Análisis de Aaron Blake, CNN

Uno de los primeros escándalos del primer mandato de Donald Trump se produjo cuando el director del FBI al que acababa de despedir, James Comey, testificó que el presidente le había exigido lealtad.

Esto era un problema por dos razones: porque se supone que los directores del FBI deben ser independientes y porque Comey estaba investigando a Trump.

El presidente, la Casa Blanca y el equipo legal de Trump negaron la afirmación de Comey.

Avancemos nueve años, y Trump vuelve a buscar lealtad en todos los lugares equivocados —solo que esta vez de manera muy pública. Durante el fin de semana, sugirió casualmente que los jueces del Tribunal Supremo que él nombró —servidores públicos que, al igual que un director del FBI, no se supone que muestren favoritismo— deberían serle más leales de lo que han sido.

Pero hoy, las declaraciones de Trump en redes sociales apenas se sienten como noticia.

La yuxtaposición ejemplifica cómo Trump está haciendo en su segundo mandato cosas que habrían sido grandes controversias en el primero, pero que ahora apenas llaman la atención.

Eso se debe a que ha pasado una década aumentando gradualmente las provocaciones y desgastando la disposición de sus críticos a armar alboroto.

Trump afirmó en su publicación del domingo en redes sociales que los jueces nombrados por demócratas eran más leales políticamente a los presidentes que los designaron, mientras se quejaba de que tiene que lidiar con que personas como Neil Gorsuch y Amy Coney Barrett fallen en su contra en materia de aranceles.

“Tienen que hacer lo correcto”, dijo Trump sobre los jueces, “pero está realmente bien que sean leales a la persona que los nombró para ‘casi’ el cargo más alto del país, es decir, un juez del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos”.

Trump afirmó: “No quiero lealtad, pero sí la quiero y la espero para nuestro país”. Pero el resto del mensaje dejó abundantemente claro que estaba pidiendo lealtad hacia él mismo y su agenda.

(Por ejemplo, Trump no se centró en el presidente del Tribunal Supremo, John Roberts, designado por George W. Bush, quien también se alineó en su contra en el tema de los aranceles. Y mencionó no menos de tres veces que él había nombrado a Gorsuch y a Barrett.)

Este tipo de presión pública habría sido un asunto muy importante hace nueve años.

Por ejemplo, cuando Comey testificó en junio de 2017 que Trump le había dicho, incluso en medio de las primeras etapas de la investigación sobre Rusia, “Necesito lealtad, espero lealtad”, el presidente y muchos a su alrededor lo negaron.

“Apenas conozco al hombre. No voy a decir: ‘Quiero que jures lealtad’”, dijo Trump en ese momento, y añadió: “No tiene sentido. No, no dije eso”.

Y el abogado de Trump, Marc Kasowitz, dejó claro que el equipo del presidente no solo estaba jugando con las palabras al discutir la forma en que se le citaba.

“El presidente nunca le dijo al Sr. Comey, ‘Necesito lealtad, espero lealtad’ en forma o en sustancia”, dijo Kasowitz.

Pero en 2026, un episodio similar apenas llama la atención.

Las situaciones no son completamente análogas. El Tribunal Supremo no está investigando a Trump, como lo estaba el FBI de Comey. Pero ha escuchado casos que involucran políticas clave de la administración e incluso la responsabilidad penal personal de Trump, y probablemente seguirá desempeñando un papel enorme dada la inclinación del presidente por llevar las cosas al límite.

De hecho, pedir lealtad a un tercio del Tribunal Supremo —Trump nombró a tres de los nueve jueces— podría, en algunos aspectos, ser un asunto más importante que pedírsela al director del FBI. Un director del FBI no puede condenar a un presidente por sí solo, pero los jueces deciden muchos casos de enorme trascendencia.

Pero su presión sobre el tribunal no llama la atención como la

By Christian Edwards, CNN

London (CNN) — Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer is fighting to keep his job after his appeal for a “reset,” following disastrous results in last week’s local elections, was met with scores of lawmakers in his governing Labour Party calling for him to quit.

In a speech to the Labour faithful in London, Starmer said he took responsibility for the heavy losses in councils across England and in elections for the Welsh and Scottish parliaments. But he vowed to stay in his job, saying a change in leadership would plunge Britain into the “chaos” that flourished under the Conservative Party, which ousted two leaders in the two years before Starmer took office.

“What we witnessed with the last government was the chaos of constantly changing leaders, and it cost this country a huge amount,” Starmer said Monday morning. “A Labour government would never be forgiven for inflicting that on our country again.”

Yet by Monday evening, the Labour Party appeared to be on the brink of doing just that. More than 70 Labour Members of Parliament (MPs) have publicly urged Starmer to resign as prime minister or set out a timetable for his departure, while several have quit as ministerial aides. If Starmer chooses to step aside, or is ousted, his successor would become Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade.

Despite winning a landslide election in 2024, the British public soured on Starmer almost as soon as he took office. Attacked from the right over his perceived failure to control illegal immigration, from the left over unpopular economic policies – and by many across the political spectrum over his lack of charisma and political vision – Starmer’s position had been deteriorating for months.

Last week’s local election results – which saw Labour lose more than 1,400 seats across English councils and control of the Welsh parliament, where it had been the largest party for decades – appear to have convinced dozens of Labour lawmakers that Starmer is not capable of winning the next general election, due by the summer of 2029.

Although Starmer has repeatedly vowed to fight on, his party has ways of making him walk. His opponents need 81 signatures – equivalent to a fifth of Labour’s seats in parliament – in support of a challenger to trigger a leadership election among the party’s membership.

Unlike the Conservative Party, however, Labour does not have a history of regicide; the party has never mounted an official challenge against a sitting prime minister. When Tony Blair stepped down as prime minister in 2007, in part due to divisions in the party over the Iraq War, his long-anointed successor, Gordon Brown, was elected unopposed to take over as prime minister and party leader.

This time would likely be messier. It is not clear if any of Starmer’s rivals have the signatures required to mount a challenge, and many of the potential frontrunners are either untested or mired in scandal.

Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister who resigned last year over her failure to pay the correct amount of property tax, has not formally announced that she will challenge Starmer as leader, despite being considered a serious contender. In a statement on Sunday, she called on Starmer to “meet the moment and set out the change our country needs.”

In his Monday morning speech, Starmer tried to do that. “Like every prime minister, I have learned a lot in the first two years in the job in terms of the policy changes that our country faces. Incremental changes won’t cut it,” he said.

Starmer would not be the first leader to suffer disastrous local election results after two years in office, before winning a second term at the next a general election. The Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher lost more than 1,000 co

The post Support for Judge Thomas Adams appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

The post Santa Barbara Man Arrested in Child Sexual Abuse Investigation appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

By Chris Boyette, Barbie Latza Nadeau, CNN

(CNN) — A Texas man, weeks away from standing trial for the death of his pregnant wife, showed up in Italy this month with what a US criminal complaint says was a fake passport and forged documents. When Italian authorities confronted him, he proclaimed his innocence of the killing and asked them not to send him back.

Lee Gilley, charged with murder in the 2024 deaths of his wife and her unborn child, was arrested by border police in Milan last week, having flown to Italy after American authorities say he cut off his court-ordered GPS ankle monitor in Texas.

He appeared in a courtroom in Turin, Italy, on Monday wearing jeans and a white T-shirt, making his case for asylum in the strongly anti-death penalty country.

Gilley, 39, told the judge he was wrongly accused of his wife’s death. He said he no longer has faith in the US justice system and the only crime he committed was running away to avoid the death penalty in Texas, according to Italian media reports and his lawyer.

The hearing wasn’t an extradition proceeding; it was to validate Gilley’s arrest per Italian law. The court did so Monday, allowing Italy to keep him in jail until an extradition hearing is requested.

It is unclear whether prosecutors in Texas plan to seek the death penalty in Gilley’s case or whether authorities will file for extradition. The Harris County Attorney General’s office declined to comment, citing a May 8 gag order placed on the case by a district court judge after Gilley fled the country.

The death of Christa Gilley

On October 7, 2024, police officers responded to a call around 11:30 p.m. in the affluent Houston neighborhood of Houston Heights, about 4 miles northwest of downtown. The call was from Gilley, who said his pregnant wife, Christa Gilley, “was non-responsive,” according to court documents.

Houston Fire Department medics transported Christa Gilley to the Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital, but she was pronounced dead about three hours later, according to court documents.

A pathologist with Harris County determined October 9 that Christa Gilley’s cause of death was “compression of the neck and upper back,” and an arrest warrant was issued for her husband two days later, on October 11, 2024.

Gilley’s trial was originally scheduled for May 29, 2026, in Harris County. He was granted a $1 million bond, according to court records, and released October 17, 2024. A judge ordered that bond be forfeited after Gilley fled to Italy.

CNN has been in touch with an attorney for Lee Gilley but he declined to comment because of the gag order.

Gilley went on the run

Just how Gilley made his way from Texas to Canada, and on to Italy, is unclear. The federal criminal complaint says he landed in Milan on Air Canada Flight 894, which originates in Toronto with a stop in Montreal.

CNN has reached out to the US Marshals Service and Houston Police Department for details, but in the federal complaint calling Gilley “a fugitive wanted for the felony offense of capital murder resulting in the death of Christa Gilley and one unborn child,” the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas outlines several key dates.

On May 1, Gilley cut off his court-ordered GPS ankle monitor and fled the US, according to the complaint.

He landed at Milano Malpensa Airport on May 3 but border police detained him after he presented a forged Belgian passport and other documentation, identifying him as “Lejeune Jean Luc Olivier.”

In Italian custody, Gilley divulged his identity and told authorities there he was awaiting trial in the United States for the murder of his wife.

On May 4, according to the complaint, Interpol informed US authorities that Gilley was in custody in Italy, and the next day, the US Attorney’s Off