quarta-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2024
Trump’s PACs Spent Roughly $50 Million on Legal Expenses in 2023
Trump’s PACs Spent Roughly $50 Million on Legal
Expenses in 2023
The former president is facing four criminal
indictments and potential trials that could drive his legal bills even higher
as he seeks to lock up the Republican presidential nomination.
Maggie
Haberman Shane Goldmacher
By Maggie
Haberman and Shane Goldmacher
Jan. 30,
2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/us/politics/trump-legal-fees.html?searchResultPosition=1
Donald J.
Trump piled up legal expenses in 2023 as he was indicted four times, spending
approximately $50 million in donor money on legal bills and
investigation-related expenses last year, according to two people briefed on
the figure.
It is a
staggering sum. His lone remaining rival in the 2024 Republican primary, Nikki
Haley, raised roughly the same amount of money across all her committees in the
last year as Mr. Trump’s political accounts spent paying the bills stemming
from his various legal defenses, including lawyers for witnesses.
The exact
figure spent on legal bills will be reported on Wednesday in new filings to the
Federal Election Commission. But even those totals can be imprecise depending
on how certain expense items are categorized by those doing the paperwork.
The broader
picture expected to be outlined in the documents is one of a former president
heading toward the Republican nomination while facing enormous financial
strain.
The Trump
campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Mr. Trump,
who has long been loath to pay lawyers himself and has a history of stiffing
those who represent him, has used funds in his political action committee,
known as Save America, to underwrite his legal bills. The account was
originally flooded with donations that were collected during the period
immediately after the 2020 election when he was making widespread and false
claims of voting fraud.
But with
Save America’s coffers nearly drained last year, Mr. Trump sought to refill
them through a highly unusual transaction: He asked for a refund of $60 million
that he had initially transferred to a different group, a pro-Trump super PAC
called MAGA Inc., to support his 2024 campaign.
In
addition, Mr. Trump has been directing 10 percent of donations raised online to
Save America, meaning 10 cents of every dollar he has received from supporters
is going to a PAC that chiefly funds his lawyers.
Mr. Trump
has paid legal expenses through both Save America and a second account, called
the Make America Great Again PAC, which is an outgrowth of his 2020 re-election
committee. In the first half of 2023, Save America transferred $5.85 million to
the Make America Great Again PAC, which spent almost all of that sum on legal
and investigation-related costs.
The roughly
$50 million figure is a combination of such costs through both groups.
Mr. Trump’s
super PAC, MAGA Inc., refunded $30 million to Save America in the second half
of 2023, an average of $5 million per month. That is in addition to the $12.5
million in refunds that the super PAC had previously reported that it gave back
in the first half of the year.
The net
result was redirecting $42.5 million from a super PAC devoted to electing him
as president to a committee now chiefly devoted to paying his lawyers. The
refund was nearly equal to the $43.8 million the super PAC spent on so-called
independent expenditures, such as television advertising, to shape the 2024
primary last year.
Alex
Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s super PAC, said the group had raised a
total of $120 million, including the $60 million transfer that is in the
process of being refunded.
“This is
old, recycled news about a refund request that was reported on nearly a year
ago,” Mr. Pfeiffer said in a statement. “The battle to defeat Joe Biden is
here, and the time for everyone to step up and join this fight is now. Every
dollar being raised by MAGA Inc. is going directly to defeating Joe Biden in
November.”
For Mr.
Trump, the refunds have been necessary because his legal costs have been
mounting.
Mr. Trump
is facing four criminal indictments in four different jurisdictions, with two
trials tentatively scheduled for March. At least one of those two trials, and
potentially both, will be delayed, but all the cases require mountains of
preparation by Mr. Trump’s team of pricey lawyers.
Mr. Trump
has been indicted by a Georgia grand jury and by federal prosecutors in
Washington in connection with his efforts to subvert his loss in the 2020
presidential election that President Biden won. He has been indicted by the
Manhattan district attorney for falsifying business records related to a hush
money payment to a porn star during the 2016 election. And he has been indicted
in connection with having reams of classified material at his members-only club
and home, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla.
Mr. Trump
had also been paying some of the legal fees for aides who have been ensnared as
witnesses in the various cases. Walt Nauta, Mr. Trump’s co-defendant in the
documents case, is still on his campaign payroll. Another co-defendant in the
case, Carlos De Oliveira, works at Mar-a-Lago.
To ease
some of the financial burden, aides to Mr. Trump opened a legal-defense fund
last year to pay legal fees of Trump allies who are connected to the various
investigations. The fund, which reported raising $1.6 million from July through
early December, is not intended for the former president himself.
Mr. Trump
is also facing a financial tsunami from civil litigation against him.
On Friday,
a federal civil jury ordered Mr. Trump to pay the New York writer E. Jean
Carroll $83.3 million in a defamation case she brought against him. A previous
federal civil jury ruled that he had sexually abused her decades ago and that
he had defamed her as he denied her allegations.
And in the
coming days, the New York state judge overseeing a civil fraud trial against
Mr. Trump and his company will decide how much of a penalty Mr. Trump is
required to pay in connection with the case. The New York attorney general,
Letitia James, who brought the suit, asked the judge to grant a penalty of $370
million.
Maggie
Haberman is a senior political correspondent reporting on the 2024 presidential
campaign, down ballot races across the country and the investigations into
former President Donald J. Trump. More about Maggie Haberman
Shane
Goldmacher is a national political correspondent, covering the 2024 campaign
and the major developments, trends and forces shaping American politics. He can
be reached at shane.goldmacher@nytimes.com. More about Shane Goldmacher
Guterres meets with donors as UN aid agency in Gaza faces funding cuts • / Guterres must go! Israel wants UN chief out
Guterres must go! Israel wants UN chief out
Top Israeli official demands secretary-general take
responsibility after UNRWA-Hamas claims.
JANUARY 30,
2024 7:37 PM CET
BY PAUL
RONZHEIMER AND SEJLA AHMATOVIC
https://www.politico.eu/article/antonio-guterres-must-go-israel-want-un-chief-out/
Paul
Ronzheimer is the deputy editor-in-chief of BILD and a senior journalist
reporting for Axel Springer, the parent company of POLITICO.
António
Guterres should resign as United Nations secretary-general, Israel’s Foreign
Minister Israel Katz said Tuesday.
The demand
comes following Israel’s allegations that 12 employees of the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) were involved in Hamas’
violent attack on October 7.
“Of course
he is responsible as U.N. secretary-general,” Katz said in an interview with
Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company.
“Guterres must resign” or “the U.N. must replace him.”
Israel has
been at loggerheads with the U.N. for months, after Guterres said in October
that Hamas’ attack “did not happen in a vacuum,” and accused Israel of carrying
out “56 years of suffocating occupation.”
On Friday —
after the International Court of Justice reproached Israel over its ongoing
retaliatory bombardment of Gaza but stopped short of calling for a cease-fire —
Israel accused a dozen U.N. employees of having participated in Hamas’ assault.
The United
States, Germany and Italy, among others, responded by pausing funding to the
relief agency. “The countries acted correctly even though it was a humanitarian
organization,” said Katz.
The UNRWA
denies that it knowingly aided Hamas or any other militant group. It says that
it thoroughly investigates allegations and holds staff accountable: On Friday,
the U.N. fired nine of the accused employees. One is reportedly dead, the U.N.
said, with two still being identified.
“The
abhorrent alleged acts of these staff members must have consequences,” Guterres
said in a statement Sunday. “Two million civilians in Gaza depend on critical
aid from UNRWA for daily survival.”
Israel has
not yet publicly provided evidence for its allegations. U.S. top diplomat
Antony Blinken said Monday that the accusations are “highly credible,” although
U.S. officials “haven’t had the ability to investigate [the allegations]
ourselves.”
“We will
collect this evidence and send it to all other countries such as the USA and
Germany,” Katz told Axel Springer. “Guterres had ignored many complaints and
information regarding the behavior of the aid organization as well as
indications of cooperation with Hamas.”
According
to Katz, “UNRWA is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.” A new
agency should be developed for the reconstruction of Gaza, he said, one “in
which the Arab states should be more involved than before.”
“We are not
talking about individuals,” Katz said. Instead, Israel claims that UNRWA is
“almost fully cooperating with Hamas.”
UNRWA runs
schools, health clinics and aid programs in refugee camps in Gaza, the West
Bank, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. It has 13,000 employees
in Gaza alone.
Martin Bashir Blamed Racism for Princess Diana Interview Criticism
Martin Bashir Blamed Racism for Princess Diana
Interview Criticism
25 YEARS
LATER
Diana’s interviewer said in a 2020 email that he was
singled out by critics in a way that a “dynastic” journalist, such as a
“Dimbleby,” would not have been.
Tom Sykes
Royalist
Correspondent
Published
Jan. 31, 2024 7:31AM EST
https://www.thedailybeast.com/martin-bashir-blamed-racism-for-princess-diana-interview-criticism
Martin
Bashir said in a 2020 email that he had been the subject of racist prejudice at
the time of his blockbuster Panorama interview with Princess Diana by critics
who were “irritated” that a “non-white” person “should have the temerity to
enter a royal palace and conduct an interview.”
Bashir
wrote the email, which has just been released as part of a Freedom of
Information order imposed on the BBC, 25 years after the interview, in response
to the gathering pace of an investigation into the underhanded methods he used
to secure it.
The results
of the investigation were published in 2021 in a damning report that found that
Bashir faked bank statements and showed them to Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother,
in order to gain access to the princess, and then used other fake documents and
invented stories to fuel her paranoia.
In an email
to a BBC executive Robert Seatter dated July 20, 2020, Bashir wrote: “I am
sorry to hear that this so-called ‘forgery’ story has reared its head again. It
played no part in the interview but did allow professional jealousy,
particularly within the corporation, to hang its hat on alleged wrongdoing.
“At the
time, it was also apparent that there was some irritation that a
second-generation immigrant of non-white, working class roots should have the
temerity to enter a royal palace and conduct an interview.”
Bashir, the
child of Pakistani parents, added: “It would have been so much easier if one of
the dynastic families (Dimbleby et al) had done it!”
The email
was part of a trove of 30,000 documents released to the documentary maker Andy
Webb, Sky News and other outlets have reported.
Webb made
the application after discovering, while making a film about the 25th
anniversary of the interview, that the former BBC head of news Tony Hall had
said in a meeting that Diana’s brother had given Bashir the dodgy bank
statements. But the BBC allegedly knew it was Bashir who had faked the
statements and showed them to Earl Spencer, to make him believe Diana was being
sold out by insiders.
The BBC
fought for several years not to release the new documents to Webb but was
finally obliged to by a U.K. court on Tuesday night.
However,
Webb has said he is going back to court because the released documents are too
heavily redacted.
He told The
Guardian: “The BBC clearly admit that documents were being withheld. In my
book, that’s a cover-up.”
The BBC
said in a statement: “Throughout this process we have taken our
responsibilities to comply with the directions of the tribunal extremely
seriously. Therefore, we’ve today released approximately 3,000 documents, some
10,000 pages, to Mr Webb.
“This
latest disclosure includes many hundreds of pages of duplicates and material
that was not related to the 1995 Panorama, but was nevertheless caught by the
electronic searches.
“We have
made redactions, where necessary, consistent with the Freedom of Information
Act. There is nothing to support the allegations that the BBC acted in bad
faith in 2020 and we maintain this suggestion is simply wrong.”
Martin Bashir blamed ‘professional jealousy’ within BBC for furore over Diana interview
Martin Bashir blamed ‘professional jealousy’
within BBC for furore over Diana interview
Internal emails reveal he also said his ethnicity and
working-class background helped to make him a target
Tom Ambrose
and agency
Tue 30 Jan
2024 23.24 GMT
Martin
Bashir blamed “professional jealousy” and his background and ethnicity after
allegations that he used deceit to secure an interview with Diana, Princess of
Wales, it has been revealed.
The BBC has
released about 3,000 internal emails relating to the scandal over the 1995
interview with Diana, after a court order issued last December.
The
investigative journalist Andy Webb put in the freedom of information (FoI)
request more than two years ago, after claims that BBC managers had tried to
cover up Bashir’s actions.
However,
the BBC said any suggestion that it had acted in bad faith was “simply wrong”.
In an email
dated 20 July 2020, Bashir told the head of BBC history, Robert Seatter, that
forged documents played no role in obtaining the interview and it would have
caused less controversy if a “dynastic” journalist such as a David Dimbleby had
been involved.
He wrote:
“I am sorry to hear that this so-called ‘forgery’ story has reared its head
again. It played no part in the interview but did allow professional jealousy,
particularly within the corporation, to hang its hat on alleged wrongdoing.
“At the
time, it was also apparent that there was some irritation that a
second-generation immigrant of non-white, working-class roots should have the
temerity to enter a Royal Palace and conduct an interview.
“It would
have been so much easier if one of the dynastic families (Dimbleby et al) had
done it!”
The
scandal, over how Bashir secured a Panorama interview with Diana in 1995,
emerged after the former BBC head of news Tony Hall suggested in a confidential
briefing that Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, had given Bashir bank
statements.
But Bashir
had faked bank statements in 1995 and showed them to Earl Spencer to gain
access to Diana in a “serious breach” of the broadcaster’s producer guidelines.
Bashir told
Seatter he had been praised by the then-Prince of Wales’s staff for not giving
interviews about the programme, PA Media reported.
He wrote:
“Since returning to the UK in 2015, and rejoining the BBC in 2016, senior staff
in the Prince of Wales’s Office (to my surprise) have expressed their gratitude
for my declining of all requests to discuss the interview.
“As I am
sure you will understand, the words of the late princess have been deployed to
attack surviving members of the Royal Family, particularly the Prince of Wales
[Charles], something that I have never wanted to do.”
A BBC
spokesperson said on Tuesday: “Throughout this process we have taken our
responsibilities to comply with the directions of the tribunal extremely
seriously. Therefore, we’ve today released approximately 3,000 documents, some
10,000 pages, to Mr Webb.
“This
latest disclosure includes many hundreds of pages of duplicates and material
that was not related to the 1995 Panorama, but was nevertheless caught by the
electronic searches.
“We have
made redactions, where necessary, consistent with the Freedom of Information
Act. There is nothing to support the allegations that the BBC acted in bad
faith in 2020 and we maintain this suggestion is simply wrong.”
Iran not seeking war with US but ‘not afraid of it’, says military chief
Iran not seeking war with US but ‘not afraid of
it’, says military chief
Head of Islamic Revolutionary Guards defiant as US
prepares ‘very consequential response’ to drone attack on Jordan base
Patrick
Wintour Diplomatic editor
Wed 31 Jan
2024 11.55 GMT
The head of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) has vowed the country is not afraid
of war with the US, as the Pentagon weighs how directly to respond to the
killing of three US servicemen in a drone attack in Jordan.
The IRGC
commander-in-chief, Maj Gen Hossein Salami, said: “We hear some threats from
American officials about targeting Iran. We tell them that you tested us and we
know each other. We do not leave any threat unanswered, and we do not look for
war, but we are not afraid of it. This is the well-known truth.”
It is
expected that more Iran-backed militia in Iraq are preparing to follow the
example of Kataib Hezbollah, the group blamed for the fatal drone attack on the
US service base on Sunday, and suspend operations against US bases as they
attempt to stave off an imminent American attack. Kataib Hezbollah, the most
powerful member of the Islamic Resistance group in Iraq, announced the decision
on Tuesday.
The UK
defence secretary, Grant Shapps, has flown to Washington for talks about the
crisis including the possible deployment of a British aircraft carrier to the
Red Sea to act as a substitute for the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, which is due to
end its tour of duty at an as yet unspecified point.
Houthi
forces continued to fire missiles at US naval ships in the Red Sea, but no
damage was caused.
On Tuesday,
Kataib Hezbollah said it would halt its attacks on American forces in the
Middle East.
“We’re
announcing the suspension of our military and security operations against the
occupying forces to avoid any embarrassment for the Iraqi government,” it wrote
on its website.
It insisted
that it took its actions independent of Iran, but it now looks likely that
other Iran-backed militia in Iraq will also suspend operations, a move that is
likely to be coordinated with Tehran.
Kataib
Hezbollah absolved Iran of all responsibility for the drone strike. Its
statement said: “Our brothers in the Resistance, especially in the Islamic
Republic, do not even know the nature of our jihad/military operations. Many
times they even objected to pressure and escalation against the Americans in
Iraq and Syria. Militia are ordered to temporarily defend passively if any
hostile American action occurs towards them.”
The
statement may be designed as a piece of information warfare intended to make
the US look like the side guilty of escalating matters, if a revenge attack
goes ahead. But there has also been intense political pressure from Iraq’s
prime minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, urging the militia to close down the
front against the US.
Washington
pledged a “very consequential” response to the attacks. John Kirby, the White
House’s national security spokesperson, said the US had still not identified
the specific group that attacked the US base, but believed the militants had
Iranian backing.
“We’re
still working through the analysis, but clearly the work has all the hallmarks
of groups that are backed by the IRGC and in fact by Hezbollah as well,” he
said.
Yemen’s
Iran-aligned Houthi group said on Wednesday it would keep up attacks on US and
British warships in the Red Sea in what it called acts of self-defence, stoking
fears of long-term disruptions to world trade.
Ameen
Hayyan, the group’s military spokesperson, said Houthi forces had fired at USS
Gravely late on Tuesday, adding: “All American and British warships in the Red
[Sea] … will be targeted within the legitimate defence of our country.”
James
Heappey, the UK armed forces minister, said on Tuesday that the UK could
“cooperate with the Americans” and step in to “plug a gap” in the Red Sea.
The UK has
two aircraft carriers designed to carry F-35 fighter jets. One is HMS Prince of
Wales, which would face its first combat operation if it were deployed. The
other is HMS Queen Elizabeth, which has been sent into combat once before.
American
F-35B jets have taken off from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth during Operation
Shader against Islamic State.
A separate
EU naval mission to protect shipping in the Red Sea will move a step closer
when EU defence ministers decide which country should take command.
The UK
foreign secretary, David Cameron, was in Saudi Arabia for further talks on how
to secure a lengthy humanitarian pause and a mass release of hostages in
exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners.
The talks
will also focus on the work Arab officials have been doing with the Palestinian
Authority on how it can be revitalised after the war and take administrative
charge of Gaza and the West Bank.
Saudi
Arabia has said it is not interested in helping with the reconstruction of Gaza
unless there is a clear pathway to a two-state solution supported by Israel.
Cameron has
caused a stir by holding out the hope of recognising Palestine before the end
of the peace talks.
Brussels threatens to hit Hungary’s economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid
Hungary
Brussels threatens to hit Hungary’s economy if
Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid
EU strategy aims to spook investors by cutting off
funding to Budapest in stand-off over €50bn package
https://www.ft.com/content/9dabcd4b-9c64-4124-9f9c-b0c898c84c8f
Henry Foy
and Andy Bounds in Brussels and Marton Dunai in Budapest YESTERDAY
The EU will
sabotage Hungary’s economy if Budapest blocks fresh aid to Ukraine at a summit
this week, under a confidential plan drawn up by Brussels that marks a
significant escalation in the battle between the EU and its most pro-Russian
member state.
In a
document drawn up by EU officials and seen by the Financial Times, Brussels has
outlined a strategy to explicitly target Hungary’s economic weaknesses, imperil
its currency and drive a collapse in investor confidence in a bid to hurt “jobs
and growth” if Budapest refuses to lift its veto against the aid to Kyiv.
Viktor
Orbán, Hungary’s premier, has vowed to block the use of the EU budget to
provide €50bn in financial aid to Ukraine at an emergency summit of leaders on
Thursday.
If he does
not back down, other EU leaders should publicly vow to permanently shut off all
EU funding to Budapest with the intention of spooking the markets,
precipitating a run on the country’s forint currency and a surge in the cost of
its borrowing, Brussels stated in the document.
“This is
Europe telling Viktor Orbán ‘enough is enough; it’s time to get in line. You
may have a pistol, but we have the bazooka’,” said Mujtaba Rahman, Europe
director at Eurasia Group, a consultancy.
The
document declares that “in the case of no agreement in the February 1 [summit],
other heads of state and government would publicly declare that in the light of
the unconstructive behaviour of the Hungarian PM . . . they cannot imagine that” EU funds would be provided to Budapest.
Without
that funding, “financial markets and European and international companies might
be less interested to invest in Hungary”, the document stated. Such punishment
“could quickly trigger a further increase of the cost of funding of the public
deficit and a drop in the currency”.
János Bóka,
Hungary’s EU minister, told the FT that Budapest was not aware of the financial
threat, but that his country “does not give in to pressure”.
“Hungary
does not establish a connection between support for Ukraine and access to EU
funds, and rejects other parties doing so,” he said. “Hungary has and will
continue to participate constructively in the negotiations.”
But in a
sign of the rising pressure on Budapest to strike a compromise, Bóka said
Budapest sent a new proposal to Brussels on Saturday, specifying it was now
open to using the EU budget for the Ukraine package and even issuing common
debt to finance it, if other caveats were added that gave Budapest the
opportunity to change its mind at a later date.
The
document, produced by an official in the Council of the EU, the Brussels body
that represents member states, lays out Hungary’s economic vulnerabilities —
including its “very high public deficit”, “very high inflation”, weak currency
and the EU’s highest level of debt servicing payments as a proportion of gross
domestic product.
It lays
outs how “jobs and growth . . . depend to a large extent” on overseas
finance that is predicated on high levels of EU funding.
A
spokesperson for the Council of the EU said they did not comment on leaks.
Brussels
has wielded its financial leverage against member states before, such as with
Poland and Hungary over rule of law concerns and Greece during the eurozone
crisis, but a strategy to explicitly seek to undermine a member state’s economy
would mark a major new step for the bloc.
Three EU
diplomats told the FT that many countries backed the plan. “The mood has got
harsher,” said one. “What kind of union do we have if we allow this kind of
behaviour?”
Another
said: “The stakes are high. It is blackmail.”
Bóka told
the FT that Budapest wanted “to explore the possibility of a more constructive
and European solution” and has proposed it could support the €50bn plan if it
was given an annual veto on the payments. Other EU countries have already
refused this suggestion as they fear Orbán would seek to block it every year
and extract further concessions.
But one of
the diplomats added there was “no way” Orbán would get a veto over
funding.
Bóka said
“the political pressure on Hungary is continuous and strong” but that it did
not influence his government’s negotiations.
“We had to
take a step, and we trust that the other party will be similarly flexible,” he
added.
Recommended
InterviewViktor
Orbán
US attacks
Hungary’s Orbán for ‘fantasy foreign policy’ that helps Putin
While 26
member states have a plan B to send money to Kyiv outside the EU budget, that
would require national parliaments’ ratification, causing delays and
uncertainty.
Several
capitals have considered whether it is feasible to use Article 7 of the Treaty
on the European Union, which would allow Brussels to strip Budapest of its
voting rights or, one diplomat said, block disbursement of money. But others
have rebuffed the notion given that it requires unanimous support and many
countries are reluctant to deploy such a serious sanction.
Bóka said
it was important that EU unity was “preserved”, adding: “That is why we are
willing to make compromises so long as they do not affect our vital interests.”
He added,
however, that if the compromise effort failed, Hungary’s original proposal of a
separate Ukraine fund outside the EU budget would be Budapest’s preference.
The EU’s Viktor Orbán problem: 9 times Hungarian leader has been a thorn in Brussels’ side
The EU’s Viktor Orbán problem: 9 times Hungarian
leader has been a thorn in Brussels’ side
Ahead of a crucial European summit at which the
Hungarian PM could wreak havoc, POLITICO looks back at the biggest issues in
his relationship with the EU.
JANUARY 31,
2024 4:00 AM CET
BY NICOLAS
CAMUT, JACOPO BARIGAZZI, BARBARA MOENS AND STUART LAU
BRUSSELS —
It’s time for another showdown.
European
leaders are bracing for yet another confrontation with Hungary’s turbulent
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán when they convene in Brussels later this week to
discuss a €50 billion lifeline for Ukraine.
The
critical Ukraine aid package, which is backed by every EU leader except for
Orbán, is just the latest in a long list of disputes between the European Union
and Hungary.
In case you
couldn’t keep track, POLITICO looked back at some of the biggest issues in
Budapest’s relationship with Brussels.
Putin bromance
Much of the
friction between Hungary and the rest of the bloc stems from Orbán’s proximity
to Vladimir Putin, which the Hungarian prime minister has made no effort to
hide.
As Ukraine
was stuck in a grueling counteroffensive last October, Orbán defied the EU
consensus by traveling to Beijing for a meeting with the Russian president.
EU
diplomats said they tried — in vain — to stop the Hungarian leader from showing
up at a Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) meeting and standing next to Putin.
In their
meeting, Orbán told Putin that “Hungary has never sought to confront Russia.
Rather, the opposite is true: Hungary has always pursued the goal of building
and expanding the best communication.”
The meeting
ended with a handshake between Orbán and Putin in front of the cameras — a
public display of friendship that sparked fury in other European capitals, as
it was perceived as undermining the bloc’s unified support to Ukraine.
Russia sanctions
Orbán’s
bromance with Putin isn’t just for show: His country also has deep economic
ties with Moscow, notably in the energy sector.
It’s no
wonder, then, that Hungary has been dragging its feet at every turn when
negotiating the various rounds of sanctions the EU has implemented against
Russia since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in
February 2022.
If the EU’s
latest sanctions package against Russia, adopted in December, does not include
restrictions on nuclear power, that is mostly because of Budapest’s opposition
to such a move.
Orbán has
said he would veto sanctions against the Russian nuclear sector, because his
country relies on atomic fuel from Russia, and is even expanding its only
nuclear power plant with help from Moscow’s state-owned nuclear energy company,
Rosatom.
With EU
countries currently negotiating a 13th package of sanctions, which is rumored
to include sanctions on aluminum, the Hungarian authorities have once again
warned that they considered the nuclear sector a red line.
“Hungary
will not support such sanctions” if nuclear energy is included, Foreign
Minister Péter Szijjártó said last week.
Sweden’s NATO bid
Aside from
blocking a range of EU files, Hungary is also the only member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which has not yet approved Sweden’s bid to
join the military alliance.
Orbán has
officially backed Sweden’s candidacy, which needs to be validated by the
Hungarian parliament.
The vote is
supposed to be a formality: The ruling right-wing Fidesz party holds a
comfortable majority in the Hungarian National Assembly, and Orbán has said the
vote would take place “at the first possible opportunity.”
But László
Kövér, the Hungarian parliament’s speaker and a close ally of Orbán, is in no
rush to put the vote on the chamber’s agenda.
Last week,
Kövér hinted that he would not request an extraordinary parliamentary session
before parliament reconvenes for its spring session, which isn’t until February
26.
“I do not
feel that there is any urgency, and I do not think that there is any
exceptional situation,” Kövér told local media.
In
parallel, Orbán requested a meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson
to “exchange views on all issues of common interest, including … our future
cooperation in the field of security and defense as allies and partners.”
The two
leaders could meet on the margins of this week’s European summit — but
Hungary’s sluggishness to greenlight Sweden’s accession to the military bloc
has already prompted criticism from other EU member countries.
Israeli settlers
Hungary is
one of the EU countries holding back European sanctions against extremist
Israeli settlers such as a visa ban to forbid travel to Europe, amid a surge of
violence in the West Bank since the October 7 attacks by Hamas.
The idea of
sanctions was initially proposed in December by the EU’s top diplomat, Josep
Borrell.
But member
countries are deeply divided on the topic. Hungary, notably, is amongst
Israel’s staunchest allies within the bloc — together with Austria and the
Czech Republic.
Sanctions
on the extremist settlers are not likely to see the light of day anytime soon,
two EU diplomats said, even though the U.S. already announced visa bans for
extremist Israeli settlers in December. “One can hardly accuse them of being
anti-Israeli,” said one of the diplomats, who were granted anonymity to speak
freely.
Ukraine military aid
Budapest
has a “long-standing position” under which “Hungary is not delivering arms to
Ukraine,” Hungary’s EU ambassador said to his colleagues during a meeting last
Wednesday, according to an EU diplomat.
And for a
long time, Hungary has dragged its feet over the eighth tranche of military aid
to Ukraine, some €500 million for partial reimbursement of weapons provided to
Kyiv through the European Peace Facility, an off-budget EU fund.
But last
week, Hungary softened its line on the setting up of the Ukraine Assistance
Fund (UAF) to send weapons to Ukraine, a dedicated tool under the EPF.
Hopes are
that this means a new €5 billion top-up for the EPF in military aid for Ukraine
can soon be agreed.
Media freedom
Hungary was
among the fiercest opponents of a new EU rulebook aiming to protect media
freedoms.
Hungary,
where Orbán’s Fidesz party controls 80 percent of the country’s media according
to Reporters Without Borders, is among the main targets of the upcoming
regulation, which aims to secure media independence against political pressure.
The new
rules do not include fines for countries that do not respect them. But European
Commission Vice President Věra Jourová has said there could be “high penalties”
for member countries that fail to abide, hinting that the EU’s executive body
could take them to the Court of Justice through a so-called infringement
procedure — legal proceedings that the Commission can launch against countries
which do not respect EU law.
The new
rules have been approved by EU institutions and will fully enter into force in
2025.
Rule of law
Orbán’s
defiance against the EU isn’t limited to Ukraine — the prime minister, who has
been in power since 2010, is also embroiled in a long-standing dispute with
Brussels over the rule of law in Hungary.
In December
2022, the European Commission froze about €22 billion of EU cohesion funds
destined for Hungary.
Of these,
€10.2 billion were freed last December, when the EU’s executive assessed that
Budapest had implemented some of the judicial reforms it had set as a
precondition to free the cash.
But some
€11.7 billion remain frozen due to Brussels’ concerns about democratic
backsliding and the rule of law in the country.
This
includes issues in the awarding of public contracts, restrictions on academic
freedoms, a “child protection law” widely viewed as homophobic and the
treatment of asylum seekers.
The row
over the so-called child protection law has turned into legal action, as 15
member countries and the European Parliament have joined a lawsuit brought by
the Commission against Hungary in front of the Court of Justice of the European
Union, on the grounds that the regulation is in breach of EU values.
On top of
that, Hungary is waiting to access €10.4 billion in grants and cheap loans from
the EU’s post-pandemic recovery fund, for which it will have to implement a
series of anti-corruption measures.
Grain row
Together
with Poland and Slovakia, Hungary last September rebelled against a decision
from the Commission to remove restrictions on grain imports from war-ravaged
Ukraine.
The three
countries, which all border Ukraine, then claimed the EU’s decision threatened
the livelihood of their farmers, who were faced with a sudden influx of cheaper
Ukrainian products.
“Ukrainian
agricultural products destined for #Africa are flooding Central European
markets,” Orbán wrote at the time on X, formerly Twitter.
“The
bureaucrats in Brussels are turning a blind eye to the problems of European
farmers once again, so Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are extending the ban on
[Ukrainian] imports on a national basis,” the prime minister added.
Budapest
has since maintained its position, despite facing pressure from both the
Commission and Ukraine — which has filed a lawsuit with the World Trade
Organization (WTO) — to lift the ban.
Ukraine aid
It’s the
hottest sticking point in the list — and the one EU leaders hope to solve later
this week.
At the last
EU summit in December, Orbán vetoed a €50 billion package meant to provide
Ukraine with a financial lifeline over the next four years. The package
required unanimous support from EU leaders, and Orbán was the only one to
oppose it.
Since then,
the Hungarian strongman has engaged in a merciless tug-of-war with the rest of
the bloc to extract as many concessions as possible in exchange for his
support.
Hungary has
offered several options, all of which would effectively give Orbán the right to
block EU funding to Ukraine at a later stage — a possibility that is out of the
question for other EU countries.
Ahead of
the meeting of European leaders this week, several compromises are being
floated. These include a proposal from the Commission to create an “emergency
brake” that would permit any country opposing Ukraine funding to delay payments
and push back discussions at a summit of EU leaders.
For now, it
is unclear which options leaders will favor. But they could also decide to play
hardball.
Another
possibility that is gaining momentum among diplomats in Brussels who are fed up
with Hungary is to resort to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, an
explosive measure that would permit the suspension of Orbán’s right to vote on
EU decisions.
Mathieu
Pollet, Bartosz Brzeziński, Gregorio Sorgi and Alessandro Ford contributed to
this report.
Laurence Fox speaks after losing High Court libel battle over social media row / Laurence Fox has lost his ‘good name’: what now for the sad clown of the culture wars circus?
Laurence Fox has lost his ‘good name’: what now
for the sad clown of the culture wars circus?
Marina Hyde
A high court ruling marks the climax of Fox’s comic
unravelling. Now let’s focus on the figures who pull his strings
Tue 30 Jan
2024 15.14 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/30/laurence-fox-culture-wars-high-court
Did some
randos calling him a “racist” on the platform formerly known as Twitter cost
Laurence Fox his acting career? No, suggests a judgment from the high court,
where a judge also found the actor turned thought leader to have defamed said
randos by calling them “paedophiles”. You can’t just call any old person a
paedophile, apparently – unless you’re the owner of Twitter/X, of course, and
you get sued in the US as opposed to the UK, like Elon Musk did by that Thai
cave rescue diver a few years back. Appearing on the steps outside a Los
Angeles courtroom following his favourable verdict, Musk declared: “My faith in
humanity is restored”. These were not the words of Laurence Fox yesterday.
Instead,
the Reclaim party leader and Hunter Biden biopic star offered a nine-minute
monologue outside the high court that had a distinctly “after lunch” feel to
it. “What we’ve got, after several million quid, is a nothing burger,”
elucidated Fox. Laurence was wearing glasses with transition lenses, which –
and like him, I’m just making a rhetorical point here – always look like a
come-and-get-me plea to the beast wing at HMP Full Sutton. He was accompanied
by his girlfriend, Liz Barker. Liz believes the moon landings were faked, and
has previously stated she doesn’t buy the whole theory of human evolution from
apes. (“No. I think we come from another race.”)
A supposed
free-speech nut suing for libel (not his first rodeo), Laurence brought his
counterclaim on the basis that “I felt that one of the most important things I
had in this world was my good name”. Mm-hm. I can’t help feeling that that ship
had not just already sailed, but been sunk in the Solent around 300 years
before the development of the electric lightbulb. If suitable donors emerge –
more on that later – Laurence’s good name might one day be raised off the ocean
floor, dragged in fragments to Portsmouth, and painstakingly restored as a time
capsule of early 21st-century absurdity. Do recall this entire case began with
a supermarket tweeting about Black History Month.
Nevertheless,
the trial itself arguably added to the gaiety of the nation, as Laurence
discoursed on the discourse, and claimed to have been offered a role in The
Batman before his career was derailed. That remains unverified, though I can
definitely see him playing one of the guys who kill Bruce Wayne’s parents. As
for Fox’s claim that he had been approached for a part in Succession … Clearly,
it’s a huge honour for a show like Succession to find itself woven into
Laurence’s spellbinding “before” story. Even so, it must be said the idea he
was up for a part in it was certainly eye-catching news, most particularly to
those behind Succession. No one had any memory of such a thing. Was it remotely
possible that at some point he had appeared on a British casting assistant’s
longlist? It’d have to have been a very long list, seems to be the polite
answer. “We definitely talked about him a lot in the writers’ room,” one writer
reflects. “Just not in connection with a part …”
Yet despite
all his humiliations and defeats, Laurence Fox’s essential ridiculousness and
poignantly insatiable need for attention confine him to the comic spectrum as
opposed to the tragic. He is more of a Malvolio than a Macbeth. Shortly after
his fateful appearance on Question Time, Laurence boasted to the Sunday Times
of having been the only person to have turned up for an appearance on QT “with
guitars and shit”. Even now, I am unable to type that without laughing.
Everything
he has done since that moment feels like a pose – a way for a middling
supporting actor to get four-time-Oscar-winner attention. There’s a reason
toddler psychologists call behaviour like this “acting out”. The second
Laurence feels he’d get more attention/cash for the apology tour or exposé of
the hard right, you might expect him to execute a 180 and release at least two
bluegrass albums about his journey. Working titles: Redemption Creek and
Question Time?
Speaking of
questions, however, let us turn to the received wisdom that Fox is permanently
broke. In fact, some interested parties profess surprise at the implication
that he struggles financially after the drying up of acting offers, when in
fact Laurence benefits from huge sums of money every year courtesy of Jeremy
Hosking. Having been the third-biggest Brexit donor, Hosking is the mega-rich
investor who funds Reclaim, and has given it millions, apparently indifferent
to the fact he has barely a vote to show for it. Hosking’s Brexit crusade has
pivoted to the culture wars and anti-net zero agenda. To give you a sense of
just how deep his pockets are, the MP Andrew Bridgen was last year belatedly
forced to declare that Hosking had stumped up £4,470,576.42 in interest-free
loans to fund a doomed legal action against Bridgen’s brother for control of
the family potato farm. Bridgen was relieved of the Tory whip for comparing the
Covid vaccine to the Holocaust, then briefly joined Reclaim, but is now back as
an independent. Hosking is still donating to his campaign to retain his seat.
Whatever is
going on here, it seems pretty clear that Laurence Fox is just one of the idiot
faces of it. Who is this backroom man, lavishly funding one dickhead’s extended
breakdown as part of a campaign to buy his way to political and cultural
influence, at the same time as bleating publicly about the state of our
democracy? Why should Hosking prefer to lead from behind while his paid fool or
fools create busywork or diversions? The last recorded accounts for the Reclaim
party cover the period until November 2021. Their up-to-date figures are long
overdue – as, perhaps, is our focus on the organ grinder rather than the
monkey.
Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
