hush

Do Celtic have ‘big issues’, or will next four days hush concerns?

Below-par showings were forgiven last season as Celtic simply just had to get by to stay in touch at the top before eventually leapfrogging Heart of Midlothian on the final day with a seventh successive league victory.

That Premiership-winning streak has been extended to 13 games following six straight victories to start the campaign, but concerns about performance level remain. Four of those six wins have been by a one-goal margin.

Twelve goals over three wins at Kilmarnock, Dundee United and in the first leg of the Champions League play-off against LASK sent an ominous warning to Celtic’s domestic rivals amid a period of high spending, particularly in forward areas.

Camilo Duran has been the standout summer recruit so far with six goals and three assists in 10 appearances, while record signing Kasper Hogh and fellow big-money arrival Haissem Hassan are yet to fully settle.

Sutton said his old club have been “flat-track bullies” by “beating the teams you expect them to beat”, but the collapse in Austria, plus Sunday’s bruising loss, has highlighted glaring deficiencies.

Even captain Callum McGregor lamented Celtic’s “team of individuals” after the weekend defeat at Ibrox.

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Monday Night Club, former striker Sutton also expressed his “great concerns” for O’Neill’s men and said they have “big issues” after a “lightweight” midfield was “run all over” by Rangers.

Celtic have struggled to build up play against coherent pressing teams, which results in opposition sides being offered too much encouragement when the ball turns over.

They faced a whopping 60 shots across both legs with LASK. Forty of them came in a mess of a second leg. In the Premiership alone this season, they have faced 64 attempts, the same number as Hearts and six more than Rangers.

Over just six games, that tally already makes up almost a quarter of the total they faced in the entirety of the 2024-25 league-winning campaign under Brendan Rodgers.

That said, in comparison to last term, which was overseen by Rodgers, Nancy and O’Neill, Celtic’s Premiership numbers show they are currently averaging a far better goal concession rate while scoring and shooting more.

Come Sunday, though, the most crucial statistic could be in the points column.

With a rapid rematch against Rangers offering the chance to move eight points clear of their city rivals after a test against European-level opposition, the next four days will at least be mood-shifting.

Whether that is to O’Neill’s benefit remains unclear.

Source link

President Trump loses again in bid to erase his hush money conviction

A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

Source link