LONDON: In the big book of political blunders, Theresa May’s decision to hold a snap election to solidify her Brexit mandate will rank among the most memorable — and the most unnecessary.
The British prime minister was cruising along two months ago with a solid majority in Parliament and several years to run on her party’s mandate. There was no need for her to put her position on the line, and she had said earlier that an election was not needed.
But her party’s huge lead in the opinion polls — 20 percent in most cases — made the prospect too tempting to pass up.
At the time, it seemed to make sense. Her main opponent — Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, known for his left-wing views — was stumbling from mishap to mishap, unable even to muster solid support from his party’s own lawmakers. May seemed virtually certain to add to her party’s strength, win a mandate in her own name — not just as a stand-in for her predecessor, David Cameron, who quit after Britain voted to leave the European Union last June — and gain five years to negotiate a deal on Britain’s exit from the European Union without facing a pesky national vote soon after the scheduled Brexit date of March 2019.
So she flung the dice — and lost.
After Thursday’s vote, May’s Conservative Party still has the largest number of lawmakers, but lacks a parliamentary majority. It may well be able to form a minority government with the help of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party in the coming days and weeks, but the prime minister’s ability to cling to the keys of Number 10 Downing Street is very much in doubt, and her stated goal of unifying the country behind her ahead of the upcoming Brexit negotiations with EU leaders is utterly out of reach.
The result has caused a fresh bout of selling of the British pound, and made EU leaders still more uncertain about Britain’s Brexit priorities. The inherent weakness of a minority government raises the prospect of another election later this year, which would undoubtedly cause more turbulence.
It is too early to say with any certainty what the change from a majority to minority government will mean to Brexit. Some experts are calling the Conservatives’ unexpected loss of seats a rejection of the “hard Brexit” May has advocated, which would take Britain out of the single market and the customs union and which could see tariffs slapped on British exports to the EU.
Voters may have been unimpressed with her refrain that “no deal is better than a bad deal” because it raised the prospect of Britain crashing out of the EU without a trade-and-immigration system to replace the existing, well-integrated procedures that have evolved over decades of European integration.
Corbyn’s newly energized Labour Party officially backs Brexit — since voters endorsed it in a referendum last year — but many important figures in the party advocate a much “softer” approach, and their views now may now carry sway.
Corbyn’s rise is one of the biggest surprises. Since winning the Labour leadership in 2015, few commentators gave him much chance of doing well nationally — he was seen by many as too left-wing, too much of a pacifist, and tarnished by prior associations with the radical group Hamas and the IRA. The bearded, often rumpled Corbyn seemed to suffer from a chronic charisma deficit — until the campaign began. Then, he ran a disciplined, coherent campaign despite a few miscues, and deftly capitalized on May’s mistakes.
May’s campaign seemed to suffer from her refusal to debate and her propensity to appear only in carefully controlled situations. She was listening only to a small group of aides, and they failed to get her out and interacting with crowds.
Unlike the Labour Party — which sweetened its platform with things like free tuition for university students — the Conservative Party contained little to get people excited.
He gained ground when she outlined a policy on nursing care for the elderly that was swiftly derided as a “dementia tax” and in the final days repeatedly hammered May for cutting 20,000 police officers during her tenure as interior minister — an assertion that carried weight as major terrorist attacks hit Manchester and London.
Corbyn faced intense opposition from the right-wing tabloid press and from the Evening Standard, newly edited by former Treasury chief George Osborne, whom she fired when replacing Cameron last summer following the Brexit vote.
Osborne used the front page of his newspaper to predict “Corbyn Chaos” — and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson repeatedly ridiculed Corbyn in the campaign’s waning moments.
But the attacks did not seem to work.
It is May, not Corbyn, whose career appears to be in tatters.
Theresa May fighting to hang on after gamble fails
Theresa May fighting to hang on after gamble fails
Trump pledges to ‘expose’ his enemies in political speech at Justice Department
- He promised to target his perceived enemies even as he claimed to be ending what he called the weaponization of the department
- Trump’s address amounted to an extraordinary display of partisan politics and personal grievance inside an institution that is meant to be blind to both
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump pledged to “expose” his enemies during a norm-breaking political speech Friday at the Justice Department in which he aired a litany of grievances about the criminal cases he faced and vowed retribution for what he described as the “lies and abuses that have occurred within these walls.”
The speech was meant to rally support for Trump administration policies on violent crime, drugs and illegal immigration. But it also functioned as a triumphant forum for the president to boast about having emerged legally and politically unscathed from two federal prosecutions that one year ago had threatened to torpedo his presidential prospects but were dismissed after his election win last fall.
Though other presidents have spoken from the Justice Department’s ceremonial Great Hall, Trump’s address amounted to an extraordinary display of partisan politics and personal grievance inside an institution that is meant to be blind to both. Casting himself as the country’s “chief law enforcement officer,” a title ordinarily reserved for the attorney general, he promised to target his perceived enemies even as he claimed to be ending what he called the weaponization of the department.
The speech marked the latest manifestation of Trump’s unparalleled takeover of the department and came amid a brazen campaign of retribution already undertaken under his watch, including the firing of prosecutors who investigated him during the Biden administration and the scrutiny of thousands of FBI agents who investigated the president’s supporters who stormed the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
“Our predecessors turned this Department of Justice into the Department of Injustice. But I stand before you today to declare that those days are over, and they are never going to come back and never coming back,” Trump said to cheers from a crowd that included local law enforcement officials, political allies and FBI
Director Kash Patel. “So now, as the chief law enforcement officer in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred.”
The visit to the Justice Department, the first by Trump and the first by any president in a decade, brought him into the belly of an institution he has disparaged in searing terms for years but one that he has sought to reshape by installing loyalists and members of his personal defense team in top leadership positions.
The event was reminiscent of a campaign rally, with upbeat music blaring from loudspeakers before Trump entered the Great Hall. Justice Department and White House officials mingled while members of the crowd posed for selfies. The podium was flanked by large signs that read “Fighting Fentanyl in America.” Also on the stage was a cardboard box that read “DEA evidence.”
Trump’s unique status as a onetime criminal defendant indicted by the department he was now addressing hung over the speech as he vented, in profane and personal terms, about investigations as far back as the Russian election interference investigation to the more recent inquiries into his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
He mentioned by name prosecutors who investigated him, calling them “scum,” and called the classified documents case against him “bulls— -.” He claimed that “a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and goodwill built up over generations,” and said that before the department could turn the page, “we must be honest about the lies and abuses that have occurred within these walls,“
“We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces from our government. We will expose, very much expose their egregious crimes and severe misconduct,” Trump said in a wide-ranging speech that touched on everything from Russia’s war against Ukraine, the 2020 election to the price of eggs.
“It’s going to be legendary. And going to also be legendary for the people that are able to seek it out and bring justice. We will restore the scales of justice in America, and we will ensure that such abuses never happen again in our country.”
His claim that the Justice Department had been weaponized during the Biden administration overlooked that there were investigations during that time into Biden’s mishandling of classified information and into the firearms and tax affairs of his son Hunter. And his recounting of the recent investigations into him did not mention that prosecutors had amassed what they said was substantial evidence, including that he had sought to obstruct the classified documents inquiry.
When it comes to setting its agenda, the Justice Department historically takes a cue from the White House but looks to maintain its independence on individual criminal investigations.
Trump has upended such norms.
He encouraged specific investigations during his first term and tried to engineer the firing of Robert Mueller, the special counsel assigned to investigate ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. He also endured difficult relationships with his first two handpicked attorneys general — Jeff Sessions was fired immediately after the 2018 midterm election, and William Barr resigned weeks after publicly disputing Trump’s bogus claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Arriving for a second term in January fresh off a landmark Supreme Court opinion that reaffirmed a president’s unshakable control of the Justice Department, Trump has appeared determined to clear from his path any potential obstacles, including by appointing Pam Bondi — a former Florida attorney general who was part of Trump’s defense team at his first impeachment trial — and Patel, another close ally, to serve as FBI director.
“We all work for the greatest president in the history of our country,” Bondi said Friday in introducing Trump. “We are so proud to work at the directive of Donald Trump. He will never stop fighting for us and we will never stop fighting for him and for our country.”
Even before Bondi had been confirmed, the Justice Department fired department employees who served on special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which brought the election interference and classified documents cases against Trump. Both cases were dismissed last November in line with longstanding Justice Department policy against indicting sitting presidents.
Senior Justice Department officials also demanded from the FBI lists of thousands of employees who worked on investigations into the Jan 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, when a mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the building in an effort to halt the certification of the electoral vote, and fired prosecutors who had participated in the cases. And they’ve ordered the dismissal of a criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams by saying the charges had handicapped the Democrat’s ability to partner in the Republican administration’s fight against illegal immigration.
Trump administration weighs travel ban on dozens of countries, memo says
- The first group of 10 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea among others, would be set for a full visa suspension
- In the third group, a total of 26 countries would be considered for a partial suspension of US visa issuance if their governments “do not make efforts to address deficiencies within 60 days,” the memo said
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration is considering issuing sweeping travel restrictions for the citizens of dozens of countries as part of a new ban, according to sources familiar with the matter and an internal memo seen by Reuters.
The memo lists a total of 41 countries divided into three separate groups. The first group of 10 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea among others, would be set for a full visa suspension.
In the second group, five countries would face partial suspensions that would impact tourist and student visas as well as other immigrant visas, with some exceptions.
In the third group, a total of 26 countries would be considered for a partial suspension of US visa issuance if their governments “do not make efforts to address deficiencies within 60 days,” the memo said.
A US official speaking on the condition of anonymity cautioned there could be changes on the list and that it was yet to be approved by the administration, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The New York Times first reported on the list of countries.
The move harkens back to President Donald Trump’s first term ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Trump issued an executive order on January 20 requiring intensified security vetting of any foreigners seeking admission to the US to detect national security threats.
That order directed several cabinet members to submit by March 21 a list of countries from which travel should be partly or fully suspended because their “vetting and screening information is so deficient.”
Trump’s directive is part of an immigration crackdown that he launched at the start of his second term.
He previewed his plan in an October 2023 speech, pledging to restrict people from the Gaza Strip, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and “anywhere else that threatens our security.”
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
The memo lists a total of 41 countries divided into three separate groups.
Full visa suspension:
- Afghanistan
- Cuba
- Iran
- Libya
- North Korea
- Somalia
- Sudan
- Syria
- Venezuela
- Yemen
Partial visa suspension (tourist, student and some other visas affected):
- Eritrea
- Haiti
- Laos
- Myanmar
- South Sudan
Countries recommended for a partial suspension if they do not address deficiencies:
- Angola
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Belarus
- Benin
- Bhutan
- Burkina Faso
- Cabo Verde
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Chad
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Dominica
- Equatorial Guinea
- Gambia
- Liberia
- Malawi
- Mauritania
- Pakistan
- Republic of the Congo
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Sierra Leone
- East Timor
- Turkmenistan
- Vanuatu
Philippine ex-President Duterte appears by video link at initial ICC hearing
- In the short hearing, Duterte was informed of the crimes he is alleged to have committed, as well as his rights as a defendant
- Duterte appeared sleepy during the proceedings, closing his eyes frequently for long periods
THE HAGUE: Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte failed to attend in person an initial hearing at the International Criminal Court on Friday, as he faces crimes against humanity charges over his deadly crackdown on narcotics.
The 79-year-old, the first ex-Asian head of state charged by the ICC, followed by videolink during a short hearing to inform him of the crimes he is alleged to have committed, as well as his rights as a defendant.
Sounding frail and wearing a blue suit and tie, he spoke briefly to confirm his name and date of birth. Presiding Judge Iulia Motoc allowed him to follow proceedings in absentia due to his long flight to The Hague.
His lawyer Salvador Medialdea told the court that his client had been “abducted from his country.”
“He was summarily transported to The Hague. To lawyers it’s extrajudicial rendition. For less legal minds, it’s pure and simple kidnapping,” said Medialdea.
The lawyer also said that Duterte was suffering “debilitating medical issue,” adding: “Other than to identify himself, he is not able to contribute to this hearing.”
Duterte appeared sleepy during the proceedings, closing his eyes frequently for long periods.
But Motoc told Duterte: “The court doctor was of the opinion that you were fully mentally aware and fit.”
She set a date of September 23 for the next stage of the process: a hearing to confirm the charges.
Duterte stands accused of the crime against humanity of murder over his years-long campaign against drug users and dealers that rights groups said killed thousands.
In the prosecutor’s application for his arrest, he said Duterte’s alleged crimes were “part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population in the Philippines.”
“Potentially tens of thousands of killings were perpetrated,” the prosecutor alleged of the campaign that targeted mostly poor men, often without proof they were linked to drugs.
Victims’ families have welcomed the trial as a chance for justice, while Duterte supporters believe he was “kidnapped” and sent to The Hague amid a spectacular fall-out with the ruling Marcos family.
In Manila, Jane Lee, whose husband was killed in the drug war, said she was barely able to contain her rage at the sight of the former president.
“When I saw him, I was so angry I could barely control myself,” the 42-year-old said at a public viewing of the ICC proceedings.
According to international law experts, his whirlwind arrest and surrender offers a welcome boon to the embattled ICC, which is being attacked from all sides and sanctioned by the United States.
“I see the arrest and handing over of Duterte as a gift at an important moment in time,” Willem van Genugten, Professor of International Law at Tilburg University in The Netherlands, told AFP.
Earlier on Friday, the former leader’s daughter Sara Duterte, vice president of the Philippines, told AFP she had submitted a last-minute bid to have the hearing moved.
She later revealed that she had visited her father for an hour in the detention center and that he was “in good spirits, well looked-after” and “well rested,” his main complaint being about the food.
“He told me that all he does is sleep and watch TV... (he said that) my only complaint is that I really miss Philippine food,” Sara Duterte told reporters at a chaotic press conference surrounded by dozens of baying supporters.
Duterte backers had gathered outside the hulking glass building in the Hague shouting “bring him home.”
But Ecel Sandalo, an anti-Duterte demonstrator, told AFP the fact that the former president was on trial had given him “hope that despite all the injustices in the world, there are still small victories that we can celebrate.”
As he landed in The Hague, the former leader appeared to accept responsibility for his actions, saying in a Facebook video: “I have been telling the police, the military, that it was my job and I am responsible.”
In his application for arrest, the prosecutor quoted from some of Duterte’s pronouncements when he was running for president.
He is cited as saying the number of criminal suspects killed “will become 100,000... I will kill all of you” and the fish in Manila Bay “will become fat because that’s where I will throw you.”
At the confirming of charges hearing, a suspect can challenge the prosecutor’s evidence.
Only after that will the court decide whether to press ahead with a trial, a process that could take several months or even years.
Federal agents are seen arresting Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil in a newly released video
- Khalil is now being held in an isolated, low-slung ICE detention complex ringed by two rows of tall, barbed wire fences and surrounded by the endless pine forests
- Khalil is a lawful US resident with no criminal history
NEW YORK: A video released Friday shows the moment federal immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate student whose detention alarmed free-speech advocates.
The clip begins with at least three agents confronting Khalil in the lobby of his apartment building near the Columbia campus Saturday night. The agents inform him that he is “going to be under arrest,” then order him to “turn around” and “stop resisting.”
“There’s no need for this,” Khalil replies calmly as they place him in handcuffs. “I’m going with you. No worries.”
As his wife, Noor Abdalla, cries out in protest, asking in Arabic: “My love, how can I call you?” Khalil assures her that he will be fine and instructs her to call his lawyer.
Abdalla, an American citizen who is eight months pregnant, then asks the agents to identify themselves. “We don’t give our names,” one replies.
The video was released by Khalil’s attorneys the same day the Justice Department announced it was investigating whether the university concealed “illegal aliens” on its campus.
Khalil is a lawful US resident with no criminal history. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he revoked Khalil’s permission to be in the US because of his role in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia, saying they had riled up “anti-Jewish” sentiment and amounted to support for Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza and attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has warned that the attempted deportation will be the “first of many” of people who joined protests against Israel’s military action in Gaza
Federal officials announced Friday that they had arrested another woman tied to protests outside Columbia University and revoked the visa of a Columbia University doctoral student, who then left the country.
Khalil’s wife, Abdalla, described his arrest as “the most terrifying moment of my life” in a statement accompanying the video. She said the arrest happened as the couple were returning home from an Iftar celebration.
“They threatened to take me too,” she said.
The arrests have triggered fear among international students at Columbia and been condemned by free speech groups, which accuse the Trump administration of seeking to criminalize political dissent.
Khalil’s lawyers have challenged his detention in court.
In court documents, they described how he was rushed from New York to Louisiana last weekend after his arrest.
The experience reminded Khalil of when he left Syria, where he was born, shortly after the forced disappearance of his friends there during a period of arbitrary detention in 2013, the lawyers wrote.
According to the lawsuit, federal agents denied Khalil’s request to speak to a lawyer. When he was taken to a federal office building in lower Manhattan, Khalil saw an agent approach another agent and say, “the White House is requesting an update,” the lawyers wrote.
At some point early Sunday, Khalil was taken, handcuffed and shackled, to a detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where he spent the night in a cold waiting room. His request for a blanket was denied, the lawsuit said.
Then he was sent back to New York by van.
At 2:45 p.m. Sunday, he was put on an American Airlines flight from to Dallas, where he was placed on a second flight to Alexandria, Louisiana, arriving at 1 a.m. Monday.
Khalil is now being held in an isolated, low-slung ICE detention complex ringed by two rows of tall, barbed wire fences and surrounded by the endless pine forests. The complex, with a capacity of 1,160, is outside the small town of Jena, roughly 150 miles (240 kilometers) north of Baton Rouge.
He now worries about his pregnant wife and is “also very concerned about missing the birth of his first child,” the lawsuit said.
In April, Khalil was to begin a job and receive health benefits that the couple was counting on, it added.
“It is very important to Mr. Khalil to be able to continue his protected political speech, advocating and protesting for the rights of Palestinians — both domestically and abroad,” the lawsuit said.
EU to sanction nine over Congo violence
- The EU summoned the ambassador of Rwanda last month, calling on the country to “immediately withdraw” troops from Congolese territory and to “stop supporting the M23 and any other armed group”
BRUSSLES: The EU is expected to sanction nine individuals in connection with violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, two EU diplomats said on Friday.
They did not identify the people set to be listed, in keeping with the practice of not revealing such details before the sanctions are officially approved.
EU foreign ministers are expected to approve the sanctions in Brussels next Monday.
Rebels of the M23 group have seized east Congo’s two biggest cities since January in an escalation of a long-running conflict rooted in the spillover into Congo of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide and the struggle for control of Congo’s vast mineral resources.
FASTFACT
The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo has said at least 7,000 people had died in the fighting since January.
Congo is considering sending representatives to peace talks with the M23 group that Angola plans to host next week, government sources said on Thursday.
Rwanda is accused of backing the Tutsi-led M23 rebels, a charge it denies.
The EU summoned the ambassador of Rwanda last month, calling on the country to “immediately withdraw” troops from Congolese territory and to “stop supporting the M23 and any other armed group.”
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has also said that the 27-nation bloc will review its agreement with Rwanda over critical raw materials due to the country’s links with the M23 rebels.
Rwanda denies providing arms and troops to M23 rebels.
Congo’s government has said at least 7,000 people have died in the fighting since January.
According to the UN Humanitarian Affairs Office, at least 600,000 people have been displaced by the fighting since November.
With Congo’s army and allied forces putting up weak resistance to the rebel advance, regional powers appear in agreement that dialogue is the only way forward, diplomats and analysts said.
“I haven’t talked to a single African country that says Kinshasa shouldn’t talk to M23,” one senior diplomat said.
“The line of everyone is, ‘How do you stop the fighting if you don’t engage with them?’“
One source said on Friday that government participation was a sure thing but that it was still too early to say who would represent Kinshasa in Luanda.
Other sources said the debate was still ongoing and a final decision would not likely be made until next week.
M23, for its part, said on Thursday it was demanding an unequivocal commitment from DRC President Felix Tshisekedi to engage in talks.
Both sides said they had questions about the framework and how the Angola-hosted talks would comply with decisions from regional bodies attempting to resolve the conflict.
Southern and East African foreign and defense ministers are due to meet in Harare on Monday to discuss the push for a cessation of hostilities and political dialogue.
Sitting down with M23 would likely be deeply unpopular in Kinshasa, especially after Tshisekedi’s repeated vows never to do so.
But it would amount to an acknowledgment that Tshisekedi’s pursuit of a military solution has “failed,” said Congolese analyst Bob Kabamba of the University of Liege in Belgium.
“Kinshasa’s position of dialogue is understandable because it finds itself stuck, thinking that the (rebel alliance) must not reach a critical threshold,” he said.
Stephanie Wolters, a Congo analyst with South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies, said Angola had “clearly decided that it is necessary to intervene to prevent the advance of the M23 toward the west of the DRC.”
The lack of faith in Tshisekedi’s ability to turn the tide militarily was also seen this week in Southern African leaders’ approval of the “phased withdrawal” of a regional deployment known as SAMIDRC that had a mandate to fight rebels.
Although the deployment was too weak to mean much in the fight against M23, its presence was an essential sign of regional support for Congo, Wolters said, making its departure a “significant blow.”
