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 says ‘derailed’ Kyiv’s war plans after uproar over test strike

Russia says ‘derailed’ Kyiv’s war plans after uproar over test strike
Updated 16 sec ago
Follow

Russia says ‘derailed’ Kyiv’s war plans after uproar over test strike

Russia says ‘derailed’ Kyiv’s war plans after uproar over test strike
  • Vladimir Putin says the conflict in Ukraine had taken on a ‘global’ nature
  • NATO and Ukraine will hold talks next week in Brussels over the strike
KYIV: Russia said on Friday it had scuppered Kyiv’s military objectives for 2025 just after President Vladimir Putin issued a warning to the West by test-firing a new intermediate-range missile at Ukraine.
That assessment for next year came after a Russian drone attack at night on the eastern Ukrainian city of Sumy killed two civilians and wounded a dozen more in an attack with new cluster munitions, local authorities said.
Putin announced the missile launch in a defiant address late on Thursday, saying the conflict in Ukraine had taken on a “global” nature, while hinting at strikes on Western countries.
In a meeting with military commanders, Russian defense minister Andrei Belousov said Moscow’s advance had “accelerated” in Ukraine and “ground down” Kyiv’s best units.
“We have, in fact, derailed the entire 2025 campaign,” Belousov said of the Ukrainian army in a video published by the Russian defense ministry.
The attack, which apparently targeted an aerospace manufacturing plant in the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro, sparked immediate condemnation from Kyiv’s allies.
China, which has thrown its political clout behind the Kremlin, reiterated calls for “calm” and “restraint” by all parties after Russia confirmed the new missile strike.
“All parties should remain calm and exercise restraint, work to de-escalate the situation through dialogue and consultation, and create conditions for an early ceasefire,” foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian told a regular briefing.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz meanwhile, on Friday described Russia’s deployment of the medium-range missile as a “terrible escalation.”
NATO and Ukraine will hold talks next week in Brussels over the strike, according to diplomats.
Ambassadors from countries in the NATO-Ukraine Council will hold talks on Tuesday. The meeting was called by Kyiv following the Dnipro strike, officials said.
The Russian attack came after Ukraine recently fired US- and UK-supplied missiles at Russian territory for the first time, escalating already sky-high tensions over the conflict, which is nearly in its third year.
Washington said it had granted Kyiv permission to fire long-range weapons at Russian territory as a response to the Kremlin’s deployment of thousands of North Korean troops on Ukraine’s border.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for a strong response from world leaders to Russia’s use of the new missile, which he said proved Moscow “does not want peace.”
In Kyiv, Oleksandra, a 30-year-old resident working in the media, said the Russian strike was a sign of desperation within the Kremlin.
“You could have launched a missile that is less expensive and have the same result. As long as this missile does not carry a nuclear payload, there is nothing to fear about,” she said.
Russian troops have been making steady advances in eastern Ukraine for months, capturing a string of small towns and villages from overstretched Ukrainian soldiers lacking manpower and artillery.
In the city of Sumy, authorities said a Russian drone had struck a residential neighborhood. Emergency services distributed images showing rescue workers retrieving the bodies of the dead from the rubble.
Sumy lies across the border from Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops captured swathes of territory after launching a major ground offensive in August.
The head of the Sumy region, Volodymyr Artyukh, said Russia had deployed a drone with modified munitions that were equipped with shrapnel, describing the weapons as being “used to kill people, not to destroy buildings.”

Indian commandos kill 10 Maoist rebels

Indian commandos kill 10 Maoist rebels
Updated 20 min 50 sec ago
Follow

Indian commandos kill 10 Maoist rebels

Indian commandos kill 10 Maoist rebels
  • More than 10,000 people have died in the decades-long insurgency waged by the Naxalite movement
  • Gunbattle took place in a remote forested area of Chhattisgarh state, the heartland of the insurgency

RAIPUR, India: Indian security forces gunned down at least 10 Maoist rebels on Friday during a firefight, police said, as New Delhi steps up efforts to crush the long-running armed conflict.
More than 10,000 people have died in the decades-long insurgency waged by the Naxalite movement, who say they are fighting for the rights of marginalized Indigenous people of India’s remote and resource-rich central regions.
The gunbattle took place in a remote forested area of Chhattisgarh state, the heartland of the insurgency.
“Dead bodies of 10 Maoists have been recovered so far,” Vivekanand Sinha, chief of the state police’s anti-Maoist operations, said.
Sinha said the police recovered several automatic weapons from the rebels.
India’s home minister Amit Shah this year issued an ultimatum to the insurgents to surrender or face an “all-out assault.”
A crackdown by security forces has killed over 200 rebels this year, an overwhelming majority in Chhattisgarh, according to government data.
India has deployed tens of thousands of security personnel to battle the Maoists across the insurgent-dominated “Red Corridor,” which stretches across central, southern and eastern states but has shrunk dramatically in size.
India has pumped millions of dollars into infrastructure development in remote areas and claims to have confined the insurgency to 45 districts in 2023, down from 96 in 2010.
The conflict has seen a number of deadly attacks on government forces over the years. Twenty-two police and paramilitaries were killed in a gunbattle with the far-left guerrillas in 2021.
Sixteen commandos were also killed in the western state of Maharashtra in a bomb attack that was blamed on the Maoists in the lead-up to national elections in 2019.


Second Australian dies after suspected Laos alcohol poisoning

Second Australian dies after suspected Laos alcohol poisoning
Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

Second Australian dies after suspected Laos alcohol poisoning

Second Australian dies after suspected Laos alcohol poisoning
  • A total of six foreign tourists have now died of suspected methanol poisoning in a backpacker hotspot in northern Laos

SYDNEY: A second young Australian tourist has died after apparently ingesting tainted alcohol while on holiday in Laos, Canberra’s foreign minister said Friday.
“All Australians will be heartbroken by the tragic passing of Holly Bowles,” Penny Wong said in a statement. “Just yesterday, Holly lost her best friend, Bianca Jones.”
“I know tonight all Australians will be holding both families in our hearts,” the foreign minister added.
A total of six foreign tourists have now died of suspected methanol poisoning in a backpacker hotspot in northern Laos.
They were from Australia, Britain, Denmark and the United States.
Many of the victims were in their teens or early twenties and fell sick after a night out in Vang Vieng.
Australian officials are now pressing Laotian authorities for a full and transparent investigation into what happened.
Alcohol tainted with methanol is suspected to be the cause of death.
Methanol is a toxic alcohol used in industrial and household products like antifreeze, photocopier fluids, de-icers, paint thinner, varnish and windshield wiper fluid.
Despite being toxic to humans, it is sometimes used in cheaply made home brew.


At least 10 killed in Afghanistan attack, interior ministry says

At least 10 killed in Afghanistan attack, interior ministry says
Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

At least 10 killed in Afghanistan attack, interior ministry says

At least 10 killed in Afghanistan attack, interior ministry says
  • It was not immediately clear who was behind the attack

KABUL: At least 10 people were killed by gunmen in Afghanistan’s northern Baghlan province, Interior Ministry Spokesperson Abdul Mateen Qaniee said on Friday.

It was not immediately clear who was behind the attack.

The Taliban took over the country in 2021 and vowed to restore security to the war-torn nation. Attacks have continued, many of them claimed by the local arm of the militant Daesh group.

In September, 14 people were killed and six others injured in an attack claimed by Daesh in central Afghanistan.


China urges ICC to take ‘objective’ position after Netanyahu arrest warrant

China urges ICC to take ‘objective’ position after Netanyahu arrest warrant
Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

China urges ICC to take ‘objective’ position after Netanyahu arrest warrant

China urges ICC to take ‘objective’ position after Netanyahu arrest warrant
  • Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant ‘for crimes against humanity and war crimes’
  • China, like Israel and the United States, is not a member of the International Criminal Court

BEIJING: China urged the International Criminal Court on Friday to remain objective and fair after it issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“China hopes the ICC will uphold an objective and just position (and) exercise its powers in accordance with the law,” foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said at a regular press conference in response to a question about the court’s warrant for Netanyahu.
The ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant on Thursday “for crimes against humanity and war crimes” committed between October 8, 2023, and May 20 this year.
It said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe the pair bore “criminal responsibility” for using starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally attacking civilians.
Netanyahu denounced the move as anti-Semitic and the court’s accusations as “absurd and false.”
China, which like Israel and the United States is not a member of the ICC, said it “supports any efforts by the international community on the Palestinian issue that are conducive to achieving fairness and justice and upholding the authority of international law.”
Lin also accused the United States of “double standards” in response to a question about the US opposition to the court’s pursuit of Netanyahu, but its support for a warrant against Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
“China consistently opposes certain countries only use international law when it suits them... and engaging in double standards,” Lin said.
US President Joe Biden has condemned the warrants against Israeli leaders, calling them “outrageous.”