Kirchner's Ban From Office Marks New Chapter for Argentina
Argentina's top court sidelined former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner from elections, likely ushering in a new political era in South America's second biggest economy.
Just a week after President Javier Milei's arch rival announced a bid in a key midterm race, the Supreme Court banned the opposition leader from public office for life, delivering a major political victory for Milei as he works to convince investors that Argentina is changing. The ruling forces Peronism — the country's dominant political force for decades — to reinvent itself, while leaving Milei without his most emblematic adversary in an increasingly polarized nation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Argentine President Javier Milei receives Israel's Genesis Prize
JERUSALEM (AP) — President Javier Milei of Argentina received the $1 million Genesis prize in Jerusalem on Thursday in recognition of his support for Israel as it faces a mounting international isolation over the war in Gaza. A statement from the Genesis Prize said Milei will donate the award to launch an initiative aimed at improving diplomatic relations between Israel and Latin American countries and fighting antisemitism in the region. It said the goal is to replicate the Abraham accords — a U.S.-brokered set of agreements aimed at winning broader recognition of Israel in the Arab world — with Latin American states. Breaking decades of policy precedent, Milei has gone further in his support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government than perhaps any other world leader, as Israel faces growing isolation over its bombardment and invasion of Gaza in response to Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7, 2023. Milei also has pledged to move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem, joining a handful of countries, including the U.S., to recognize the contested city as Israel's capital. Past laureates of the award include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actor Michael Douglas, billionaire Robert Kraft, entertainer Barbra Streisand and filmmaker Steven Spielberg. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Washington Post
31 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Argentine President Javier Milei receives Israel's Genesis Prize
JERUSALEM — President Javier Milei of Argentina received the $1 million Genesis prize in Jerusalem on Thursday in recognition of his support for Israel as it faces a mounting international isolation over the war in Gaza. A statement from the Genesis Prize said Milei will donate the award to launch an initiative aimed at improving diplomatic relations between Israel and Latin American countries and fighting antisemitism in the region. It said the goal is to replicate the Abraham accords — a U.S.-brokered set of agreements aimed at winning broader recognition of Israel in the Arab world — with Latin American states. Breaking decades of policy precedent, Milei has gone further in his support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government than perhaps any other world leader, as Israel faces growing isolation over its bombardment and invasion of Gaza in response to Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7, 2023. Milei also has pledged to move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem, joining a handful of countries, including the U.S., to recognize the contested city as Israel's capital. Past laureates of the award include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actor Michael Douglas, billionaire Robert Kraft, entertainer Barbra Streisand and filmmaker Steven Spielberg.
Yahoo
37 minutes 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
