Donald Trump is determined to avoid accountability before the general election, and, so far, the U.S. Supreme Court is helping him.
Trump has no legal ground whatsoever to delay a ruling in his plea for presidential immunity. The reason Trump has nevertheless sought to slow down the immunity appeals process is obvious: to postpone the trial date, hopefully pushing it into a time when, as president, he would control the Department of Justice and thus could squash the prosecution altogether. The Supreme Court has shamed itself by being a party to this, when the sole issue before the Court is presidential immunity. By contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith has both law and policy on his side in seeking a prompt determination on immunity and a speedy trial soon thereafter. Yet the Court has ignored all that.
David A. Graham: The cases against Trumpa guide
The Supreme Courts lollygagging is reflected in its scheduling the immunity case for a leisurely April 25 hearing. Its too late to do anything about that now, but the Court has an opportunity to correct course following oral argument. The justices should press Trumps counsel on what possible legitimate reason he has to oppose a speedy resolution of the appeal. And then they should rule with dispatch because there is still time, albeit barely, to vindicate the publics right to a speedy trial.
Lets recap how we arrived at the present moment. After Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trumps claim of presidential immunity on December 1 and Trump appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit, Smith asked the Supreme Court to hear the appeal immediately, leapfrogging the delay of the circuit-level argument and decision. Trump opposed that, and the Supreme Court declined Smiths invitation. The circuit court expedited its appeal and on February 6 issued its decision, again rejecting Trumps immunity argument in toto. Trump then sought a stay in the Supreme Court, and advocated various measures to slow the Courts hearing of the case. The Supreme Court then deliberated for a couple of weeks before accepting the case for review, and not scheduling the argument until two months lateron the very last day of oral arguments for this session.
Were he not seeking to avoid any trial in advance of the general election so he could maximize the chances of becoming the next president of the United States, Trump would have an interest in a speedy resolution of the immunity question, in contrast to the foot-dragging positions he has advocated throughout the litigation of this issue. Anyone with a legitimate claim of immunity has every interest in not suffering a single day more under the opprobrium of multiple criminal charges, not to mention being under pretrial bail conditions and a gag order. (Trumps lawyers have argued against his existing gag order, saying it sweeps so broadly as to undermine their clients ability to campaign for the presidency.)
The law itself recognizes the need for speed on this issue. With questions of immunity, courts permit an appeal in advance of a trial and forgo the usual rule that appeals are permitted only after a verdict is reached. The hope, in allowing for this, is to relieve someone from the opprobrium and burden of a trial, if the defendant is indeed immune. For the Court to set such a prolonged scheduleantithetical to the appropriate time frame for the only issue actually before the justicesspeaks volumes about the role the Court has chosen to play in advancing the interests of the former president over the rule of law.
The government has its own interests in seeking a prompt resolution of the immunity issue and a speedy criminal trial (and it has the same interest as a defendant in not subjecting someone to criminal charges who is immune from prosecution). But before delving into the governments interests, lets first dispense with a red herring: Special Counsel Smith is not disputing that Trump should be accorded sufficient time to prepare for trial. An inviolable constitutional safeguard is that all criminal defendants must be able to exercise their procedural rights to prepare. Judge Chutkan already weighed the parties competing claims. Her decision on a trial date fell well within the mark for similar cases, and that ruling is not on appeal (despite the Supreme Courts behaving as if it were).
The district judges selected timeline (seven months from the August 1 indictment), in a case whose facts and substantial evidence were already available to the defendant, was longer than deadlines set all around the country. By way of comparison, next door in the more conservative Virginia district, defendants routinely go to trial at great speed, without conservative commentators going to the barricades over alleged violations of the rights of the accused. That Trump is a rich, white, and politically powerful man does not mean he should be accorded more (or fewer) rights than others. And Chutkan has said that when the case returns to her, she will give Trump more time to prepare.
David A. Graham: Judge Chutkans impossible choice
With Trumps rights intact, then, Smith has several legitimate grounds for the immunity appeal to be decided expeditiously and a trial to start as promptly as possible. DOJ internal policy prohibits taking action in a case for the purpose of choosing sides in or affecting the outcome of an election. That is unquestionable and not in dispute here. Rather, the point is that well-established neutral criminal-justice principles support a speedy trial. This trials outcome, of course, is not known in advance, and it may lead some voters to think better or worse of the defendant and the current presidential administration depending on the evidence and the outcome.
Moreover, the public has a profound interest in a fair and speedy trial. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court, the Speedy Trial Act was designed not just to benefit defendants but also to serve the public interest. The refrain that justice too long delayed is justice denied has unmistakable resonance in this criminal context. The special counsels briefs in the D.C. case are replete with references to this well-settled case law. This means that even when the accused is seeking to delay his day in court, that does not alter the prosecutors obligation to see to it that the case is brought on for trial, as the Supreme Court has well articulated. Many defendants seek to avoid the day of reckoninghence Edward Bennett Williamss famous quip that for the defense, an adjournment is equivalent to an acquittal. The law provides that the public, the prosecution, and most emphatically the courts need not oblige that stratagem.
Whats more, when a defendant seeks to postpone a trial until a point at which he can no longer be prosecuted, the Justice Department may request the trial be held before that deadline. The DOJs interest in deterrence and accountability warrants this action. If Trump should win the election, he will become immune as president from criminal trial for at least four years (and perhaps forever by seeking dismissal of the federal case with prejudice or testing the efficacy of granting himself a pardon). The Justice Department can accordingly uphold the public interest in deterrence and accountability by seeking the prompt conviction of the leader of an insurrection. This DOJ need not advance the goals of a future administration led by that very oathbreaking insurrectionist.
Another objective of criminal punishment is specific deterrence, ensuring the defendant herself does not commit offenses in the future. Given the grand jurys determination that Trump committed felonies to try to interfere with the 2020 election, there are strong law-enforcement reasons to obtain a conviction to specifically deter Trump. Indeed, in proposing a trial date to Judge Chutkan, Smith quoted Justice Alito, on behalf of the whole Court, that speedy trials serve the public interest by preventing extended pretrial delay from impairing the deterrent effect of punishment.
Trumps public denigration of the legal systemthe incssant claims that the criminal case is a witch huntalso gives a nation committed to the rule of law a vital interest in holding a public trial where a jury can assess Trumps actions. Trials can thus serve to restore faith in the justice system.
It is worth noting that when the government seeks its day in court, it simultaneously affords the defendant his day in courtproviding him more process, not less. Indeed, the Department of Justices so-called 60-day rulewhich generally forbids it from taking overt actions in non-public cases with respect to political candidates and closely related people right before an electionis there to avoid a federal prosecutor hurling untested new allegations against a political candidate precisely because he would not have time to clear his reputation before the election. Here, the government is seeking to provide just that forum for Trump to clear his name before the electionto test the criminal allegations against the highest legal standard we have for adjudicating factsand yet right-wing critics attack Smith. Trump of course wants to avoid that test, but that is an interest the courts should abjure.
The justices still have time to get back on track. Trumps claim that presidents have absolute immunity should be an easy issue to resolve given these criminal charges. Whether a president should have criminal immunity in some specific circumstances is an abstract question for another day, because efforts to stay in office and use the levers of the presidency are certainly not those specific circumstances. The appeals have delayed matters long enough at the expense of the right of the American people to a fair and speedy trial. Let them not stand in the way of ever having a trial at all.
Tears, laughter and some Take That fangirling from a best actress nominee – this year’s BAFTA Film Awards had it all.
Conclave and The Brutalist were the night’s big winners, taking home four awards each – including best picture and outstanding British film for Conclave, and best actor for The Brutalist star Adrien Brody and directing award for its filmmaker, Brady Corbet.
But as always with these big entertainment awards ceremonies, there were plenty of moments to remember outside the big prizes.
Hosts can make or break an awards ceremony, so when you get a good ‘un you want to keep them. After a successful stint in 2024, Doctor Who and Rivals star David Tennantwas back to take the helm once again.
This time round, the Scottish actor, sporting a kilt and sporran at first, kicked things off by calling on the “BAFTA gods” – acting legends Dame Helen Mirren, Jim Broadbent and Brian Cox, naturally – before a sketch performance of The Proclaimers’ hit I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles).
Of course, this needed some audience participation – including from US stars Camila Cabello, Colman Domingo and Anna Kendrick, who probably didn’t have a clue what was going on but joined in with gusto.
Tennant joked about actors “freshening up” while they age, after referencing that Doctor Who star Ncuti Gatwa took on his role in the BBC series, as well as the length of films such as The Brutalist (three-and-a-half hours).
“Who doesn’t like a chance to have a wee halfway through?” he asked, while talking about the film’s much-needed intermission.
Emilia Perez awards despite controversy – and Saldana’s speech
Image: Zoe Saldana was named best supporting actress for her performance in Emilia Perez. Pic: PA
It went into awards season as one of the favourites, but Emilia Perez has been surrounded by controversy in recent weeks.
As stars Zoe Saldanaand Selena Gomez enjoyed the show, leading actress Karla Sofia Gascon was notably absent from the ceremony following the resurgence of offensive tweets, and the film has also come under fire for its portrayal of Mexico and of trans people.
Despite this, it picked up the BAFTAs for best film not in the English language and best supporting actress for Saldana.
Earlier this month, director Jacques Audiard said Gascon’s tweets were “inexcusable” and that he was “very sad” to see the issue “taking up all the space” around the film.
However, collecting the BAFTA for best film not in the English language, the French filmmaker namechecked all his stars, including Gascon – and blew her a kiss through his translator.
“I’m deeply proud of what we have all achieved together – long live Emilia Perez,” he said.
In her speech, an emotional Saldana said the film defied categorisation and also paid tribute to her co-stars, before realising she was taking too long and being given a countdown. “F***, f***, f***”, she panicked, before continuing with her speech anyway.
Thanking her mother for “being such a selfless person”, she broke down in tears, and added: “Films are supposed to change hearts and challenge minds and I hope Emilia Perez did something like this, because voices need to be heard.”
Kylie Jenner sneaks in
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:28
Timothee Chalamet and Kylie Jenner at the BAFTAs
We didn’t see her on the red carpet, but sneaky old Kylie Jenner, girlfriend of Timothee Chalamet, was most definitely in attendance to show her support.
The Kardashians star was in the audience next to Chalamet, who was nominated for best actor for his portrayal of Bob Dylan in A Complete Unknown.
During a break from awards announcements, Tennant spent time joking with some of the A-listers in the crowd, and the couple didn’t escape from his mic (or the cameras), despite their efforts to keep their appearance lowkey.
Image: Take That performed Greatest Day, from Anora. Pic: BAFTA
If you’ve seen Anora, you’ll know the filmmakers behind it are fans of Take That, specifically the 2008 hit Greatest Day.
The band, now a trio of Gary Barlow, Mark Owen and Howard Donald, performed the hit remix used in the film on stage at the ceremony.
As host Tennant made his way through the crowd afterwards, he came across best actress nominee Saoirse Ronan and her husband Jack Lowden.
Is Ronan a Take That fan? “I’ve seen you twice,” she shouted at the boys as they made their way off stage.
That’s a yes, then.
Kieran Culkin couldn’t attend – so Jesse Eisenberg stepped up
Image: Jesse Eisenberg won the BAFTA for best original screenplay for A Real Pain, and picked up best supporting actor for co-star Kieran Culkin. Pic: PA
Following best supporting actor wins at earlier ceremonies including the Golden Globes, Kieran Culkin has been a favourite when it comes to speeches this awards season.
It was no surprise to see him honoured at the BAFTAs, but as he sadly couldn’t attend the ceremony in person, his co-star and director Jesse Eisenberg stepped up – not only collecting the award on his behalf but also delivering the laughs, too.
In A Real Pain, the pair play two very different cousins on a trip exploring their Jewish grandmother’s roots in Poland.
The BAFTA was “like the fifth” award Eisenberg has picked up for Culkin, he told the audience. “We have a similar life, but his is 20% better than mine,” he added.
Accepting the award for best original screenplay, Eisenberg also joked that his wife had not attended the ceremony as she did not think he would win.
Breakthrough star pays tribute to sex workers
Image: Mikey Madison was named best actress for her performance in Anora. Pic: Joel C Ryan/Invision/AP
After gaining a lot of support throughout the awards ceremony, Demi Moore was a favourite for a prize for her performance in The Substance. However, Mikey Madison had also gained momentum in recent weeks thanks to her breakout role as a young sex worker who marries the son of a Russian oligarch in Anora.
This one is a particularly exciting win as Madison, 25, was also up for the rising star award for up-and-coming talent. Being nominated in a major category in the same year is quite a feat in itself – winning it even more so.
On stage, Madison thanked her mother for driving her “to so many auditions”, as well as her fellow castmates.
She also paid tribute to the sex worker community, after working with many women in the industry to perfect her performance.
“I want to take a second to recognise the sex worker community,” Madison said. “You deserve respect and decency, and I… (urge) others to do the same… I will always be a friend and an ally.”
Kneecap: ‘It’s a movement’
Image: Kneecap do the BAFTA red carpet. Pic: PA
Irish-language film Kneecap, a semi-autobiographical story starring a trio of rappers of the same name from Belfast, picked up the award for outstanding debut for a British filmmaker.
Band member JJ O Dochartaigh always wears a balaclava featuring the Irish flag – but for the BAFTAs he went all out, matching his suit.
The award went to director and writer Rich Peppiatt, who collected the prize on stage.
“Within two weeks of moving to Belfast I met Kneecap and now I’m standing here,” he told the audience, saying his movie was “more than a film, it’s a movement – about how everyone should have their language respected, their culture respected, their homeland respected.
“This award is dedicated to everyone out there fighting that fight.”
British success and a new collab?
Image: Camila Cabello meets Wallace and Gromit… and Nick Park and Merlin Crossingham. Pic: Joel C Ryan/Invision/AP
Here’s a look backstage at US singer-songwriter Camila Cabello and the Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl filmmakers Nick Park, left, and Merlin Crossingham.
The pair picked up the prize for best children’s and family film, becoming the first ever recipients of the award, which was presented by Cabello.
We’re hoping this could be the start of a new partnership.
Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl also took home the animated film trophy, with Park joking on stage: “I didn’t actually write a second speech.”
And there was more recognition for British technical creatives in other categories, too.
Nathan Crowley and Lee Sandales picked up the award for best production design, for their incredible visual work on the blockbuster smash Wicked.
Paul Lambert was on the team awarded the BAFTA for best visual effects, for his work on the science fiction blockbuster Dune: Part Two – which also won best sound, with a winning team including British mixer and engineer Gareth John.
Warwick Davis’s emotional speech
Image: Warwick Davis was given the BAFTA fellowship award. Pic: Joel C Ryan/Invision/AP
Honoured with the prestigious BAFTA fellowship award, Warwick Davis dedicated the prize to his late wife Samantha, who died in March last year.
Davis, who is known for fantasy film Willow and the Harry Potter movies, received the organisation’s highest honour for his performing and advocacy work.
“This is the best thing that’s ever happened to me – and I’ve been in Star Wars,” he joked at the start of his speech, before getting emotional as he talked about his wife and referenced his children, Annabelle and Harrison, who were in the audience.
“Thank you to the support of our wonderful children, I’ve been able to keep engaging in life,” he said.
Davis was born with spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita, a rare bone disorder that results in dwarfism.
Previous recipients of the fellowship include Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Sir Alfred Hitchcock, Dame Elizabeth Taylor, Stanley Kubrick, Billy Wilder, Ken Loach, Sir Michael Caine, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Lord Laurence Olivier and Dame Judi Dench.
Look out for David Jonsson
Image: David Jonsson is this year’s rising star. Pic: Joel C Ryan/Invision/AP
British actor David Jonsson was named this year’s BAFTA rising star – the only award voted for by the public.
The 31-year-old recently starred in the film Alien: Romulus and his credits also include TV series Industry as well as the 2023 romantic comedy Rye Lane.
“I’ve got to be honest, this isn’t why I do it,” he told the BAFTA audience in his speech. “Do you know what I mean? I’m just an east London boy.
“I didn’t really see a space for me in this industry. But this award is about people and as long as we can keep telling stories about people I think there’s got to be a space for me.”
Jonsson saw off competition from his fellow Industry and Back To Black star Marisa Abela, American actor Jharrel Jerome, Anora’s Madison and Informer star Nabhaan Rizwan.
Previous winners include Kristen Stewart, Daniel Kaluuya, John Boyega and Tom Hardy, all before they became big names in the industry.
Sing Sing stars visas denied, filmmakers say
Image: Clarence Maclin in Sing Sing. Pic: Dominic Leon
This wasn’t a moment from the ceremony, but on the red carpet ahead of the awards the filmmakers behind Sing Sing, which tells the true story of a group of men who take part in an arts rehabilitation project at a maximum security prison, spoke to Sky News on the red carpet.
While Colman Domingo, an established Hollywood star who was nominated for best actor, was able to attend the ceremony, the real-life person he portrayed in the film, Divine G Whitfield, was not – and neither was his co-star Clarence Maclin.
Maclin is a former inmate who played himself in the film, after being rehabilitated through the programme, and was nominated for best supporting actor.
Both were denied denied entry to the UK earlier this week due to their previous convictions, filmmakers Greg Kwedar and Clint Bentley said.
“Their visas were denied to enter the country because they have served prison time, which goes against the grain of everything this movie stands for,” Kwedar told us. “It shows that people have the capacity to grow and to come back into their communities when they leave prison.
“These two particular men have such courage, vulnerability, integrity – and they’re not here tonight and they should be. The story is about them, it was built with them.”
NASA’s Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1 (PRIME-1) is being prepared to analyse the Moon’s subsurface for resource extraction, with its technology expected to aid future Artemis missions. The experiment, which will assess lunar soil and identify potential resources, has been developed to support sustained human exploration. The instruments onboard will work together to drill, collect, and examine samples, providing data crucial for understanding the lunar environment. The mission is expected to deliver insights that could contribute to establishing long-term lunar habitation.
Instruments to Extract and Analyse Lunar Samples
According to the study, PRIME-1 consists of two primary instruments designed for simultaneous operation. The Regolith and Ice Drill for Exploring New Terrains (TRIDENT) has been engineered to drill into the Moon’s surface and collect samples, while the Mass Spectrometer Observing Lunar Operations (MSOLO) will analyse the gases released from these samples. Insights gained from this experiment could influence strategies for lunar resource utilisation, facilitating the production of essential supplies for deep-space missions.
Jackie Quinn, PRIME-1 project manager at NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre, stated in a report that the ability to drill and analyse samples simultaneously will provide critical information for future lunar missions. The technology is expected to assist in developing efficient methods for extracting and utilising resources available on the Moon’s surface and subsurface.
Scheduled Launch and Mission Objectives
Reports indicate that PRIME-1 is part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative, set to launch no earlier than February 26. The mission will be transported aboard Intuitive Machines’ Athena lunar lander, which is expected to explore the Mons Mouton plateau near the Moon’s South Pole. This location has been selected due to its potential for resource-rich deposits.
Technology Developed for Lunar Drilling and Analysis
TRIDENT, developed by Honeybee Robotics, a subsidiary of Blue Origin, has been designed as a rotary percussive drill capable of penetrating up to one metre below the lunar surface. The drill will extract 10-centimetre-long samples, allowing scientists to examine the distribution of frozen gases at varying depths. Equipped with carbide cutting teeth, the drill is built to handle the challenging lunar terrain. Unlike the Apollo-era drills, TRIDENT will be remotely operated from Earth, offering valuable data on regolith composition and temperature variations.
MSOLO, developed by INFICON and adapted for spaceflight at Kennedy Space Centre, will analyse the gases released from the drilled samples. This mass spectrometer is expected to identify the presence of water ice and other volatile compounds, contributing to a better understanding of lunar resource availability.
NASA’s CLPS Initiative and Future Exploration
Under the CLPS model, NASA is investing in commercial partnerships to enable lunar deliveries, with the goal of supporting long-term exploration. NASA, as a primary customer, is one of several organisations utilising these missions for scientific and technological advancements. The PRIME-1 mission has been funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate Game Changing Development program and is expected to provide foundational data for future lunar operations.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he is prepared to put “our own troops on the ground if necessary” in Ukraine if there is a deal to end the war with Russia.
Ahead of an “emergency meeting” of European leaders on Monday, the prime minister said he was “ready and willing” to put British troops into a peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the prime minister also said the UK was “ready to play a leading role” in Ukraine’s defence and security, by committing £3bn a year until 2030.
It comes as Emmanuel Macron rallies the likes of Sir Keir and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at a hastily-arranged Paris summit to discuss Ukraine’s next steps.
The French president will look to recapture Ukraine’s future at the informal meeting, which has been swiftly put together following announcements from the United States.
It will take place as the US sends senior officials to Saudi Arabia for peace talks with Russia – which representatives from Europe have not been invited to. It is unclear if Ukrainewill take part.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:16
European leaders to hold meeting
A delegation from Ukraine is in Saudi Arabia to pave the way for a possible visit from Volodymyr Zelenskyy, one Ukrainian official said on Sunday.
However, less than 24 hours prior, a top Zelenskyy adviser had denied Ukraine would take part in the discussions.
“There is nothing on the negotiating table that would be worth discussing,” Mykhailo Podolyak said in a TV interview.
Image: Trump spoke to reporters on the tarmac as he arrived in Florida for the Daytona 500. Pic: Reuters
Speaking prior to attending a NASCAR event in Florida on Sunday, Donald Trump said of Mr Putin: “I think he wants to stop fighting.
“They [Russia] have a big powerful machine, you understand that. They defeated Hitler and they defeated Napoleon. They’ve been fighting a long time.”
Mr Macron’s meeting is expected to be attended by British Prime Minister Sir Keir, Germany’s Mr Scholz, Danish PM Mette Frederiksen and Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, alongside other European leaders.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and NATO chief Mark Rutte are also expected at the Paris summit.
The goal of the discussions is to “bring together all partners interested in peace and security in Europe”, a French statement said.
Image: President Zelenskyy met with US vice president JD Vance last week
Meanwhile, representatives from the Trump administration are travelling to Saudi Arabia for peace talks with Russia. The discussions are expected to begin in Riyadh on Tuesday, according to Russian newspaper Kommersant.
Mr Trump’s push for a quick way out of Russia’s war on Ukraine has stirred concern and uncertainty from European leaders.
After a recent phone call with Mr Putin, Mr Trump has – on multiple occasions – said he and the Russian president will meet soon to discuss a peace deal over Ukraine.
He has assured Mr Zelenskyy he will have a seat at the table, but it is unclear if European officials will be invited.
The Ukrainian president has previously said he will not accept any negotiations that do not include his country.