The Justice Department has reversed its position that Donald Trump can't be held personally liable for remarks he made about a woman who accused him of rape because he was president when he made the comments

The Department of Justice has told a federal judge in New York that it will no longer defend former president Donald Trump in a defamation case brought by writer E Jean Carroll, who earlier this year won a civil judgement against the ex-president for sexual battery and defamation in a separate matter. In a letter to the attorneys for Mr Trump and Ms Carroll, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the department would now decline to certify that Mr Trump was acting in the scope of his job as President of the United States when he denied attacking Ms Carroll in June 2019 and accused her of fabricating a sexual assault claim against him to boost book sales. Mr Boynton said the decision, which reversed an earlier effort to defend Mr Trump which had begun during his term in the White House, came due to clarified appellate court precedent which stated that courts need not always find that an elected official’s statements to the press were in the scope of their employment. “Applying the clarified D.C. respondeat superior standard, the Department has determined that it lacks adequate evidence to conclude that the former President was sufficiently actuated by a purpose to serve the United States Government to support a determination that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he denied sexually assaulting Ms. Carroll and made the other statements regarding Ms. Carroll that she has challenged in this action,” he said. The Justice Department official also said the department had considered new evidence of Mr Trump’s state of mind when he made the statements at issue, and determined that it “does not establish that he made the statements at issue with a ‘more than insignificant’ purpose to serve the United States Government”. Additionally, Mr Boynton noted that even though the defamatory statements regarding Ms Carroll and the allegations she was making against Mr Trump were made during a press gaggle on the South Lawn of the White House, they were not made in the context of “a work-related incident”. “Here, although the statements themselves were made in a work context, the allegations that prompted the statements related to a purely personal incident: an alleged sexual assault that occurred decades prior to Mr Trump’s Presidency. That sexual assault was obviously not job-related,” he said. Although the Justice Department official conceded that an elected official’s “ability to retain the trust of his constituents” is “an important part of his ability to effectively perform his job,” he said the “evidence of personal motivation” in the case at hand “outweighs any public- purpose inference one might draw in other circumstances,” and cited statements Mr Trump made about Ms Carroll after he left office — and after a New York jury found that he had defamed her in a separate trial in May. “The later statements are substantially similar to the three June 2019 statements at issue in this action, and because he was no longer the President when he made the later statements, Mr. Trump could not have been motivated by any interest in serving the United States Government,” he said. He added later that the jury’s finding that Mr Trump sexually assaulted Ms Carroll in a department store changing room in the 1990s “supports an inference that Mr Trump was motivated by a ‘personal grievance’ stemming from events that occurred many years prior to Mr Trump’s presidency”. Without the Department of Justice’s intervention to defend the twice-impeached ex-president, he will not be able to argue that he enjoys any immunity from the lawsuit and he will not be able to substitute the US government as a defendant in the case. And because a prior jury already found similar statements he made about the former Elle magazine writer to be defamatory, legal experts say it will be a simple matter for Ms Carroll to obtain another jury verdict against him when the case goes to trial. Ms Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said: “We are grateful that the Department of Justice has reconsidered its position. We have always believed that Donald Trump made his defamatory statements about our client in June 2019 out of personal animus, ill will, and spite, and not as President of the United States. Now that one of the last obstacles has been removed, we look forward to trial in E Jean Carroll’s original case in January 2024.” Read More Trump loses bid to throw out E Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit Donald Trump countersues E Jean Carroll for defamation over rape claims Trump is funneling 10% of 2024 campaign donations to cover his legal bills Judge lets columnist amend defamation claim with over $10 million demand for damages from Trump

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio is calling on Congress to stop funding Department of Justice investigations into elected officials, political candidates and their families until a new policy for how they are managed is developed.

As a grand jury in Georgia convened to potentially consider criminal charges against him, and as a partisan investigation into his political enemies appears to have imploded, Donald Trump lashed out on his Truth Social with a series of unhinged posts suggesting President Joe Biden’s son should get the death sentence and that a “crackhead” is running the White House. The leading Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential nomination, facing what could be a third criminal indictment within a year, lambasted a federal prosecutor who directly refuted baseless allegations that the investigation into Hunter Biden was marred by political interference. In another post, he said the “deranged” US Department of Justice special counsel investigating Mr Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and his attempts to overturn 2020 election results should instead investigate the “Cocaine dilemma” at the White House. “I’d bet they already know the answer, but just in case, it could be done in 5 minutes,” Mr Trump wrote. “Is it Crooked Joe and his wonderful son, Hunter? Release the findings, release the tapes. We can’t have a crackhead in charge of our Nuclear Arsenal!!!” Mr Trump called US Attorney David Weiss a “COWARD” and a “smaller version” of his Attorney General Bill Barr, who “never had the courage to do what everyone knows should have been done.” “He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence,” Mr Trump wrote. Last month, the Justice Department approved a plea deal with Hunter Biden that will likely allow the 53-year-old to avoid prison in exchange for a guilty plea over failing to pay taxes on income he received in 2017 and 2018. Shortly before that plea deal was struck, IRS agent Gary Shapley alleged before a congressional committee that the Justice Department had buried a more-serious case against the president’s son, and that Mr Weiss unsuccessfully persuaded federal prosecutors to bring charges, prompting Mr Weiss to request his appointment as a special counsel. Mr Weiss, who was appointed by Mr Trump, has shot down those claims. “To clarify an apparent misperception and to avoid future confusion, I wish to make one point clear: in this case, I have not requested Special Counsel designation,” he wrote in a recent letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On Monday, the Justice Department announced charges against a “whistleblower” who has repeatedly accused the Bidens of corruption with arms trafficking, acting as a foreign agent for China and violating Iran sanctions – charges that have roiled Republican officials who have repeatedly accused the Bidens of wrongdoing without presenting such evidence. Meanwhile, Republicans like Mr Trump have baselessly accused the Bidens of trafficking cocaine into the White House after the drug was allegedly discovered at an entry while the family was in Maryland. Congressional Republicans have demanded a briefing from the US Secret Service. The former president’s latest statements come as a grand jury in Atlanta was sworn in to consider charges against Mr Trump and his allies in their attempts to subvert the outcome of Georgia’s election results in that state. A potential indictment in that state would follow federal charges in Florida stemming from the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and in New York City, where prosecutors have criminally charged him with 36 counts of falsifying business documents. The Georgia case is separate from the Justice Department special counsel probe into his attempts to overturn 2020 election results. On Monday, Mr Trump’s lawyers asked a federal judge in Miami to indefinitely delay his trial on charges over his handling of classified documents, claiming that it would not be possible to try the case before the presidential election. In the 12-page filing, they called the government’s case against him “extraordinary” and claim it “presents a serious challenge to both the fact and perception of our American democracy” because Mr Trump is seeking his party’s nomination to run against the incumbent president who defeated him in 2020. Read More Trump news – live: Georgia grand jury sworn in for 2020 election case as Trump calls Biden ‘crackhead’ Georgia grand jury sworn in to consider Trump charges over attempts to upend 2020 election He claimed to have dirt on the Bidens. Now the DoJ say he’s a Chinese spy. Who is Gal Luft? Karine Jean-Pierre shuts down ‘incredibly irresponsible’ question about White House cocaine

Leslie Van Houten was convicted in the 1969 slaying of a California couple alongside Charles Manson.

A grand jury in Georgia has been sworn in to consider charges against Donald Trump and his allies in their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state. The office of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has helmed the investigation into the former president and his allies for more than two years, following Mr Trump’s pressure campaign targeting state officials to reject the results. Ms Willis began investigating Mr Trump shortly after his call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the state’s top elections official, who was pressed to find “11,870 votes” – just enough needed for then-President Trump to beat Joe Biden in the state. A special grand jury previously heard testimony from 75 witnesses, including aides and former attorneys to Mr Trump. That jury concluded its report in January with recommendations for state prosecutors to bring charges that will soon be reviewed by the newly impaneled grand jury. The investigation is among several facing the former president, who is separately the subject of a US Department of Justice special counsel probe into his attempts to subvert the election. He also faces 37 federal charges stemming from the alleged mishandling of dozens of sensitive government documents and has been criminally charged in New York City on fraud-related charges from hush-money payments to bury potentially damaging stories about his affairs in the leadup to the 2016 election. Mr Trump has repeatedly rejected any charges and investigations against him in several jurisdictions as political “witch hunts” and has called the Democratic elected prosecutor in Atlanta, who is Black, “racist” and a “lunatic Marxist.” He has similarly characterised prosecutors in Manhattan, where was found liable for sexual abuse, hit with a $250m lawsuit from the state attorney general, and criminally charged with more than 30 counts of falsifying business records. Ms Willis has previously suggested that any potential charges stemming from the grand juries could come in August. What happens now? The new grand jury in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta and surrounding suburbs, was sworn in on 11 July. Two jury panels selected at a courthouse in downtown Atlanta each have 26 participants. One of those panels will handle the Trump investigation. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who previously handled the special grand jury that collected evidence in the investigation, will preside. What happened to the special grand jury? Roughly one year into her investigation, Ms Willis took the unusual step of asking for a special grand jury to rely on its subpoena power to compel testimony from witnesses who otherwise would not be willing to talk with prosecutors. That special grand jury was seated in May 2022 and concluded its work in January 2022. A list of witnesses included former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, US Senator Lindsey Graham and former Senator Kelly Loeffler, and five members of Mr Trump’s legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and “fake elector” architect John Eastman, among several others. In all, the grand jury heard from roughly 75 witnesses before dissolving in January. As a judge heard arguments on 24 January whether to publicly release the grand jury’s report, Ms Willis said that a decision from her office on whether to bring criminal charges was “imminent”. A partially released report from the special grand jury shows that jurors unanimously agreed that “no widespread fraud took place” in Georgia’s election following interviews with election officials, analysis and poll workers. It also includes a recommendation that prosecutors seek indictments for “one or more” witnesses who likely committed perjury, and it will ultimately be up to her office to “seek indictments where she finds sufficient cause”. The publicly released filing does not include witness names, names of people recommended for indictments, or other recommended charges. Who could be charged in the case? Lat year, Ms Willis’s office sent letters warning several people – including fake electors and Mr Giuliani – that they could face charges in the case. She also may be considering a wider set of charges that Ms Willis has made a career out of bringing against dozens of others. The state’s anti-racketeering RICO statute – typically used to break up organized crime – has been used by her office in indictments against more than two dozen people connected to a sprawling Atlanta hip-hop empire, 38 alleged gang members, and 25 educators accused of cheating Atlanta’s public school system. The RICO Act allows prosecutors to bring charges against multiple people that they believe committed separate crimes while working toward a common goal. How common are regular grand juries? Two grand juries are typically seated in Fulton County in each two-month term of court. They usually meet every week – one on Mondays and Tuesdays and the other on Thursdays and Fridays. Their work takes place behind closed doors, not open to the public or to news media. What will they do? Georgia law requires an indictment from a grand jury to prosecute someone in most felony cases. When prosecutors present a case, they’re trying to convince the grand jurors that there is probable cause that one or more people committed crimes and to get the grand jurors to agree to bring charges against them. For each case, prosecutors read or explain the potential indictment and then call witnesses or present any other evidence. Any witnesses who testify must swear an oath to tell the truth. Often in Georgia, the only witnesses the grand jury hears from are law enforcement officers, including investigators for the district attorney’s office. They can tell the grand jurors what they’ve learned in their investigation, including what suspects or witnesses have said and what other evidence they have. Members of the grand jury are allowed to question witnesses. In general, a person who is named as a defendant on the potential indictment cannot be called to testify before the grand jury. After a case is presented, members of the grand jury convene to deliberate the case and whether to vote for a “true bill” or a “no bill” indictment, the former meaning that there is probable cause to believe a person committed a crime. A “no bill” means jurors did not believe a person committed a crime or that there is not enough evidence to indict them. An indictment is then presented in open court. Additional reporting from the Associated Press Read More Who is Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor who could take down Trump Trump news – live: Trump wants classified documents trial delayed to after 2024 as Georgia grand jury meets Ethics board recommends Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for ‘destructive’ attempts to undermine 2020 results Trump valet charged in classified documents case set again for arraignment after earlier delays

The Security Council fails to extend deliveries for millions of people in the rebel-held north-west.

Harlow Freeman was in good condition and hydrated when discovered and was taken to Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham

US president Joe Biden was in the UK this week to meet with prime minister Rishi Sunak at Downing Street and with King Charles III at Windsor Castle, keen to reaffirm that the “special relationship” between America and Britain remains as “rock-solid” as ever before jetting out to the latest Nato summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The meetings also served to underline the difference in height between the men, with Mr Biden standing 6 feet (ft) tall and unavoidably towering over both His Majesty and Mr Sunak, who measure 5ft 8 inches and 5ft 6 respectively. The Democrat is of fairly average height for an American president, however, as there have been 13 occupants of the White House taller than him, including his former boss Barack Obama (6ft 1 ½) as well as John F Kennedy (6ft 1), Ronald Reagan (6ft 1), George Washington (6ft 1 ½), FDR (6ft 2), Bill Clinton (6ft 2 ½) and Donald Trump (6ft 3). The tallest man to hold the post was Abraham Lincoln, who measured 6ft 4 even without his signature stovepipe hat, which must have posed a persistent danger to the light fixtures during his time in the Oval Office . Mr Sunak’s relatively short stature was last in evidence when he posed for a photograph with Westminster’s tallest MP, Daniel Kawczynski, a 6ft 9 heap of Conservative. During his time as chancellor in March 2021, Mr Sunak posed for another picture in which he rather artfully positioned himself at the top of the stairs of No 11 brandishing the famous red Budget box, which forced his fellow Treasury ministers to line the steps below him, making them look far smaller. For the record, this is how the PM compares with his predecessors: Liz Truss (2022-22) – 5ft 5¼ Boris Johnson (2019-22) – 5ft 9 Theresa May (2016-19) – 5ft 6 David Cameron (2010-16) – 6ft ½ Gordon Brown (2007-10) – 5ft 11 Tony Blair (1997-2007) – 6ft Sir John Major (1990-97) – 5ft 11 Baroness Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) – 5ft 5 James Callaghan (1976-79) – 6ft 1 Sir Harold Wilson (1964-70, then 1974-76) – 5ft 8 Sir Edward Heath (1970-74) – 6ft Sir Alec Douglas-Home (1963-64) – 6ft Harold Macmillan (1957-63) – 6ft Sir Anthony Eden (1955-57) – 5ft 11 Winston Churchill (1940-45, then 1951-55) – 5ft 6 Clement Atlee – 5ft 7 Mr Sunak’s height makes him 1.96 inches shorter than the average adult man in Britain, according to the Office for National Statistics, which appears to be of greater concern when it comes to politicians than for the rest of us, particularly in America. But that does not seem to be the case in every country. France, for one, has remained admirably unflustered by the prospect of short statesmen, from Napoleon Bonaparte (5ft 5½) to Emmanuel Macron (5ft 8) by way of Nicolas Sarkozy (5ft 5) and Francois Hollande (5ft 7). Elsewhere, Angela Merkel and the late Silvio Berlusconi were both 5ft 5, President Lula of Brazil triumphed over Jair Bolsonaro at the polls last year despite being 5ft 4 to his opponent’s 6ft 1 and both Russia and Ukraine are currently led by men of just 5ft 7 in the shape of Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. Bonaparte has, of course, lent his name – however reluctantly – to the “Napoleon complex”, a pop-psychological label commonly handed out to anyone thought to be overcompensating for their lack of height by behaving in an excessively assertive or domineering manner, which would certainly go some way towards explaining certain contemporary political figures like Mr Putin. In Spain, where the 6ft 6 King Felipe VI constantly requires press photographers to take a step backwards when he is gladhanding guests at official occasions, Jorge Francisco Santiago – a professor of politics at Madrid’s Camilo Jose Cela University – assured El Pais that there is no meaningful correlation between “centimetres and political success… because the vast majority of citizens understand that political competence, honesty, empathy or even charisma do not depend on something as superficial as height”. However, he acknowledged that there are “ingrained social perceptions or false generalisations” that tend “to associate height with virility, or attribute ambition, aggressiveness or cunning to short men” of which political advisers are aware and have to bear in mind on the campaign trail and during TV debates as they assess every detail in order to give their candidate the best possible chance of success. Professor Santiago advised readers of the newspaper to look out for low angles in campaign videos and on posters and for candidates wearing tight shirts or shorter ties as dead giveaways of efforts being made to conceal their height. He also warned taller candidates, citing 2004 US presidential candidate John Kerry as an example, not to stoop out of deference to a shorter opponent but to shamelessly make the most of the advantage they have, even if it is all only a matter of perception. Mr Kerry’s “unconscious gesture of humility hurt him, because it made him look uncomfortable in his own skin,” Professor Santiago observed. Ultimately, what damages candidates most appears to be their betraying that they themselves are preoccupied with the issue, as was the case with Mr Sarkozy or, more recently, with Republican presidential contender Ron DeSantis, who has already been ridiculed by Mr Trump for wearing heeled cowboy boots to appear taller. Writing about the “significance” of Mr Sunak’s stature when he took office last year, one GQ columnist wrote that the PM’s preference for trick photography tactics, presumably to project a greater aura of authority, meant that he had “betrayed short men”. “The reason Rishi has killed the era of the short king isn’t because he’s short and awful – although he is both. It’s because he has refused to own it,” said Imogen West-Knights. “Short men should be outraged at Sunak, who has spent his whole time in the political limelight trying desperately to distance himself from their ranks.” In Vilnius, he will run into world leaders of a range of sizes, from outgoing Dutch PM Mark Rutte (6ft 4), Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, both 6ft 2, to German chancellor Olaf Scholz (5ft 7) and Italian PM Giorgia Meloni (5ft 4). Mr Sunak should perhaps be thankful that Serbia is not yet a member of the alliance, given that its absence means he will not have to peer blinking upwards at the 6ft 6 frame of that country’s president, Aleksandar Vucic. Read More Zelensky hits out at lack of Vilnius summit timetable for Ukraine to join Nato How tall is Joe Biden? Heights of world leaders ranked as Nato gathers for summit What is Nato and why was it formed? Budget 2022: Hunt says UK in recession as he announces huge tax rises Jeremy Hunt increases energy windfall tax in budget Jeremy Hunt freezes tax allowances and hits 45p rate payers

A former player alleges sexualised hazing rituals at Northwestern, leading to the coach's dismissal.

A new grand jury sworn in Tuesday in Atlanta will likely consider whether criminal charges are appropriate for former President Donald Trump or his allies for their efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia

A judge has sided with Kansas' Republican attorney general, ruling the state cannot allow transgender residents to choose gender identity on driver's licenses.