ВИБОРЧА ГАЗЕТА

Jan. 6 Probe: Trump ‘Chose Not to Act’ on Mob Violence

U.S. lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol last year said then-President Donald Trump chose not to act for more than three hours as thousands of his supporters rampaged through the Capitol trying to block the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

“President Trump sat at his dining table and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff, closest advisers and family members begged him to do what is expected of any American president,” Representative Elaine Luria, a Democratic committee member, said.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, another committee member, said Trump failed to act because the mob had stopped the certification.

“The count ground to an absolute halt and was ultimately delayed for hours. The mob was accomplishing President Trump’s purpose, so of course he didn’t intervene,” Kinzinger, a Republican, said. “President Trump did not fail to act. … He chose not to act.”

The nine-member House of Representatives committee investigating the mayhem showed a montage of videotaped testimony from key Trump White House aides, and presented live testimony from two more, to support their allegation that Trump watched the insurrection on television and did nothing to stop it for hours.

In his opening remarks, Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democrat who is the chairman of the committee, said, “For 187 minutes on January 6, this man [Trump] of unbridled destructive energy could not be moved. Not by his aides, not by his allies, not by the violent chants of rioters, or the desperate pleas of those facing down the mob. He could not be moved.”

Luria had told CNN earlier this week that the panel would explore “minute by minute” what Trump was doing for three hours and seven minutes on the afternoon of Jan. 6 — from the end of his speech at a rally urging his supporters to walk to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to finally telling them they should disperse.

“Within 15 minutes of leaving the stage, President Trump knew that the Capitol was besieged and under attack,” she said Thursday night.

Late into the hearing Thursday, Luria said Trump failed to take any action “for a cornerstone of our democracy” – the peaceful transition of office.

Vice-chairperson and Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican, said that Trump was confident that he could persuade his supporters that the election was stolen, which she said amounted to him “preying on their patriotism.” Cheney described Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6 as “indefensible.”

Cheney swore in two new witnesses — former deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews and former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger, both of whom quit the day of the insurrection in protest of Trump’s reaction to the riot.

Matthews provided details of what she saw in the White House that day, including whether Trump knew the violence had broken out when he took aim at then-Vice President Mike Pence in a 2:24 p.m. tweet complaining about Pence’s refusal to block certification of Biden’s victory.

Trump tweeted: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

“He shouldn’t have been doing that,” Matthews said. “He should have been telling these people to go home and to leave and to condemn the violence.”

Trump had implored Pence both privately and publicly before the riot to send the election results back to the states he narrowly lost so new electors favoring Trump could replace the official ones favoring Biden. Constitutional experts say that would have been illegal.

In the United States, presidents are effectively chosen in separate elections in each of the 50 states, not through the national popular vote. Each state’s number of electoral votes is dependent on its population, with the biggest states holding the most sway. The rioters who stormed the Capitol tried to keep lawmakers from certifying Biden’s eventual 306-232 victory in the Electoral College.

Matthews said in a clip from her video deposition, “I remember us saying that that was the last thing that needed to be tweeted at that moment. The situation was already bad. And so, it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that.”

Pottinger told the panel that Trump’s tweet prompted him to resign.

“I read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to resign,” he said in his video deposition. “That’s where I knew that I was leaving that day once I read that tweet.”

Earlier videotaped witnesses at the hearings, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka, a White House adviser, said the president ignored their entreaties to publicly call off the rioters.

Trump eventually released a videotaped statement after 4 p.m. asking the rioters to leave the Capitol. In another tweet sent later, he appeared to justify the mob’s actions.

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” he wrote. “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Trump, who has strongly suggested he will make another run for the White House in 2024, to this day claims he was cheated out of reelection. He has often derided the Jan. 6 investigative panel, posting a message Tuesday on his social media platform Truth Social that the committee “is a Fraud and a disgrace to America.”

Trump has said he would consider pardoning the more than 800 protesters arrested during the rioting if he becomes president again.

Thursday night’s public hearing originally was set to be the last, but now committee members say they are continuing to gather information about the riot. Cheney said in her closing remarks that there would be a new hearing in September.
…

January 6 Committee Alleges Trump Actively Encouraged Rioters

The January 6 Committee wrapped up its first round of public hearings Thursday with a minute-by-minute examination of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions during the attack on the U.S. Capitol. As VOA Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson reports, the investigation provided new insight into Trump’s actions.
…

Biden Positive for COVID-19, ‘Fully Carrying Out His Duties’

The White House says President Joe Biden has tested positive for COVID-19 and is experiencing “very mild symptoms.” The president’s diagnosis comes amid another wave of the coronavirus in the United States, driven this time by the BA.5 variant.  VOA’s Senior Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine reports.
…

US Congress Moves Toward $52 Billion in Subsidies for Semiconductor Firms

The Senate this week took a key step toward passing a bill meant to provide $52 billion in subsidies to the semiconductor industry in the United States, part of an effort that lawmakers have characterized as protecting the country from supply shortages such as those that struck during the coronavirus pandemic.

The bill, called the CHIPS for America Act, also seeks to make the U.S. more competitive with China.

Semiconductors, commonly known as chips, are essential elements of modern manufacturing. They are used in computers, cellphones and automobiles as well as in various other capacities. During the pandemic, chip shortages slowed manufacturing in multiple industries to a crawl.

The legislation would create incentives for semiconductor manufacturers to build chip fabrication plants in the U.S. to bring back domestic production levels, which have fallen from more than one-third of total global capacity three decades ago to less than 12% now.

Discussing the legislation on the Senate floor, Senator Rob Portman, a Republican, said, “It is a plan to make America more competitive with China, and a plan to bring good jobs back to America.”

In a 64-34 procedural vote Tuesday, with more than a dozen Republicans voting with the overwhelming majority of Democrats, the Senate cleared the way for the legislation to come to a vote as soon as this week. The House of Representatives would need to pass the bill — which is still not in its final form — before President Joe Biden could sign it into law.

Making the case

Before the vote Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told his colleagues that the bill “will fight inflation, boost American manufacturing, ease our supply chains and protect American security interests.”

He added: “America will fall behind in so many areas if we don’t pass this bill, and we could very well lose our ranking as the No. 1 economy and innovator in the world if we can’t pass this.”

Senator John Cornyn, the most senior Republican to vote in favor of advancing the bill, used Twitter to make his case ahead of the vote.

“If the US lost access to advanced semiconductors (none made in US) in the first year, GDP could shrink by 3.2 percent and we could lose 2.4 million jobs,” he tweeted. “The GDP loss would 3X larger ($718 B) than the estimated $240 B of US GDP lost in 2021 due to the ongoing chip shortage.”

The money in the bill comes with significant strings attached. Companies accepting the subsidies must agree not to use the funds for to buy back stock, pay shareholder dividends, or expand manufacturing in certain countries identified in the bill. Provisions allow the government to “claw back” the funds if a recipient violates any of the bill’s conditions.

Second try

If the bill advances to the House, it would mark the second time a bipartisan group of senators tried to secure money for the semiconductor industry. Last year, the Senate passed a $250 billion package that included broader research and development funding.

When the House received the bill, it waited nearly a year to pass its own version and made a number of additions that Senate Republicans would not agree to. The bill never advanced.

Now, however, things might be different. In a letter circulated to members of the House Democratic caucus on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in favor of the bill.

“With this package, the United States returns to its status as a world leader in the manufacturing of semiconductor chips,” Pelosi wrote, noting that the bill would create an estimated 100,000 well-paid government contracting jobs in the industry.

“Doing so is an economic necessity to lower costs for consumers and to win in the 21st Century Economy, as well as a national security imperative as we seek to reduce our dependence on foreign manufacturers,” Pelosi wrote.

Industry reacts

In an email exchange with VOA, Ajit Manocha, president and CEO of Semi, a global industry trade group, said, “We are pleased to see action to reverse the decline in the U.S. share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity, which has fallen by 50 percent in the last 20 years and is forecast to shrink further.”

“The availability of robust incentives in other countries and the lack of a federal U.S. incentive have been key factors driving the location of more overseas manufacturing facilities,” Manocha added. “If the United States wants to maintain or increase its share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity, the federal government absolutely needs to get in the game.”

Semiconductor Industry Association President and CEO John Neuffer said in a statement, “The Senate CHIPS Act would greatly strengthen America’s economy, national security, and leadership in the technologies that will determine our future.”

He added, “This is America’s window of opportunity to re-invigorate chip manufacturing, design, and research on U.S. shores, and Congress should seize it before the window slams shut.” 
…

Jan. 6 Panel Concludes First Set of Hearings

The Jan. 6 committee will wrap up its first round of public hearings this week with a minute-by-minute examination of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions during the attack on the U.S. Capitol. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson looks at what happens next.
…

Will Trump Be Prosecuted Over Role in January 6 Attack?

As the congressional committee examining the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol wraps up its first round of public hearings this week, the Justice Department faces rising pressure to prosecute former President Donald Trump in connection with the bloody assault.

The Justice Department has charged more than 800 Trump supporters involved in the riot and is investigating others tied to the plot.

But it remains unclear whether the department will take the unprecedented step of charging a former president based on the findings of a committee.

“We don’t know whether there will be prosecutions that are going to be a direct result of these hearings,” said William Banks, Board of Advisors Distinguished Professor of Law at Syracuse University.

That is not to say that Trump is not in legal jeopardy. When the nine-member committee held its first televised hearing on June 9, the panel’s vice chairperson, Republican Representative Liz Cheney, pledged to present evidence showing the former president was responsible for orchestrating a “sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power.”

Over the course of seven hearings, the bipartisan panel, made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, sketched out that plan, offering its findings from more than 1,000 interviews and more than 125,000 documents.

What emerged was a picture of a losing president so possessed with holding on to power that he falsely claimed the election had been stolen despite being told otherwise by his own advisers; prodded the Justice Department to support his falsehood; pressed officials in battleground states to flip votes for him; pressured his own vice president, Mike Pence, to overturn the results; encouraged a mob of his supporters to descend on the Capitol; and, finally, failed to act as rioters stormed the Capitol.

Taken together, the committee’s findings appear to amount to a damning indictment of Trump’s conduct, conjuring the impression that the panel has generated all the evidence prosecutors need to indict the former president.

But whether the Justice Department thinks there is enough evidence to support an indictment remains to be seen.

Even those who think the Jan. 6 committee’s findings warrant criminal charges against Trump caution that the panel’s discovery represents one side of the story.

“The congressional hearing is one-sided in the sense that there was no one to cross-examine any of these witnesses or to seek to check the veracity of their sources and the like,” Banks said.

In a 12-page statement released after the committee’s second hearing last month, Trump made a similar point in his own defense.

“Why can’t they let the countervailing opinion be heard? Why are they hiding evidence from the public and only showing information that favors the Democrats’ tall tale?” Trump wrote, repeating his false claims that the election was stolen and rigged.

To be clear, the committee does not have the power to prosecute Trump or anyone else. That authority rests with the Department of Justice and, ultimately, with Attorney General Merrick Garland.

In an interview with ABC News on July 3, Cheney said that it was possible that the panel would refer Trump’s case to the Justice Department for prosecution, but that the department “doesn’t have to wait” for such a referral.

As the Justice Department continues to investigate people close to Trump, Garland has given little clue as to whether the department is probing the former president for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, saying earlier this year that prosecutors “will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

A spokesperson for Garland did not respond to an email requesting comment on calls for Trump’s prosecution.

Factors in Garland’s decision

In deciding whether to charge Trump, Garland must consider at least three questions, Banks said. The first is whether the Justice Department has enough evidence to win a conviction that would withstand appeal.

Among potential charges Trump could face are “obstructing an official proceeding” for his alleged efforts to block Congress’ vote count on January 6 and “conspiracy to defraud the United States” in connection with various schemes to overturn the results of a presidential election. A third possible charge — inciting a riot or insurrection — has diminished in recent weeks, according to Jonathan Turley, a conservative law professor at George Washington University School of Law.

Banks said the obstruction charge is “pretty straightforward.”

“There’s now quite a bit of documentary evidence as well as witness testimony at the hearings that suggest he was trying to stop Vice President Pence from carrying out his assigned task that day, as well as trying to change the slate of electors,” Banks said.

But some other experts aren’t convinced. Turley, who appeared as a Republican-invited witness during Trump’s first impeachment said the obstruction charge would be hard to make.

“The problem with that is that Trump was calling for people to go to Congress to protest the certification,” Turley said in an interview. “Democrats protested certification. Democrat members voted against certification of Republican presidents. You can’t say that that itself is obstruction.”

More harm than good?

The second question Garland would have to consider is whether indicting a former president at a time when the country is deeply polarized is “good for the country,” Banks said.

“Are we better off as a country to let it be and to try to move on and hope that nothing like this ever recurs?” Banks said. “That’s a tough job, and it’s the attorney general who’s in the driver’s seat.”

It is a question many legal scholars have debated in recent weeks.

Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, wrote in a recent opinion piece for The New York Times that prosecuting Trump “would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover.”

“It would be seen by many as politicized retribution,” Goldsmith wrote.

Banks said he was inclined to agree but became less so after former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, which many legal experts believe bolstered the legal case against Trump.

“I think even though it will be very painful to experience yet another bout of our institutions with Donald Trump, I think it might be the most important thing that we could do at this time,” Banks said.

Turley said the decision to prosecute Trump should be based on evidence, not its social ramifications.

“The key is that you have to have a strong and unassailable case,” he said. “But if one exists, I don’t think that it makes any sense to give a president some constructive immunity from the criminal code. If the members have the evidence they said they had of a crime by President Trump, I would be the first to call for his indictment.”

A final consideration for Garland is whether, as a member of President Joe Biden’s administration, it is appropriate for him to charge Biden’s political rival, Trump.

“There might be an appearance that if he chooses to pursue an indictment of Donald Trump that it could be politically motivated,” Banks said.

Under Justice Department guidelines, Garland is required to appoint an outside prosecutor if he determines that investigation and prosecuting Trump will “present a conflict of interest” for the department.

“Indeed, that may well be forthcoming, but I think he would only do that if he answered the other two questions” regarding evidence and whether prosecuting Trump would serve the public interest, Banks said.
…

Biden Announces Climate Actions, Pledges More

President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced new steps to combat climate change and promised more robust action to come, saying, “This is an emergency and I will look at it that way.” 

The president stopped short, though, of declaring a formal climate emergency, which Democrats and environmental groups have been seeking after one Democratic senator quashed hopes for sweeping legislation to address global warming. Biden hinted such a step could be coming. 

“Let me be clear,” Biden said, “climate change is an emergency, and in the coming weeks I’m going to use the power I have as president to turn these words into formal, official government actions through the appropriate proclamations, executive orders and regulatory power that a president possesses.” 

Biden delivered his pledge at a former coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts. The former Brayton Point power plant in Somerset is shifting to offshore wind power manufacturing, and Biden chose it as the embodiment of the transition to clean energy that he is seeking. 

Executive actions announced Wednesday will bolster the domestic offshore wind industry in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern United States, and expand efforts to help communities cope with soaring temperatures through programs administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies. 

The trip comes as historic temperatures bake Europe and the United States. Temperatures reached 115 degrees in Portugal as wildfires raged in Spain and France, and Britain on Tuesday shattered its record for highest temperature ever registered. At least 60 million Americans could experience triple-digit temperatures over the next several days as cities around the U.S. sweat through more intense and longer-lasting heat waves that scientists blame on global warming. 

Calls for a national emergency declaration to address the climate crisis have been rising among activists and Democratic lawmakers after Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, last week scuttled talks on a long-delayed legislative package. 

White House officials have said the option remains under consideration. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday declined to outline a timetable for a decision aside from saying no such order would be issued this week. 

Gina McCarthy, Biden’s climate adviser, said Biden is not “shying away” from treating climate as an emergency. 

“The president wants to make sure that we’re doing it right, that we’re laying it out, and that we have the time we need to get this worked out,” she told reporters on Air Force One. 

Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Tuesday that he was “confident that the president is ultimately ready to do whatever it takes in order to deal with this crisis.”

An emergency declaration on climate would allow the president to redirect federal resources to bolster renewable energy programs that would help accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. The declaration also could be used as a legal basis to block oil and gas drilling or other projects, although such actions would likely be challenged in court by energy companies or Republican-led states. 

Such a declaration would be similar to the one issued by Biden’s Republican predecessor, Donald Trump, who declared a national emergency to build a wall on the southern border when lawmakers refused to allocate money for that effort. 

Talks with Manchin stall

Biden pledged last week to take significant executive actions on climate after monthslong discussions between Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, stalled. The West Virginia senator cited stubbornly high inflation as the reason for his hesitation, although he has long protected energy interests in his coal- and gas-producing state. 

For now, Manchin has said he will agree only to a legislative package that shores up subsidies to help people buy insurance under the 2010 health care law and allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices that will ultimately lower the cost of pharmaceuticals for consumers. 

The White House has indicated it wants Congress to take that deal, and Biden will address the climate issue on his own. 

The former Brayton Point power plant closed in 2017 after burning coal for more than five decades. The plant will now become an offshore wind energy site.

A new report says the U.S. and other major carbon-polluting nations are falling short on pledges to fight climate change. Among the 10 biggest carbon emitters, only the European Union has enacted polices close to or consistent with international goals of limiting warming to just a few more tenths of a degree, according to scientists and experts who track climate action in countries.
…

Senators Propose Changes to Electors Law After Capitol Riot

A bipartisan group of senators agreed Wednesday on proposed changes to the Electoral Count Act, the post-Civil War-era law for certifying presidential elections that came under intense scrutiny after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. 

Long in the making, the package introduced by the group led by Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin of West Virginia is made up of two separate proposals. One would clarify the way states submit electors and the vice president tallies the votes in Congress. The other would bolster security for state and local election officials who have faced violence and harassment. 

“From the beginning, our bipartisan group has shared a vision of drafting legislation to fix the flaws of the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887,” Collins, Manchin and the other 14 senators said in a joint statement. 

“We have developed legislation that establishes clear guidelines for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes,” the group wrote. “We urge our colleagues in both parties to support these simple, commonsense reforms.” 

Both Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have signaled support for the bipartisan group, but the final legislative package will undergo careful scrutiny. 

Votes are not likely before fall. But with broad support from the group of 16 senators— seven Democrats and nine Republicans who have worked behind closed doors for months with the help of outside experts—serious consideration is assured. 

In a statement, Matthew Weil, executive director of the Democracy Program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, called the framework a “critical step” in shoring up ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act. 

After Trump lost the 2020 election, the defeated president orchestrated an unprecedented attempt to challenge the electors sent from battleground states to the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, when the vice president presides over certification. 

Under the proposed changes, the law would be updated to ensure the governor from each state is initially responsible for submitting electors, as a way to safeguard against states sending alternative or fake elector slates. 

Additionally, the law would spell out that the vice president presides over the joint session in a “solely ministerial” capacity, according to a summary page. It says the vice president “does not have any power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.” 

That provision is a direct reaction to Trump’s relentless efforts to pressure then Vice President Mike Pence to reject the electors being sent from certain battleground states as a way to halt the certification or tip it away from Joe Biden’s victory. 

The bill also specifies the procedures around presidential transitions, including when the election outcome is disputed, to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. 

That’s another pushback to the way Trump blocked Biden’s team from accessing some information for his transition to the White House. 

The second proposal, revolving around election security, would double the federal penalties to up to two years in prison for individuals who “threaten or intimidate election officials, poll watchers, voters or candidates,” according to the summary. 

It also would seek to improve the way the U.S. Postal Service handles election mail and “provide guidance to states to improve their mail-in ballot processes.” Mail-in ballots and the role of the Postal Service came under great scrutiny during the 2020 election. 

An Associated Press review of potential cases of voter fraud in six battleground states found no evidence of widespread fraud that could change the outcome of the election. A separate AP review of drop boxes used for mailed ballots also found no significant problems. 

The need for election worker protections was front and center at a separate hearing Wednesday of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Election officials and experts testified that a rise in threats of physical violence is contributing to staffing shortages across the country and a loss of experience at local boards of elections. 

“The impact is widespread,” said Neal Kelley, a former registrar of voters in Orange County, California, who now chairs the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections. “And, while the effects on individuals are devastating, the potential blow to democracy should not be dismissed.” 

Elizabeth Howard, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the committee that Congress needs to direct more money and support toward protecting election workers’ personal safety, including by funding local and federal training programs and providing grants to enhance security at election directors’ personal residences. 

Democratic New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, who recently reported a series of threats, told the panel the situation has become worse after former President Donald Trump’s attacks against the 2020 election result. 

“Unfortunately, we are still, on a daily basis—in my state and across the country—living with the reverberating effects of the ‘Big Lie’ from 2020,” she said. “And, as we all know, when it comes to leadership, what you say from the very highest echelons of government power in this country do have those reverberating effects.” 

Some Republican members of the committee condemned violence against election workers — and also drew a parallel to recent threats and intimidation directed toward some Supreme Court justices after their decision to overturn constitutional protections for abortion. 

GOP Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana rejected the notion that Trump and other election skeptics were solely responsible for the “atmosphere of mistrust” that grew up around the 2020 election.
…

Ally of Ex-US President Trump Wins Republican Nomination for Maryland Governor’s Race

A supporter of former U.S. President Donald Trump was selected by Republican voters in the eastern state of Maryland as their choice for governor.

State legislator Dan Cox overwhelmingly won Tuesday’s preliminary elections, far outpacing his nearest opponent, Kelly Schulz, who once served in the cabinet of outgoing Republican Governor Larry Hogan. He is one of many Republican candidates endorsed by the former president ahead of the upcoming midterm elections who have supported Trump’s false claims that he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden due to a fraudulent process.

Cox attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021 that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol aimed at stopping the official certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory, and called then-Vice President Mike Pence a “traitor” on Twitter before eventually deleting the post and apologizing.

The Republican contest was seen as a proxy battle between Trump and Governor Hogan, who was elected twice in the reliably Democratic-leaning state and has urged the party to move on from the combative ex-president. Hogan is widely considered by political observers as a potential candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Cox’s eventual Democratic opponent in the November general election was still undecided Tuesday night. First-time candidate and best-selling author Wes Moore was leading Tom Perez, who served as Labor Secretary under former President Barack Obama, but the final result will not be decided for several days until mail-in ballots are counted.

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press
…