Diddy's lawyers downplay 'suggestion of sex-trafficking'
Areva Martin, an attorney and legal affairs commentator, breaks down Diddy's first day in court, offering insights into the proceedings and the key evidence presented against him so far.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can remain in custody amid green card dispute
A United States federal judge has allowed the administration of President Donald Trump to keep student protester Mahmoud Khalil in custody based on allegations of immigration fraud. On Friday, Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ruled that Khalil's legal team had not adequately shown why his detention on the charge would be unlawful. It was a major setback for Khalil, who had been a negotiator for the student protesters at Columbia University demonstrating against Israel's war on Gaza. He was the first high-profile protester to be arrested under Trump's campaign to expel foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian advocacy. Just this week, Farbiarz appeared poised to order Khalil's release, on the basis that his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was unconstitutional. That law stipulates that the secretary of state – in this case, Marco Rubio – has the power to remove foreign nationals who have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States'. But Farbiarz ruled that Rubio's use of the law violated Khalil's freedom of speech. Still, the Trump administration filed additional court papers saying it had another reason for wanting to deport Khalil. It alleged that Khalil, a permanent US resident, had omitted information from his green-card application that would have otherwise disqualified him from gaining residency. The Trump administration has long accused Khalil of supporting terrorism through his protest-related activities, something the former graduate student has vehemently denied. In the case of his green-card application, it argues that Khalil failed to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), a humanitarian organisation. Politicians in Israel and the US have accused UNRWA of ties to the armed group Hamas, an allegation reportedly made without evidence. Khalil, however, has denied he was ever an 'officer' in UNRWA, as alleged. Instead, his legal team points out that he completed a United Nations internship through Columbia University. The Trump administration also argues that Khalil did not accurately identify the length of his employment with the Syria Office of the British Embassy in Beirut. Khalil and his legal team, meanwhile, say he accurately identified his departure date from the job as December 2022. Judge Farbiarz had set Friday morning as a deadline for the Trump administration to appeal Khalil's release on bail. But that deadline was extended to give the government more time to challenge Khalil's release. Ultimately, Farbiarz allowed the Trump administration to continue its detention of Khalil. He advised Khalil's lawyers to seek release on bail from the immigration court where his deportation trial is being held in Louisiana. Farbiarz had been weighing a separate habeas corpus petition from the Khalil team that called into question the constitutionality of his continued detention. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, told the Reuters news agency that immigration fraud charges are exceedingly rare, and the Trump administration's use of such charges was simply a political manoeuvre to keep Khalil in lock-up. 'Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous,' said Van Der Hout. 'There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention.' Another lawyer representing Khalil, Amy Greer, described the new allegations against his green-card application as part of the government's 'cruel, transparent delay tactics'. She noted that Khalil, a new father whose child was born in April, would miss his first Father's Day, which falls this Sunday in the US. 'Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians,' Greer said in a statement. 'It is unjust, it is shocking, and it is disgraceful.'
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Marines arrive at Los Angeles federal sites as court battle unfolds
The United States Marines have deployed to Los Angeles following criticism and legal battles over whether President Donald Trump had the authority to use the military to quell civilian protests without state approval. On Friday, Major General Scott Sherman of the US Army confirmed that 200 Marines were arriving in southern California to protect a federal building. A total of 700 Marines have been authorised for deployment to the region. 'I would like to emphasise that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,' Sherman said during a briefing. The Marines join National Guard troops already in the Los Angeles area following the eruption of protests on June 6, when residents took to the streets to express their displeasure with President Trump's immigration raids, some of which targeted local hardware stores and other workplaces. While many of the demonstrations were mostly peaceful and limited to a small part of the city, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) did experience tense clashes with some protesters, who hurled objects and set driverless Waymo vehicles on fire. Police responded with flashbangs, tear gas and rubber bullets. Trump, meanwhile, dubbed the protesters 'bad people' and 'insurrectionists' and announced the deployment of the National Guard on the evening of June 7. The president cited Title 10 of the US Code, which allows a president to call up the National Guard if there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' against the federal government. Trump and his allies framed the demonstrators as part of a migrant 'invasion' imperilling the US. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' Trump wrote in a presidential memorandum. It was the first time since 1965 that a US president had authorised the National Guard's deployment to a state without the governor's permission. The last time was to protect civil rights protesters who were marching through segregated Alabama and faced threats of violence. Presidents have called up the National Guard to address domestic unrest in the years since, but only with the cooperation of local authorities. In 1992, for instance, then-President Bill Clinton answered a request from California's governor at the time to send National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles. Trump's decision to circumvent the authority of California's present-day governor, Gavin Newsom, has led to a legal fight over whether he exceeded his powers as president. Newsom filed a lawsuit to block the use of military troops outside of federal sites, and on Thursday, a pair of court decisions left the future of the recent deployment unclear. First, on Thursday afternoon, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco sided with Newsom, calling Trump's actions 'illegal' and a violation of the US Constitution. In his 36-page decision, Breyer ruled that the Trump administration had failed to show a danger of rebellion in Los Angeles. 'While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,' he wrote. 'The definition of rebellion is unmet.' He added that he was 'troubled' by the Trump administration's argument that a protest against the federal government could be tantamount to rebellion, warning that such logic could violate the First Amendment right to free speech. 'Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,' Breyer said. He called for an injunction against Trump's use of National Guard members, saying 'it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity' and 'deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members'. Nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard have been authorised for deployment to Los Angeles under Trump's command. But the Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Breyer's injunction. By late Thursday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the injunction, allowing Trump to continue using the National Guard until a hearing could be held on the matter next week. On Friday, Trump celebrated that decision on his social media platform, Truth Social. 'The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,' Trump wrote. 'If I didn't send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!' Newsom, meanwhile, has continued his call for Trump to end what he framed as illegal control of the National Guard. He has also accused the military presence of heightening tensions with protesters, not dissipating them. '@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California,' Newsom wrote on social media Thursday. He has called the Republican president's federalisation of the National Guard an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'. The California governor is seen as a possible Democratic contender for the presidency in the 2028 election cycle.
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Abrego Garcia pleads not guilty to human smuggling charges in US court
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was wrongfully deported from the United States, has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling charges in a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee. Friday marked the first opportunity for Abrego Garcia, a Maryland construction worker, to confront the criminal charges the administration of President Donald Trump has levelled against him. The Trump administration has sought to portray Abrego Garcia as a member of the MS-13 criminal gang following his deportation to El Salvador on March 15. Abrego Garcia had been protected from deportation under a 2019 protection order, given his fear of gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. His removal to that country sparked public outrage and questions about the legality of Trump's 'mass deportation' campaign. In the months since, the Trump administration has faced increasing pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the US, with the Supreme Court in April affirming that the government needed to 'facilitate' his release. A lower court, led by US District Judge Paula Xinis, had signalled that it was considering whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for not complying with orders to secure his return. That abruptly changed, however, on June 6, when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Abrego Garcia was on his way back to the US to face charges that he helped smuggle undocumented migrants in the US. In a 10-page indictment, the Trump administration accused Abrego Garcia of leading 'more than 100 trips between Texas to Maryland and other states', starting in 2016. It cites as evidence a traffic stop in Tennessee around November 30, 2022, when Abrego Garcia was observed driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine passengers, all of whom appeared to be undocumented men headed to Maryland. The administration has released body camera footage of that incident, where a police officer can be heard speculating that Abrego Garcia is part of a smuggling ring. But the footage shows no confrontation, and Abrego Garcia was not charged with any offence following the traffic stop. Prosecutors have noted that Abrego Garcia could face a maximum of 10 years in prison for each migrant he smuggled, if convicted. Critics, however, question whether the recently unveiled criminal indictment was an attempt by the Trump administration to save face and dodge contempt charges, given the scrutiny over whether it was defying court orders. Abrego Garcia's defence team, meanwhile, has called the charges against him 'preposterous'. 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet-metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' one of his lawyers, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told The Associated Press. His case has nevertheless gained a national profile, with the Trump administration facing multiple legal challenges over whether it violated migrants' right to due process: the right to a fair legal hearing. Even administration officials have acknowledged that his swift deportation had been the result of an 'administrative error'. In Friday's court hearing, US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes spoke directly to Abrego Garcia, assuring him that he would receive a fair trial. 'You are presumed innocent, and it is the government's burden to prove at trial that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,' Holmes said, reiterating fundamental principles of the US justice system. The Trump administration has sought to keep Abrego Garcia detained while the trial unfolds, using additional allegations that are not included in the indictment as justification. Prosecutors have accused Abrego Garcia, among other things, of child pornography, abusing women and taking part in a murder in El Salvador. They also argue he is a flight risk. But Judge Holmes warned on Friday that the court cannot keep someone in detention simply on the basis of allegations. The human smuggling charges against Abrego Garcia have already caused discord within the Justice Department, with one prosecutor appearing to step down in protest. That prosecutor, Ben Schrader, was the chief of the criminal division at the US Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee. He posted on social media on the day of the indictment that he was leaving. 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons,' he wrote. Outside the court on Friday, Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, called on supporters to keep fighting for his freedom: 'Kilmar wants you to have faith.' She saw her husband for the first time in three months on Thursday.
