Argentina's Top Court Bans Kirchner From Office for Life
By
Updated on
Save
Takeaways NEW
Leer en español
Argentina's Supreme Court upheld former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's fraud conviction, ratifying her sentence to six years in prison as well as a lifelong ban on holding public office, according to the court ruling reviewed by Bloomberg.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles stands on shaky legal ground
President Donald Trump has unilaterally summoned thousands of members of the California National Guard into federal service in response to the protests and riots that have broken out in Los Angeles over his immigration crackdowns. But the federal law that Trump has cited in support of that National Guard deployment would seem to forbid the very thing that Trump is now doing. According to Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, the president may call the National Guard into federal service under certain limited circumstances, such as when the United States "is invaded" or when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government." The law further states that the president may federalize National Guard members "of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute" the laws of the United States. However, the law adds: "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States." Notice the unambiguous statutory command: "shall be issued through the governors of the States." If a governor has not issued the order—perhaps because the governor disagreed with the president's position and declined to support it—then the terms of the law have not been met. Which brings us to the case of Newsom v. Trump. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has not only refused to issue such an order, but Newsom, acting in his official capacity as governor, has also now filed suit against Trump, charging that the president's unilateral actions are illegal under federal law. Newsom's statutory argument seems correct to me. As the complaint in Newsom v. Trump notes, "President Trump's Memo purporting to call into federal service members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 without issuing this order through Governor Newsom is contrary to law and outside of the authority granted to the President under that statute." To my surprise, however, Newsom's complaint failed to cite Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court precedent which says that the federal government may not commandeer state officials into enforcing federal law. Printz centered on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which required state and local police to help enforce federal gun control laws. The Supreme Court ruled that requirement unconstitutional. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." So, not only does 10 U.S.C. § 12406 say that the California National Guard cannot be federalized unless the order "shall be issued" by California's governor, but Printz further says that California's governor cannot be directed "to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Under Printz, in other words, Newsom cannot be compelled to issue the order that Trump needs Newsom to issue in order for the California National Guard to be lawfully federalized. Printz seems like the sort of precedent that Newsom ought to be citing. To be sure, there are other potential scenarios under which Trump may lawfully deploy National Guard forces to L.A. without first obtaining Newsom's support. For example, if Trump asked the governor of a "red" state to issue such an order, and if that Republican governor complied, then Trump could conceivably deploy the National Guard forces from that red state to Los Angeles. (Note: This scenario does not address the separate legal question about whether an "invasion" or "rebellion" is actually occurring in L.A.) There is also the specter of the Insurrection Act lurking in the background. If properly invoked by the president, that sweeping law would permit Trump to federalize National Guard forces without the consent of any governor. There are reports that Trump may be contemplating this drastic step. The case of Newsom v. Trump has landed on the docket of a federal district court judge named Charles Breyer. If that name sounds familiar, it might be because you've heard of his brother, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer has scheduled the first hearing in Newsom v. Trump for later today. We'll see what happens next. If you watched the first season of the brilliant Star Wars spinoff show Andor, you no doubt remember the three-episode arc set on the planet Aldhani, in which a small band of scruffy-looking rebels pulled off a daring robbery at an imperial military base. According to Andor creator Tony Gilroy, that fictional heist was partially inspired by historian Simon Sebag Montefiore's tremendous book Young Stalin, which detailed how the future tyrant got his revolutionary start by carrying out "bank robberies, protection-rackets, extortion, arson, piracy, murder." It was this "political gangsterism," Montefiore explained, "that impressed [Vladimir] Lenin and trained [Joseph] Stalin in the very skills that would prove invaluable in the political jungle of the Soviet Union." Partially inspired by Andor, I recently started rereading Young Stalin for the first time in over a decade, and the book is even better than I remembered. If you're in the market for a gripping and illuminating work of history, I highly recommend it. The post Trump's L.A. National Guard Deployment Stands on Shaky Legal Ground appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys' lawsuit is legally unsound — but DOJ will likely just surrender
The $100 million lawsuit filed by leaders of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys is legally unsound — but it has an excellent chance of success. The plaintiffs — Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio and four others — had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other crimes arising from their roles in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that interfered with the transition of power following Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The lawsuit's excellent chance of a successful outcome for Tarrio and his co-defendants-turned-co-plaintiffs rests entirely on the current Justice Department's will to defend itself, which seems non-existent judging by DOJ's recent capitulation in the wrongful death case brought by the estate of Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter shot and killed while trying to breach the House Speaker's Lobby on Jan. 6. The Babbitt case appeared weak. An investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police found that the officer had acted lawfully in shooting Babbitt, and a joint investigation by the D.C. police department and DOJ found no evidence that the officer had done anything other than act in self-defense of himself and members of Congress — who were actively being evacuated in the face of the Capitol attack at the time Babbitt climbed over a barricade and through a broken glass window to get into the Speaker's Lobby. The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. and the DOJ's Civil Rights Section jointly decided no criminal charges against the officer were warranted. Nevertheless, the Trump DOJ paid Babbitt's estate $5 million to settle. The Proud Boys case looks even weaker. Tarrio and the other plaintiffs are essentially re-arguing defenses they made at their trials: Their constitutional rights were violated under various theories, including due process, the right to a speedy trial and claims of unreasonable search and seizures. But one problem for them is these defenses were all rejected at trial and they were convicted and sentenced for their crimes. Bringing a civil suit for a wrongful prosecution in which the defendant(s) were convicted would be nearly impossible without that conviction being overturned on appeal. The other problem is that their case is brought primarily upon the so-called Bivens doctrine, which has fallen extremely out of favor with the courts. The doctrine arose from a 1971 Supreme Court case allowing plaintiff Webster Bivens to seek damages against federal agents for violating his Fourth Amendment rights in an illegal search and arrest. But since 1971, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied Bivens as a remedy and federal trial courts — and appeals courts — have dismissed hundreds of lawsuits based on Bivens, which had led to the conclusion that the Bivens remedy is nearly dead. Professor Dennis Fan, a former DOJ civil attorney, told The Hill that it's 'essentially impossible' to bring a Bivens claim these days. The other basis for the Proud Boys' suit relies on the Federal Torts Claim Act to recover under a liability theory of malicious prosecution — a liability that Rupa Bhattacharyya, former director of DOJ's Torts Branch, describes as 'really, really low.' But likely outweighing all the legal hurdles for the Proud Boys' lawsuit are Trump's pardons of Tarrio and commutations of sentences for his co-plaintiffs. The pardons — not just of the Proud Boys but also of 1,600 defendants charged in the Jan. 6 attack — immeasurably complicate DOJ's potential defense against the lawsuit. The pardon and commutation language used by Trump states that it is ending 'a grave national injustice' — and during the signing ceremony, Trump described the Jan. 6 defendants as 'hostages' and said: 'What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country.' Tarrio also has written of his conversation with Trump at Mar-a-Lago where Trump told him that he was sorry for what President Joe Biden had done to Jan. 6 defendants and told him, 'I love you guys.' Both the language in the pardon and commutations and Trump's characterizations and apologies make a settlement nearly the only outcome. Indeed, a trial of the claims could result in the absurdity of Trump and other Trump administration officials testifying against DOJ's defense of its actions — in essence the administration testifying against itself. Nor would a judge be inclined to reject such a settlement. While theoretically a judge may refuse to accept a settlement, those instances typically involve cases that give a judge more authority over settlements. for example class actions like the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement case, in which the judge objected to a provision that would have protected the Sackler family from litigation. A settlement would have big financial consequences for taxpayers. The damage caused by the Jan. 6 attack is estimated by Congress' audit arm to be $2.7 billion, of which only $3 million was to be repaid in the form of restitution by Jan. 6 defendants. Whatever restitution was owed is wiped clean by the pardons and commutations, and the DOJ has already supported giving a refund to the defendants of any money already paid. It would also likely cause a flood of similar lawsuits from perhaps all of the 1,600 pardoned/commuted Jan. 6 defendants — which could add millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, to the tab. Such an income stream fits well with Trump's idea of creating a 'compensation fund' for pardoned Jan 6 rioters even as it would — in the words of history professor Allan J. Lichtman — send a 'horrendous message' that would legitimize 'violent insurrections.' Lichtman compared the settlements process to 'white supremacists during the Jim Crow era recasting Confederates who fought in the Civil War as 'noble.'' Essentially, the Trump administration could be creating reparations packages for Jan. 6 rioters. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Netanyahu survives vote to dissolve government
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu survived a vote to dissolve his government, but was left weakened. Netanyahu's coalition relies on ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, who want religious students to remain exempt from Israel's compulsory military service, a demand the Supreme Court rejects. A last-minute deal stopped those parties from voting with the opposition, but is 'unlikely to solve the conundrum' long-term, The New York Times reported, and the split gives opposition parties an opportunity to divide and challenge the government. Netanyahu is a political survivor, but is under pressure: Rifts are also growing with US President Donald Trump, who reportedly demanded an end to Israel's operation in Gaza this week, a move Netanyahu is unwilling to make.
