Connect with us

Published

on

When Donald Trump appeared last week in a Washington, D.C., courtroom for his arraignment on federal election charges, the presiding judge gave the former president a few simple instructions for staying out of jail while he awaited trial.

Trump could not talk to potential witnesses about the case except through lawyers, Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya told him, and he could not commit a crime on the local, state, or federal level. Both are standard directives to defendants. But then Upadhyaya added a warning that seemed tailored a bit more specifically to the blustery politician standing before her: I want to remind you, the judge said, it is a crime to intimidate a witness or retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or otherwise obstruct justice.

When Upadhyaya asked Trump if he understood, he nodded. Fewer than 24 hours later, Trump appeared to flout that very warningin its spirit if not its letterby threatening his would-be foes in an all-caps post on Truth Social: IF YOU GO AFTER ME, IM COMING AFTER YOU! Over the following week, he attacked a potential witness in the case, former Vice President Mike Pence (delusional); Special Counsel Jack Smith (deranged); and the federal judge assigned to oversee his case, Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama (Smiths number one draft pick, in Trumps words).

Trumps screeds highlight a challenge that will now fall to Chutkan to confront: constraining a defendant whos both a former president and a leading candidate to take the White Houseand who seems bent on making a mockery of his legal process.

Shes in a tight spot, Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney in Michigan, says of Chutkan. Conceivably, the judge could find Trump in contempt of court and toss him in jail for violating the terms of his pretrial release. But even though in theory Trump should be treated like any other defendant, former prosecutors told me that he was exceedingly unlikely to go to prison over his pretrial statements. And Trump probably knows it. (Whether Trump will go to prison if he is convicted is another hotly debated matter.)

Read: The humiliation of Donald Trump

Im sure she would be very reluctant to do that, in light of the fact that hes running for president, McQuade told me. So I think as a result, he has a very long leash, and I think he will simply dare her to revoke [his freedom] by saying the most outrageous things he can.

At a pretrial hearing today, Chutkan issued her first warnings to Trumps lawyers about their client, according to reporting by Steven Portnoy of ABC News and Kyle Cheney of Politico. Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, she said. But that right is not absolute. She said Trumps presidential candidacy would not factor into her decisions, and she rebuffed suggestions by a Trump lawyer, John Lauro, that the former president had a right to respond to his political opponents in the heat of a campaign. Hes a criminal defendant, she reminded him. Hes going to have restrictions like every single other defendant.

Chutkan said she would be scrutinizing Trumps words carefully, and she concluded with what she called a general word of caution: Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, the judge said, can threaten the process. She added: I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.

Chutkan had called the hearing to determine whether to bar Trump and his lawyers from publicly disclosing evidence provided to them by prosecutorsa standard part of the pretrial process. The evidence includes millions of pages of documents and transcribed witness interviews from a year-long investigation, and the government argued that Trump or his lawyers could undermine the process by making them public before the trial. Despite her warnings to Trumps team, she sided with the defenses request to narrow the restrictions on what they could disclose, and she did not add other constraints on what he could say about the case.

Yet the effect of Chutkans courtroom comments was to put Trump on notice. If he continues to flout judicial warnings, she could place a more formal gag order on him, the ex-prosecutors said. And if he ignores that directive, she would likely issue additional warnings before considering a criminal-contempt citation. A further escalation, McQuade said, would be to hold a hearing and order Trump to show cause for why he should not be held in contempt. Maybe she gives him a warning, and she gives him another chance and another chance, but eventually, her biggest hammer is to send him to jail.

Judges have sanctioned high-profile defendants in other cases recently. In 2019, the Trump ally Roger Stone was barred from posting on major social-media platforms after Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that he had violated a gag order she had issued. (Stone did honor this directive.) The Trump foe Michael Avenatti, who represented Stormy Daniels in her case against Trump and briefly considered challenging him for the presidency, was jailed shortly before his trial on extortion charges after prosecutors accused him of disregarding financial terms of his bail. He was just scooped up and thrown into solitary, one of his former lawyers, E. Danya Perry, told me. She said that Avenatti was thrown into the same jail cell that had held El Chapo, the Mexican drug lord. (Avenatti later claimed that his treatment was payback ordered by thenAttorney General Bill Barr; the prison warden said he was placed in solitary confinement because of serious concerns about his safety, and Barr has called Avenattis accusation ridiculous.)

Neither Stone nor Avenatti, however, is as high-profile as Trump, arguably the most famous federal defendant in American history. And Perry doubts that Chutkan would imprison him before a trial. Trump has ignored warnings from judges overseeing the various civil cases brought against him over the years and has never faced tangible consequences. He has done it so many times and he has managed to skate so many times that he certainly is emboldened, Perry said.

Indeed, Trump has also suggested he would ignore a gag order from Chutkan. I will talk about it. I will. Theyre not taking away my First Amendment rights, Trump told a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Wednesday.

Trumps political motives for vilifying his prosecutors and once again portraying himself as the victim of a witch hunt are obvious: Hes trying to rile up his Republican base. Trump also seems to be executing something of a legal strategy in his public statements about the trial. Hes called Washington, D.C., a filthy and crime-ridden embarrassment, possibly reasoning that these remarks will force the court to agree to his request to shift the trial to a venue with a friendlier population of potential jurors, such as West Virginia.

David A. Graham: Trump is acting like hes cornered

Thats less likely to work, according to the former prosecutors I interviewed. Id be shocked to see that be successful, Noah Bookbinder, a former federal prosecutor who heads the anti-corruption advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told me. Its sort of like the old joke about the child who kills his mother and father and then asks for mercy because hes an orphan. I just dont see a court going for that.

Trumps attacks also present a problem for Smith, the special counsel. On one hand, prosecutors have a clear interest in ensuring that their witnesses do not feel intimidated; on the other, Smith could feel that trying to silence Trump would play into the former presidents victim narrative. Justice Department prosecutors alerted Chutkan to Trumps Im coming after you post in a court filing, and during todays hearing they voiced concerns that if not restricted, Trump could disclose evidence to benefit his campaign. (A Trump spokesperson said the former presidents warning was the definition of political speech, and that it referred tospecial interest groups and Super PACs opposing his candidacy.) But Smiths team did not ask Chutkan to fully gag Trump or even admonish him. You see the prosecutors being very, very restrained, Bookbinder said. With a lot of defendants who were bad-mouthing the prosecutor and witnesses, they would have immediately gone in and asked for an order for the defendant to stop doing that.

Bookbinder described the citation of Trumps post as a brushback pitch by the government, a signal that they are watching the former presidents public statements closely. But like Chutkan, Smith might be reluctant to push the matter very far. Fighting with Trump over a gag order could distract from where the government wants to focus the caseon Trumps alleged crimesand it could indulge his desire to drag out the trial, Bookbinder noted. But the special counsel has to weigh those concerns against the possibility that an out-of-control defendant could jeopardize the safety of prosecutors and witnesses. My strong suspicion is that Jack Smith doesnt want to go there, Bookbinder said. I think at some point he may have little choice.

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-Tory chairman Sir Jake Berry defects to Reform

Published

on

By

Ex-Tory chairman Sir Jake Berry defects to Reform

Ex-Tory chairman Sir Jake Berry has defected to Reform, in the latest blow to the Conservatives.

The former MP for Rossendale and Darwen, who served as Northern Powerhouse minister under Boris Johnson and lost his seat last year, said he had defected to Nigel Farage’s party because the Tories had “lost their way”.

Politics latest: Labour rebel defends calls for ‘wealth tax’

Reform UK confirmed the defection to Sky News, which was first broken by The Sun.

Speaking to the paper, Sir Jake said Mr Farage’s party was the “last chance to pull Britain back from terminal decline”.

“Our streets are completely lawless,” he said.

“Migration is out of control. Taxes are going through the roof.

More on Reform Uk

“And day after day, I hear from people in my community and beyond who say the same thing: ‘This isn’t the Britain I grew up in’.”

Sir Jake accused his former party of “abandoning the British people” but said he was not “giving up”.

“I’m staying. And I’m fighting.

“Fighting for the Britain I want my kids, and one day, my grandkids, to grow up in.”

Mr Farage welcomed what he said was “a very brave decision” by Sir Jake.

“His admission that the Conservative government he was part of broke the country is unprecedented and principled,” he added.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Reform support increasing the benefits bill by removing the two-child cap, and nationalising British industry. By contrast the Conservatives, under new leadership, will keep making the case for sound money, lower taxes and bringing the welfare bill under control.

“We wish Jake well in his new high spend, high tax party.”

Sir Jake’s defection to Reform comes just days after former Conservative cabinet minister David Jones joined Reform UK, which continues to lead in the polls.

European Research Group (ERG) chair Mark Francois (left), and deputy chair David Jones, speak to the media outside Portcullis House, Westminster
Image:
Former Welsh secretary David Jones (R) alongside Tory MP Mark Francois. Pic: PA

Mr Jones, who was MP for Clwyd West from 2005 until standing down in 2024, said he had quit the Tories after “more than 50 years of continuous membership”.

Sir Jake was the MP Rossendale and Darwen in Lancashire between 2010 and 2024, when he was defeated by Labour’s Andy MacNae.

He held several ministerial posts including in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Energy and Climate Change and the Cabinet Office.

Nigel Farage holds up six fingers to indicate the six votes his party's candidate won by in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Nigel Farage after winning the Runcorn and Helsby by-election.
Pic: Reuters

He was also chairman of the Conservative Party from September to October 2022, under Liz Truss.

Announcing his defection – which comes a year after the Tories suffered their worst ever election defeat – Sir Jake said “Britain was broken” and “the Conservative governments I was part of share the blame”.

“We now have a tax system that punishes hard work and ambition,” he said.

“Just this week, we saw record numbers of our brightest and best people leaving Britain because they can’t see a future here. At the same time, our benefits system is pulling in the world’s poor with no plan for integration and no control over who comes in.

“If you were deliberately trying to wreck the country, you’d be hard-pressed to do a better job than the last two decades of Labour and Tory rule.

“Millions of people, just like me, want a country they can be proud of again. The only way we get that is with Reform in government. That’s why I’ve resigned from the Conservative Party. I’m now backing Reform UK and working to make them the next party of government.”

Read more:
Starmer and Macron agree need for new small boats ‘deterrent’
Controversial welfare bill passes final Commons stage

He added: “And with Nigel Farage leading Reform, we’ve got someone the country can actually trust. He doesn’t change his views to fit the mood of the day. And people respect that. So do I. That’s why I believe he should be our next prime minister.”

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Not content with taking advice from Liz Truss, Nigel Farage has now tempted her Tory Party chairman into his ranks.

“It’s clear Farage wants Liz Truss’s reckless economics, which crashed our economy and sent mortgages spiralling, to be Reform’s blueprint for Britain. It’s a recipe for disaster and working people would be left paying the price.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Starmer and Macron agree need for ‘new deterrent’ to stop small boat crossings

Published

on

By

Starmer and Macron agree need for 'new deterrent' to stop small boat crossings

Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron have agreed the need for a “new deterrent” to deter small boats crossings in the Channel, Downing Street has said.

The prime minister met Mr Macron this afternoon as part of the French president’s state visit to the UK, which began on Tuesday.

High up the agenda for the two leaders is the need to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel, which Mr Macron said yesterday was a “burden” for both the UK and France.

Politics latest: Plans for Donald Trump UK visit in ‘coming weeks’

The small boats crisis is a pressing issue for the prime minister, given that more than 20,000 migrants crossed the English Channel to the UK in the first six months of this year – a rise of almost 50% on the number crossing in 2024.

Sir Keir is hoping he can reach a deal for a one-in one-out return treaty with France, ahead of the UK-France summit on Thursday, which will involve ministerial teams from both nations.

The deal would see those crossing the Channel illegally sent back to France in exchange for Britain taking in any asylum seeker with a family connection in the UK.

More on Emmanuel Macron

However, it is understood the deal is still in the balance, with some EU countries unhappy about France and the UK agreeing on a bilateral deal.

French newspaper Le Monde reports that up to 50 small boat migrants could be sent back to France each week, starting from August, as part of an agreement between Sir Keir and Mr Macron.

A statement from Downing Street said: “The prime minister met the French President Emmanuel Macron in Downing Street this afternoon.

“They reflected on the state visit of the president so far, agreeing that it had been an important representation of the deep ties between our two countries.

“Moving on to discuss joint working, they shared their desire to deepen our partnership further – from joint leadership in support of Ukraine to strengthening our defence collaboration and increasing bilateral trade and investment.”

It added: “The leaders agreed tackling the threat of irregular migration and small boat crossings is a shared priority that requires shared solutions.

“The prime minister spoke of his government’s toughening of the system in the past year to ensure rules are respected and enforced, including a massive surge in illegal working arrests to end the false promise of jobs that are used to sell spaces on boats.

Read more:
Can PM turn diplomatic work with Macron into action on migration?
UN criticises Starmer’s welfare reforms

“The two leaders agreed on the need to go further and make progress on new and innovative solutions, including a new deterrent to break the business model of these gangs.”

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, seized on the statement to criticise Labour for scrapping the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan, which the Tories claim would have sent asylum seekers “entering the UK illegally” to Rwanda.

He said in an online post: “We had a deterrent ready to go, where every single illegal immigrant arriving over the Channel would be sent to Rwanda.

“But Starmer cancelled this before it had a chance to start.

“Now, a year later, he’s realised he made a massive mistake. That’s why numbers have surged and this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal channel crossings.

“Starmer is weak and incompetent and he’s lost control of our borders.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Controversial welfare bill passes final Commons stage – but only after another concession

Published

on

By

Controversial welfare bill passes final Commons stage - but only after another concession

Sir Keir Starmer’s watered down welfare bill has passed its final stage in the Commons, after another concession was made to MPs.

The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill passed by 336 votes to 242 on Wednesday night – a majority of 94.

Politics latest: Starmer and Macron agree on need for new small boat ‘deterrent’

In a bid to thwart further opposition to the bill following last week’s climbdown, the government said it would not try to introduce any more reforms to personal independence payments (PIP) until a review by work and pensions minister Sir Stephen Timms on the assessment process has concluded.

Sir Stephen said he wanted to finish his review by next autumn, but that the government would not agree to complete the review in 12 months as some MPs wanted.

Marie Tidball, the Labour MP who had called for the 12-month limit, later signalled she was happy with the government’s compromise.

Ministers also agreed to her calls to have a majority of the taskforce looking at PIP to be disabled or from disability organisations, and for the outcome of the review to come before any PIP changes. It will also be voted on by MPs.

More on Benefits

A total of 47 Labour MPs have rebelled against the government to vote against its welfare reforms.

Mother of the House Diane Abbott, former minister Dawn Butler, Andy McDonald, Stella Creasy and Jonathan Brash were among those in the “no” lobby.

Meanwhile, MPs rejected a separate amendment by Green MP Sian Berry, which called for the basic rate of universal credit to increase by 4.8% above inflation each year until 2030.

A total of 39 Labour MPs voted for scrapping the clauses that halved Universal Credit for new claimants – the only major cut left in the bill after the government made its concessions.

The passing of the bill will come as a relief to Sir Keir Starmer, who last week was forced into a humiliating climbdown over his flagship welfare package in the face of significant opposition from his own MPs.

Read more:
What is a wealth tax?
UN criticises Starmer’s welfare reforms

Prior to the vote last Tuesday, the government offered significant concessions including exempting existing personal independence payment claimants (PIP) from stricter new criteria and only freezing and cutting the universal credit health top-up for new applications.

As the vote last week unfolded, it offered further confessions amid concerns the bill could be voted down – notably, that changes in eligibility for PIP would not take place until a review he is carrying out into the benefit is published in autumn 2026.

They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.

Continue Reading

Trending