Back in March, the Labour government’s bill to restrict access to jury trials – a right enjoyed by English citizens for over 800 years – successfully passed its first reading. But last week, only hours after former Justice Minister David Lammy was dropped from Andy Burnham’s new cabinet, a Downing Street spokesperson announced that the newly coronated Prime Minister had no intention of following through with the plan.

Eyebrows were raised, however, at the ministerial re-appointment of Sarah Sackman, Keir Starmer’s ex-solicitor general and a key supporter of Lammy’s jury proposals. Sackman has previously worked as a foreign law clerk at the Israeli Supreme Court, and her grandfather once served as an ambassador for the settler state. Last week, Burnham extended her role in government with a re-appointment at the Ministry of Justice.

Sackman’s funders

At the end of June, and just eleven days after Burnham’s by-election victory in Makerfield, Sackman registered two new donations, each of £1250, from veteran pro-Israeli bankroller Trevor Chinn.

Sackman has long been a favourite of wealthy lobbyists, receiving tens of thousands of pounds from ex-Labour Friends of Israel chair Jonathan Mendelsohn, former Israeli soldier Jonathan Kestenbaum, and the Grabiner family. Anthony Grabiner, who is not amongst Sackman’s donors, was one of the UK Lawyers for Israel patrons recently subject to a “legal intimidation” complaint.

What do Sackman and Burnham really care about?

On Wednesday, at an event organised by Jewish Care, a charity whose Life President is former Tony Blair bankroller Michael Levy, Sackman announced:

It was wonderful to welcome the Prime Minister back to Jewish Care in Golders Green this morning … As Andy said, this time we are going to get this right.

However, a professed passion for reforming the care system is not the only thing the pair have in common. One of the funders of Burnham’s 2015 Labour leadership campaign was Michael Sternberg, who has also financed the current Courts Minister.

From 2015-2024, Sackman was vice-chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, which states that one of its aims is:

to promote the centrality of Israel in Jewish life.

In 2015, Sackman said:

The issue of Israel is something that is deeply personal and emotional.

Sackman’s opposition to the ICC

In May 2024, Sackman opposed International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant, saying:

I trust the Israeli people to hold their leaders to account.

A 2025 Penn University poll recorded that 82% of Jewish Israelis supported the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. 47% agreed that the Israeli military should kill all inhabitants of enemy cities. This is the nation Sackman “trusts” to hold war criminals Netanyahu and Gallant to account.

Before entering politics, Sackman worked at Matrix Chambers with former attorney general Richard Hermer, who once declared that he has “dear family members” serving in the Israeli military. Last week, Burnham replaced Hermer with Ellie Reeves, a long-time supporter of the Labour Friends of Israel lobby group.

Burnham continues Starmer’s legacy

Starmer will always be remembered for the military and diplomatic support he consistently lent to the Israeli state. But in December 2024, just over one year into the Gaza genocide, Sackman insisted that Starmer’s administration had “broadly got it right” on the issue of Palestine.

She made the comments in a public conversation with Adrian Cohen, LFI’s lay chair. Last Thursday, the controversial lobby group published a new paper suggesting that a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements is “practically and politically impossible”.

LFI-affiliated MPs continue to dominate the Labour cabinet. On the issue of Palestine, Sackman’s re-appointment sends a loud signal to those who thought Burnham might change course.

Featured image via Facebook

By Jody McIntyre

Source link

Source link

The UK has had several big by-elections over the past 12 months, with Reform UK underperforming in all of them. In the most recent, Reform’s underperformance wasn’t the only story; there was also the emergence of Restore Britain.

Now, Restore leader, Rupert Lowe, has called for something of a cooperation pact between the two parties.

What’s really going on here?

The Greater Manchester result showed what Restore Britain can deliver.

The next step is how we maximise the chances of delivering the change Britain needs – it means putting personal differences aside.

That is why today I am making a public offer to Nigel Farage and Reform UK. pic.twitter.com/vwQJYRkEFp

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) August 2, 2026

Rupert Lowe: ‘I only care that it is done’

Lowe begins his video by talking about the public falling out he had with Farage — a falling out which was followed by Reform unceremoniously sacking him. He then repeats the far-right talking points we’re used to, including a reference to Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech (emphasis added):

The country we both love is changing beyond recognition. Millions of people feel like strangers in their own communities.

Lowe ends his video by saying:

I do not care how that is done. I only care that it is done. So Nigel, my message is simple. If you are prepared to work together around serious policies, serious reform and serious government, then so are we. Not because it’s politically convenient for Restore Britain. Not because it’s personally easy. After the events of the last 18 months, I would certainly rather not be making this offer.

Reading between the lines, Lowe is saying, ‘Adopt all our policies or we will continue to oppose you’. Reform is unlikely to move as far right as Restore, though, because it’s functionally difficult for it to do so.

Reform is open to people who aren’t white, as long as said people are willing to accept the politics of white supremacy. Restore Britain, meanwhile, is full of activists who think that white supremacy belongs to the whites.

Should Reform move further right, it would struggle to hold on to politicians like Suella Braverman, Nadhim Zahawi and Laila Cunningham. The same is true of Restore in reverse, which is why many think Lowe is making his move first.

People have accused Restore of splitting the far-right vote. Now, Lowe can claim he attempted to bridge the divide, even if it’s obvious such a plan would never work.

Reform’s Raheem J. Kassam was among those who noticed what Lowe is doing, saying:

Rupert Lowe, polling nationally on 1%, has made a multi-camera, scripted video asking if he can work with Reform again.

Yep. Instead of sending a text or picking up the phone, he’s done what he’s always done: try and get himself a little attention.

Advertisement

What’s interesting is that Rupert doesn’t actually make a concrete offer in this video.

No, he makes policy DEMANDS of Reform, but doesn’t state what they’d get in return. It’s a total and utter grift, designed to try and make Reform look unreasonable, while actually offering nothing.

“Work together?” What does that look like? Is it an electoral pact? Would he fold Restore? Nah, no specifics, just some more “woe is me” crap and then an ultimatum dressed up in pseudo patriotism.

We trust Kassam about as much as we trust Lowe, but in this instance he’s pointing out the obvious.

Why a Reform-Restore takeover won’t work

Lowe also said:

In my view, failing to even try because of our own personal difficulties is simply not an option. The British people deserve nothing less than our best and sincere efforts to make it happen. Now is the time to put our differences aside and cooperate for the good of the country that we all love.

Let’s be real, the only way Restore could benefit Reform is by standing down completely (much like the Brexit Party did for the Tories in 2019). No one seriously thinks Lowe wants to step aside, but he could be up to something else.

When Lowe founded Restore, the Canary made the following point:

While it’s tempting to think Restore will split the Reform vote, there is another possibility. The spurned Lowe could use Restore as a weapon to damage Reform’s electability, and he could then use that to force Farage out and take control of both parties. This wouldn’t surprise us, as Lowe has already merged with Advance UK — a party formed by Ben Habib — i.e. another of the politicians Farage kicked out of Reform

Commentators like Don McGowan are making similar points today:

The beginning of a hostile takeover from Rupert Lowe?

Farage is finished, we can all see that now. Is Lowe making the first inroads into taking control of Reform UK when Farage, and probably Tice, have to stand away?

This is an interestingly timed interjection. https://t.co/RBFFbNrZfe

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) August 2, 2026

Advertisement

As noted, it would be difficult for any politician to combine Reform and Restore into one movement. Restore is too far right for many Reform people; Reform is too centre-right for many in Restore. Lowe is certainly egotistical enough to think he could make it happen, though, and given his many ongoing scandals, it does look like Farage’s days are numbered.

Featured image via Belinda Jiao/ Reuters 

By Willem Moore

Source link

Boy George, the multi-award winning music artist, is a convicted criminal who once falsely imprisoned a sex worker in his home by handcuffing him to a radiator. He’s also pretty much the last celebrity willing to defend the genocidal nation of Israel, and this means the Zionists have no option but to hold him up as some sort of hero.

Boy George is an iconic British superstar.

This week he put out a song to show solidarity with the Jewish people post October 7. It is called We Will Dance Again.

As a result, he has been libelled by almost all British media as “pro genocide”.

Advertisement

He has had to withdraw from…

— Eve Barlow (@Eve_Barlow) August 1, 2026

Boy George and Zionists unite

Zionism is the ideology that dictates Israel must exist as an expansionist colonial state — one which also serves as America’s foothold in the Middle East. Zionists have used this belief to justify the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the recent expansion into Lebanon. They also use it to justify the criminal mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners, as we’ve reported:

• Serious scabies outbreak in Israeli occupation prisons is part of the policy of torture and slow killing used against Palestinian political prisoners
• 2025 saw unparalleled testimonies and atrocities from Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails
• Palestinian prisoners — Israeli lawyer branded traitor for exposing torture

Given the above, it’s no surprise that Israel and Boy George would find common ground. In 2009, the Guardian covered his trial:

Boy George was today sentenced to 15 months in jail for falsely imprisoning a male escort by handcuffing him to a wall and beating him with a metal chain.

The judge told the 47-year-old former Culture Club front man, whose real name is George O’Dowd, he had left the escort “shocked, degraded and traumatised” by the ordeal.

O’Dowd was found guilty last month of attacking the Norwegian model Audun Carlsen, 29, after he visited the singer’s flat in London in April 2007.

Given Boy George’s conviction, it’s frankly reprehensible that Zionists would hold him up as a paragon of human virtue. At this point, though, who’s surprised?

‘Dehumanising and racist propaganda’

Speaking on the Boy George song that led us here, human rights advocate, Gary Spedding, said:

The [Boy George] song that many (including myself) have been talking about is objectionable because the lyrics dehumanise Palestinians, justify Israel’s crimes against Palestinians, and attack other musicians who have expressed solidarity with Palestinians.

Lyrics that stand out are:

“You say genocide, I say war. When you’re attacked, it’s what the army is for. Does it get ugly? You bet it does. When I know you want to kill every last one of us.”

And

“You condemn the Jews, with selective memory. Musicians holding flags, mouthing like sheep. Propaganda fuelled by the internet feels so weak.”

Advertisement

Accusing Palestinians of wanting to slaughter every last Israeli Jew is dehumanising and racist propaganda that portrays Palestinians as blood thirsty savages. Combine this with the denial that Palestinians are facing a genocide and justifying the IDFs actions in Gaza and we can see a very obvious smear.

His attack on other musicians is blatant and horrendous. He discusses propaganda fuelled by the internet and yet its obvious that Boy George himself has been driven by what hes been absorbing in terms of online content.

Because they’ve no cultural relevance left, Zionists have felt compelled to issue messages like the following:

Boy George, you dared to sing for truth and humanity while others marched with the mob. Now the United Nations must hear you. I intend to make it happen. https://t.co/yD2kTs3iAo

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) August 1, 2026

Time will tell, and we are people of patience.

I'm with Boy George on this one. https://t.co/e1d22ILP8H

Advertisement

— Ella Ke (@EllaTravelsLove) August 1, 2026

Thank you @BoyGeorge for your moral clarity and normal working brain https://t.co/d2llttL5eu

— Shelley Blond (@BlondShelley) August 2, 2026

Advertisement

We’re not sure it’s best to describe Boy George as having a “normal working brain” given interactions like the following:

Yo, @BoyGeorge, read the pending community note. pic.twitter.com/EEhQpAFsSK

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) July 28, 2026

Advertisement

LBC host James Hanson said this:

Whatever your view on Israel’s actions in Gaza, no-one should be cancelled for speaking up for their Jewish friends and writing a song that condemns October 7.

Solidarity with Boy George.https://t.co/43xXrxWpUw

Advertisement

— James Hanson (@jhansonradio) August 1, 2026

If Boy George is ‘cancelled’, it’s not just because he defended a genocide; it’s because in doing so, he drew attention to his past conviction. No one forced him to do that. And let’s be real, the people who are boycotting Boy George today were already functionally boycotting him anyway because he hasn’t been relevant in years.

Wait, it gets worse

In case you didn’t already know, Boy George used AI to create the rancid song in question. In other words, everything about this story is grim and unnecessary, which is the most accurate description of where the Zionists are in this current moment.

Featured image via Astrida Valigorsky/ Getty Images

By Willem Moore

Source link

He’s eating barbecue. He’s winning over Joe Rogan. He’s challenging his opponent to mano-a-mano televised faceoffs.

James Talarico is determined not to let his GOP challenger Ken Paxton’s and Republicans’ attacks on his masculinity define him in what has emerged as one of the party’s loudest tactics in the crucial Senate race.

The Texas Democrat is working to position himself as a candidate focused on issues he says men actually care about instead of speculation about his diet, sexuality and religious beliefs.

“They’ve even called me a vegan, and those are fighting words in the state of Texas,” Talarico said at a San Antonio rally this summer.

“Nowadays our culture tells young men that greatness is tearing other people down, is trolling and owning and dominating. But my dad showed me what real greatness looks like. He inspired me to serve,” Talarico said at another rally in Houston, referencing how his dad often mowed the lawn of his elderly widowed neighbor without asking.

Talarico’s attempt to reclaim the masculinity narrative by confronting the issue head-on could help propel him to flip a seat Democrats haven’t held in nearly four decades, and which could determine control of the Senate next year.

It comes as both parties, in Texas and across the U.S., are fighting to win male voters — especially young, Black or Hispanic men — who in 2024 lurched to the right to help Republicans take control of the White House and Congress. The issue of masculinity has also been turbo-charged during Donald Trump’s second term, with the president hosting UFC fights on the White House lawn and his Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pushing for testosterone testing in the military.

If Talarico prevails, he could ultimately serve as a model for other Democratic candidates to connect with male voters or fend off Republicans who try to use issues of masculinity as a cudgel.

“Democrats need to be prepared for more of these attacks to come and understand how to handle them,” Lucas Holtz, a senior political adviser at the centrist think tank Third Way, said in an interview.

Republicans think they’ve hit a nerve with Texas voters about Talarico’s manhood. Members of the party have targeted the 37-year-old public school teacher-turned-state legislator for past statements endorsing a vegan lifestyle, suggesting that “God is nonbinary” and opposing legislation that erodes transgender rights.

“If you look at him, this is a guy who’s publicly stated pretty bizarre things — that God is nonbinary,” said Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) in an interview. “He’s a total weirdo, and I think Texas voters recognize that.”

Talaricosaid recently his comment on God’s gender was meant to be “deliberately provocative” and that he meant God is beyond gender.

Republicans are also seizing on Talarico’s unmarried status and smaller physical build to paint the Democratic candidate as weak and effeminate. Some have falsely called him gay or transgender. Paxton’s very first ad of the general election campaign implied Talarico has low testosterone levels. And a conservative PAC released an AI-generated video of Talarico as an actress from “The Sound of Music” singing about wanting to give hormones to children.

Talarico opposes gender affirming care for minors, his spokesperson JT Ennis said.

“In Texas, there’s a certain level of tough guy-ness that we all pretend to have in ourselves, and that we like in our elected officials,” said Vinny Minchillo, a Texas-based Republican admaker who is not involved in the race. “If you push that the right direction, that especially does not sit well with Hispanic men and Black men.”

Paxton’s campaign and his allies think Talarico’s previous comments on these issues put him out of touch with voters in both parties.

“Texans can spot an audition for a new identity and they know he is weak and woke on core Texas values,” Paxton adviser Nick Maddux said in a statement. Maddux pointed to moves Talarico has made during the campaign he said shows flip-flopping, such as wearing a Texas flag shirt after calling the American flag a “complicated symbol.”

“He is undoubtedly hurting Democrats,” Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in an interview about Talarico.

Some Hill Democrats say Republicans’ fixation on Talarico’s manhood is an attempt to distract from Paxton’s weaknesses.

“They fear his strength, especially since he’s running against the most notorious scumbag in American politics,” Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) said.

Paxton has faced an ethics complaint that was later dropped, a Justice Department corruption investigation for which he was not charged and securities fraud charges which were ultimately dismissed in an agreement. He was also impeached by the Texas GOP-led House for bribery and abusing his public office, which he called a “sham” coordinated by liberals, and was later acquitted by the Texas Senate.

Paxton also has a history of using cultural issues to his advantage, such as stoking anti-Muslim fears through campaign messaging.

Meanwhile, Talarico’s campaign says they’re not seeing evidence that the masculinity barbs are gaining traction, pointing to robust Democratic gains among Hispanic voters while also arguing that polling shows a toss-up general election contest. The campaign did not share specific data to support that its messaging to male voters was lifting Talarico’s polling with that demographic.

Talarico has focused on issues he says affect many men — like lowering housing costs, stopping corporate landlord rent manipulation and curbing the influence of billionaire mega-donors in politics.

“Ken Paxton is picking these fights no one cares about to distract from the fact that he has no solutions to lower the cost of gas, groceries, or healthcare,” Ennis said in a statement. “Real men serve others, weak men serve themselves.”

Talarico also has tried to appeal to young men and Hispanic voters by placing ads during World Cup and NBA Finals games. And he’s challenging Paxton to a series of televised debates, in which the two could spar on manhood and other issues. Paxton’s team said he’s agreed to the debates but they’re still negotiating logistics and terms.

The Democrat’s campaign also said it is trying to facilitate similar opportunities to Talarico’s pivotal appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, which boosted his national profile to millions of young men who make up Rogan’s core audience. The podcaster — who during the interview exclaimed “you need to run for president,” to Talarico — has continued to compliment the Texas Democrat and defend his views, including during a conversation with Vice President JD Vance last month.

Talarico has also fired back with his own jabs. He responded to Paxton calling him “Talafreako” by putting the phrase on T-shirts and selling them on his campaign website.

And Talarico turned on Paxton’s low-testosterone message by telling MS NOW “I don’t think guys my age are really concerned about that kind of thing,” adding, “You’ve got these old guys lathered up in their fake tans throwing cheesy nicknames at each other.”

Some public opinion research shows Talarico’s strategy fits the 2026 moment.

The growing cost-of-living crisis — exacerbated by the deeply unpopular military conflict in Iran — and Trump’s low approval ratings may mean the GOP’s masculinity attacks fall flat this cycle, Luke Warford, founder and director of Texas Public Opinion Research, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm, said in an interview.

The top issues for men and young men in Texas center on affordability, the cost of living, economic growth and job creation, according to an aggregate of data shared with POLITICO from the group’s latest surveys in May and June.

“We’ve got a really different scenario now where the Republicans are in power in Texas and nationally, so they own the things that are broken,” Warford said. “There is a deep anti-establishment sentiment in this country and a deep frustration with the status quo particularly among men, and that could be a much stronger political force than the cultural attacks.”

Matt Angle, founder of the Lone Star Project, a Democratic-aligned political action committee in Texas, said “there’s no attack that should be ignored,” but that Democrats are in a good position.

“Ken Paxton is no he-man. He’s a thin-chested, soft spoken, weak guy,” Angle said.

One warning sign for Talarico: a swath of male voters perceive him as too progressive, said Holtz, the Third Way adviser. Holtz noted a recent poll of men by the group in which 49 percent of respondents said the candidate was “too far left.”

In focus groups held by the centrist think tank last year and this year, young men overwhelmingly pointed to the Republican Party as the better representative of men’s priorities. Respondents in those groups associated Democrats with more social and cultural issues while tying Republicans with financial independence, finding a partner and starting a family.

On Capitol Hill, some Democrats are calling the conversation in Texas an opportunity to revisit the party’s historic avoidance of issues that are important to men, which have made them more susceptible to criticism.

Rep. Marc Veasey, a moderate Texas Democrat, said in an interview that “Democrats, overall, need to do a better job of expressing some of the concerns that young men have.”

“When we have people on our side who are attacking things like nuclear family structure and expecting everybody to fall in line, that’s pure insanity,” Veasey said. “There’s this expectation with Democrats that men are just going to follow along, and they’re not. We haven’t figured out how to talk to them.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said in an interview that Democrats tend to display examples of “traditional masculinity” rather than the “stereotypical masculinity” Republicans are attacking them for not adhering to. He pointed out he served in the Marines, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) played football and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) was an astronaut.

“What voters know is truly masculine is a politician who is going to take care of their needs and be a protector and be a provider for the family,” Gallego added.

“When a man can’t support his family because inflation is so fucking high, they’re not going to care about who is on the ballot that is, quote unquote, ‘not masc enough.’”

Source link

Source link

Michigan Republicans haven’t had a better shot to win the governorship in over a decade. Deciding who should take it is turning into an ugly, hyper-online brawl.

With widespread name recognition and an endorsement from President Donald Trump, Rep. John James appears poised to be the GOP nominee ahead of Michigan’s primary Tuesday.

But the West Point graduate once thought of as a rising star within the national GOP is facing stiff resistance from an outspoken grassroots wing of the state party, which is rallying around his sole remaining competitor.

“I think you’re gonna be surprised when this race comes down,” said Oakland County GOP Chair Vance Patrick, who endorsed businessperson-turned-outsider candidate Perry Johnson in the closing weeks of the race. “It’s getting really interesting.”

As James and Johnson careen toward a contest to decide who faces likely Democratic nominee and current Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the campaigning is getting weird. Johnson has launched increasingly caustic and personal attacks against James, who has led the field since he entered the race.

And Johnson cuts an odd figure for a leading contender: He is perhaps best known for his quixotic 2024 presidential bid, which came after a 2022 gubernatorial campaign fell apart amid a nominating petition scandal.

But state party officials and grassroots activists have also shared publicly and privately a litany of complaints about James: resentment over too many debates missed early on in the campaign, not enough visits to specific parts of the state, frustration over him giving away a battleground House seat Democrats are targeting this cycle to run for a new job after losing two previous statewide elections.

Nonetheless, even his detractors insist that Republican voters will rally around the eventual nominee. Patrick, whose county party — which includes parts of metro Detroit that fall within James’ district — received $13,350 from the Johnson campaign, said Republicans “will join lockstep behind the guy that wins the primary.”

The intra-party consternation comes at a pivotal moment for Michigan Republicans, who’ve watched eight years of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s leadership — and yawning statewide victories — with disdain.

Meanwhile, Democrats appear ready to elevate Benson, who has built a $6.4 million war chest as of mid-July — albeit dwarfed by Johnson’s personal wealth — thanks to a prolific fundraising advantage. The secretary of state appears to be en route to easily beat Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson for the nomination.

And Trump winning the state in 2024 is no assurance for Republicans, who saw their Senate candidate falter to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin in the same year. Now, the GOP is facing an uphill battle amid rising gas prices brought on by a deeply unpopular war in Iran that is causing headaches for the party nationwide.

Finding a nominee who can win over independents and compete in the mother of all swing states is paramount, some Republicans say, and they’re not sure James is it.

“There’s a large amount of Republicans that do not like him,” said Hassan Nehme, a former vice chair of the Michigan GOP and current candidate for state Legislature, referring to some voters’ hesitance about James’ voting record.

The Johnson campaign has launched vitriolic personal attacks at James throughout the race. Johnson, who is white, has referred to James, one of the few Black Republicans in Congress and the sole Black candidate in the race, as a “DEI candidate,” and accused him of playing the “race card” during a recent debate. James, in turn, has characterized Johnson as “desperate.”

The campaign has also turned to promoting an unsubstantiated rumor, while providing no evidence, about James’ personal life, reposting social media posts that attack James.

Tori Sachs, a senior adviser for the James campaign, characterized Johnson’s attacks in a statement as “lies” that are exposing “a desperate, career candidate who has no grasp on reality and no friends that he didn’t buy.”

“Never-Trumper Perry Johnson has burned through over $70 million attacking Trump and James with lies, only to crash toward his third loss in three cycles,” she said.

Such plays are emblematic of Johnson’s campaign strategy, which has leaned heavily online and embraced a constituency of right-leaning grassroots organizers. On social media, he’s employed artificial intelligence to construct sometimes bizarre ads, including a six-minute long odyssey in which he doggedly pursues James on foot, bus and helicopter in order to debate him.

Brian Szmytke, a campaign spokesperson for the Johnson campaign, reiterated in a statement that “John James is unelectable in a general election,” listing several attacks levied during the campaign.

The scrappy turn in the campaign intensified when former state Attorney General Mike Cox, who was also courting voters skeptical of the GOP establishment, dropped out of the race in mid-July. But even before then, Republican officials across the state had expressed doubts about James.

That the Johnson campaign has attacked James on such personal terms points to the campaign’s dire straits, said John Sellek, a Michigan-based Republican political consultant.

“We’ve turned a corner since Cox got out, where the Perry Johnson campaign has been throwing haymakers on what look like less than prime issues because they know the end is here,” Sellek said.

That’s all despite a huge spending advantage for the self-funding Johnson.

He has spent over $32 million getting on the airwaves, while James’ campaign has spent $2.4 million, according to advertising insight firm AdImpact.

“All the typical support mechanisms are moving toward James, even though he is being wildly outspent,” said Sellek.

Before appearing in a set of televised debates held in July, James had abstained from participating in several debates held earlier in the primary. James at the time defended skipping the events, saying he was more focused on uniting the party than bickering with candidates. But some voters took his absence as a sign of disengagement from the grassroots.

Daire Rendon — the Republican Party chair for Michigan’s 1st District, which covers the entire Upper Peninsula and swaths of northern Michigan — suggested that James doesn’t connect with voters in her rural region.

Rendon, a former state representative who was charged for her alleged involvement in a scheme to unlawfully access voting machines after the 2020 election, noted that “we don’t see John James much.”

“They are going to gravitate towards candidates who spend time learning about [the Upper Peninsula], and who show up,” said Rendon, who pleaded not guilty and whose case is ongoing.

Detractors have also criticized James for running for governor in the first place, viewing the contested House seat he’s leaving behind as more valuable amid the GOP’s slim majority and as Republicans stare down an unfavorable midterm cycle. Trump also initially took issue with his gubernatorial ambitions, grousing about it publicly, before endorsing him in June.

“You don’t blow off 80 million in an investment to get you elected to Congress, and in one term leave,” said Muskegon County GOP Chair Tim Cross. (James was first elected to the House in 2022.)

James, however, also appears to have a slew of grassroots support himself. Several Michigan Republicans touted James in interviews with POLITICO, including former state legislator and Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido, who said James is “a proven leader, and he’s gonna continue to go ahead and govern and lead.”

Public and private polling appears to indicate that James remains comfortably in the lead. An internal poll, shared with POLITICO, of more than 700 likely primary voters conducted for the Cox campaign in the days before he dropped out in mid-July showed James leading with 36 percent points, with Johnson trailing at 23 percent and Cox at 21 percent.

Likely Cox voters split for Johnson over James as their second choice, 44 percent to 38 percent respectively.

James, the Cox campaign wrote in a memo to donors and supporters attached to the polling, “benefited by hundreds of millions of dollars targeted toward voters, specifically in Southeast Michigan, over the past several election cycles, coupled with the endorsement of President Donald Trump, creating a scenario where James’ lead is largely insulated.”

Now, the James campaign is rolling out its line of endorsements ranging from state representatives, senators and conservative activists, with Trump’s endorsement as a crown jewel.

The president brought James on stage at a late July rally outside Detroit, where the candidate asserted, falsely, for the first time that Trump won Michigan in 2020. James had previously said that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, though he said earlier this cycle that he was “screwed” that year when he lost his Senate bid.

“You have to win,” the president told James onstage Monday. “You have to win.”

Source link

We have today sent the following email to the Crown Office.

——————————————————————–

3 August 2026

Thank you for your letter of 30 July. I offer one last chance to reconsider. I do so having, once again, taken advice from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

Advertisement

On 1 July, you wrote to me saying inter alia:

“No one was reported to the procurator fiscal in relation to charges of fraud. However, as part of a full and thorough police investigation by Police Scotland and the procurator fiscal, full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established.  That investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement. These conclusions were agreed by the procurator fiscal, by Crown Counsel who was a KC and by a reviewing KC.”

The following day, I responded as follows:

“I note that you have advised that “full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established.  That investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement. These conclusions were agreed by the procurator fiscal, by Crown Counsel who was a KC and by a reviewing KC.”

I agree that the evidence to which I have pointed demonstrates the crime of embezzlement. Indeed, that is what I said to you in my previous correspondence. The point is, however, that there are two instances of embezzlement: that to which Mr Murrell pled guilty (ie his embezzlement from the SNP); and that which has not been the subject of investigation or prosecution, for reasons which remain unclear.

The evidence to which I have pointed admits of little doubt. In short:

Advertisement

1. Money was ingathered by the SNP on the basis of assurances that it would be “ringfenced” for defined purposes.
2. That money was thereafter subject to a trust under Scots law, in terms of which it could only be spent for those defined purposes.
3. The First Minister of Scotland has now confirmed that the money was spent on other matters.

It really is that simple. It defies belief to think that the PF and two KCs could look at that simple factual matrix and conclude that there was no evidence of a crime. That being so inherently unlikely, I can only assume that those involved were not considering that point, and were (as your last message suggests) considering rather whether or not it could be shown that fraud was involved in the solicitation of donations. I can quite understand that proving fraudulent intent at the time the donations were sought would be difficult.

But again (and at the risk of repetition) that is not the point. Assume that the donations were solicited in bona fide for the defined purposes: thus no fraud in ingathering the money. That does not answer the question which I am posing, which is on what possible basis could it be lawful for those donations then to be spent on anything other than the defined purposes for which they were solicited?”

You have now, by your email of 30 July, responded thus (in an email which used two different fonts, suggesting a cut-and-paste from earlier emails, as is clearly what has happened):

“We are not able to discuss the detail of the evidence. As we noted in out (sic) earlier response and in the information that we have published …  the Crown’s assessment of Operation Branchform included the allegation of fraud, and the embezzlement for which Peter Murrell was prosecuted. Full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established against any individual.  The evidence did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement.”

That just parrots the earlier, incomplete and unsatisfactory answer to my queries. It betrays either an unwillingness or an inability to grasp basic legal propositions.

I’m not sure I can make the point any simpler: but I will try.

Advertisement

1. I know you have considered, and discounted, the possibility of fraud. That is not my complaint.
2. I know you have evidence of embezzlement: that is the very point I am seeking to make.
3. The undisputed facts of this case show that there were two instances of embezzlement: Murrell (now convicted) embezzling from the SNP; and the SNP – as the First Minister himself has admitted publicly – embezzling from the ring-fenced referendum funds.
4. Every time I raise this with you, you say “we found no evidence of fraud”. I accept that. I am not asking you to reconsider that. Please do not address this again.
5. Rather, I am pointing out, and have gone to the significant trouble of obtaining an opinion from the actual Dean of the Faculty of Advocates showing, that there has been a second instance of embezzlement which has not only happened at the hands of the governing party in Scotland, but has been openly admitted by the First Minister of Scotland.
6. This is really very simple. It would be apparent to a first-year law student. If COPFS is not prepared to investigate that which is under their very noses, by way of apparent fact and clear admission, then there are only two possibilities: COPFS is institutionally inept, or COPFS is institutionally corrupt. Neither would be a good look.
7. For one final time, I thus offer this simple invitation: given the legal analysis of the Dean of Faculty on facts which are as clear as day, can you please explain why COPFS is turning a blind eye? I am not asking you to discuss the evidence. No such discussion is needed: the facts are clear and admitted. This turns entirely on legal analysis. If you have a coherent legal answer to the Dean’s analysis, I will be very happy to ask him why he has got things wrong. If you do not, certain conclusions follow, as night follows day. None of them would be good for the rule of law in Scotland.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I will eventually get bored and go away. I will not. The eyes of the world are on COPFS. The country, and COPFS itself, prides itself on Scotland being a place where justice will be done without fear or favour. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum, no? Or is that all to be sacrificed in the interests of political quietude?

For the avoidance of doubt, I have run this email past the Dean. He is, and has indicated that I may so confirm, comfortable that I send it to you. I hope, in earnest, that this will now be given proper and mature consideration. Anything less will devalue COPFS, and its supposed independence, irremediably.

I thus ask that this be placed before a Senior Depute for consideration, and that a proper response be provided. If there is a legal answer showing that the admitted facts do not demonstrate a crime, I am happy to hear it. If there is not, a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach is one that I would suggest needs to be looked at further.

I look forward to hearing from you.

——————————————————————–

Advertisement

Doubtless we’ll receive the same reply as before, but in three different fonts, in around a month’s time, so make a note in your diaries, readers.

Source link

Source link

Source link