seeks

James McClean admits his career is in jeopardy due to a long-standing hip injury and will explore the possibility of surgery to fix the problem.

The 37-year-old returned to Derry City this season, but says the Brandywell’s astroturf surface has acerbated the issue and received medical advice that he “has no business being on a football pitch”.

The Candystripes’ surface is in the process of being replaced with the grass surface at Derry GAA’s Celtic Park set to host at least five games until it is ready, beginning with Friday’s Premier Division clash against Shamrock Rovers [20:00 BST].

McClean, who was sent off for two yellows in the 2-2 draw against Dundalk on 10 April, is theoretically free to play, but is focused on what could be a “last chance for me to hopefully get a surgery”.

“I was told by a specialist 10 days ago that my body currently ‘has no business being on a football pitch’ due to the severity of the damage to my hip,” he posted on social media.

“I respect his honesty and his expert opinion, but I have never been one to lay down without a fight.

“Tomorrow’s appointment is a last chance for me to hopefully get a surgery – if it’s even a possibility – one which will allow me to do what I have dreamt of doing, and that’s being able to contribute while in an acceptable physical state to do so. That is playing for a club I love in Derry City.”

The former Republic of Ireland international, who spent 15 years at English and Welsh clubs after first leaving the Brandywell in 2011, said he wanted to set the record straight about the “hell” he has gone through due the hip problem.

“For the past few years, I have been playing through difficulties with my hip and though I have managed and played through the pain, the impact of training and playing on astro has sped up the damage much faster than I ever anticipated,” he explained.

“The past six weeks have been hell – pain is something I have been able to get on with and play with throughout my career, but it is the restriction and not being able to move which is what I am struggling with physically obviously, but also mentally.”

Court filings have indicated that lawyers for President Donald Trump are seeking a resolution with the Department of Justice over a $10bn lawsuit he filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

But the trouble, critics say, is that such a settlement would leave Trump essentially negotiating with an executive branch under his control.

Friday’s court filing, however, emphasises the efficiency of seeking a settlement.

In the document, Trump’s lawyers call for the case to be paused for 90 days to allow a resolution to be hammered out.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing says. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

How did the case start?

The case stems from an incident that began in 2017, when a worker named Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn was re-hired as a contractor through the government consulting firm Booz Allen.

While working on IRS files, Littlejohn stole copies of Trump’s tax returns, which had been the source of prolonged public scrutiny.

Until Trump, every president since Richard Nixon had released their tax returns as a gesture of transparency. Trump, however, claimed he could not, citing ongoing audits.

The tax returns Littlejohn stole were ultimately released to the media, and in 2020, The New York Times released a series of articles that showed Trump paid no income taxes in 10 of the 15 preceding years.

Other years, he paid relatively small sums, like $750, because he reported more losses than gains. ProPublica also ran stories based on the leaked tax returns, highlighting inconsistencies and Trump’s low tax payments.

Privacy law protects taxpayer information from being released by the IRS without explicit permission. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024.

But in late January of this year, Trump filed a lawsuit arguing that he, his businesses and his sons Eric and Donald Jr had suffered “significant and irreparable harm” from the leaks.

The defendants in the lawsuit were the IRS and its overseeing body, the Treasury Department, both of which are part of the executive branch.

“Defendants have caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing,” the lawsuit reads.

Questions of ethics and legality

But experts have warned that the lawsuit contains flaws that would normally prompt the Justice Department, also under Trump’s control, to seek dismissal.

The lawsuit, for instance, arrives at its whopping $10bn sum by supposedly tallying up media references to Trump’s leaked tax returns.

However, experts say the formula for damages is calculated by the number of unauthorised disclosures by a government employee, not by media re-printings.

Then there is the question of Littlejohn’s employment status. He was an outside contractor, not a government employee.

Trump also has to contend with the two-year statute of limitations in the case. The lawsuit contends that “President Trump did not discover the numerous violations” of his tax returns until January 29, 2024.

But critics point out he had posted on social media about his tax information being “illegally obtained” as far back as 2020, when The New York Times published its series.

Opponents say the lawsuit should be dismissed or at least delayed until Trump is no longer president. Otherwise, they argue it represents a conflict of interest, with Trump fundamentally negotiating with his own administration for a payout.

Controlling ‘both sides of the litigation’

Trump himself has acknowledged that such a payment would “never look good”. But he has justified the sum by saying it would be donated to charity.

“Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities,” he said in February.

Even that, legal experts argue, could run afoul of the Emoluments Clause in the US Constitution, which prohibits the president from profiting off his position, apart from his salary.

Government watchdogs have attempted to stop a settlement from unfolding. On February 5, for instance, the group Democracy Forward filed an amicus brief arguing the court should act to prevent an abuse of power.

“This case is extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics,” the brief explains.

“To treat this case like business as usual would threaten the integrity of the justice system and the important taxpayer and privacy protections at the heart of this case.”

But the $10bn IRS lawsuit is not the only case Trump is seeking to settle with his own government. In 2023 and 2024, Trump filed administrative complaints seeking compensation for federal investigations he considered to be unfair.

One complaint concerns an FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the other is about the FBI’s raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he refused a subpoena to return classified documents.

For those complaints, Trump is reportedly seeking additional damages to the tune of $230m.

Secretary of State Bill Jones, lagging in the polls for the Republican gubernatorial primary, on Monday asked the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento to investigate possible conflicts of interest between energy companies and the administration of Gov. Gray Davis.

For months, Jones has criticized Davis for hiring consultants during last year’s energy crisis who owned stock in companies that the governor alleged were gouging the state. Davis’ spokesman held $12,000 of stock in Calpine, a firm that won state contracts.

On Monday, Jones said the state Fair Political Practices Commission and the attorney general’s office, both controlled by Democrats, were not investigating aggressively enough.

Seizing upon recent reports that Davis met with then-Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay during the crisis, Jones called for a federal investigation.

“It is now time that the U.S. attorney’s office actively engage in this scandal and open an investigation into the conflicts of interest and insider dealings of Gov. Gray Davis and his administration,” Jones said at a Sacramento news conference. “Because we cannot get to the truth and we cannot get the entities entrusted by the people to do their jobs, we must now go to a higher authority.”

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined comment.

Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the Davis campaign, said the governor had taken appropriate action against consultants who had conflicts, dismissing four last summer.

The chairwoman of the FPPC responded coolly to Jones’ allegations. “We do not comment on complaints or any investigative actions taken in response to those complaints,” Karen Getman said. “Nor do we allow the timing of our activities to be influenced by upcoming elections.”

Though Jones called for more disclosure into Davis’ contacts with the energy industry, he has different standards for the Bush administration.

Spokeswoman Beth Pendexter said Jones believes Vice President Dick Cheney does not have to disclose whom he met with while forming the national energy policy last year.