Brazil judge summons Bolsonaro's lawyers for incompliance with court orders, local media reports
Moraes gave Bolsonaro's lawyers 24 hours to present an explanation, adding that if the defense does not adequately justify the behavior, he may order the immediate arrest of the former president, according to G1.
Moraes said earlier in the day that Bolsonaro may be arrested if his press interviews are published on social media, raising questions about whether the right-wing leader is allowed to talk to journalists.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court
July 25 (Reuters) - Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New York. Her lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. "The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits," Epner said. While uncommon, "there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years," Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings "is of limited importance," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, "because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement." If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called "a very productive day." The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases - about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year - and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but committed suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. "If the government can promise one thing and deliver another - and courts let it happen - that erodes the integrity of the justice system," Markus told Reuters. "This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word," Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means "no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district." Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. "There were many strange things about this deal," Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. "A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in," Richman said of the Supreme Court justices.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Philippine court strikes down landmark impeachment bid against Sara Duterte
The Philippine Supreme Court has blocked an impeachment trial against Sara Duterte, marking a victory for the country's vice lower house of the Philippine parliament had voted to impeach Duterte in February after she was accused of misusing public funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos a court spokesperson told reporters on Friday that the impeachment vote violated a constitutional ban on having multiple impeachment proceedings in a a press conference on Friday, the court said it was not absolving Duterte of the charges she faces. But the ruling means she has been granted a reprieve from possible ouster - at least until February 2026. This also gives her more time to gather support for a possible presidential run in the crucial run-up years to the 2028 general even before the ruling, the odds of convicting Sara in the Senate impeachment court or even starting the proceedings was uncertain due to shifting political alliances that followed the general election in May. The feud between Duterte and Marcos had dominated the election, and Duterte won more seats in the Senate than expected, in what was seen as a rebuff of the 15-member Supreme Court is dominated by appointees of Sara's proceedings are extremely divisive in Philippine's chaotic political landscape. Since the restoration of democracy to the country in 1986, only one such attempt has successfully ended with a verdict -- that of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was convicted of hiding his assets in president Joseph Estrada's impeachment for alleged graft was cut short in 2001, after public anger over the conduct of the trial sparked massive street protests that eventually led to his ouster.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
India is targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims for expulsion to Bangladesh, Human Rights Watch warns
Indian authorities have forcibly pushed hundreds of Muslims into Bangladesh without due process, Human Rights Watch said. The rights group, based in the US, accused Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government of targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims from West Bengal and Assam for political gain ahead of elections in the two eastern states. India expelled over 1,500 Muslim men, women, and children to Bangladesh between 7 May and 15 June alone, the rights group said, citing the Bangladeshi border guard. New Delhi hasn't disclosed the number of people deported to the neighbouring country. After the massacre of 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists, in the restive Himalayan region of Kashmir in May, the federal home ministry declared a 30-day deadline for states to round up undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants. In the event, critics said, authorities in Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Haryana, and Delhi – all states ruled by Mr Modi's BJP party – rounded up mostly Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal and Assam. Bengali is one of India's 22 official languages. 'India's ruling BJP is fuelling discrimination by arbitrarily expelling Bengali Muslims from the country, including Indian citizens," Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said. 'The government is putting thousands of vulnerable people at risk in apparent pursuit of unauthorised immigrants but their actions reflect broader discriminatory policies against Muslims." Assam's chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, a member of the BJP, said the state had been told by the Supreme Court 'that those who are declared foreigners have to be returned [to their country of origin] by whatever means'. This month he wrote on X that 'protecting Assam's interests is foremost', and that 'illegal infiltrators WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to stay in Assam and threaten our identity'. Senior BJP members regularly refer to undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh as 'infiltrators", a term that has also been used more broadly to vilify Indian Muslims. Ms Pearson said the claim that the expulsions were meant to manage illegal immigration was "unconvincing" and showed the ruling party's 'disregard for due process rights, domestic guarantees, and international human rights standards'. A 51-year-old labourer told the rights group he had "walked into Bangladesh like a dead body" after India's Border Security Force pushed him across after midnight. "The BSF officer beat me when I refused to cross the border into Bangladesh and fired rubber bullets four times in the air,' he said. The migrant worker, the group said, was repatriated to India two weeks later. Authorities in West Bengal, governed by a regional party, said they repatriated dozens of residents who had been forcibly sent into Bangladesh by the Modi government. At least 300 of the people expelled to Bangladesh were from Assam, which underwent a contentious citizenship verification process in 2019 that excluded nearly two million people. Nazimuddin Sheikh, 34, a migrant worker from West Bengal, was detained in Mumbai and expelled to Bangladesh in June after police raided his home and allegedly "tore up his identity documents". The BSF did not listen when he and his fellow workers protested that they were Indian, Mr Sheikh told the Human Rights Watch. 'If we spoke too much, they beat us. They hit me with sticks on my back and hands,' he said. 'They were beating us and telling us to say we are Bangladeshi.' West Bengal's chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, one of Mr Modi's fiercest rivals, earlier called out the ruling party for the crackdown. "Is speaking Bengali a crime?" she asked. "You should be ashamed that by doing this, you're making everyone who speaks Bengali appear to be Bangladeshi." She said nearly 2.2m migrant workers from Bengal were working elsewhere in the country while about 15m people from outside were working in the eastern state. The Independent has approached the BJP for comment. In addition to Bengali workers, Indian authorities also deported around 100 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, taking them from a detention centre in Assam and pushing them into Bangladesh. Another 40 Rohingya were forced to jump into the sea near Myanmar, handed life jackets and told to swim ashore, the UN human rights office said. Bangladesh shares a 4,096km border with India, the fifth-longest in the world. The two countries have experienced multiple waves of undocumented migration since the British partition of the subcontinent in 1947. Mr Modi this month accused Ms Banerjee's government in West Bengal of "encouraging' illegal immigration "for the sake of vote bank politics". The issue of immigration from Bangladesh is expected to become a focal point of the 2026 election in West Bengal, a key target for the BJP.
