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

Update 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)
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

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.

 


Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say

Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say
Updated 14 sec ago
Follow

Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say

Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say
  • The report says that “while the count of sanctions is high, the tangible impact on Russia’s economy is less clear,” and “global cooperation is indispensable”

WASHINGTON: Waves of sanctions imposed by the Biden administration after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine haven’t inflicted the devastating blow to Moscow’s economy that some had expected. In a new report, two researchers are offering reasons why.
Oleg Itskhoki of Harvard University and Elina Ribakova of the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue that the sanctions should have been imposed more forcefully immediately after the invasion rather than in a piecemeal manner.
“In retrospect, it is evident that there was no reason not to have imposed all possible decisive measures against Russia from the outset once Russia launched the full scale invasion in February 2022,” the authors state in the paper. Still, “the critical takeaway is that sanctions are not a silver bullet,” Ribakova said on a call with reporters this week, to preview the study.
The researchers say Russia was able to brace for the financial penalties because of the lessons learned from sanctions imposed in 2014 after it invaded Crimea. Also, the impact was weakened by the failure to get more countries to participate in sanctions, with economic powers like China and India not included.
The report says that “while the count of sanctions is high, the tangible impact on Russia’s economy is less clear,” and “global cooperation is indispensable.”
The question of what makes sanctions effective or not is important beyond the Russia-Ukraine war. Sanctions have become critical tools for the United States and other Western nations to pressure adversaries to reverse actions and change policies while stopping short of direct military conflict.
The limited impact of sanctions on Russia has been clear for some time. But the report provides a more detailed picture of how Russia adapted to the sanctions and what it could mean for US sanctions’ effectiveness in the future.
The paper will be presented at the Brookings Institution next week.
Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US has sanctioned more than 4,000 people and businesses, including 80 percent of Russia’s banking sector by assets.
The Biden administration acknowledges that sanctions alone cannot stop Russia’s invasion — it has also sent roughly $56 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the 2022 invasion. And many policy experts say the sanctions are not strong enough, as evidenced by the growth of the Russian economy. US officials have said Russia has turned to China for machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for use in the war.
A Treasury representative pointed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s remarks in July during the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings, where she called actions against Russia “unprecedented.”
“We continue cracking down on Russian sanctions evasion and have strengthened and expanded our ability to target foreign financial institutions and anyone else around the world supporting Russia’s war machine,” she said.
Still, Russia has been able to evade a $60 price cap on its oil exports imposed by the US and the other Group of Seven democracies supporting Ukraine. The cap is enforced by barring Western insurers and shipping companies from handling oil above the cap. Russia has been able to dodge the cap by assembling its own fleet of aging, used tankers that do not use Western services and transport 90 percent of its oil.
The US pushed for the price cap as a way of cutting into Moscow’s oil profits without knocking large amounts of Russian oil off the global market and pushing up oil prices, gasoline prices and inflation. Similar concerns kept the European Union from imposing a boycott on most Russian oil for almost a year after Russia invaded Ukraine.
G-7 leaders have agreed to engineer a $50 billion loan to help Ukraine, paid for by the interest earned on profits from Russia’s frozen central bank assets sitting mostly in Europe as collateral. However, the allies have not agreed on how to structure the loan.


Harris attacks ‘biggest loser’ Trump on US economy

Harris attacks ‘biggest loser’ Trump on US economy
Updated 2 min 38 sec ago
Follow

Harris attacks ‘biggest loser’ Trump on US economy

Harris attacks ‘biggest loser’ Trump on US economy
  • Warns that Trump’s plans to bring back huge tariffs on foreign imports would hurt middle class Americans in their wallets
  • Vowed to “chart a new way forward” in a speech in Pittsburgh, with her rhetoric focusing on lowering prices for Americans

PITTSBURGH: Kamala Harris blasted Donald Trump as the “biggest loser” on the economy and a friend of billionaires Wednesday as the election rivals laid out competing plans on the top issue for many US voters.
In a speech on the economy and then again in her first major solo interview, the Democrat warned that Trump’s plans to bring back huge tariffs on foreign imports would hurt middle class Americans in their wallets.
Republican Trump for his part doubled down on his protectionist vision — but spent as much time on threatening to blow Iran to “smithereens” after US intelligence warned of threats from Tehran against his life.
The vice president and the former president are neck-and-neck in the polls and are both reaching out to undecided voters on key issues like the economy with less than six weeks until election day.
Harris vowed to “chart a new way forward” in a speech in Pittsburgh, an industrial city in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania, with her rhetoric focusing on lowering prices for Americans.
“For Donald Trump, our economy works best if it works for those who own the big skyscrapers. Not those who actually build them. Not those who wire them. Not those who mop the floors,” she said.
She said nearly 200,000 factory jobs moved abroad during Trump’s time in the White House, “making Trump one of the biggest losers ever on manufacturing.”
In her interview with the left-leaning MSNBC, Harris then criticized the tariff plans that Trump has laid out over the past two days, which would be a return to the policies of the Republican’s first term in office.
“You don’t just throw around the idea of tariffs across the board,” said Harris. “He’s just not very serious.”
The interview was Harris’s first on her own since replacing US President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee in July. She gave a joint interview with running mate Tim Walz in August.

Trump’s campaign said her speech was “full of lies” and that she had already had three and a half years as part of the Biden administration to tackle problems like low prices.
The Republican is making similar pledges to boost American manufacturing, based largely on his plans to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign imports.
“You’re going to have protection from them coming in, because we’re going to put on from 50 to 200 percent tariffs,” Trump told supporters in Mint Hill, North Carolina — another crucial battleground state.
But the ex-commander-in-chief spent a good part of his speech talking about the threats to his life — from the two assassination attempts he has escaped in the space of two months to threats by Iran.
“If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country, in this case Iran, that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens,” Trump said.
Trump meanwhile plans to return on October 5 to the Pennsylvania town of Butler where a gunman made an attempt on his life at a rally in July, his campaign said Wednesday.
A gunman accused of planning to kill Trump at his Florida golf course just over a week ago, Ryan Routh, was indicted Tuesday for the attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate.
The twin assassination attempts came amid one of the most dramatic US election campaigns in modern political history, in a dizzying chain of events since a disastrous debate in June led to Biden quitting the White House race over concerns about his age.
Biden told ABC talk show “The View” on Wednesday that he was now “at peace with my decision” — even if he insisted he could still have beaten Trump.
The outgoing president criticized Trump, saying there was “not a social redeeming value” to the Republican, and said his advice to Harris to win was to “be herself.”
 


Pope Francis expels a bishop and 9 other people from a Peru movement over ‘sadistic’ abuses

Pope Francis expels a bishop and 9 other people from a Peru movement over ‘sadistic’ abuses
Updated 17 min 42 sec ago
Follow

Pope Francis expels a bishop and 9 other people from a Peru movement over ‘sadistic’ abuses

Pope Francis expels a bishop and 9 other people from a Peru movement over ‘sadistic’ abuses
  • Last month, the pope expelled Luis Figari, founder of the group called Sodalitium of Christian Life, after probers found that he had sodomized his recruits
  • Pedro Salinas, in the 2015 book “Half Monks, Half Soldiers” that he co-authored by with journalist Paola Ugaz, detailed the twisted practices of the Sodalitium

VATICAN CITY: Pope Francis took the unusual decision Wednesday to expel 10 people – a bishop, priests and laypeople — from a troubled Catholic movement in Peru after a Vatican investigation uncovered “sadistic” abuses of power, authority and spirituality.
The move against the leadership of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, or Sodalitium of Christian Life, followed Francis’ decision last month to expel the group’s founder, Luis Figari, after he was found to have sodomized his recruits.
It was announced by the Peruvian Bishops Conference, which posted a statement from the Vatican embassy on its website that attributed the expulsions to a “special” decision taken by Francis.
The statement was astonishing because it listed abuses uncovered by the Vatican investigation that have rarely if ever been punished canonically — such as hacking someone’s communications — and cited the people the pope held responsible.
According to the statement, the Vatican investigators uncovered physical abuses “including with sadism and violence,” sect-like abuses of conscience, spiritual abuse, abuses of authority, economic abuses in administering church money and the “abuse in the exercise of the apostolate of journalism.”
The latter was presumably aimed at a Sodalitium journalist who has attacked critics of the movement on social media.
Figari founded the SCV, as it is known, in 1971 as a lay community to recruit “soldiers for God,” one of several Catholic societies born as a conservative reaction to the left-leaning liberation theology movement that swept through Latin America, starting in the 1960s. At its height, the group counted about 20,000 members across South America and the United States. It was enormously influential in Peru.
Victims of Figari’s abuses complained to the Lima archdiocese in 2011, though other claims against him reportedly date to 2000. But neither the local church nor the Holy See took concrete action until one of the victims, Pedro Salinas, wrote a book along with journalist Paola Ugaz detailing the twisted practices of the Sodalitium in 2015, entitled “Half Monks, Half Soldiers.”

Front page of the Lima-based Spanish-language newspaper Peru 21 featuring the expulsion of Solidatium founder Luis Figari from the Roman Catholic church. The main story says, "The fall of the abuser". (X: @valienteslatam)

An outside investigation ordered by Sodalitium later determined that Figari was “narcissistic, paranoid, demeaning, vulgar, vindictive, manipulative, racist, sexist, elitist and obsessed with sexual issues and the sexual orientation” of Sodalitium’s members.

The investigation, published in 2017, found that Figari sodomized his recruits and forced them to fondle him and one another. He liked to watch them “experience pain, discomfort and fear,” and humiliated them in front of others to enhance his control over them, the report found.
Still, the Holy See declined to expel Figari from the movement in 2017 and merely ordered him to live apart from the Sodalitium community in Rome and cease all contact with it. The Vatican was seemingly tied in knots by canon law that did not foresee such punishments for founders of religious communities who weren’t priests. Victims were outraged.
But according to the findings of the latest Vatican investigation, the abuses went beyond Figari. They included Sodalitium clergy and also involved harassing and hacking the communications of their victims, all while covering up crimes committed as part of their official duties, according to the statement.
The investigation was carried out by the Vatican’s top sex crimes investigators, Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna and Monsignor Jordi Bertomeu, from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, who traveled to Lima last year to take testimony from victims.
The highest-ranking person ordered expelled was Archbishop Jose Antonio Eguren, whom Francis already forced to resign as bishop of Piura in April over his record, after he sued Salinas and Ugaz for their reporting.
In addition to Figari’s own abuses, their reporting had exposed the alleged forced eviction of peasants on lands in Eguren’s diocese by a Sodalitium-linked real estate developer.
Ugaz, the journalist, welcomed the expulsions and said the reference to Sodalitium hacking referred to her: She said her communications had been hacked in 2023 after she reported on the Sodalitium’s off-shore holdings and other financial dealings, and said she believed the group was trying to identify her sources.
“It is a demonstration that in Peru, the survivors would never have found justice and reparation (without Bertomeo and Scicluna) because the Sodalitium is an organization with a lot of political, social and economic power,” she said in a statement to The Associated Press.
Salinas, for his part, repeated that the group should be dissolved entirely and that some key figures were not included on the list.
“It’s very good news after 24 years of impunity,” he said in a message to AP. “It is to be hoped that this historic and memorable news is only the first of more, perhaps more impactful than what we know today.”
The release of such detailed information by the Vatican was highly unusual for an institution that is known more for secrecy, opacity and turning a blind eye to even obvious church crimes.
It is unclear how exactly the expulsions can be enforced or what they will mean in practical terms, especially for the laypeople involved. But at a minimum, the very public announcement would suggest that at least for this particular group, Francis was willing to take an unorthodox approach to interpreting the church’s in-house laws to send a message.
“To take such a disciplinary decision, consideration was given to the scandal that was produced by the number and gravity of the abuses that were denounced by victims, which are particularly contrary to the balanced and liberating experience of the evangelical councils,” the Vatican embassy statement said in explaining the rationale for the punishments.
The Vatican statement said the Peruvian bishops joined Francis in “seeking the forgiveness of the victims” while calling on the troubled movement to initiate a journey of justice and reparation.
There was no immediate response to a request for comment from the Sodalitium.


Zelensky alleges Russian plot on nuclear plants in defiant UN address

Zelensky alleges Russian plot on nuclear plants in defiant UN address
Updated 52 min 37 sec ago
Follow

Zelensky alleges Russian plot on nuclear plants in defiant UN address

Zelensky alleges Russian plot on nuclear plants in defiant UN address
  • Russia captured the giant Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant soon after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022
  • Shortly after Zlensky's remarks, Putin made his most explicit threat yet to use nuclear weapons, saying Russia would consider such a response to a “massive” air attack on its soil

UNITED NATIONS: President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia on Wednesday of plotting potentially catastrophic attacks on Ukrainian nuclear plants, in a defiant UN address ahead of US elections that could sharply shift the stance of Kyiv’s main backer.
Zelensky addressed the annual gathering of world leaders to rally support before a high-profile visit Thursday to the White House, where President Joe Biden’s administration promised new military aid.
Speaking from the UN rostrum in a black polo jacket, Zelensky said that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does seem to be planning attacks on our nuclear power plants and the infrastructure, aiming to disconnect the plants from the power grid.”
“Any critical incident in the energy system could lead to a nuclear disaster. A day like that must never come,” Zelensky said.
“Moscow needs to understand this, and this depends in part on your determination to put pressure on the aggressor,” he told the General Assembly.
Shortly after his remarks, Putin made his most explicit threat yet to use nuclear weapons, saying Russia would consider such a response to a “massive” air attack on its soil.
Ukraine has been pushing the United States and its allies to ease restrictions on weapons that can strike deeper into Russia.
Russia captured the giant Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant soon after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In recent weeks it has been pounding Ukraine’s electricity grid, in what Western and Ukrainian officials describe as an attempt to leave the country shivering during the winter.

In his UN address, Zelensky singled out China and Brazil as he questioned the “true interest” of countries that have been pressing Ukraine to negotiate with Russia.
Employing the language of the Global South, Zelensky said: “The world has already been through colonial wars and conspiracies of great powers at the expense of those who are small.”
“Ukrainians will never accept — will never accept — why anyone in the world believes that such a brutal colonial past, which suits no one today, can be imposed on Ukraine now,” Zelensky said.
In response, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Wednesday that a peace deal is the only way for Ukraine to “survive” the war.
“Only peace will guarantee that Ukraine survives as a sovereign country and Russia survives,” he said at a press conference in New York.
Zelensky last year flew to the General Assembly in a dramatic first wartime appearance. But while he still maintains star power, the political landscape has changed.
Donald Trump, running again for president in a close race against Kamala Harris, called Zelensky “probably the greatest salesman on Earth.”
“We continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refuses to make a deal, Zelensky,” the Republican candidate told a campaign rally in North Carolina.
Republicans were livid after Zelensky told The New Yorker magazine that Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance did not understand the war’s complexity.
The United States has provided around $175 billion in both military and economic assistance to Ukraine during the war. The Biden administration has ruled out sending troops.
The Biden administration announced another $375 million on Wednesday including munitions for HIMARS precision rocket launchers, cluster munitions and light tactical vehicles.
Trump in the past has voiced admiration for Putin and, during his 2017-2021 presidency, was impeached over delaying aid to Ukraine to press Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden.
In Germany, the second-largest contributor of military aid to Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also facing pressure from parties opposed to support for Kyiv.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of Kyiv ally Britain, told the Security Council on Wednesday that Putin has been sending its citizens into a meat grinder and asked how Russia “can show its face” at the UN headquarters.

The annual UN General Assembly extravaganza marks a swansong for Biden, 81, who has passed the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris to face Trump in the November 5 election.
The summit comes against a backdrop of chaos in the Middle East as Israel ramps up attacks on the Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah, killing hundreds and prompting a mass exodus of people.
Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron met to discuss a push for a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Wednesday also saw talks at the UN on two other hotspots — Sudan and Haiti.
The United States announced millions in new assistance both for war-ravaged Sudan’s humanitarian crisis and for stabilization efforts in violence-wracked Haiti.
 


Mexico excludes Spanish king from president’s swearing-in

Mexico excludes Spanish king from president’s swearing-in
Updated 26 September 2024
Follow

Mexico excludes Spanish king from president’s swearing-in

Mexico excludes Spanish king from president’s swearing-in

MADRID: Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum angered Spain on Wednesday by barring its King Felipe VI from her swearing-in ceremony, accusing him of failing to acknowledge harm caused by his country’s conquest of Mexico five centuries ago.

The decision prompted Spain to boycott the event altogether, with its Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez calling the Mexican decision “inexplicable” and “totally unacceptable.”

Mexico’s outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in 2019 sent a letter to the king asking that he “publicly and officially” acknowledge the “damage” caused by the 1519-1521 conquest, which resulted in the death of a large part of the country’s pre-Hispanic population.

“Unfortunately, this letter was never replied to directly, as should have been the best practice in bilateral relations,” Sheinbaum said in a statement.

Mexico had in July invited just Sanchez to the swearing-in ceremony on October 1, the statement added.

The Spanish foreign ministry said in a statement that the government “has decided not to participate in the inauguration at any level.”

“Spain and Mexico are brotherly peoples. We cannot therefore accept being excluded like this,” Sanchez said later in a news conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

“That is why we have made it known to the Mexican government that there will be no diplomatic representative from the Spanish government, as a sign of protest.”

Mexico published the guest list a week ago for the inauguration of Sheinbaum, who will be the country’s first woman president following her left-wing ruling party’s landslide June election victory.

King Felipe VI was not on the list, which includes regional leftist leaders as well as US First Lady Jill Biden.

Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles told journalists in Madrid on Wednesday: “The head of state, the king of Spain, always attends all swearing-in ceremonies and therefore we cannot accept that in this case he should be excluded.”

While Mexico and Spain have close historical and economic links, relations between the Latin American nation and its former colonial ruler have been strained since Lopez Obrador — an ally of Sheinbaum — took office in 2018.

He has frequently complained about Spanish companies operating in Mexico and twice declared during his mandate that his country’s relations with Spain were “on pause.”

Madrid has rejected his demand for an apology for the events of the Spanish conquest five centuries ago.

Sanchez said on Wednesday, without elaborating, that Spain had “already explained its position on the subject.”

The socialist premier expressed “great frustration” at Sheinbaum’s decision, saying that he considered Mexico’s leaders to be “progressive” like his government.