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.

 


Trump says Microsoft is in talks to acquire TikTok

Updated 19 sec ago
Follow

Trump says Microsoft is in talks to acquire TikTok

US President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday that Microsoft is in talks to acquire TikTok and that he would like to see a bidding war over the app.
Microsoft and TikTok did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for a comment outside regular business hours.
Trump has previously said that he was in discussions with several parties about purchasing TikTok and expects to make a decision on the app’s future within the next 30 days.
The app, which has about 170 million American users, was briefly taken offline just before a law requiring ByteDance to either sell it on national security grounds or face a ban took effect on Jan. 19.
Trump, after taking office on Jan. 20, signed an executive order seeking to delay by 75 days the enforcement of the law that was put in place after US officials warned that there was a risk of Americans’ data being misused under ByteDance.

EU, Britain to face off in post-Brexit fishing battle case

Updated 28 January 2025
Follow

EU, Britain to face off in post-Brexit fishing battle case

THE HAGUE: A tiny silver fish which is an important food source in the North Sea will take center stage Tuesday as the European Union and Britain square off over post-Brexit fishing rights.
The bitter arbitration case over sandeels is seen as a bellwether for other potential litigation between London and Brussels in a perennial hot-bed industry, experts said.
Tuesday’s clash at the Hague-based Permanent Court for Arbitration also marks the first courtroom trade battle between the 27-member trading bloc and Britain since it left the EU in 2020.
Brussels has dragged London before the PCA following a decision last year to ban all commercial fishing of sandeels in British waters because of environmental concerns.
London in March ordered all fishing to stop, saying in court documents that “sandeels are integral to the marine ecosystem of the North Sea.”
Because of climate change and commercial fishing, the tiny fish “risked further decline... as well as species that are dependent on sandeels for food including fish, marine mammals, and seabirds.”
This included vulnerable species like the Atlantic puffin, seals, porpoises and other fish like cod and haddock, Britain’s lawyers said.
But Brussels is accusing London of failing to keep to commitments made under the landmark Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which gave the EU access to British waters for several years during a transition period after London’s exit.
Under the deal, the EU’s fishing fleet retained access to British waters for a five-and-half-year transition period, ending mid-2026. After that, access to respective waters will be decided in annual negotiations.
“The EU does not call into question the right of the UK to adopt fisheries management measures in pursuit of legitimate conservation objectives,” Brussels’ lawyers said in court papers.
“Rather, this dispute is about the UK’s failure to abide by its commitments under the agreement.”
London failed to apply “evidence-based, proportionate and non-discriminatory measures when restricting the right to EU vessels to full access to UK waters to fish sandeel,” the EU lawyers said.
Brussels is backing Denmark in the dispute, whose vessels take some 96 percent of the EU’s quota for the species, with sandeel catches averaging some £41.2 million (49 million euros) annually.
“The loss of access to fisheries in English waters could affect relations with the EU, including Denmark, as they are likely to lead to employment losses and business losses overseas,” the EU’s lawyers warned.


The case will now be fought out over three days at the PCA’s stately headquarters at the Peace Palace in The Hague, which also houses the International Court of Justice.
Set up in 1899, the PCA is the world’s oldest arbitral tribunal and resolves disputes between countries and private parties through referring to contracts, special agreements and various treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The EU’s decision to open a case before the PCA “will not have been taken lightly and reflected the political importance it places on fishing rights,” writes Joel Reland, a senior researcher at UK in a Changing Europe, a London-based think tank.
In a number of “influential member states — including France, the Netherlands and Denmark — fishing rights are an important issue, with many communities relying on access to British waters for their livelihoods.”
“This dispute is an early warning that the renegotiation of access rights, before the TCA fisheries chapter expires in June 2026, will be critical for the EU,” said Reland.
A ruling in the case is expected by the end of March.

Trump says will build ‘Iron Dome’ missile shield

Updated 28 January 2025
Follow

Trump says will build ‘Iron Dome’ missile shield

  • The system “will be made right here in the USA,” the president said

MIAMI: President Donald Trump said Monday he would sign an executive order to start building an “Iron Dome” air defense system for the United States, like the one that Israel has used to intercept thousands of rockets.
“We need to immediately begin the construction of a state-of-the-art Iron Dome missile defense shield, which will be able to protect Americans,” Trump told a Republican congressional retreat in Miami.
Trump said the system “will be made right here in the USA.”
Speaking on the day new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took office, Trump said it was one of four orders he would sign, along with one that would “get transgender ideology the hell out of our military.”
During the 2024 election campaign Trump repeatedly promised to build a version of Israel’s Iron Dome system for the United States
But he ignored the fact that the system is designed for short-range threats, making it ill-suited to defending against intercontinental missiles that are the main danger to the United States.
Trump however again sung the praises of the Israeli system, which Israel has used to shoot down rockets fired by its regional foes Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon during the war sparked by the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
“They knock down just about every one of them,” Trump said. “So I think the United States is entitled to that.”


Ukraine’s Zelensky says war means mobilization rules cannot be changed

Updated 28 January 2025
Follow

Ukraine’s Zelensky says war means mobilization rules cannot be changed

  • Members of some units in areas deemed critical to ensuring Ukraine’s defensive lines have not enjoyed any leave since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday that the rigours of nearly three years of war did not allow for changes in mobilization rules because if soldiers left for home en masse, Russian President Vladimir Putin “will kill us all.”
Zelensky told Italian journalist Cecilia Sala, who was released this month after being detained for 21 days in Iran, that the toll of war on Ukrainians and their families underscored the need to bring the conflict rapidly to an end.
Parliament approved new mobilization rules last year to boost numbers of those at the front, but Ukraine’s fighting forces are still badly outnumbered by their Russian adversaries.
“The wartime situation calls for mobilization of people and all the resources we have in the country. Absolutely all of them,” Zelensky said in the interview, excerpts of which were posted on the president’s Telegram channel.
“And, unfortunately, that is the challenge of this war and that is why we have to speed things up to the maximum to end it, to oblige Russia to end this war,” Zelensky said.
“Today, we are defending ourselves. If tomorrow, for instance, half the army heads home, we really should have surrendered on the very first day. That is how it is. If half the army goes home, Putin will kill us all.”
The legislation approved last year, lowered the age of mobilization for Ukrainian men from 27 to 25 years, narrowed exemptions and imposed penalties on evaders.
Zelensky and others have rejected suggestions by politicians in the United States, Ukraine’s biggest Western backer, that the draft age be lowered further on grounds that Ukrainian forces at the front are not sufficiently well armed.
Members of some units in areas deemed critical to ensuring Ukraine’s defensive lines have not enjoyed any leave since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022.
Russian forces failed in their initial advance on the capital Kyiv, but have since focused their efforts on securing all of Donbas, made up of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in Ukraine’s east.
Russian forces occupy about 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory and have been recording their fastest gains since the invasion in their advance in the east, while holding part of four Ukrainian regions.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky


US Justice Dept officials involved in Trump prosecutions fired

Updated 28 January 2025
Follow

US Justice Dept officials involved in Trump prosecutions fired

WASHINGTON: The US Justice Department fired a number of officials on Monday who were involved in the criminal prosecutions of President Donald Trump.
“Acting attorney general James McHenry made this decision because he did not believe these officials could be trusted to faithfully implement the president’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the president,” a Justice Department official said.
The official did not specify now many people had their employment terminated, but US media outlets said it was more than a dozen and several were career prosecutors with the Justice Department.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal cases against Trump, resigned earlier this month.
Smith charged Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House.
Neither case came to trial and Smith — in line with a long-standing Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a sitting president — dropped them both after the Republican won November’s presidential election.
The firing of the Justice Department officials involved in prosecuting Trump was not unexpected.
Trump had vowed before the election to fire Smith “on day one” and accused the Justice Department under Democratic president Joe Biden of conducting a “political witchhunt” against him.
In his inauguration speech, Trump said he would end the “vicious, violent, and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department and our government.”
In his final report, Smith said Trump would have been convicted for his “criminal efforts” to retain power after the 2020 election if the case had not been dropped.
Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding — the session of Congress held to certify Biden’s win that was violently attacked on January 6, 2021 by a mob of Trump supporters.
Smith also prepared a report into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents but it is being withheld because charges are pending against two of his former co-defendants.
Trump faces separate racketeering charges in Georgia over his efforts to subvert the election results in the southern state, but the case will likely be frozen while he is in office.
Trump was convicted in New York in May of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star. The judge who presided over the case gave him an “unconditional discharge” which carries no jail time, fine or probation.