The Supreme Court Is Shaming Itself

Published

2 years ago

March 28, 2024

admin

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.

Business

PPE Medpro will be pursued ‘with everything we’ve got’ Wes Streeting says

Published

1 hour ago

October 15, 2025

admin

PPE Medpro will be pursued 'with everything we've got' Wes Streeting says

The Government has vowed to pursue a company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone for millions of pounds paid for defective PPE at the height of the COVID pandemic after a High Court deadline passed without repayment.

Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro, a company founded by Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and promoted in government by the Tory peer, was in breach of contract and gave it two weeks to repay the £122m plus interest of £23m.

In a statement, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: “At a time of national crisis, PPE Medpro sold the previous government substandard kit and pocketed taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Money latest: How to add 24% to your home’s value

“PPE Medpro has failed to meet the deadline to pay – they still owe us over £145m, with interest now accruing daily.”

It is understood that is being charged at a rate of 8%.

“We will pursue PPE Medpro with everything we’ve got to get these funds back where they belong – in our NHS,” Mr Streeting concluded.

Earlier a spokesman for Mr Barrowman and the consortium behind the company said the government had not responded to an offer from PPE Medpro to discuss a settlement.

“Very disappointingly, the government has made no effort to respond or seek to enter into discussions,” he said.

During the trial PPE Medpro offered to pay £23m to settle the case but was rejected by the Department of Health and Social Care.

While Mr Barrowman has described himself as the “ultimate beneficial owner” of PPE Medpro, and says £29m of profit from the deal was paid into a trust benefitting his family including Baroness Mone and her children, he was never a director and the couple are not personally liable for the money.

PPE Medpro filed for insolvency the day before Mrs Justice Cockerill’s finding of breach of contract was published, and the company’s most recent accounts show assets of just £666,000.

Court-appointed administrators will now be responsible for recovering as much money as possible on behalf of creditors, principally the DHSC.

With PPE Medpro in administration and potentially limited avenues to recover funds, there is a risk that the government may recover nothing while incurring further legal expenses.

In June 2020, PPE Medpro won contracts worth a total of £203m to provide 210m masks and 25m surgical gowns after Baroness Mone contacted ministers including Michael Gove on the company’s behalf.

While the £81m mask contract was fulfilled the gowns were rejected for failing sterility standards, and in 2022 the DHSC sued. Earlier this month Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled that PPE Medpro was in breach of contract and liable to repay the full amount.

Mr Barrowman has previously named several other companies as part of the gown supply including two registered in the UK, and last week his spokesman said there was a “strong case” for the administrator to pursue them for the money.

One of the companies named has denied any connection to PPE Medpro and two others have not responded to requests for comment.

Insolvency experts say that administrators and creditors, in this case the government, may have some recourse to pursue individuals and entities beyond the liable company, but any process is likely to be lengthy and expensive.

Julie Palmer, a partner at Begbies Traynor, told Sky News: “The administrators will want to look at what’s happened to what look like significant profits made on these contracts.

“If I was looking at this I would want to establish the exact timeline, at what point were the profits taken out.

“They may also want to consider whether there is a claim for wrongful trading, because that effectively pierces the corporate veil of protection of a limited company, and can allow proceedings against company officers personally.

“The net of a director can also be expanded to shadow directors, people sitting in the background quite clearly with a degree of control of the management of the company, in which case some claims may rest against them.”

A spokesman for Forvis Mazars, one of the joint administrators of PPE Medpro, did not comment other than to confirm the firm’s appointment.

Business

£5bn Bitcoin fraud mastermind had device containing £67m in secret pocket

Published

1 hour ago

October 15, 2025

admin

£5bn Bitcoin fraud mastermind had device containing £67m in secret pocket

The mastermind of a £5bn Chinese investment fraud was found with a device containing £67m of cryptocurrency in a secret pocket of her jogging bottoms when she was arrested after years on the run, a court has heard.

Prosecutors are setting up a compensation scheme after Yadi Zhang, 47, conned around 128,000 Chinese investors into fraudulent wealth schemes between 2014 and 2017.

Zhang, who is also known as Zhimin Qian, admitted money laundering charges after police discovered more than 61,000 Bitcoin, now worth more than £5bn, in digital wallets, in the UK’s biggest ever cryptocurrency seizure.

She arrived in the UK on a false St Kitts and Nevis passport in September 2017 before coming to the attention of police after trying to buy some of London’s most expensive properties.

Zhang vanished after police raided her £5m six-bedroom rented house near Hampstead Heath in north London in 2018, but was finally arrested in York last year.

In written legal arguments, Martin Evans KC representing the Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, said a ledger and passwords were found in a purpose-made concealed pocket in the jogging bottoms she was wearing.

She revealed the access code for two wallets during interviews in prison, leading investigators to cryptocurrency worth around £67m.

The stash has been added to the £5bn Bitcoin hoard, which has reportedly been earmarked by Chancellor Rachel Reeves to help plug the hole in the public finances.

The fortune is at the centre of a High Court battle between the UK government and thousands of Chinese victims, who want to recover their investment and say it should reflect the huge rise in the value of Bitcoin.

Law firm Fieldfisher, which is representing around 1,000 victims, said some have lost their life savings and many are old and vulnerable.

The court heard the DPP is also setting up a compensation scheme for the victims not represented in court, although no further details have been given.

The judge, Mr Justice Turner, will make orders on the case at a later date.

Zhang pleaded guilty to charges of possessing criminal property and transferring criminal property on or before the 23 April 2024 last month and is in custody awaiting sentencing in November.

Jian Wen, 43, was jailed for six years and eight months last year after being found guilty of one count of money laundering between October 2017 and January 2022 relating to 150 Bitcoin, now worth around £12.5m.

Her trial heard that Wen, who previously worked in a Chinese takeaway, was not involved in the alleged fraud but acted as a “front person” to help disguise the source of the money.

The court heard how the two women travelled the world, spending tens of thousands of pounds on designer clothes, jewellery and shoes.

Seng Hok Ling, 47, is said to have replaced Wen as Zhang’s “butler”, organising helpers and booking Airbnbs, including in Scotland, for the fugitive while she was on the run.

Police found Zhang after carrying out surveillance of Ling and seized assets including encrypted devices, cash, gold and cryptocurrency.

Ling, a Malaysian national from Matlock in Derbyshire, pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to entering into a money laundering arrangement with Zhang on or before 23 April 2024 and will be sentenced alongside her.

Prosecutors said Zhang masterminded a scam in China, before converting the money into cryptocurrency to get it out of the country.

UK