Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

The jury in Donald Trump’s hush money trial announced Thursday in a note to the court that it has reached a verdict, indicating that this would be delivered in less than an hour. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 31 May 2024
Follow

Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

  • Jurors deliberated for 9.5 hours over two days before convicting Trump of all 34 counts he faced.
  • The verdict is a stunning legal reckoning for Trump and exposes him to potential prison time
  • Trump is expected to quickly appeal the verdict and will face an awkward dynamic as he returns to the campaign trail as a convicted felon

NEW YORK: Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes Thursday as a New York jury found him guilty of falsifying business records in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to a porn actor who said the two had sex.
Jurors deliberated for 9.5 hours over two days before convicting Trump of all 34 counts he faced. Trump sat stone-faced while the verdict was read as cheering from the street below — where supporters and detractors of the former president were gathered — could be heard in the hallway on courthouse’s 15th floor where the decision was revealed.
“This was a rigged, disgraceful trial,” Trump told reporters after leaving the courtroom. “The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5 by the people. They know what happened, and everyone knows what happened here.”
The verdict is a stunning legal reckoning for Trump and exposes him to potential prison time in the city where his manipulations of the tabloid press helped catapult him from a real estate tycoon to reality television star and ultimately president. As he seeks to reclaim the White House in this year’s election, the judgment presents voters with another test of their willingness to accept Trump’s boundary-breaking behavior.
Trump is expected to quickly appeal the verdict and will face an awkward dynamic as he returns to the campaign trail as a convicted felon. There are no campaign rallies on the calendar for now, though he’s expected to hold fundraisers next week. Judge Juan Merchan set sentencing for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Republican leaders who remained resolute in their support in the immediate aftermath of the verdict are expected to formally make him their nominee.
 

 

 

The falsifying business records charges carry up to four years behind bars, though prosecutors have not said whether they intend to seek imprisonment, and it is not clear whether the judge — who earlier in the trial warned of jail time for gag order violations — would impose that punishment even if asked. The conviction, and even imprisonment, will not bar Trump from continuing his pursuit of the White House.
Trump faces three other felony indictments, but the New York case may be the only one to reach a conclusion before the November election, adding to the significance of the outcome. Though the legal and historical implications of the verdict are readily apparent, the political consequences are less so given its potential to reinforce rather than reshape already-hardened opinions about Trump.
For another candidate in another time, a criminal conviction might doom a presidential run, but Trump’s political career has endured through two impeachments, allegations of sexual abuse, investigations into everything from potential ties to Russia to plotting to overturn an election, and personally salacious storylines including the emergence of a recording in which he boasted about grabbing women’s genitals.
In addition, the general allegations of the case have been known to voters for years and, while tawdry, are widely seen as less grievous than the allegations he faces in three other cases that charge him with subverting American democracy and mishandling national security secrets.


ALSO READ: Here’s what you should know about Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial


Even so, the verdict is likely to give President Joe Biden and fellow Democrats space to sharpen arguments that Trump is unfit for office, even as it provides fodder for the presumptive Republican nominee to advance his unsupported claims that he is victimized by a criminal justice system he insists is politically motivated against him.
Trump maintained throughout the trial that he had done nothing wrong and that the case should never have been brought, railing against the proceedings from inside the courthouse — where he was joined by a parade of high-profile Republican allies — and racking up fines for violating a gag order with inflammatory out-of-court comments about witnesses.




People celebrate after former President Donald Trump was found guilty on all counts at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City. (Getty Images/AFP)

Republicans showed no sign of loosening their embrace of the party leader, with House Speaker Mike Johnson releasing a statement lamenting what he called “a shameful day in American history.” He called the case “a purely political exercise, not a legal one.”
The first criminal trial of a former American president always presented a unique test of the court system, not only because of Trump’s prominence but also because of his relentless verbal attacks on the foundation of the case and its participants. But the verdict from the 12-person jury marked a repudiation of Trump’s efforts to undermine confidence in the proceedings or to potentially impress the panel with a show of GOP support.
The trial involved charges that Trump falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, the porn actor who said she had sex with the married Trump in 2006.
The $130,000 payment was made by Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen to buy Daniels’ silence during the final weeks of the 2016 race in what prosecutors allege was an effort to interfere in the election. When Cohen was reimbursed, the payments were recorded as legal expenses, which prosecutors said was an unlawful attempt to mask the true purpose of the transaction. Trump’s lawyers contend they were legitimate payments for legal services.
Trump has denied the sexual encounter, and his lawyers argued during the trial that his celebrity status, particularly during the 2016 campaign, made him a target for extortion. They’ve said hush money deals to bury negative stories about Trump were motivated by personal considerations such as the impact on his family and brand as a businessman, not political ones. They also sought to undermine the credibility of Cohen, the star prosecution witness who pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges related to the payments, as driven by personal animus toward Trump as well as fame and money.
The trial featured more than four weeks of occasionally riveting testimony that revisited an already well-documented chapter from Trump’s past, when his 2016 campaign was threatened by the disclosure of an “Access Hollywood” recording that captured him talking about grabbing women sexually without their permission and the prospect of other stories about Trump and sex surfacing that would be harmful to his candidacy.
Trump himself did not testify, but jurors heard his voice through a secret recording of a conversation with Cohen in which he and the lawyer discussed a $150,000 hush money deal involving a Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who has said she had an affair with Trump: “What do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?” Trump was heard saying on the recording made by Cohen.
Daniels herself testified, offering at times a graphic recounting of the sexual encounter she says they had in a hotel suite during a Lake Tahoe golf tournament. The former publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, testified about how he worked to keep stories harmful to the Trump campaign from becoming public at all, including by having his company buy McDougal’s story.
Jurors also heard from Keith Davidson, the lawyer who negotiated the hush money payments on behalf of Daniels and McDougal.
He detailed the tense negotiations to get both women compensated for their silence but also faced an aggressive round of questioning from a Trump attorney who noted that Davidson had helped broker similar hush money deals in cases involving other prominent figures.
But the most pivotal witness, by far, was Cohen, who spent days on the stand and gave jurors an insider’s view of the hush money scheme and what he said was Trump’s detailed knowledge of it.
“Just take care of it,” he quoted Trump as saying at one point.
He offered jurors the most direct link between Trump and the heart of the charges, recounting a meeting in which they and the then-chief financial officer of Trump Organization described a plan to have Cohen reimbursed in monthly installments for legal services.
And he emotionally described his dramatic break with Trump in 2018, when he decided to cooperate with prosecutors after a decade-long career as the then-president’s personal fixer.
“To keep the loyalty and to do the things that he had asked me to do, I violated my moral compass, and I suffered the penalty, as has my family,” Cohen told the jury.
The outcome provides a degree of vindication for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who had characterized the case as being about election interference rather than hush money and defended it against criticism from legal experts who called it the weakest of the four prosecutions against Trump.
But it took on added importance not only because it proceeded to trial first but also because it could be the only one of the cases to reach a jury before the election.
The other three cases — local and federal charges in Atlanta and Washington that he conspired to undo the 2020 election, as well as a federal indictment in Florida charging him with illegally hoarding top-secret records — are bogged down by delays or appeals.

 


State prosecution in firebombing attack on demonstration for Israeli hostages moves ahead

Updated 16 July 2025
Follow

State prosecution in firebombing attack on demonstration for Israeli hostages moves ahead

  • Federal authorities say Soliman, an Egyptian national, had been living in the US illegally with his family at the time

DENVER: A judge ruled Tuesday that Colorado prosecutors can move ahead with their case against a man accused of killing one person and injuring a dozen more in a firebomb attack on demonstrators showing support for Israeli hostages in Gaza.
A police detective had been set to testify at a hearing explaining the evidence gathered against Mohamed Sabry Soliman in the June 1 attack on the weekly event in Boulder. But Soliman’s lawyer, Kathryn Herold, told Judge Nancy W. Salomone that he gave up his right to hear the evidence.
Soliman, wearing an orange and white striped jail uniform, told Salomone that he understood he was waiving his right to a hearing following a discussion with his lawyers Monday.
Despite that, prosecutors and victims who sat across the courtroom from Soliman or watched the hearing online were caught off guard by the decision.
Salomone said the case would now move ahead to an arraignment and scheduled a Sept. 9 hearing for Soliman to enter a plea to murder, attempted murder and other charges over the defense’s objection.
Herold said Soliman would not be ready to enter a plea then because of the large amount of evidence in the case and the murder charges recently added against him following the death of Karen Diamond, an 82-year-old woman injured in the attack. Herold said she expected to ask for the arraignment hearing to be delayed and suggested that a plea deal was possible.
20th Judicial District Attorney Michael Dougherty objected to a delay, saying any discussions could happen before and after an arraignment. He declined to comment on the possibility of a deal after the hearing.
Investigators say Soliman told them he intended to kill the roughly 20 participants at the weekly event on Boulder’s Pearl Street pedestrian mall. But he threw just two of more than two dozen Molotov cocktails he had with him while yelling, “Free Palestine!” Police said he told them he got scared because he had never hurt anyone before.
Federal authorities say Soliman, an Egyptian national, had been living in the US illegally with his family at the time.
Soliman has pleaded not guilty to federal hate crime charges and is scheduled to go on trial in federal court in Denver in September. However, his lawyers told US District Judge John L. Kane last week that they expect to ask for a delay.
Additional charges related to Diamond’s death could also slow down the federal proceedings. Assistant US Attorney Laura Cramer-Babycz told Kane that prosecutors have not decided yet whether to file additional charges against Soliman.
Federal prosecutors allege the victims were targeted because of their perceived or actual connection to Israel. But Soliman’s federal defense lawyers say he should not have been charged with hate crimes because the evidence shows he was motivated by opposition to Zionism, the political movement to establish and sustain a Jewish state in Israel.
An attack motivated by someone’s political views is not considered a hate crime under federal law.
State prosecutors have identified 29 victims in the attack. Thirteen of them were physically injured, and the others were nearby and are considered victims because they could have been hurt. A dog was also injured in the attack, so Soliman has also been charged with animal cruelty.

 


Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles

California National Guard are positioned at the Federal Building, June 10, 2025, in downtown Los Angeles. (AP)
Updated 16 July 2025
Follow

Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles

  • A day later, police officers used flash bangs and shot projectiles as they pushed protesters through Little Tokyo, where bystanders and restaurant workers rushed to get out of their way

LOS ANGELES: The Pentagon said Tuesday it is ending the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles, accounting for nearly half of the soldiers sent to the city to deal with protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
Roughly 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines have been in the city since early June. It wasn’t immediately clear what prompted the 60-day deployment to end suddenly, nor was it immediately clear how long the rest of the troops would stay in the region.
In late June, the top military commander in charge of troops deployed to LA had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for 200 of them to be returned to wildfire fighting duty amid warnings from Newsom that the Guard was understaffed as California entered peak wildfire season.
The end of the deployment comes a week after federal authorities and National Guard troops arrived at MacArthur Park with guns and horses in an operation that ended abruptly. Although the US Department of Homeland Security wouldn’t explain the purpose of the operation or whether anyone had been arrested, local officials said it seemed designed to sow fear.
“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement in announcing the decision.
On June 8, thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to Trump’s deployment of the Guard, blocking off a major freeway as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Photos captured several Waymo robotaxis set on fire.
A day later, police officers used flash bangs and shot projectiles as they pushed protesters through Little Tokyo, where bystanders and restaurant workers rushed to get out of their way.
Mayor Karen Bass set a curfew in place for about a week that she said had successfully protected businesses and helped restore order. Demonstrations in the city and the region in recent weeks have been largely small impromptu protests around arrests.
Bass applauded the troops’ departure.
“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong. We organized peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court — all of this led to today’s retreat,” she said in a statement, adding that “We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in LA, but throughout our country.”
On Tuesday afternoon, there was no visible military presence outside the federal complex downtown that had been the center of early protests and where National Guard troops first stood guard before the Marines were assigned to protect federal buildings. Hundreds of the soldiers have been accompanying agents on immigration operations.
President Donald Trump ordered the deployment against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued to stop it.
Newsom sued to block Trump’s command of the California National Guard, arguing that Trump violated the law when he deployed the troops despite his opposition. He also argued that the National Guard troops were likely violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on US soil.
Newsom won an early victory in the case after a federal judge ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and exceeded Trump’s authority. But an appeals court tossed that order, and control of the troops remained with the federal government. The federal court is set to hear arguments next month on whether the troops are violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
The deployment of National Guard troops was for 60 days, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had the discretion to shorten or extend it “to flexibly respond to the evolving situation on the ground,” the Trump administration’s lawyers wrote in a June 23 filing in the legal case.
Following the Pentagon’s decision Tuesday, Newsom said in a statement that the National Guard’s deployment to Los Angeles County has pulled troops away from their families and civilian work “to serve as political pawns for the President.”
He added that the remaining troops “continue without a mission, without direction and without any hopes of returning to help their communities.”
“We call on Trump and the Department of Defense to end this theater and send everyone home now,” he said.
 

 


Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

Updated 16 July 2025
Follow

Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

PITTSBURGH: US President Donald Trump went to Pennsylvania on Tuesday to announce $92 billion in energy and infrastructure deals intended to meet big tech’s soaring demand for electricity to fuel the AI boom.
Trump made the announcement at the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University, with much of the talk about beating China in the global AI race.
“Today’s commitments are ensuring that the future is going to be designed, built and made right here in Pennsylvania and right here in Pittsburgh, and I have to say, right here in the United States of America,” Trump said at the event.
The tech world has fully embraced generative AI as the next wave of technology, but fears are growing that its massive electricity needs cannot be met by current infrastructure, particularly in the United States.
Generative AI requires enormous computing power, mainly to run the energy-hungry processors from Nvidia, the California-based company that has become the world’s most valuable company by market capitalization.
Officials expect that by 2028, tech companies will need as much as five gigawatts of power for AI — enough electricity to power roughly five million homes.
Top executives from Palantir, Anthropic, Exxon and Chevron attended the event.
The funding will cover new data centers, power generation, grid infrastructure, AI training, and apprenticeship programs.
Among investments, Google committed $25 billion to build AI-ready data centers in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions.
“We support President Trump’s clear and urgent direction that our nation invest in AI... so that America can continue to lead in AI,” said Ruth Porat, Google’s president and chief investment officer.
The search engine giant also announced a partnership with Brookfield Asset Management to modernize two hydropower facilities in Pennsylvania, representing 670 MW of capacity on the regional grid.
Investment group Blackstone pledged more than $25 billion to fund new data centers and energy infrastructure.
US Senator David McCormick, from Pennsylvania, said the investments “are of enormous consequence to Pennsylvania, but they are also crucial to the future of the nation.”
His comments reflect the growing sentiment in Washington that the United States must not lose ground to China in the race to develop AI.
“We are way ahead of China and the plants are starting up, the construction is starting up,” Trump said.
The US president launched the “Stargate” project in January, aimed at investing up to $500 billion in US AI infrastructure — primarily in response to growing competition with China.
Japanese tech investor SoftBank, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, and Oracle are investing $100 billion in the initial phase.
Trump has also reversed many policies adopted by the previous Biden administration that imposed checks on developing powerful AI algorithms and limits on exports of advanced technology to certain allied countries.
He is expected to outline his own blueprint for AI advancement later this month.


UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest

  • In January, the Metropolitan Police arrested over 70 people in a pro-Palestine protest, including several prominent activists
  • Union leaders called for the Met to drop charges against former NEU executive member, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

LONDON: Over 20 prominent union leaders in the UK have raised concerns about the erosion of the right to peaceful protest in the country and about the Metropolitan Police’s handling of pro-Palestinian marches.

The 22 trade union leaders criticized in a joint statement on Tuesday the Met’s decision to charge former union members who were arrested during a London protest in solidarity with Palestine.

The Met arrested over 70 people in a pro-Palestine protest on Jan. 18 in London. Among those detained were Alex Kenny, a former executive member of the National Education Union; Sophie Bolt, the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign; and Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition.

The union leaders referred to the arrests and charges against Kenny and Bolt as a threat to the right to protest.

“Alex Kenny is a long-standing, and widely respected, trade union activist who has organised peaceful demonstrations in London for decades,” they said in a statement.

“We believe these charges are an attack on our right to protest. The right to protest is fundamental to trade unions and the wider movement. The freedoms to organise, of assembly and of speech matter; we must defend them,” they added.

They called for the Met to drop charges against Kenny, Bolt, Nineham, and Jamal.

The signatories include Paul Nowak from the Trades Union Congress, Christina McAnea from Unison, Daniel Kebede from the NEU, Matt Wrack from the Teachers’ Union, Dave Ward of the Communication Workers Union, Mick Whelan of the train drivers’ union ASLEF, and Eddie Dempsey from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

They said the decision to charge Kenny and Bolt follows the prosecution of Nineham and Jamal.

Amnesty International, along with dozens of legal experts, expressed concerns over the Met’s handling of the pro-Palestine protest in January, with some describing the arrests as “a disproportionate, unwarranted and dangerous assault on the right to assembly and protest.”

At the protest, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell were interviewed under caution and released pending further investigations. MPs and peers have also called on Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to review protest legislation introduced by the former Conservative government.


Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 

  • “Of course we can’t do it on our own, we need others to partner up,” Rasmussen told reporters
  • European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of US weapons could be paid for

BRUSSELS: Several European countries said on Tuesday they were willing to buy US arms for Ukraine under a scheme announced by US President Donald Trump, although arrangements still needed to be worked out.

Trump said on Monday that Washington will supply Patriot air defense systems, missiles and other weaponry to Ukraine for its war against Russia’s invasion and that the arms would be paid for by other NATO countries.

But much remains undisclosed, including the amounts and precise types of weapons to be provided, how quickly they would be supplied and how they would be paid for.

US officials have suggested that European countries will be willing to give up some of their own stocks of weapons for Ukraine and then buy replacements from the United States. But some of the countries involved say they still don’t even know what is being asked of them.

Such a move would get weapons to Ukraine more quickly but would leave donor countries’ defenses more exposed until new systems are ready.

“We are ready to participate. Of course we can’t do it on our own, we need others to partner up – but we have a readiness,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday ahead of a meeting of European Union ministers.

Speaking alongside Trump at the White House on Monday, NATO chief Mark Rutte said that Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada want to be part of the new initiative.

Many of those countries have been among the biggest military aid donors to Ukraine, either overall or per capita.

Asked whether Denmark could give US arms from its own stocks as part of the scheme, Rasmussen said: “We don’t have these kind of systems – the Patriot systems – so if we should lean in, and we are absolutely ready to do so, it will be (with) money and we have to work out the details.”

European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of US weapons could be paid for. In many cases, that seems likely to involve countries teaming up to buy US weapons systems.

“Now we need to see how together we can go in and finance, among other things, Patriots, which they plan to send to Ukraine,” Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told Swedish radio.

In Brussels, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said his country is looking into the plan “with a positive inclination”.

Asked about the scheme, Norwegian Defense Minister Tore Sandvik told Reuters that Oslo was “in close dialogue with Ukraine” on military aid and “air defense remains a high priority for Ukraine and for the Norwegian military support”.

“Norway has contributed to significant amounts of air defense for Ukraine, including co-financing the donation of a Patriot system and missiles,” he said.

The Finnish Defense Ministry said Helsinki “will continue to provide material support to Ukraine”.

“The details of the US initiative ... are not yet known and we are interested to hear more about them before we can take more concrete lines on this issue,” it said.