling out any potential players involved in the violence on Jan. 6.

“So as of the event, and everything that followed, there's an active investigation, been described as one of the most historic and complex investigations in the history of the Department of Justice, just to put it into perspective. But I took that upstream question to mean… what happened, what preceded this event? What planning? What type of conspiracy, if there was one? What was it that led to this and the different groups that seem to merge together on that day?” Durbin said.

Regardless of the investigation and potential criminal charges against Trump, which Durbin told Karl and Klein he didn’t feel comfortable making predictions about, he said he believes Trump will be held responsible.

“I think morally, politically, historically," Durbin said. "I think what I've read so far, there is clarity in connecting President Donald Trump with provoking and inciting that mob to its violence.”

Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that he'd like to see the 9/11 style commission being pursued to investigate Jan.6. focus on a rise in domestic terrorism.

“I think we're gonna follow the model with the 9/11 commission,” he said. "I think we ought to follow that model, and it'd be a good one.

“What are we doing about this rise in domestic terrorism? I have been pushing this issue long before January 6, because I can see it happening in Charlottesville and many other places, where groups inspired by white nationalist, white supremacist and far-right leanings, were becoming more militant and brazen in their activity,” he added.

Karl asked Durbin about his view of Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, and his announcement that he would vote against Neera Tanden, Biden’s pick to direct the Office of Management and Budget.

“With a 50-50 Senate, any person can stop the train,” Durbin said. “And in this situation, Joe, if he hasn't stopped that he slowed it down, because the White House and supporters of Neera Tanden have to find a Republican vote to replace him." He added that Tanden's confirmation is "still within the realm of possibility.”

Durbin said there must be outreach from the White House to members of the Senate as the process of confirming Biden’s nominees goes forward. He noted that the pressure was on for Biden to prove his negotiating skills, but that the White House is still in “startup mode.”

“They are also in the startup mode, and a new president right off the bat has to show his skills in dealing with Congress to put together his team, his Cabinet...I have asked in the most general way, whether some of these Republicans were consulted. And the White House has said it'd become increasingly difficult to get through the staff to the member,” he said.

“So I don't know where the blame lies. But I will just say, the bottom line is this. There has to be an outreach by the White House to every senator who could conceivably support their nominees and an offer to discuss it. That is just basic Senate 101. And I hope that if it hasn't happened to this point, it will from this point forward,” he added.

Manchin also said he does not support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which is currently a part of Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. Durbin said passing the wage increase will be a difficult fight, but one that is overdue.

“If it is permitted in the reconciliation bill, I hope that debate goes forward. I'm not suggesting that it's going to be easy. In fact, it may be a problematic issue. But we shouldn't walk away from this,” Durbin said.

“This is long overdue," he said. "And I'm willing to be open and open-minded when it comes to suggestions on how to do it differently.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.