Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes
In this file photo, taken on January 12, 2021, former US President Donald Trump boards Air Force One before departing Harlingen, Texas. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 31 May 2024
Follow

Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

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

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.
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.
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.


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 16 sec ago
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 8 min 33 sec ago
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.


‘Good morning, teacher!’ Senegal introduces English in nursery schools

‘Good morning, teacher!’ Senegal introduces English in nursery schools
Updated 16 min 3 sec ago
Follow

‘Good morning, teacher!’ Senegal introduces English in nursery schools

‘Good morning, teacher!’ Senegal introduces English in nursery schools

DAKAR: “Good morning, teacher!” a chorus of Senegalese five-year-olds responded at a school where English has been introduced alongside the official language of French.

The pupils at the nursery school near central Dakar repeated the English words out loud.

“They’re interested in the lesson, and they start a conversation with ‘how are you?’” teacher Absa Ndiaye said.

Hers is one of more than 600 classes in Senegal that have been testing a new program of teaching English in nursery and primary schools since mid-January in a push for better connectivity with the wider world.

The developing country, which has seen a massive youth boom but also an exodus of young people searching for a better life, has recently become an oil and gas producer.

Senegal is a member of the Francophonie group of French-speaking nations and uses French in public schools and in administration.

Students also learn Arabic and the country’s national languages.

Until recently, English was only taught in public high schools and universities, although it is sometimes taught from nursery school onwards in the private sector.

President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, who was elected in March on a nationalist ticket, is trying to recalibrate Senegal’s relationship with former colonial power France after decades of strong ties, without breaking away altogether.

Senegal will remain “the steadfast and reliable ally” of all its foreign partners, Faye announced, emphasising his desire to widen Senegal’s prospects.

Despite seven years of teaching, “students can barely communicate properly in English,” lamented Aissatou Sarr Cisse, who is in charge of the Education Ministry’s English program.

“We’re starting from a younger age so that they can improve their language skills.

“The aim is to shape people who are open to the world. Mastering English will give them access to opportunities and facilitate better collaboration with Senegal’s partners,” she said.

In the pilot schools, English is taught every Tuesday and Thursday — two lessons of 25 minutes each in nursery and two 30-minute lessons in primary schools.

The subjects taught include family, colors, everyday greetings, the environment and the weather.

Teacher Mamadou Kama listens to a conversation in English between two 13-year-olds in his class of around 60 at a primary school in Dakar’s working-class Medina neighborhood.

“I can see that the students are motivated. Some of them are asking for English lessons to be (taught) every day,” Kama, who has a degree in English, said.

Most of the teachers have not yet received the digital teaching materials the ministry is meant to provide, but Kama has tablets, video projectors and USB sticks given by the school’s management.

“We haven’t had the time to create handbooks. Computers have been ordered, and in the meantime, we have provided students with printed documents with fun pictures,” Cisse, from the education ministry, said.

The ministry has “invested in teachers who are proficient in English” and have been selected and trained after an application process, Cisse added.

The initiative has been praised by Ousmane Sene, director of the Dakar-based West African Research Center, which handles academic exchanges between US and west African universities.

“English is the most common language at an international level and it’s the most used language in diplomacy and international cooperation, so it’s an additional asset,” Sene said.

Additionally, the bulk of “global scientific output is written in English. If Senegal doesn’t adapt to this way of accessing knowledge, there will be an epistemological wall,” said his university colleague Mathiam Thiam, who was involved in creating the program.

But Sene said there was a “prerequisite — to train and equip the teachers well.”

Opponents of the scheme have criticized a shortfall in teachers.

“On these grounds alone, introducing English at nursery and primary school levels is a pipe dream, it’s impossible,” former member of parliament and retired teacher Samba Dioulde Thiam wrote in an opinion column.

“Is the aim to compete with French? Is the aim to flatter the Anglo-Saxons who dominate this planet and get them to give us resources?” Thiam wrote.

He pointed out that intellectuals have been demanding the introduction of Senegal’s national languages in education for many years which risks being “postponed indefinitely.”

Despite problems with training, Mathiam Thiam said “doctoral students are among the teachers who have been chosen.”

Former Education Minister Serigne Mbaye Thiam said that before launching the program, “it would have been wise to understand why Senegalese students who study English throughout high school struggle to reach the level required.”

Far from the controversy, though, Aissatou Barry, 13, said she “can’t wait to study English in sixth grade.”


White House confirms war crimes prosecutor first target of ICC sanctions

White House confirms war crimes prosecutor first target of ICC sanctions
Updated 10 February 2025
Follow

White House confirms war crimes prosecutor first target of ICC sanctions

White House confirms war crimes prosecutor first target of ICC sanctions
  • Karim Khan, who is British, was named on Monday in an annex to an executive order signed by Trump last week
  • Sanctions include freezing of US assets of those designated and barring them and their families from visiting the United States

NEW YORK: International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan is the first person to be hit with economic and travel sanctions authorized by US President Donald Trump that target the war crimes tribunal over investigations of US citizens or US allies.
Khan, who is British, was named on Monday in an annex to an executive order signed by Trump last week. Reuters reported on Friday that Khan had been designated by Washington.
The sanctions, which repeat action Trump took during his first term, include freezing of US assets of those designated and barring them and their families from visiting the United States.
The ICC on Friday condemned the sanctions, pledging to stand by its staff and “continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world, in all situations before it.”
Court officials met in The Hague on Friday to discuss the implications of the sanctions.
The International Criminal Court, which opened in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council.
Under an agreement between the United Nations and Washington, Khan should be able to regularly travel to New York to brief the UN Security Council on cases it had referred to the court in The Hague. The Security Council has referred the situations in Libya and Sudan’s Darfur region to the ICC.
“We trust that any restrictions taken against individuals would be implemented consistently with the host country’s obligations under the UN Headquarters agreement,” deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq said on Friday.


France in advanced talks to buy Indian rocket launcher system, Indian official says

France in advanced talks to buy Indian rocket launcher system, Indian official says
Updated 10 February 2025
Follow

France in advanced talks to buy Indian rocket launcher system, Indian official says

France in advanced talks to buy Indian rocket launcher system, Indian official says
  • India is the world’s biggest arms importer, but has been trying to boost local production to meet its defense requirements
  • The Pinaka rocket system with a range of up to 90km was demonstrated to a French delegation in India around three months ago

BENGALURU: France is in advanced talks with India to buy a multi-barrel rocket launcher system, a top Indian official said on Monday, a potential deal that would be the first time India’s second-largest arms supplier buys weapons from New Delhi.
India is the world’s biggest arms importer, but has been trying to boost local production to meet its defense requirements and has been steadily raising its defense exports.
The domestically made Pinaka rocket system with a range of up to 90 km (56 miles) was demonstrated to a French delegation in India around three months ago and was found to be satisfactory, a second official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“France is in active talks for Pinaka,” Ummalaneni Raja Babu, the director general of missiles and strategic systems at India’s Defense Research and Development Organization, said on the sidelines of the Aero India aerospace exhibition in the southern city of Bengaluru.
“A deal has not been reached yet, but the talks are continuing,” said Babu.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on a visit to France on Monday to co-chair an artificial intelligence summit in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron and both leaders are scheduled to hold bilateral talks on Tuesday.
It was not immediately clear if the rocket system will feature in the talks, and India’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
France’s embassy in India did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside of business hours.
France was India’s second-largest arms supplier after Russia between 2019 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The Pinaka rocket launcher system, used by the Indian Army and deployed in the 1999 war between India and Pakistan, is also being enhanced with longer ranges, Babu said.