Boris Johnson has stated that he is ready to submit his unedited WhatsApp messages. proposed crowdfunding Boris Johnson's COVID-19 investigation legal fees after Cabinet lawyers threatened to cut him off from the state budget.
Lord Cruddas, an outspoken supporter of the former prime minister, urged Mr Johnson not to ransom warning, as he could “easily” solicit donations from supporters to close the gap.
The MP was told he would lose access to taxpayer funds to cover the cost of his legal advice if he tried to “upset or undermine” the government's position on the investigation.
Cabinet lawyers wrote to the former prime minister warning him that public money would “cease to be available” if he violated conditions such as releasing evidence without authorization.
But Lord Cruddas, who donated millions to the Conservative Party, assured him that he can “easily” raise the necessary funds from supporters.
“Don't worry Boris Johnson, I can easily get your supporter and crowdfunded legal fees, it's easy,” he tweeted .
“Don't wait for a ransom, do the right thing for the families of the victims. They are the most important now.”
The details of the letter came after ministers petitioned the High Court to challenge the investigation's claim for Mr Johnson's unredacted WhatsApp messages and pads. cabinet.
This comes after the former SNP Health Minister said that the Covid investigation in Scotland does not yet require WhatsApp messages from key figures such as Nicola Sturgeon to be shared.
Jean Freeman, who held the post during during the most acute phase of the pandemic, said on Sunday that she had not yet received any requests to disclose personal conversations, despite the families of the victims calling for a move.
On Sunday, Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick said the government would not restrict , which Mr. Johnson may disclose during the course of the investigation, insisting that he is “free” to forward all his documents and communications if he chooses.
>
But he said taxpayer funds should be used for “appropriate purposes.”
A letter to Mr. Johnson, released by The Sunday Times, said: “The funding offer will no longer be available to you if you knowingly try to frustrate or undermine, by one's own actions or by the actions of others, the position of the government in relation to the investigation, unless there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict of interest on a specific disputed issue.
Lawyers added that the funding “remains available” only if he meets conditions such as sending the Cabinet “any testimony or physical evidence that you intend to provide for the investigation so that it can be verified by the appropriate officials.”< /p>
A cabinet spokesman said the letter is “intended to protect public funds” and “does not in any way prevent Mr. Johnson from providing any evidence he wants.”
It is understood that he will not lose taxpayer funding. even if he decides to send all his unredacted WhatsApp and notebooks to the investigation because they are considered his personal property.
He will most likely refuse public money if he decides not to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to provide relevant evidence, and subsequently will be forced to defend himself in court.
Mr Jenrick told Sky's Sophie Ridge on Sunday's programme: “How he cooperates with the investigation is entirely up to the former prime minister – if he wants to send them his documents or WhatsApp messages, he can do it.” ”.
“I think a letter was sent to him from the Cabinet of Ministers saying that since he uses taxpayer funds to pay for his lawyers, these funds should be used for appropriate purposes.”
p>
“ But he can put forward any arguments and make any statements in his testimony at the investigation.
“There is absolutely no point that the government will limit what Boris Johnson wants to say. But if you're using taxpayer money, obviously you have to make sure you're using it appropriately.”
Mr. Jenrick denied there was fear in No. 10 that Rishi Sunak's messages might reveal a plot to try to overthrow Mr. Johnson, saying: “No, as I said, the problem here is a simple legal one.”
Recent Comments