JERUSALEM — The Israeli Cabinet on Monday voted unanimously to fire the attorney general, escalating a long-running standoff between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the judiciary that critics see as a threat to the country’s democratic institutions.
The Supreme Court froze the move while it considers the legality of it.
Netanyahu and his supporters accuse Atty. Gen. Gali Baharav-Miara of exceeding her powers by blocking decisions by the elected government, including a move to fire the head of Israel’s domestic security agency, another ostensibly apolitical office. She has said there is a conflict of interest because Netanyahu and several former aides face a series of criminal investigations.
Critics accuse Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, of undermining judicial independence and seeking to concentrate power in the hands of his coalition government, the most nationalist and religious in Israel’s history. Netanyahu denies the allegations and says he is the victim of a witch hunt by hostile judicial officials egged on by the media.
An attempt by Netanyahu’s government to overhaul the judiciary in 2023 sparked months of mass protests, and many believe it weakened the country ahead of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack later that year that triggered the war in the Gaza Strip.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, a prominent watchdog group, said it filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court following Monday’s vote. It said more than 15,000 citizens have joined the petition, calling the dismissal “illegal” and “unprecedented.”
In a statement, the group accused the government of changing dismissal procedures only after failing to legally remove Baharav-Miara under the existing rules. It also cited a conflict of interest related to Netanyahu’s ongoing trial.
“This decision turns the role of the attorney general into a political appointment,” the group said. “The legal battle will continue until this flawed decision is overturned.”
Nineteen suspects accused of being involved in the 2024 shooting attack in a Moscow concert hall that killed 149 people, and wounded over 600, have appeared in court in a glass cage at the beginning of their trial. A faction of the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attack.
Russian President Vladimir Putin claims, without providing evidence, that Ukraine was involved in the attack, an allegation Kyiv vehemently denies.
The trial has begun for 19 defendants accused of involvement in the 2024 shooting attack in a Moscow concert hall that killed 149 people, and wounded over 600, in one of the deadliest attacks in the capital since the era of the Russian-Chechen wars in the 1990s and 2000s.
The suspects appearing in court on Monday, under heavy security, kept their heads bowed as they sat in the defendants’ cage.
An ISIL (ISIS) affiliate claimed responsibility for the March 22, 2024 massacre at the Crocus City Hall concert venue in which four gunmen shot people who were waiting for a show by a rock band and then set the building on fire. ISIL’s Afghan branch – also known as ISKP (ISIS-K) – claimed responsibility for the attack.
A massive blaze is seen at the Crocus City Hall on the western edge of Moscow, Russia, Friday, March 22, 2024. Several gunmen burst into the concert hall and fired automatic weapons at the crowd, killing dozens [Sergei Vedyashkin/Moscow News Agency via AP]
President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have claimed, without providing any evidence, that Ukraine was involved in the attack, an allegation Kyiv has vehemently denied.
The Investigative Committee, Russia’s top criminal investigation agency, concluded in June that the attack had been “planned and carried out in the interests of the current leadership of Ukraine in order to destabilise the political situation in our country”. It also said the four suspected gunmen tried to flee to Ukraine afterward.
The four, all identified as citizens of Tajikistan, were arrested hours after the attack and later appeared in a Moscow court with signs of having been beaten.
The committee said earlier this year that six other suspects were charged in absentia and placed on Russia’s wanted list for allegedly recruiting and organising the training of the four. Other defendants in the trial were accused of helping them.
In 2002, some 40 rebels from Chechnya stormed the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow and took around 800 people hostage while demanding an end to Putin’s war in the separatist southern republic.
Putin refused to negotiate with the fighters, and the standoff ended with mass death days later when Russian special services pumped a powerful gas into the building to stun the hostage-takers before storming it. Most of the 129 hostages who died were killed by the gas.
CRUCIAL evidence used to prosecute Britain’s worst child serial killer Lucy Letby has been ripped apart by experts who claim “grossly misleading” methods were used to secure the nurse’s conviction.
Lucy Letby was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prisonCredit: AP
7
A new ITV documentary explores the views of a team of international scientists who claim the prosecution case simply doesn’t stand up to scrutinyCredit: MEN Media
She was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prison.
Described as a cold-blooded, calculating killer, Letby was said to have used her trusted role on a neonatal intensive care unit to cause catastrophic harm to the most vulnerable newborn babies – without leaving a trace.
A new ITV documentary explores the views of a team of international scientists who claim the prosecution case simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, including crucial statistic evidence and claims over the methods used to kill newborn babies.
Doctors raised suspicions that Lucy Letby had been present at a number of these baby deaths, so she was moved off the unit and into a desk job.
A team from the Royal College of Paediatrics was invited in to investigate. It identified a shortage of nurses and a lack of consultant cover risking patient safety – but could find no definitive reason for the rise in mortality.
However, the unit’s senior doctors were unhappy with the outcome of the reviews and wrote to hospital bosses doubting that the deaths and collapses could be explained by natural causes.
In March 2017 the police were called, and in November 2020 Letby was charged with seven counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder, relating to 17 babies. She pleaded not guilty.
I was sure Lucy Letby was guilty… then I spent weeks poring over evidence and now I’m convinced no babies were murdered
The prosecution’s case centred on a few central pillars; a shift chart, which showed Letby was always there when something terrible happened, hand-written notes presented as confessions, blood tests suggesting babies had been poisoned, and medical evidence taken from the babies’ notes to support theories that Letby had attacked them.
The person who came up with most of those theories was a retired paediatrician, Dr Dewi Evans.
During the trial there was eight months of prosecution evidence and a series of prosecution witnesses.
But Letby’s legal team presented not a single expert medical witness in her defence.
She was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others.
AS the second anniversary of Lucy Letby’s incarceration approaches, I remain convinced of her innocence.
This investigation by ITV only serves to bolster my opinion.
As the title of the documentary alludes, English justice requires a jury to convict on evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
Programme makers have gathered a raft of experts and experienced medics who, in my opinion, ably demonstrate that the Letby prosecution falls well short of that threshold.
I believe it rightly highlights flaws in the statistical evidence put before a jury at her first trial.
A chart showed a cluster of 25 suspicious baby deaths and collapses matched against the shift rota of the 38 nurses who worked on the unit. Only Letby was at the scene for every death and collapse.
Yet, the jury wasn’t told about six other baby deaths in the period for which she faced no charges.
Leading medical statistician Professor Jane Hutton says of the chart in the programme: “This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading.”
The documentary examines Dr Ravi Jayaram’s assertion that Letby didn’t raise the alarm over a dying baby.
It has since emerged that an email sent by Dr Jayaram to colleagues suggests Letby did actually alert him. It wasn’t shown to juries at either of her trials.
I found convincing an expert on the documentary debunking the prosecution’s assertion that Letby poisoned some of the babies with insulin.
While international expert Dr Shoo Lee – a vocal supporter of Letby’s innocence – insisted that all the babies said to have been killed or injured by the nurse actually died from “natural causes or just bad medical care.”
It mirrors my belief that incompetence not malice was behind the baby’s deaths.
ITV’s documentary will only add to the increasing groundswell of opinion that an innocent woman now languishes behind bars.
As the country started to reflect on the horror of Letby’s crimes, concerns were already being raised about the evidence that was used.
Mark McDonald, Letby’s new barrister, was instructed last September after two failed attempts to appeal her convictions.
He says: “People started contacting me, medically qualified people, scientifically qualified people, statisticians saying ‘we think something has gone wrong here’.”
In the weeks after Letby was convicted, professor of statistics Richard Gill was among a handful of professionals who were questioning the verdict.
He is known to be controversial and outspoken but his work has led to two nurses in Italy and the Netherlands who were convicted of similar crimes having their convictions overturned.
Professor Gill believed the shift chart which helped convict Letby was misleading.
Leading medical statistician Professor Jane Hutton agrees, saying: “It has influenced a lot of people into thinking she must’ve done it because she was always there and nobody else was.
“It has a very strong visual impact but it doesn’t tell you how the data has been selected. You know it is clear that this is aimed to present a conclusion.”
Their main concern was the left hand column of the chart. Each entry presents a death or life-threatening event.
But these were not all the deaths or life-threatening events in that period. The prosecution made a selection.
Dewi Evans’ early reports for the police identified other events which he said were attacks on babies. But these happened when Letby wasn’t on duty and those events don’t appear on the chart.
“This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading,” says Jane Hutton.
According to the prosecution, Letby used various methods to try to kill. The most simple was by dislodging a baby’s breathing tube.
This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading
Jane Hutton
Countess of Chester paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram told the court he had never known of the breathing tube of a baby born at 25 weeks to become accidentally dislodged.
But Dr Richard Taylor, a neonatologist with over 30 years experience, and some of his colleagues disagree.
He explains: “The prosecution allege that the tube was intentionally dislodged and the first thing I would say is accidental dislodgement is distinctly common.
“It can be dislodged by the operator and it can also be dislodged by the baby themselves just by moving their head or thrusting their tongue.”
Convictions ‘unsafe’
7
As the country started to reflect on the horror of Letby’s crimes, concerns were already being raised about the evidence that was usedCredit: Alamy
7
Lucy Letby has a number of high profile supporters including MP David Davis and Dr Shoo LeeCredit: Alamy
The jury couldn’t decide if Letby was guilty of attempting to murder one of the babies, Baby K, by dislodging its breathing tube. That single case went to a retrial and Dr Ravi Jayaram gave evidence.
He told the court he went into the room and saw the baby’s blood oxygen levels dropping dangerously low while Letby stood by and did nothing. He also said Letby had not called for help.
But an email has come to light from Jayaram detailing the event in which he said Letby herself had called him in because the baby was collapsing. The jury was never told about this email.
The documentary claims that Dr Jayaram isn’t the only medic who appears to have contradicted his own testimony. Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering baby C by forcing air into its stomach.
ITV’s documentary will only add to the increasing groundswell of opinion that an innocent woman now languishes behind bars
The Sun’s Oliver Harvey
Dr Dewi Evans based this theory on an X-ray taken on June 12, 2015 which showed air in the baby’s stomach. But Letby had been off work that day and she hadn’t met Baby C when the X-ray was taken.
When challenged on this at trial, Dr Evans couldn’t rule out that air had been injected into the veins, but the prosecution maintained that Letby must have injected air into the baby’s stomach.
Now Dr Evans has committed to another theory. He says Letby killed Baby C a day later by injecting air into the veins, causing something called an air embolism.
Mark McDonald claims the fact that Dr Evans has changed his mind, and was the lead expert for the prosecution, makes all the convictions unsafe.
Mental anguish
7
Mark McDonald, Lucy Letby’s barrister, claims the fact that Dr Evans has changed his mind, and was the lead expert for the prosecution, makes all the convictions unsafe
Police investigated Letby for three-and-a-half years before she was charged. During searches of her home, some notes were found which appeared incriminating, with one noting: “I’m evil, I did this.”
In court Letby admitted writing the notes, but said she did so at a time of mental anguish and she was just scribbling down thoughts as a form of therapy.
The hospital had provided a therapist to support Letby during the investigations. Her name appears several times on the notes.
The jury was never told it was this therapist who suggested Letby express her feelings in this way as part of her treatment.
Nearly a year after the police began investigating Letby they made a breakthrough: blood tests which showed high levels of insulin and low c-peptide. The prosecution said this was proof that insulin had been given to the babies externally and was therefore an attempt to poison them.
The prosecution told the jury that two of the babies had been poisoned with insulin and they had test results that proved it.
But a leading forensic scientist says those results cannot be relied on as they will have been done quickly in a medical setting for diagnostic purposes and were not retested to forensic standards.
Over the last six months a team of scientists have been instructed by Letby’s legal team.
They have been given access to the babies’ medical notes and asked to look again at the insulin test results.
Chemical engineer Helen Shannon says: “We have spent hundreds of hours investigating every facet of the science and there is a completely obvious solution that does not involve poisoning.”
We have spent hundreds of hours investigating every facet of the science and there is a completely obvious solution that does not involve poisoning
Helen Shannon
“The insulin case has applied basic clinical guidance for healthy adults to tiny, compromised neonates,” adds Helen.
Many newborn babies are born with proteins in their blood called antibodies. The team says that insulin in the blood stream can stick to these antibodies, giving a higher reading, while c-peptide continues to be cleared, giving a low reading.
Helen says: “It doesn’t have any effect on the child at all, it just floats around. So as a result it gives a very high reading on the test that was done at the time.
“We can’t see any justification at all for the prosecution statement that it can only be poisoning.”
Earlier this year a panel of international medical experts, who reviewed Letby’s case, told a press conference that they did not find any evidence of murder.
Chairman Dr Shoo Lee provided what he said were highly detailed grounds baby-by-baby for concluding that none of the murders occurred.
He added: “We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.
“Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders. In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies.”
‘Deeply distressing’
The expert panel report has been delivered to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and her case can only be returned to the Court of Appeal if there is new evidence.
To reexamine the cause of the babies’ deaths, the expert panel was given access to all the babies’ medical records to compile their report. For Professor Neena Modi those records tell a story of failure by the hospital and the doctors.
She says: “On reading through the detailed medical notes, what was harrowing was seeing a story unfold where possibly things could have been recognised earlier and interventions put in place and possibly for some of the babies the outcomes might not have been what they were. This was deeply distressing.”
The increase in deaths coincided with the unit having to take babies who were more unwell than they were equipped or staffed for, it is claimed.
Professor Modi says: “The babies we are referring to were all extremely vulnerable. Some of them were demonstrably and recognisably on a knife edge.
“Others could have been recognised to be on a knife edge but they were not monitored appropriately or treated appropriately.
“Problems went unrecognised until the point at which a baby deteriorated very abruptly. The babies might not have died had their difficulties been addressed earlier.”
7
To reexamine the cause of the babies’ deaths, the expert panel was given access to all the babies’ medical records to compile their report. For Professor Neena Modi those records tell a story of failure by the hospital and the doctorsCredit: Alamy
7
Earlier this year a panel of international medical experts, who reviewed Letby’s case, told a press conference that they did not find any evidence of murderCredit: PA
In a statement to ITV, the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials. In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
They confirmed they are considering a file of evidence from the police relating to further deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
The Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “Due to the Thirlwall Inquiry and ongoing police investigations it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
Dr Dewi Evans told ITV that his evidence was subject to cross examination agreed by a jury after thorough review from a judge and subsequently agreed by the Court of Appeal.
He added: “None of the evidence presented by Shoo Lee’s expert panel has been subject to any such scrutiny and it contains factual errors. It is trial by speculation.”
Dr Ravi Jayaram declined to comment.
Lucy Letby: Beyond all Reasonable Doubt? Is on ITV1 on Sunday 3 August.
An ITV documentary, Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, features medical experts questioning the evidence that convicted nurse Lucy Letby of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven others, as her legal team pursues a potential appeal
22:34, 02 Aug 2025Updated 22:35, 02 Aug 2025
Lucy Letby convictions under scrutiny as experts challenge trial evidence in new ITV doc(Image: Chester Standard / SWNS.com)
Several medical experts criticise the “deeply disturbing” and “flawed” evidence used to convict killer nurse Lucy Letby in a new documentary on TV tonight.
He adds: “In the trial, they started from the starting point, ‘She has done harm. Now we have to show how she has harmed each child….we’re just going to put together a theory.’ And she was convicted on that theory.”
Two appeals have failed. But in February a panel of medical experts, led by Dr Shoo Lee, found Letby did not murder any babies. Her defence team has now submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Dr Neena Modi, ex-president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, says: “It’s been deeply disturbing that one can have such a… tremendously important trial that seems to have been conducted with so many flaws.”
Letby was found guilty of murdering seven newborn babies(Image: MEN MEDIA)
One alleged flaw is a shift chart, used to prove Letby was always present when the babies were harmed at the Countess of Chester Hospital from 2015 to 2016.
But statistician Professor Jane Hutton says some incidents, when Letby was not working, were left off, adding: “This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading.”
It was also claimed Letby must have caused one baby’s death by removing a breathing tube. But several experts say the tubes can be dislodged for a “variety of reasons”.
Notes by Letby, including the phrase “I am evil I did this” were presented as confessional in court. But it is claimed she was encouraged by hospital staff to write down her feelings to help cope with stress.
Baby killer Lucy Letby has reportedly grown closer to another notorious child murderer in jail(Image: AP)
It is also alleged the prosecution’s lead expert, Dr Dewi Evans, has altered his view about how three babies died since the case.
But he denies this, saying his evidence has been agreed by a jury and the Court of Appeal. He also argues the case by Dr Shoo Lee’s panel has not been held to scrutiny in court and contains significant factual errors.
The CPS said: “Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials.
“In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds, rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
It added that it is considering police files on further baby deaths and collapses at the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? is on ITV1, at 10.20pm, tonight.
Paris Saint-Germain which the Moroccan defender Achraf Hakimi denies the alleged rape of a woman in 2023.
French prosecutors on Friday called for Paris Saint-Germain star Achraf Hakimi to face trial for the alleged rape of a woman in 2023, which the Moroccan international denies.
The Nanterre prosecutor’s office told the AFP news agency that they had requested that the investigating judge refer the rape charge to a criminal court.
“It is now up to the investigating magistrate to make a decision within the framework of his order,” the prosecutor’s office told AFP in a statement.
Hakimi, 26, played a major role in PSG’s run to their first Champions League title, with the full-back scoring the opener in the 5-0 rout of Inter Milan in the final in May.
Hakimi, who helped Morocco to their historic run to the semifinals of the 2022 World Cup, was charged in March 2023 with raping a 24-year-old woman.
Hakimi allegedly paid for his accuser to travel to his home on February 25, 2023, in the Paris suburb of Boulogne-Billancourt while his wife and children were away on holiday.
The woman went to a police station following the encounter, alleging rape and was questioned by police.
Although the woman refused to make a formal accusation, prosecutors decided to press charges against the player.
She told police at the time that she had met Hakimi in January 2023 on Instagram.
On the night in question, she said she had travelled to his house in a taxi paid for by Hakimi. She told police Hakimi had started kissing her and making non-consensual sexual advances, before raping her, a police source told AFP at the time.
She said she managed to break free to text a friend who came to pick her up.
Contacted by AFP after Friday’s development, Hakimi’s lawyer Fanny Colin described the call by prosecutors for a trial as “incomprehensible and senseless in light of the case’s elements”.
“We, along with Achraf Hakimi, remain as calm as we were at the start of the proceedings.
“If these requisitions were to be followed, we would obviously pursue all avenues of appeal,” she added.
“My client welcomes this news with immense relief,” Rachel-Flore Pardo, the lawyer representing the woman, told AFP.
Hakimi, born in Madrid, came through the youth system at Real Madrid before joining Bundesliga side Borussia Dortmund in 2018.
He went on to make 73 appearances for the German club.
He moved to Inter Milan in 2020 and then on to PSG in 2021, where he has established himself as an integral part of the team.
In Qatar, Hakimi was a cornerstone of the Morocco team that became the first African or Arab nation to reach the semifinals of a World Cup.
FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A man charged with trying to assassinate President Trump last year in South Florida can represent himself during his trial, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off on Ryan Routh’s request but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel. Earlier in the week, the federal public defenders had asked to be taken off the case, saying Routh had refused repeated attempts to meet with them.
Routh said during the hearing that his attorneys were diligent but they didn’t listen to him and were afraid of him.
“How are they supposed to represent me and say I’m not a dangerous person when they don’t believe that?” Routh said.
Routh, 59, is scheduled to stand trial in September, a year after prosecutors say a U.S. Secret Service agent thwarted his attempt to shoot Trump as he played golf. Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer and several firearm violations.
Reiterating her message from a July 10 hearing, Cannon told Routh that she doesn’t intend to delay the Sept. 8 start date of his trial, even if she lets him represent himself. She also once again told Routh that she believes it’s a bad idea for Routh to represent himself.
Routh, who said he completed two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understands the potential challenges and would be ready for trial.
Cannon said Thursday that she decided to hold the second hearing after receiving a June 29 letter from Routh that did not arrive at the courthouse until after that hearing. In that letter, Routh said he and his attorneys were “a million miles apart” and that they were refusing to answer his questions. He also wrote that he could be used in a prisoner exchange with Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.
“I could die being of some use and save all this court mess, but no one acts; perhaps you have the power to trade me away,” Routh wrote.
Cannon told Routh that she believed the federal public defenders assigned to Routh’s case were excellent attorneys.
“I find no basis to believe that there has been ineffective assistance of counsel,” Cannon said.
The judge also reminded Routh that she will not be able to assist Routh or provide legal advice during the trial.
Cannon also briefly addressed Routh’s suggestion of a prisoner exchange, saying, “I have no power or any opinion of anything you’ve written there.”
On Wednesday, the federal public defender’s office filed a motion for termination of appointment of counsel, saying “the attorney-client relationship is irreconcilably broken.” Attorneys said Routh has refused six attempts to meet with their team, including a scheduled in-person meeting Tuesday morning at the federal detention center in Miami.
“It is clear that Mr. Routh wishes to represent himself, and he is within his Constitutional rights to make such a demand,” the motion said.
Cannon denied their motion on Thursday, explaining that their office was in the best position to prevent delays to the trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a right to represent themselves in court proceedings, as long as they can show a judge they are competent to waive their right to be defended by an attorney.
Prosecutors have said Routh methodically plotted to kill Trump for weeks before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on Sept. 15 at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Officials said Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot.
Law enforcement obtained help from a witness who prosecutors said informed officers that he saw a person fleeing. The witness was then flown in a police helicopter to a nearby interstate where Routh was arrested, and the witness confirmed it was the person he had seen, prosecutors have said.
Routh will have his first chance to represent himself on Friday during a scheduled hearing on whether certain evidence and testimony can be used at trial. His former attorneys are expected to be present as standby counsel.
In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.
GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland has prohibited the Trump administration from taking Kilmar Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail in Tennessee while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges, according to an order issued Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the U.S. government to provide three business days’ notice if Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to initiate deportation proceedings against the Maryland construction worker.
The judge also ordered the government to restore the federal supervision that Abrego Garcia was under before he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That supervision had allowed Abrego Garcia to live and work in Maryland for years, while he periodically checked in with ICE.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Trump’s immigration policies after his wrongful explusion to El Salvador in March. Trump’s administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he probably faces threats of gang violence there.
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
U.S. officials have said they’ll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn’t El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he’s a danger to the community.
A federal judge in Tennessee has been considering whether to release Abrego Garcia to await trial, prompting fears from his attorneys that he would be quickly expelled by ICE.
In an effort to prevent his deportation, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked the judge in Maryland to order the U.S. government to send him to that state to await his trial. Short of that, they asked for at least 72 hours’ notice if ICE planned to deport Abrego Garcia.
Abrego Garcia’s American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration in Xinis’ Maryland court over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge’s decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said.
The Trump administration recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia’s supervised release when they deemed him to be in the MS-13 gang and deported him in March.
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to delay releasing him from jail in order to prevent the Trump administration from trying to swiftly deport the Maryland construction worker.
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
U.S. officials have said they’ll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn’t El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he’s a danger to the community.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he’s not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.
Holmes’ ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government’s plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw’s decision imminent, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to “evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.”
Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That’s where Abrego Garcia’s American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge’s decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia’s supervised release.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in Maryland have asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.
His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he’s released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
1 of 3 | On July 21, 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in Dayton, Tenn., in one of the great confrontations in legal history, ended with John Thomas Scopes convicted and fined $100 for teaching evolution in violation of state law. UPI File Photo
July 21 (UPI) — On this date in history:
In 1861, the first major military engagement of the Civil War occurred at Bull Run Creek, Va.
In 1918, a German U-boat fired on the town of Orleans, Mass., on Cape Cod peninsula, damaging a tug boat and sinking four barges, and severely injuring one man. It was the only place in the United States to receive an enemy attack during World War I.
In 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in Dayton, Tenn., in one of the great confrontations in legal history, ended with John Thomas Scopes convicted and fined $100 for teaching evolution in violation of state law.
In 1969, U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, lifted off from the moon in the Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle and docked with the command module Columbia piloted by Michael Collins.
In 1970, after 11 years of construction, the massive Aswan High Dam across the Nile River in Egypt was completed, ending the cycle of flood and drought in the Nile River region but triggering an environmental controversy.
In 2000, a report from special counsel John Danforth cleared U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and the government of wrongdoing in the April 19, 1993, fire that ended the Branch Davidian siege near Waco, Texas.
In 2011, Greece continued efforts to climb out of a financial chasm with a second bailout pledge from other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund worth $157 billion. Earlier, the nation dealt with its debt crisis with the help of a $146 billion loan package.
In 2024, President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid in the 2024 presidential race, formally endorsing his vice president, Kamala Harris. Former President Donald Trump defeated Harris in November 2024 to win his second term in office.
The city of Los Angeles must pay nearly $50 million to a man who has been in a coma since he was hit by a sanitation truck while crossing a street in Encino, a jury decided Thursday.
Kamran Hakimi, now 61, was in a crosswalk at Hayvenhurst Avenue and Ventura Boulevard last August when the sanitation truck struck him. Hakimi had a green light, and the driver made an “unsafe right turn,” according to Hakimi’s attorneys.
A handlebar on the front of the truck hit Hakimi’s head and flung him to the asphalt, where he hit his head, the attorneys said. Hakimi briefly stood and flashed a thumbs up before losing consciousness.
“Mr. Hakimi’s life, and the lives of his family, are forever changed due to the negligence of a City of Los Angeles employee,” said Rahul Ravipudi, one of Hakimi’s attorneys. “This verdict upholds the dignity of the life Mr. Hakimi enjoyed before this tragedy and we are grateful to the jury who carefully considered all the evidence and provided Mr. Hakimi with the means necessary to get the higher level of care he so desperately needs.”
Hakimi is a father of five and worked in real estate before the crash. In October, his attorneys filed a lawsuit against the city in Los Angeles Superior Court.
The city admitted that the driver failed to yield to Hakimi, according to Hakimi’s attorneys. But at trial, the city “disputed the damages suffered by Mr. Hakimi, arguing that his life expectancy was limited and that the value of his non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, was minimized because he was in a comatose state,” Hakimi’s attorneys said.
The jury ordered the city to pay Hakimi $48.8 million, including $25 million for future pain and suffering and $10 million for future medical expenses.
The verdict, which comes as the city continues to struggle with escalating legal liability payouts, was larger than any single payout by the city in the last two fiscal years, according to data provided by the City Attorney’s Office. The city can still appeal.
Another Hakimi attorney, Brian Panish, said the case never should have gone to trial, blaming City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto for refusing to settle the case.
“The city attorney chose to force this case to trial, rejected all reasonable settlement proposals … There were many reasonable proposals made by an independent mediator chosen by the city,” Panish said.
Feldstein Soto, through her press office, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Panish echoed arguments made by plaintiffs’ attorneys who have said that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies have contributed to rising legal liability costs. They claim that Feldstein Soto has taken cases to trial that she should have settled, resulting in bigger verdicts if the city is found liable.
The city paid out a total of $289 million, its highest liability costs ever, in the fiscal year 2025.
An $8bn trial, pitting Meta Platforms shareholders against Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders, over claims they illegally harvested the data of Facebook users in violation of a 2012 agreement with the United States Federal Trade Commission, is under way.
The trial kicked off on Wednesday with a privacy expert for the plaintiffs, Neil Richards of Washington University Law School, who testified about Facebook’s data policies.
“Facebook’s privacy disclosures were misleading,” he told the court.
Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under former President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to take the stand later on Wednesday in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court.
The case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants, including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, as well as former board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies cofounder, and Reed Hastings, cofounder of Netflix.
A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment.
McCormick, the judge who rescinded Elon Musk’s $56bn Tesla pay package last year, is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes.
Cambridge Analytica scandal
The case began in 2018, following revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump’s successful US presidential campaign in 2016.
The FTC fined Facebook $5bn in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data.
Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8bn.
In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as “extreme” and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica’s deceit.
Meta, which is not a defendant, declined to comment. On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.
The lawsuit is considered the first of its kind to go to trial that alleges that board members consciously failed to oversee their company. Known as a Caremark claim, such lawsuits are often described as the hardest to prove in Delaware corporate law. However, in recent years, Delaware courts have allowed a growing number of these claims to proceed.
Boeing’s current and former board members settled a case with similar claims in 2021 for $237.5m, the largest ever in an alleged breach of oversight lawsuit. The Boeing directors did not admit to wrongdoing.
The Meta trial comes four months after Delaware lawmakers overhauled the state’s corporate law to make it harder for shareholders to challenge deals struck with controlling shareholders like Zuckerberg. The bill, which did not address Caremark claims, was drafted after the state’s governor met with representatives of Meta.
Most publicly traded companies are incorporated in the state, which generates more than a quarter of the state’s budget revenue. Meta, which was reportedly considering leaving Delaware earlier this year, is still incorporated in the state.
Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital fund co-founded by Andreessen, said earlier this month that it was reincorporating in Nevada from Delaware and encouraged other companies to do the same. The company cited the uncertainty of the state’s courts and referenced the Musk pay ruling.
Andreessen is expected to testify on Thursday.
In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company’s stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1bn.
Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading.
BOSTON — Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s campaign of arresting and deporting college faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations spent the first few days of the trial showing how the crackdown silenced scholars and targeted more than 5,000 protesters.
The lawsuit, filed by several university associations, is one of the first against President Trump and members of his administration to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule that the policy violates the 1st Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
The government argues that no such policy exists and that it is enforcing immigration laws legally to protect national security.
Investigating protesters
One of the key witnesses was Peter Hatch, who works for the Homeland Security Investigations unit of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Over two days of testimony, Hatch told the court a “Tiger Team” was formed in March — after two executive orders that addressed terrorism and combating antisemitism — to investigate people who took part in the protests.
Hatch said the team received as many as 5,000 names of protesters and wrote reports on about 200 who had potentially violated U.S. law. The reports, several of which were shown in court Thursday, included biographical information, criminal history, travel history and affiliations with pro-Palestinian groups as well as press clips and social media posts on their activism or allegations of their affiliation with Hamas or other anti-Israel groups.
Until this year, Hatch said, he could not recall a student protester being referred for a visa revocation.
“It was anything that may relate to national security or public safety issues, things like: Were any of the protesters violent or inciting violence? I think that’s a clear, obvious one,” Hatch testified. “Were any of them supporting terrorist organizations? Were any of them involved in obstruction or unlawful activity in the protests?”
Among the report subjects were Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown on the protests.
Another was Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana facility. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested while walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She says she was illegally detained following an op-ed she cowrote last year criticizing the school’s response to the war in Gaza.
Hatch also acknowledged that most of the names came from Canary Mission, a group that says it documents people who “promote hatred of the U.S.A., Israel and Jews on North American college campuses.” The right-wing Jewish group Betar was another source, he said.
Hatch said most of the leads were dropped when investigators could not find ties to protests and the investigations were not inspired by a new policy but rather a procedure in place at least since he took the job in 2019.
What is Canary Mission?
Weeks before Khalil’s arrest, a spokesperson for Betar told the Associated Press that the activist topped a list of foreign students and faculty from nine universities that it submitted to officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who made the decision to revoke Khalil’s visa.
The Department of Homeland Security said at the time that it was not working with Betar and refused to answer questions about how it was treating reports from outside groups.
In March, speculation grew that administration officials were using Canary Mission to identify and target student protesters. That’s when immigration agents arrested Ozturk.
Canary Mission has denied working with administration officials, while noting speculation that its reports led to that arrest and others.
While Canary Mission prides itself on outing anyone it labels as antisemitic, its leaders refuse to identify themselves and its operations are secretive. News reports and tax filings have linked the site to a nonprofit based in the central Israeli city of Beit Shemesh. But journalists who have visited the group’s address, listed in documents filed with Israeli authorities, have found a locked and seemingly empty building.
In recent years, news organizations have reported that several wealthy Jewish Americans made cash contributions to support Canary Mission, disclosed in tax paperwork filed by their personal foundations. But most of the group’s funding remains opaque, funneled through a New York-based fund that acts as a conduit for Israeli causes.
Were student protesters targeted?
Attorneys for the plaintiffs pressed a State Department official Friday over whether protests were grounds for revoking a student’s visa, repeatedly invoking several cables issued in response to Trump’s executive orders as examples of policy guidance.
But Maureen Smith, a senior advisor in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, said protest alone wasn’t a critical factor. She wasn’t asked specifically about pro-Palestinian protests.
“It’s a bit of a hypothetical question. We would need to look at all the facts of the case,” she said. “If it were a visa holder who engages in violent activity, whether it’s during a protest or not — if they were arrested for violent activity — that is something we would consider for possible visa revocation.”
Smith also said she didn’t think a student taking part in a nonviolent protest would be a problem but said it would be seen in a “negative light” if the protesters supported terrorism. She wasn’t asked to define what qualified as terrorism nor did she provide examples of what that would include.
Scholars scared by the crackdown
The trial opened with Megan Hyska, a green card holder from Canada who is a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, detailing how efforts to deport Khalil and Ozturk prompted her to scale back her activism, which had included supporting student encampments and protesting in support of Palestinians.
“It became apparent to me, after I became aware of a couple of high-profile detentions of political activists, that my engaging in public political dissent would potentially endanger my immigration status,” Hyska said.
Nadje Al-Ali, a green card holder from Germany and professor at Brown University, said that after the arrests of Khalil and Ozturk, she canceled a planned research trip and a fellowship to Iraq and Lebanon, fearing that “stamps from those two countries would raise red flags” upon her return. She also declined to take part in anti-Trump protests and dropped plans to write an article that was to be a feminist critique of Hamas.
“I felt it was too risky,” Al-Ali said.
Casey writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Adam Geller in New York contributed to this report.
Former leader accused of using a broker married to his personal secretary to secure government insurance policies.
Argentina’s former President, Alberto Fernandez, has been ordered to stand trial for alleged corruption related to insurance policies taken out by the government for the public sector during his 2019-2023 term.
Fernandez will be prosecuted for “negotiations incompatible with the exercise of public office”, according to Judge Sebastian Casanello’s ruling published in Argentinian media on Thursday, and confirmed by the former leader’s lawyer, Mariana Barbitta.
The 66-year-old stands accused of fraudulent administration over his government’s use of brokers – one of whom allegedly had ties to his office – to contract insurance policies that could have been negotiated directly.
The judge noted in his order that in December 2021, in the middle of his presidency, Fernandez issued a decree that forced the entire public sector to contract exclusively with Nacion Seguros SA, an insurance company then led by Alberto Pagliano, a friend of Fernandez.
It resulted in a boon and tremendous growth for the company.
The main broker of the deal was allegedly the husband of Fernandez’s personal secretary.
The court ordered a freeze on about $10m of Fernandez’s assets as the case proceeds, according to Thursday’s ruling.
Some 33 other people are also named in the case. Fernandez did not immediately comment on the case.
Fernandez did not seek re-election after serving a single term, handing the keys of the presidential palace to self-described “anarcho-capitalist” President Javier Milei in December 2023.
The corruption allegations emerged when a court ordered an examination of his secretary’s phone while investigating assault claims made against Fernandez by his ex-partner Fabiola Yanez.
Yanez filed a complaint accusing Fernandez of having beaten her during their relationship, which ended after he left office.
He faces a separate trial on charges of domestic abuse.
Fernandez’s leftist Peronist movement, which dominated Argentinian politics for most of the country’s post-war history, has been dogged by allegations of corruption.
Ex-President Cristina Kirchner, another senior Peronist, is serving a six-year sentence under house arrest after being convicted of fraud involving public works contracts awarded during her two terms.
1 of 8 | Photograph shows William Jennings Bryan (seated, left, with fan) and Clarence Darrow (standing, center, with arms folded) at an outdoor courtroom during the Scopes Trial (Tennessee v. Scopes) in Dayton, Tenn., in July 1925. UPI File Photo
July 10 (UPI) — On this date in history:
In 1925, the so-called Monkey Trial, in which John Scopes was accused of teaching evolution in school, a violation of state law, began in Dayton, Tenn., featuring a classic confrontation between William Jennings Bryan, the three-time presidential candidate and fundamentalist hero, and legendary defense attorney Clarence Darrow.
In 1962, the United States launched the first telecommunications satellite, Telstar, into orbit, which relayed TV pictures between the United States and Europe.
In 1985, Coca-Cola, besieged by consumers dissatisfied with the new Coke introduced in April, dusted off the old formula and dubbed it “Coca-Cola Classic.”
File Photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI
In 1989, Mel Blanc, the voice of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and countless other Warner Bros. cartoon characters and radio and TV comic creations, died from complications of heart disease. He was 81.
In 1991, Boris Yeltsin was inaugurated as the first freely elected president of the Russian republic.
In 2009, General Motors completed its race through bankruptcy with the signing of a contract with the U.S. government, which got 61 percent of the company. The recovery plan included considerable shrinkage, including the closing of factories and layoffs of 21,000 union workers.
Then-General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson attends a press conference in New York City on June 1, 2009. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI
In 2011, media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World, Britain’s best-selling weekly newspaper, abruptly ceased publication amid allegations that its reporters and investigators had hacked into telephones of royalty, politicians, celebrities, homicide victims, families of fallen soldiers and others to illegally gain material for stories.
In 2012, an Israeli court acquitted former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of corruption but found him guilty of breach of trust. The charges stemmed from a period before he was PM.
In 2018, divers rescued the last of the 12 boys and their soccer coach from a flooded cave in Thailand, where they’d been trapped for more than two weeks.
In 2022, Serbian Novak Djokovic defeated Australian Nick Kyrgios to win his fourth-straight and record-tying seventh Wimbledon men’s singles title.
US President Donald Trump said he was planning to impose a 50% tax on goods made in Brazil, escalating his fight with the South American country.
He announced the plan in his latest tariff letter, which was shared on social media.
In it, Trump accuses Brazil of “attacks” on US tech companies and of conducting a “witch hunt” against former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing prosecution over his alleged role in a plot to overturn the 2022 election.
Responding in a social media post, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said an increase in tariffs on Brazil would be reciprocated, and he warned against any interference in the nation’s judicial system.
Trump also sparred with Lula about Bolsonaro’s trial earlier this week.
At the time, Lula said Brazil would not accept “interference” from anyone and added: “No one is above the law.”
Also on Wednesday, Trump said a 50% tariff on copper imports, that he announced earlier this week, will come into effect on 1 August.
He said in a social media post that the decision was made due to national security concerns.
Trump has posted 22 letters to countries around the world this week, including trade partners such as Japan, South Korea and Sri Lanka, outlining new tariffs on their goods which he says will come into force on 1 August.
Those moves have largely served to revive plans he had put forward in April, but that were put on hold after financial markets recoiled at the measures.
But the message to Brazil was a far more targeted missive and threatened a significant increase from the 10% tariff the White House had previously announced on goods from the country.
Unlike many other countries, the US enjoyed a trade surplus with Brazil last year, selling more goods in the country than it purchased from it.
In the letter, Trump called the 50% rate “necessary… to rectify the grave injustices of the current regime”.
He said he would order the US Trade Representative to launch a so-called 301 investigation into Brazil’s digital trade practices.
Such a move would mark a turn towards a more established legal process that the US has used to impose tariffs in the past, toughening the threat. In his first term, Trump took a similar step over Brazil’s consideration of a tax targeting tech firms.
Trump, in the letter, accused the Brazilian government of “insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans” including the censorship of “US Social Media platforms”.
Trump’s social media company, Trump Media, is among the US tech companies fighting Brazilian court rulings over orders suspending social media accounts.
The country had also temporarily banned Elon Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter, after the platform refused to ban accounts that were deemed by Brazil to be spreading misinformation about the 2022 Brazilian presidential election.
Last month, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that social media companies can be held responsible for content posted on their platforms.
In his letter, Trump also spoke favourably of former Brazilian president Bolsonaro, saying he “respected him greatly”. He added that the ongoing trial against him is “an international disgrace”.
Trump and Bolsonaro enjoyed a friendly relationship when their presidencies overlapped, with the pair meeting in 2019 at the White House during Trump’s first term. Bolsonaro is often dubbed “Trump of the Tropics”.
Both men subsequently lost presidential elections and both refused to publicly acknowledge defeat.
Bolsonaro, who governed Brazil between 2019 and 2022, is standing trial for allegedly attempting a coup with thousands of his supporters storming government buildings in the capital in January 2023 after Lula was victorious in the election.
Bolsonaro was in the United States at the time and has denied any links to the rioters or any involvement in the plot.
Earlier this week, Trump had compared Bolsonaro’s prosecution to the legal cases he has similarly faced.
“This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent – Something I know much about!” Trump had said. In response, Bolsonaro thanked the US president for his support.
Trump was also critical of the Brics summit in Rio de Janeiro, where the group of developing nations met on Sunday. Trump called the group, which includes Brazil, “anti-American” and said those countries would be charged an additional 10% tariff.
President Lula fired back on Monday against Trump’s social media threats.
“He needs to know that the world has changed,” Lula said. “We don’t want an emperor.”
United States President Donald Trump has taken to social media to defend his fellow right-wing leader, Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president who faces criminal charges for allegedly plotting a coup d’etat.
On Monday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Bolsonaro’s indictment was an example of political persecution.
“Brazil is doing a terrible thing on their treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro,” Trump said.
“I have watched, as has the World, as they have done nothing but come after him, day after day, night after night, month after month, year after year! He is not guilty of anything, except having fought for THE PEOPLE.”
Trump went on to compare his own legal troubles to Bolsonaro’s. Both leaders have been accused of trying to undermine their country’s elections, following losses.
In Trump’s case, the accusations concern his 2020 race against Democrat Joe Biden. Though Trump lost, prosecutors say he and his allies conspired to defraud voters by pressuring officials to say that he won. The lie culminated in an attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, as Trump’s supporters sought to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election results.
Trump later faced a federal indictment in Washington, DC, and a state-level indictment in Georgia over his actions. The federal charges, however, were dropped once he took office for a second term in January.
Bolsonaro, meanwhile, is facing criminal trial for allegedly masterminding a scheme to retain power after his 2022 election loss to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
In the lead-up to the election, Bolsonaro spread falsehoods about the accuracy of Brazil’s voting machines, and afterwards refused to publicly concede defeat. Thousands of his supporters likewise stormed government buildings in Brazil’s capital, Brasilia, to protest the outcome.
Prosecutors say police unearthed evidence of a scheme wherein Bolsonaro and his allies plotted to hold onto power by means of a coup, one that would have seen Lula and other officials assassinated.
Both Trump and Bolsonaro have denied wrongdoing. In Monday’s posts, Trump said that both of their cases reflected a politically motivated “WITCH HUNT” designed to dim their popularity among voters.
“This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent – Something I know much about! It happened to me, times 10,” Trump wrote. “The Great People of Brazil will not stand for what they are doing to their former President.”
He appeared to end his post with a call for Bolsonaro’s re-election: “The only Trial that should be happening is a Trial by the Voters of Brazil – It’s called an Election. LEAVE BOLSONARO ALONE!”
Bolsonaro, however, has been barred from running for office for eight years, a period which expires in 2030. Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court issued the punishment in a separate case in 2023 after it found Bolsonaro had abused his power by using government offices to spread doubt about the country’s voting machines.
Trump and Bolsonaro have long faced comparisons with one another. They both took office for a first term in 2017, and both lost their initial re-election attempt. Bolsonaro, a former army captain, has been referred to as the “Trump of the tropics”.
Critics have long speculated that Trump may seek to intervene in Brazil’s prosecution of the far-right leader through political pressure.
Earlier this year, for example, the Trump Media and Technology Group joined a lawsuit in Florida against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, arguing that a recent decision from the judge amounted to the censorship of right-wing voices.
De Moraes has overseen the criminal case against Bolsonaro and is considered a target of ire for Brazil’s right.
In a social media response on Monday, President Lula indicated that Trump’s social media missive could be viewed as an attempt to interfere with the Brazilian justice system.
Though he mentioned neither Trump nor Bolsonaro by name, Lula, a left-wing leader, rejected the advice of those who sought to influence the ongoing trial from abroad.
“The defence of democracy in Brazil is a matter for Brazilians to deal with. We are a sovereign country. We do not accept interference or tutelage from anyone,” Lula wrote. “We have solid and independent institutions. No one is above the law. Especially those who threaten freedom and the rule of law.”
Bolsonaro, on the other hand, took to social media to thank Trump explicitly for his words of support.
“I thank the illustrious President and friend. You went through something similar. You were relentlessly persecuted, but you won for the good of the United States and dozens of other truly democratic countries,” Bolsonaro wrote, reflecting on how “happy” he was to see Trump’s note.
Bolsonaro used the occasion to once again proclaim his innocence and blast his political opponents as puppeteering the trial.
“This process to which I am responding is a legal aberration (Lawfare), clear political persecution,” he said.
The former president could face up to 40 years in prison if convicted.
GREENBELT, Md. — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he’s released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday.
The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him.
Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia’s American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him being expelled again.
Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he’s released from jail and send him to a “third country” that isn’t his native El Salvador. Guynn said he didn’t know which country that would be.
Abrego Garcia became a flash point over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family.
Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have characterized the case as “preposterous” and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation.
A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns that the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were “contradictory statements” by the Trump administration.
For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a “third country” that isn’t El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans.
Later that day, Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia “will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed.”
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working in construction and raising a family with his wife.
Xinis is still considering Abrego Garcia’s lawyers’ request to send him to Maryland if he’s released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation can continue.
Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.
Erin Patterson, 50, found guilty of murdering her estranged husband’s parents and aunt with poisonous mushrooms.
An Australian woman has been found guilty of murdering her estranged husband’s parents and aunt by serving them a meal laced with poisonous mushrooms.
Erin Patterson was on Monday convicted of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder following a 10-week trial.
Patterson, 50, showed no emotion as the verdicts were read out in the courtroom in Morwell, a regional town located about 152km (94 miles) east of Melbourne.
Patterson’s parents-in-law, Donald and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, died after eating a lunch of beef Wellingtons laced with death cap mushrooms on July 29, 2023.
Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, was also poisoned but survived after spending seven weeks in hospital.
Patterson, 50, had pleaded not guilty to all charges, with her lawyers arguing that she had unintentionally served her relatives the tainted food in a “terrible accident”.
Prosecutors did not allege a motive for Patterson, but told the jury that her relationship with her estranged husband, who declined an invitation to the lunch, had become strained over his child support contributions.
Prosecutors alleged that Patterson lied about being diagnosed with cancer to lure her guests to the lunch, and that she lied to police about owning a food dehydrator that was later found in a rubbish tip.
Patterson, who spent eight days on the stand, was the only witness called for the defence.
A jury in the United States has found musician Sean “Diddy” Combs guilty of prostitution-related offences but cleared him of more serious charges after a federal criminal trial.
Combs, a celebrated figures in hip hop music, was convicted on Wednesday of transportation to engage in prostitution but acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and two counts of sex trafficking.
The verdict culminates seven weeks of trial in which two of the music mogul’s former girlfriends – singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and a second woman referred to as “Jane” – testified that Combs physically and sexually abused them.
The jury’s decision also represents a partial win for the former billionaire known for elevating hip hop in US culture, through his work with artists like Notorious BIG and Usher.
After the jury read its verdict, defence lawyer Marc Agnifilo asked US District Judge Arun Subramanian to release Combs on bail.
“This is his first conviction and it’s a prostitution offence, and so he should be released on appropriate conditions,” Agnifilo said. Subramanian will determine Combs’ sentence at a later date.
The acquittals on the sex trafficking counts mean he will avoid a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. He could have faced life in prison if he were convicted of sex trafficking or racketeering conspiracy.
Prosecutors say that, for two decades, Combs used his business empire to force his romantic partners to take part in drug-fuelled, days-long sexual performances with male sex workers in hotel rooms. These performances were sometimes referred to as “freak-offs”.
During raids of Combs’s homes, authorities found drugs and 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant that he would use in the performances, prosecutors said.
Combs, 55, had pleaded not guilty to all five counts. His lawyers acknowledged that the Bad Boy Records founder, once famed for hosting lavish parties, was at times violent in his domestic relationships.
But they argued the sexual activity described by prosecutors was consensual.
The musician has previously faced a number of civil lawsuits accusing him of abuse. Ventura, for example, sued Combs in November 2023 for sex trafficking.
Combs, also known throughout his career as Puff Daddy and P Diddy, settled with Ventura for $20m. He has denied all wrongdoing.
At the trial, jurors saw surveillance footage from 2016 showing Combs kicking and dragging Ventura in the hallway of an InterContinental hotel in Los Angeles, where she said she was trying to leave a “freak-off”.
Jane later testified that Combs, in June 2024, attacked her and directed her to perform oral sex on a male entertainer, even though she told him she did not want to. That alleged attack took place a month after Combs apologised on social media for his 2016 attack on Ventura, footage of which had been broadcast on CNN.
“The defendant used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted,” prosecutor Christy Slavik said in her closing argument on June 26. “He doesn’t take no for an answer.”
Combs’s defence lawyers argued that, while he may have committed domestic violence in the context of volatile romantic partnerships, his conduct did not amount to sex trafficking.
His defence team said Ventura and Jane were strong, independent women who voluntarily took part in the sexual performances because they wanted to please Combs.
They also suggested that Ventura and Jane were retrospectively accusing Combs of forcing their participation in the performances because they were jealous he was seeing other women.
Both women testified they spent time with Combs and took part in sexual performances after he beat them.
“If he was charged with domestic violence, we wouldn’t all be here,” defence lawyer Agnifilo said in his closing argument on June 27. “He did not do the things he’s charged with.”
Ventura’s lawyer Doug Wigdor, meanwhile, praised his client’s courage to speak up, saying she “paved the way” for Combs’s conviction.
“By coming forward with her experience, Cassie has left an indelible mark on both the entertainment industry and the fight for justice,” Wigdor said in a statement.
Separately, the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York published remarks underscoring the lasting impact of sexual violence.
“Sex crimes deeply scar victims, and the disturbing reality is that sex crimes are all too present in many aspects of our society,” the statement read. “New Yorkers and all Americans want this scourge stopped and perpetrators brought to justice.”
