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.

 


Elon Musk-led group proposes buying OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO says ‘no thank you’

Elon Musk-led group proposes buying OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO says ‘no thank you’
Updated 52 min 51 sec ago
Follow

Elon Musk-led group proposes buying OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO says ‘no thank you’

Elon Musk-led group proposes buying OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO says ‘no thank you’
  • Musk had invested about $45 million in the startup from its founding until 2018

A group of investors led by Elon Musk is offering about $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI, escalating a legal dispute with the artificial intelligence company that Musk helped found.
Musk and his own AI startup, xAI, and a consortium of investment firms want to take control of the ChatGPT maker and revert it to its original charitable mission as a nonprofit research lab, according to Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly rejected the deal on Musk’s social platform X, saying, “no thank you but we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.”
Musk bought Twitter, now called X, for $44 billion in 2022.
Musk and Altman, who together helped start OpenAI in 2015 and later competed over who should lead it, have been in a long-running feud over the startup’s direction since Musk resigned from its board in 2018.
Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the company last year, first in a California state court and later in federal court, alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good. Musk had invested about $45 million in the startup from its founding until 2018, Toberoff has said.
Musk and OpenAI lawyers faced off in a California federal court last week as a judge weighed Musk’s request for a court order that would block the ChatGPT maker from converting itself to a for-profit company.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers hasn’t yet ruled on Musk’s request but in the courtroom said it was a “stretch” for Musk to claim he will be irreparably harmed if she doesn’t intervene to stop OpenAI from moving forward with its planned for-profit transition.
But the judge also raised concerns about OpenAI and its relationship with business partner Microsoft and said she wouldn’t stop the case from moving to trial as soon as next year so a jury can decide.
“It is plausible that what Mr. Musk is saying is true. We’ll find out. He’ll sit on the stand,” she said.
Along with Musk and xAI, others backing the bid announced Monday include Baron Capital Group, Valor Management, Atreides Management, Vy Fund, Emanuel Capital Management and Eight Partners VC.
Toberoff said in a statement that if Altman and OpenAI’s current board “are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time.”
Musk’s attorney also shared a letter he sent in early January to the attorneys general of California and Delaware.
“As both your offices must ensure any such transactional process relating to OpenAI’s charitable assets provides at least fair market value to protect the public’s beneficial interest, we assume you will provide a process for competitive bidding to actually determine that fair market value,” Toberoff wrote, asking for more information on the terms and timing of that bidding process.


Two flights carrying US deportees heading to Venezuela, alleged gang members aboard

Two flights carrying US deportees heading to Venezuela, alleged gang members aboard
Updated 11 February 2025
Follow

Two flights carrying US deportees heading to Venezuela, alleged gang members aboard

Two flights carrying US deportees heading to Venezuela, alleged gang members aboard
  • Some of the people on the flights are allegedly involved in illegal activities with the Tren de Aragua gang
  • Trump envoy Richard Grenell met with Nicolas Maduro in Caracas on Jan. 31, and left with six Americans who had been held by Venezuelan authorities

Two planes carrying Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States — the first since a January deal between the administration of US Donald Trump and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — are heading to Venezuela, the South American country’s government said on Monday.
The flights, run by Venezuelan airline Conviasa, are part of a plan to repatriate thousands of migrants who fled Venezuela “because of economic sanctions and the campaigns of psychological warfare against our country,” the government statement said.
Some of the people on the flights are allegedly involved in illegal activities with the Tren de Aragua gang, the statement said, and will be vigorously investigated for criminal ties.
Trump envoy Richard Grenell met with Maduro in Caracas on Jan. 31, where the two men discussed migration and sanctions, among other issues. Grenell left the South American country with six Americans who had been held by Venezuelan authorities.
The Trump administration has said it is a priority to deport members of Tren de Aragua from the US and Trump himself said after Grenell’s visit that Maduro agreed to receive all Venezuelan illegal migrants and provide for their transportation back home.
The Venezuelan government says it destroyed Tren de Aragua within its borders in 2023.
Trump’s administration has also moved to remove deportation protection from about 348,000 Venezuelans in the US, who could lose work permits and then be deported in April.
More than 7 million Venezuelan migrants have left their country in recent years amid a sustained economic and social collapse blamed by the government on sanctions by the United States and others.
Maduro and several allies have been indicted by the United States on drug trafficking charges and international observers and the country’s opposition say a July election which gave Maduro his third term was fraudulent.


USAID is stripped of its lease and staffers turned away from DC headquarters

USAID is stripped of its lease and staffers turned away from DC headquarters
Updated 11 February 2025
Follow

USAID is stripped of its lease and staffers turned away from DC headquarters

USAID is stripped of its lease and staffers turned away from DC headquarters
  • USAID’s eviction from its headquarters marks the latest in the swift dismantling of the aid agency and its programs by President Donald Trump and his billionaire ally, Elon Musk

WASHINGTON: Officials and federal officers turned away scores of US Agency for International Development staffers who showed up for work Monday at its Washington headquarters, after a court temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that would have pulled all but a fraction of workers off the job worldwide.
The Trump administration confirmed to The Associated Press that it had taken USAID off the lease of the building, which it had occupied for decades.
USAID’s eviction from its headquarters marks the latest in the swift dismantling of the aid agency and its programs by President Donald Trump and his billionaire ally, Elon Musk. Both have targeted agency spending that they call wasteful and accuse its work around the world of being out of line with Trump’s agenda.
A steady stream of agency staffers — dressed in business clothes or USAID sweatshirts or T-shirts — were told by a front desk officer Monday that he had a list of no more than 10 names of people allowed to enter the building. Tarps covered USAID’s interior signs.
A man who earlier identified himself as a USAID official took a harsher tone, telling staffers “just go” and “why are you here?”
USAID staff were denied entry to their offices to retrieve belongings and were told the lease had been turned over to the General Services Administration, which manages federal government buildings.
A GSA spokesperson confirmed that USAID had been removed from the lease and the building would be repurposed for other government uses.
Even as Trump and Musk, who runs what is billed as a cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, have taken aim at other government agencies, USAID has been hit hardest so far.
The president signed an executive order freezing foreign assistance, forcing US-funded aid and development programs worldwide to shut down and lay off staff. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had sought to mitigate the damage by issuing a waiver to exempt emergency food aid and “life-saving” programs.
Despite the waiver, neither funding nor staffing has resumed to get even the most essential programs rolling again, USAID officials and aid groups say.
The Norwegian Refugee Council, one of the largest humanitarian groups, called the US cutoff the most devastating in its 79-year history and said Monday that it will have to suspend programs serving hundreds of thousands of people in 20 countries.
“The impact of this will be felt severely by the most vulnerable, from deeply neglected Burkina Faso, where we are the only organization supplying clean water to the 300,000 trapped in the blockaded city of Djibo, to war-torn Sudan, where we support nearly 500 bakeries in Darfur providing daily subsidized bread to hundreds of thousands of hunger-stricken people,” the group said in a statement.
In an interview aired Sunday with Fox News host Bret Baier ahead of the Super Bowl, Trump suggested that he might allow a handful of aid and development programs to resume under Rubio’s oversight.
“Let him take care of the few good ones,” Trump said. Aid organizations say the damage that has been done to programs would make it impossible to restart many operations without additional substantial investment.
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that would have put thousands of USAID staffers on administrative leave that day and given those abroad 30 days to get back to the United States at government expense.
The temporary restraining order came in a lawsuit by two groups representing federal workers, and another hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
While the judge ordered the administration to restore agency email access for staffers, the order said nothing about reopening USAID headquarters. Some staffers and contractors reported having their agency email restored by Monday, while others said they did not.
Some staffers said they came to the USAID offices because they were confused by conflicting agency emails and notices over the weekend about whether they should go in. Others expected they would be turned away but went anyway.
A USAID email sent Sunday night, saying it was “From the office of the administrator,” told employees that what it called “the former USAID headquarters” and other USAID offices in the Washington area were closed until further notice. It told workers to telework unless they are instructed otherwise.


UN experts condemn US sanctions on International Criminal Court and call for reversal

UN experts condemn US sanctions on International Criminal Court and call for reversal
Updated 10 February 2025
Follow

UN experts condemn US sanctions on International Criminal Court and call for reversal

UN experts condemn US sanctions on International Criminal Court and call for reversal
  • The sanctions, authorized in an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump, sparked a wave of global concern for the future of international justice
  • ‘The order is an attack on global rule of law and strikes at the very heart of the international criminal justice system,’ the experts warn

NEW YORK CITY: Independent experts at the UN on Monday strongly condemned recent US sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court, its personnel and any individuals or entities who cooperate with it.
The sanctions, authorized in an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump on Feb. 6, sparked a wave of global concern for the future of international justice.
The ICC, the world’s top war-crimes court, issued arrest warrants in November last year for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas’ military chief, accusing them of crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.
The court said there was reason to believe Netanyahu and Gallant intentionally targeted civilians during Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, and used “starvation as a method of warfare” by restricting deliveries of humanitarian aid to the territory. At the time of the ICC action, the death toll from Israel’s assault on Gaza had surpassed 44,000.
Criticizing the US sanctions against the court, the UN experts said: “The order is an attack on global rule of law and strikes at the very heart of the international criminal justice system.
“The financial restrictions will undermine the ICC and its investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity across the world, including those committed against women and children.”
Trump’s executive order declares that “any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute protected persons” is a “threat to the national security and foreign policy” of the US. It declares a national emergency in response, demanding that America and its allies oppose any actions by the ICC against the US, Israel or any other nation that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
The UN experts denounced these actions, describing them as a dangerous backward step in the fight for international justice.
The experts included Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories; Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on the promotion of human rights while countering terrorism, and George Katrougalos, an independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. Their statement was endorsed by several other experts.
“The jurisdiction of the ICC has been clearly defined by the Court itself and recognized through international law,” the experts stated. “By sanctioning the ICC, the United States is undermining the ‘never again’ legacy established after Nuremberg, which has been a cornerstone of evolving international criminal law since 1945.”
The ICC was established in 2002 as the court of last resort to prosecute individuals responsible for the most heinous atrocities worldwide, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression.
The 125 member states of the court include Palestine, Ukraine, Canada, the UK and every country in the EU, but dozens of countries do not accept its jurisdiction, including Israel, the US, Russia and China.
The experts said the US executive order empowers war criminals and will deny justice to thousands of victims around the world, particularly women and children. It also mocks the global quest to “place law above force” and prevent atrocities, they added.
A core principle of the ICC is its commitment to holding the perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression accountable, regardless of nationality. The experts stressed the importance of maintaining a judicial system in which justice applies equally to all.
“Upholding international law is a shared responsibility that strengthens, rather than undermines, global security, including that of the United States,” they said.
They welcomed the expressions of solidarity from UN member states who have reaffirmed their support for the crucial role the court plays in ensuring the principals of accountability and justice around the globe.
Imposing sanctions on ICC personnel is seen as a violation of the basic principles of judicial independence, said the experts, who pointed out that such action stands as a direct contradiction to human rights protections, specifically the fundamental right of individuals to carry out their professional duties without fear of retribution.
Any attempt to impede or intimidate an official of the ICC is punishable under Article 70 of the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the court. The US sanctions could be viewed as a violation of this provision, which seeks to protect officials from potential retaliation as a result of their work to administer justice.
The UN experts said they have shared their concerns with US authorities and called for a reevaluation of the sanctions.
Special rapporteurs are part of what is known as the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council. They are independent experts who work on a voluntary basis, are not members of UN staff and are not paid for their work.


Tunisian accused says cannot remember 2020 France church killings

Tunisian accused says cannot remember 2020 France church killings
Updated 10 February 2025
Follow

Tunisian accused says cannot remember 2020 France church killings

Tunisian accused says cannot remember 2020 France church killings

PARIS: A Tunisian man went on trial Monday accused of stabbing to death three people in a church in the southern French city of Nice in 2020, but his insistence that he had no recollection of the events provoked anger among relatives of the victims.

Brahim Aouissaoui, 25, is being tried at a special court in Paris and faces life in jail if convicted. The murderous rampage on Oct. 29, 2020 was one of a number of deadly incidents in France blamed on extremists since 2015.

He has insisted he has no memory of the attack and told the court: “I don’t remember the facts. I have nothing to say because I don’t remember anything.”

A cry of rage and despair sounded from court benches reserved for the relatives of victims and their lawyers.

Presiding judge Christophe Petiteau told gendarmes to expel one man who shouted abuse at Aouissaoui.

Aouissaoui has also said he does not know the name of his lawyer.

“When I talk to him, I have the impression — but again I’m not a doctor or an expert — I have the impression that he doesn’t understand the issues of this trial, that he doesn’t understand the stakes of this case,” his lawyer Martin Mechin told reporters outside the court.

According to prosecutors, armed with a kitchen knife, Aouissaoui almost decapitated Nadine Vincent, a 60-year-old worshipper, stabbed 44-year-old Franco Brazilian mother Simone Barreto Silva 24 times and slit the throat of the sacristan Vincent Loques, 55, a father of two daughters.

Seriously injured by police after the attack, Aouissaoui has always insisted that he does not remember anything.