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.

 


Afghans push back against international calls for cricket team ban

Afghans push back against international calls for cricket team ban
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

Afghans push back against international calls for cricket team ban

Afghans push back against international calls for cricket team ban
  • Cricket is considered the most popular sport in Afghanistan, representing hope for many Afghans
  • British lawmakers urge national cricket body to boycott Feb. 26 match against Afghanistan

KABUL: Afghans are pushing back against calls to ban their national cricket team from participating in international competitions, saying such a move would not reverse the Taliban’s increasing restrictions on women in the country.

Regarded as the most popular sport in Afghanistan, cricket has represented a rare bright spot for many as they struggle amid a devastating economic and humanitarian crisis sparked by sanctions slapped on them by the Taliban administration following their takeover in 2021.

Since last month, foreign campaigns calling for Afghanistan’s men’s team to be barred from international matches have been gaining traction as a protest against the Taliban restricting women’s access to education, the workplace and public spaces, as well as sports.

This includes British lawmakers urging the England and Wales Cricket Board to boycott England’s upcoming match against Afghanistan in the ICC Champions Trophy, which is scheduled to take place on Feb. 26.

“There are problems in the country — we can’t deny that — but cricket is certainly not one of them,” Ahmad Nadim, a 23-year-old cricket fan in Kabul, told Arab News.

“The national players were among the first ones to criticize the restrictions on girls’ education and they have continuously voiced their support for Afghan women’s rights. Cricket has been a great source of happiness for Afghans and still continues to be one.”

Despite record-setting performances — including high-profile victories against England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Australia — over the last few years, Afghanistan’s place on the world cricket stage has become increasingly controversial.

After the Taliban disbanded the country’s women’s team following their takeover, most squad members fled to Australia, where they reunited for a match just last week.

Though the International Cricket Council requires member nations to have both a men’s and a women’s team, as Afghanistan kept its status as a full member it triggered boycotts from countries like Australia and England, which have refused to play them in bilateral matches.

Human Rights Watch have also called on the ICC to suspend Afghanistan’s membership “until women and girls can once again participate in education and sport” in the country.

In their home country, Afghans are openly opposing the boycotts and are calling for sports to be separated from politics.

“Afghanistan’s cricket team is all supportive of women’s rights to education because education is the foundation of a strong society and development in the country,” Hasti Gul Abid, an Afghan cricketer who has played for the national team, told Arab News.

“Afghanistan’s cricket reached the current stage with a lot of difficulties,” he said. “The people of Afghanistan have been supporting their national team since day one. Our people contributed to the advancement of cricket as much as the players did.”

As the men’s team’s popularity and victories have brought joy across the country on many occasions, some argue that the squad should not be seen as representatives of the Taliban government.

“The cricket team belongs to the whole country and all Afghans. It represents us all, not a specific political or ethnic group,” said 21-year-old Khanzada Shaheen, who plays in a local cricket team in Kabul.

Banning Afghanistan’s cricket team will not change the Taliban’s policies against women, said Lal Pacha, a fruit vendor in Kabul.

“We all want Afghan girls to return to schools and universities but why punish our cricket team for that?” he told Arab News.

“Let’s say the cricket team is banned from playing internationally, will this change the Islamic Emirate’s policy? There’s no logic in the demand for banning the cricket team.”


Man arrested in UK over alleged Qur’an burning

Man arrested in UK over alleged Qur’an burning
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

Man arrested in UK over alleged Qur’an burning

Man arrested in UK over alleged Qur’an burning
  • Incident took place in Manchester, from where it was live-streamed on social media
  • Man, who held up Israeli flag during broadcast, remains in custody on suspicion of racially aggravated offense

LONDON: A 47-year-old man has been arrested in the UK on suspicion of a racially aggravated offense after a Qur’an was reportedly set on fire.

The incident occurred in the center of the city of Manchester on Saturday and was live-streamed on social media.

It took place in front of the Glade of Light memorial, which was installed to honor the memory of the victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.

On the live stream, an individual tore out pages of a book appearing to be a Qur’an, before setting fire to each one. He also held up an Israeli flag during the broadcast.

Greater Manchester Police said in a statement that it arrested a man on the same day “on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence.” The man, who has not been named, remains in police custody.

Assistant Chief Constable Stephanie Parker said: “We understand the deep concern this will cause within some of our diverse communities and are aware of a live video circulating.

“We made a swift arrest at the time and recognise the right people have for freedom of expression, but when this crosses into intimidation to cause harm or distress we will always look to take action when it is reported to us.”


Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’

Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’

Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’
  • Trump placed duties of 10 percent on all imports from China, 25 percent on imports from Mexico and Canada
  • Says decision necessary “to protect Americans,” although it could throw global economy into possible turmoil

OTTAWA: Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Saturday Canada would impose 25 percent tariffs on C$155 billion ($106.5 billion) of US goods in response to tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

C$30 billion would take effect from Tuesday and C$125 billion in 21 days, Trudeau told a news conference.

China also said it “firmly opposes” the new tariffs imposed on Beijing and vowed to take “corresponding countermeasures to resolutely safeguard our own rights and interests.”

Trump earlier signed an executive order imposing 25 percent tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico starting on Tuesday except Canadian energy products, which will be subject to a 10 percent duty.

Trudeau warned the tariffs would hurt the United States, a long-time ally. He encouraged Canadians to buy Canadian products and vacation at home rather than in the US.

He said some non-tariff measures, including some relating to critical minerals, energy procurement and other partnerships are being looked at.

Trump also unveiled sweeping measures against China, announcing an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports on top of existing duties.

In a statement on Sunday, China’s commerce ministry slammed Washington’s “erroneous practices,” saying Beijing was “strongly dissatisfied with this and firmly opposes it.”
The ministry said Beijing would file a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization, arguing that “the unilateral imposition of tariffs by the United States seriously violates WTO rules.”

It added that the duties were “not only unhelpful in solving the US’s own problems, but also undermine normal economic and trade cooperation.”

“China hopes that the United States will objectively and rationally view and deal with its own issues like fentanyl, rather than threatening other countries with tariffs at every turn,” the ministry said.

It said Beijing “urges the US to correct its erroneous practices, meet China halfway, face up to its problems, have frank dialogues, strengthen cooperation and manage differences on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect.”


Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’

Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’

Canada announces retaliatory measures against Trump tariffs; China also vows ‘countermeasures’
  • Canada would impose 25 percent tariffs on C$155 billion ($106.5 billion) of US goods, PM Trudeau says
  • China says the duties were “not only unhelpful in solving the US’s own problems, but also undermine normal economic and trade cooperation”

OTTAWA: Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Saturday Canada would impose 25 percent tariffs on C$155 billion ($106.5 billion) of US goods in response to tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

C$30 billion would take effect from Tuesday and C$125 billion in 21 days, Trudeau told a news conference.

China also said it “firmly opposes” the new tariffs imposed on Beijing and vowed to take “corresponding countermeasures to resolutely safeguard our own rights and interests.”

Trump earlier signed an executive order imposing 25 percent tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico starting on Tuesday except Canadian energy products, which will be subject to a 10 percent duty.

Trudeau warned the tariffs would hurt the United States, a long-time ally. He encouraged Canadians to buy Canadian products and vacation at home rather than in the US.

 

 

He said some non-tariff measures, including some relating to critical minerals, energy procurement and other partnerships are being looked at.

Trump also unveiled sweeping measures against China, announcing an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports on top of existing duties.

In a statement on Sunday, China’s commerce ministry slammed Washington’s “erroneous practices,” saying Beijing was “strongly dissatisfied with this and firmly opposes it.”
The ministry said Beijing would file a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization, arguing that “the unilateral imposition of tariffs by the United States seriously violates WTO rules.”

It added that the duties were “not only unhelpful in solving the US’s own problems, but also undermine normal economic and trade cooperation.”

“China hopes that the United States will objectively and rationally view and deal with its own issues like fentanyl, rather than threatening other countries with tariffs at every turn,” the ministry said.

It said Beijing “urges the US to correct its erroneous practices, meet China halfway, face up to its problems, have frank dialogues, strengthen cooperation and manage differences on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect.”
 


Zelensky says excluding Ukraine from US-Russia talks about war is ‘very dangerous’

Zelensky says excluding Ukraine from US-Russia talks about war is ‘very dangerous’
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

Zelensky says excluding Ukraine from US-Russia talks about war is ‘very dangerous’

Zelensky says excluding Ukraine from US-Russia talks about war is ‘very dangerous’
  • Zelensky’s remarks followed comments Friday by Trump, who said American and Russian officials were “already talking” about ending the war
  • Without security guarantees from Ukraine’s allies, Zelensky said, any deal struck with Russia would only serve as a precursor to future aggression

KYIV, Ukraine: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Saturday that excluding his country from talks between the US and Russia about the war in Ukraine would be “very dangerous” and asked for more discussions between Kyiv and Washington to develop a plan for a ceasefire.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Zelensky said Russia does not want to engage in ceasefire talks or to discuss any kind of concessions, which the Kremlin interprets as losing at a time when its troops have the upper hand on the battlefield.
He said US President Donald Trump could bring Russian President Vladimir Putin to the table with the threat of sanctions targeting Russia’s energy and banking system, as well as continued support of the Ukrainian military.
“I think these are the closest and most important steps,” he said in the interview in the Ukrainian capital that lasted for more than an hour.
Zelensky’s remarks followed comments Friday by Trump, who said American and Russian officials were “already talking” about ending the war. Trump said his administration has had “very serious” discussions with Russia, but he did not elaborate.
“They may have their own relations, but talking about Ukraine without us — it is dangerous for everyone,” Zelensky said.
He said his team has been in contact with the Trump administration, but those discussions are at a “general level,” and he believes in-person meetings will take place soon to develop more detailed agreements.
“We need to work more on this,” he said, adding that Trump understandably appeared to be focused on domestic issues in the first weeks after his inauguration.

The nearly three-year war in Ukraine is at a crossroads. Trump promised to end the fighting within six months of taking office, but the two sides are far apart, and it is unclear how a ceasefire deal would take shape. Meanwhile, Russia continues to make slow but steady gains along the front, and Ukrainian forces are enduring severe manpower shortages.
Most Ukrainians want a pause in fighting to rebuild their lives. The country faces near-daily Russian attacks on homes, and strikes on power systems have plunged entire cities into darkness.
Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, unable to return to their homes after vast tracts of the country’s east have been reduced to rubble. Nearly a fifth of Ukraine is now occupied by Russia. In those areas, Moscow-appointed authorities are swiftly erasing any hint of Ukrainian identity.
With Trump back in the White House, Ukraine’s relationship with the US, its largest and most important ally, is also at a tipping point.
In an initial phone call with Trump during the presidential campaign, Zelensky said, the two agreed that if Trump won, they would meet to discuss the steps needed to end the war. But a planned visit by Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, was postponed “for legal reasons” Zelensky said. That was followed by a sudden foreign aid freeze that effectively caused Ukrainian organizations to halt projects.
“I believe that, first and foremost, we (must) hold a meeting with him, and that is important. And that is, by the way, something that everyone in Europe wants,” Zelensky said, referring to “a common vision of a quick end to the war.”
After the conversation with Trump, “we should move on to some kind of format of conversation with Russians. And I would like to see the United States of America, Ukraine and the Russians at the negotiating table. ... And, to be honest, a European Union voice should also be there. I think it would be fair, effective. But how will it turn out? I don’t know.”
Zelensky cautioned against allowing Putin to take “control” over the war, an apparent reference to Russia’s repeated threats of escalation during President Joe Biden’s administration.
Without security guarantees from Ukraine’s allies, Zelensky said, any deal struck with Russia would only serve as a precursor to future aggression. Membership in the NATO alliance, a longstanding wish for Kyiv that Moscow has categorically rejected, is still Zelensky’s top choice.
NATO membership is the “cheapest” option for Ukraine’s allies, and it would also strengthen Trump geopolitically, Zelensky argued.
“I really believe that these are the cheapest security guarantees that Ukraine can get, the cheapest for everyone,” he said.
“It will be a signal that it is not for Russia to decide who should be in NATO and who should not, but for the United States of America to decide. I think this is a great victory for Trump,” he said, evidently appealing to the president’s penchant for winners and business deals.
In addition, Zelensky said, Ukraine’s 800,000-strong army would be a bonus to the alliance, especially if Trump seeks to bring home US troops who are stationed overseas.
Other security guarantee proposals should be backed up by sufficient weapons from the US and Europe, and support for Kyiv to develop its own defense industry, he said.
Zelensky also said a French proposal to put European forces in Ukraine to act as a deterrent against Russian aggression is taking shape, but he expressed skepticism, saying many questions remained about the command-and-control structure and the number of troops and their positions. The issue was raised by French President Emmanuel Macron and with Trump, he said.
“I said in the presence of the two leaders that we are interested in this as a part of the security guarantee, but not as the only guarantee of safety,” he said. “That’s not enough.”
He added: “Imagine, there is a contingent. The question is who is in charge? Who is the main one? What will they do if there are Russian strikes? Missiles, disembarkation, attack from the sea, crossing of the land borderline, offensive. What will they do? What are their mandates?”
Asked if he put those questions directly to Macron, he smiled and said: “We are still in the process of this dialogue.”
Following a statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the war has set Ukraine back by 100 years, Zelensky urged Rubio to visit Ukraine.
Rubio “needs to come to Ukraine, first of all, to see what Russia has done,” the Ukrainian president said. “But also to see what the Ukrainian people did, what they were able to do for the security of Ukraine and the world, as I said, and just talk to these people.”