EXCLUSIVE Angry White House blowup over a devastating betrayal of MAGA has a certain Trump lieutenant second-guessing the President, reveals MARK HALPERIN
For a time, that rang true. Perhaps, no longer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
White House just watered down the only concession it can claim Trump won from Putin — Ukraine security
But comments from the White House, European leaders and Russia on Monday and Tuesday make it clear that there's still at least one major gulf that needs bridging. Trump returned to Washington this weekend from Alaska, where the U.S. president met for a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin that was sharply criticized by his adversaries and a source of real concern for Europe, after which it appeared that the U.S. was on the verge of negotiating away swaths of Ukrainian territory without any input from Kyiv. On Monday, he met with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House alongside a cadre of European leaders from Germany, France, the U.K. and elsewhere. An eyebrow-raising scene played out this time in Washington, D.C., as world leaders crowded around the Resolute Desk like schoolchildren and Trump at one point dismissed them for an impromptu call with Putin. Afterwards, the pro-Ukraine delegation was echoing a level of optimism that the White House was eager to echo at a press briefing on Tuesday. Yet, there was one other development that took place over Monday and Tuesday that could keep progress towards a peace agreement elusive. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the Trump administration was wholly opposed to deploying troops to support Ukraine under any circumstances, and was only considering acting as a coordinator for a security agreement between Ukraine and its European neighbors. She couldn't tell reporters where common ground on the issue still existed with Russia — which separately indicated through statements that a European security force in Ukraine was off the table. "U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'But we can certainly help in the coordination, and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies.' The erosion of that common ground that Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff eagerly proclaimed had been found in an interview Sunday could present the biggest obstacle to a long-term peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia going forward. On Sunday, the administration's go-to conflict resolution expert was on CNN, telling Jake Tapper that Putin had agreed to allow 'Article 5-like protections' to Ukraine, something he called a 'game-changer' in the path towards a peace deal. 'We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,' Witkoff said. By Tuesday afternoon, it was completely unclear whether that was still a feasible suggestion. Russian officials repeated their objections to NATO forces entering Ukraine under any circumstances. The White House rejected the prospect of U.S. boots on the ground at any point. Yet Zelensky, in his own statements, has made clear that his government will not lay down arms without a concrete arrangement protecting his country's sovereignty and borders from future Russian aggression. He wrote on Saturday on Twitter/X: 'Security must be guaranteed reliably and in the long term, with the involvement of both Europe and the U.S.' It's a demand seen all the more crucial by Kyiv, given that Trump is now talking openly about ceding the Donbas region, part of which is occupied by Ukrainian forces, to Putin as a concession to make a deal. On Tuesday, Leavitt was pressed further to confirm that Vladimir Putin agreed to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky within two weeks, something the Kremlin has not yet stated definitively. Just the development of the two leaders in the same room would present a massive step forward in the Russia-Ukraine peace talks. But Russian officials previously agreed to begin 'direct' talks with Ukraine in May, only for those plans to be abandoned. Kremlin officials seemed to already be moving in that direction on Tuesday, saying that talks needed to begin 'gradually'. "We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks," Trump himself told reporters on Tuesday. "It's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal."
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kilmar Abrego Garcia wants criminal case thrown out over Trump administration's ‘vindictive' prosecution
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is asking a federal judge to throw out a criminal case against him, claiming he was 'singled out' by President Donald Trump's administration for 'having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice' after he was wrongfully deported to a brutal prison in his home country. Despite admitting in court that he was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March, government lawyers and top administration officials spent weeks insisting Abrego Garcia would never be allowed back into the country following a high-profile lawsuit challenging his arrest and removal. He was abruptly flown back to the United States in June to face a criminal indictment in Tennessee, where a grand jury indicted him on federal smuggling charges. Prosecutors cannot abuse the law to 'punish someone for exercising his constitutional rights,' lawyers for Abrego Garcia wrote on Tuesday. 'Yet that is exactly what has happened here.' 'Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been singled out by the United States government,' they added. 'It is obvious why. And it is not because of the seriousness of his alleged conduct.' Last month, the federal judge overseeing his criminal case ordered his release from jail before trial, finding that prosecutors failed to show 'any evidence' that his history or arguments against him warrant his ongoing detention. That order arrived moments after another federal judge overseeing his wrongful deportation case blocked the Trump administration from immediately arresting and deporting him after he is set to be released from jail. The court agreed to pause his release from pretrial detention so attorneys can 'evaluate options' as they brace for immigration officers to arrest and remove him a second time. That pause is set to expire this Friday August 22. Abrego Garcia's attorneys argue he was only charged because 'he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights.' 'Rather than fix its mistake and return [him] to the United States, the government fought back at every level of the federal court system,' attorneys wrote. 'And at every level, [he] won. This case results from the government's concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.' The Independent has requested comment from Homeland Security. In court filings, Abrego Garcia's attorneys detailed the 'severe mistreatment' and 'torture' he experienced during his month-long detention inside El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. His attorneys say the 29-year-old father was subject to 'severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture' at the facility. 'A group of the most senior officials in the United States sought vengeance: they began a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case,' his attorneys wrote. His lawyers admitted that motions to dismiss on grounds of selective or vindictive prosecution are rarely granted but 'if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case,' they said. 'The government is attempting to use this case — and this Court — to punish Mr. Abrego for successfully fighting his unlawful removal. That is a constitutional violation of the most basic sort,' his attorneys wrote. Abrego Garcia — who entered the country illegally as a teenager after fleeing gang violence in El Salvador — was deported on March 15 despite an immigration judge's order that blocked his removal from the country for humanitarian reasons. Government lawyers admitted in court documents that he was removed from the country due to a procedural error and several federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his return. Still, the government spent weeks battling court orders while officials publicly said he would never step foot in the United States, characterizing him as a serial abuser and criminal gang member. Emails and text messages provided to members of Congress appear to show that administration officials and government lawyers were sympathetic to his wrongful removal and made efforts to get him out of El Salvador before the case made headlines, which caused major headaches for the White House. A two-count indictment in Tennessee accuses Abrego Garcia of participating in a years-long conspiracy to illegally move undocumented immigrants from Texas to other parts of the country. He faces one count of conspiracy to transport aliens and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. But in their request to keep him in jail before trial, federal prosecutors also claimed he is a member of transnational gang MS-13, and 'personally participated in violent crime, including murder.' Prosecutors also claim he 'abused' women and trafficked children, firearms and narcotics, and there is also an ongoing investigation into 'solicitation of child pornography.' Abrego Garcia is not facing any charges on those allegations and a federal judge determined that the government failed to link those allegations to evidence that implicates him.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. ' People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
