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.


India reviewing crypto position due to global changes, senior official says

India reviewing crypto position due to global changes, senior official says
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

India reviewing crypto position due to global changes, senior official says

India reviewing crypto position due to global changes, senior official says
  • The review follows crypto-friendly policy announcements by US President Donald Trump
  • It may further delay publication of a discussion paper that was due for release in Sept. 2024

India is reviewing its stance on cryptocurrencies due to shifting attitudes toward the virtual asset in other countries, a senior government official told Reuters on Sunday.
The review, which follows crypto-friendly policy announcements by US President Donald Trump, could further delay publication of a discussion paper on cryptocurrencies that was due for release in September 2024.
“More than one or two jurisdictions have changed their stance toward cryptocurrency in terms of the usage, their acceptance, where do they see the importance of crypto assets. In that stride, we are having a look at the discussion paper once again,” India’s Economic Affairs Secretary Ajay Seth said in an interview.
Seth said that because such assets “don’t believe in borders,” India’s stance cannot be unilateral.
He did not specifically mention the United States, where Trump last week ordered the creation of a cryptocurrency working group tasked with proposing new digital asset regulations and exploring the creation of a national cryptocurrency stockpile, making good on his promise to overhaul US crypto policy.
Indians have poured money into cryptocurrencies in recent years despite the country’s tough regulatory stance and steep trading taxes.
India’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) issued show-cause notices to nine offshore cryptocurrency exchanges in December 2023 for non-compliance with local rules.
Binance, the world’s biggest crypto exchange, was hit with a fine of 188.2 million rupees ($2.25 million) in June 2024, a month after it registered with the FIU in an effort to resume operations in the country.
Last year, India’s market watchdog recommended that several regulators oversee trade in cryptocurrencies, in a sign that at least some authorities in the country are open to allowing the use of private virtual assets.
That position stood in contrast to statements by the nation’s central bank, which has maintained that private digital currencies represent a macroeconomic risk.


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.”