Following talks in Brussels with his Iranian and European counterparts, he said the 2015 accord was a considerable accomplishment that was preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Mr Johnson stressed that Iran was fully in compliance with it.

US President Donald Trump wants to amend the deal or withdraw from it.

In October, he refused to recertify for Congress that Iran was complying, accusing it of “not living up to the spirit” of the agreement.

Why does the EU back the deal?

At a news conference after meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday, representatives of the EU, the UK, France and Germany reiterated their support for the nuclear deal they helped negotiate.

“The deal is working; it is delivering on its main goal, which means keeping the Iranian nuclear programme in check and under close surveillance,” EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said.

“The unity of the international community is essential to preserve a deal that is working, that is making the world safer and that is preventing a potential nuclear arms race in the region. And we expect all parties to continue to fully implement this agreement.”

Mr Johnson described the deal, which is known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as a “considerable diplomatic accomplishment”.

“I don’t think that anybody has produced a better alternative to the JCPOA as a way of preventing the Iranians from going ahead with the acquisition of a military nuclear capability,” he said. “It is incumbent on those who oppose the JCPOA to come up with that better solution because we have not seen it so far.”

Critics of the deal in Congress have also proposed amending legislation to ensure that US sanctions would “snap back” automatically if Iran carried out certain actions.

On Friday, Mr Trump is set to decide whether to extend relief for Iran from some US economic sanctions.

The sanctions, which were suspended in 2016, had cut Iran’s central bank out of the international financial system and imposed penalties for buying Iranian oil.

US officials told the Associated Press on Wednesday that Mr Trump was expected to extend the sanctions relief for another 120 days. But they said he might also impose new, targeted sanctions on Iranian businesses and people allegedly involved in missile tests, supporting terrorism, and human rights abuses.

Why is Iran’s missile programme controversial?

The US and EU say Iranian ballistic missile tests conducted in the past year have violated UN Security Council resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal.

The resolution calls upon Iran not to “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology”.

Iran’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday that if the US withdrew from the agreement, it was ready to give an “appropriate and heavy response”.

What does Mr Trump want to change?

The US president declared in October that the agreement was “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into”, and warned that within a few years Iran would be able to “sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout”.

He accused Iran of committing “multiple violations” and promised to work with Congress to “address the deal’s many serious flaws”.

Mr Trump said they included the deal’s “sunset clauses”, one of which allows for the lifting of restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment programme after 2025.

He also wants to give the International Atomic Energy Agency access to Iranian military sites, and for the deal to cover Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Iran says the missiles it has tested are not designed to carry nuclear warheads and insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

The European ministers expressed serious concern about Iran’s ballistic missile programme, as well as its alleged transfer of missiles and assistance to non-state entities in the Middle East. But they said the issue should be kept separate from the nuclear deal.

Source: BBC

The post Iran nuclear deal: UK challenges US to find better alternative appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

In the case, three protesters, Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau, accuse two men, Alvin Bamberger and Matthew Heimbach, of assaulting them at a Kentucky rally in March 2016.

The lawsuit also names Trump for allegedly inciting the men’s actions, pointing to Trump telling the crowd, “Get them out of here” with regard to protesters during the rally.

Trump’s lawyers contended that Trump was speaking to security and not the crowd, but the federal judge in the case has already ruled that it’s plausible Trump had incited a riot, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

In Friday’s filing, Trump’s lawyers make several claims in response to the lawsuit, including that Trump had a right to remove protesters from his event, that getting tickets to the rally waived their claims, and that their “claims are barred by their unclean hands,” in addition to claiming immunity.

Experts say that the immunity argument, though, will be tough for the Trump administration to justify — and the reference to the Clinton v. Jones case is particularly puzzling.

Two major Supreme Court cases, one under President Andrew Johnson and one with President Richard Nixon, held that presidents have broad immunity when it comes to their actions in office.

But the court decided unanimously in former President Bill Clinton’s case that he could face a lawsuit for actions he allegedly took prior to becoming President, leading to his famous impeachment. In that case, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleged Clinton sexually harassed her when he was governor of Arkansas.

“Generally speaking, things done before the President is president, in the President’s ordinary capacity, there’s no special immunity from suit,” said University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude, who works on immunity. “(The concept is) about preserving your ability to do your job; it doesn’t apply before you had your job”
Alden Abbott, a legal scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, similarly said he couldn’t think of a strong legal argument for immunity in this case, though both men noted that in a long opinion like Clinton v. Jones, it’s possible a “footnote or caveat,” as Baude put it, could offer a new legal argument that contradicts the overall decision.

Abbott noted that it’s not uncommon for lawyers to offer several defenses, in case any of them might stick.

“I think it’s safe to say it’s an uphill climb, but as lawyers normally do, belt and suspenders approach, when in a suit against a public official or any lawsuit for tort, which is basically what this seems to be, you’re going to put down any defense that you think might be successful,” Abbott said.

“Immunity is only one out of many, and I suspect they’re going to put a lot more on the First Amendment and the lack of being able to prove incitement. … So if (immunity) were the only defense it would be an uphill defense, but it’s only one of many responses.”

Bamberger, for his part, has claimed as a defense that he would not have responded to the protesters the way he did “without Trump and/or the Trump campaign’s specific urging and inspiration.”

Trump has the potential to face more litigation while in office, including lawsuits stemming from his long business career. Since winning the election, he has settled some lawsuits against him out of court.

–
Source: CNN

The post Trump claims immunity as President in lawsuit appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.