Connect with us

News

Opinion: Trump’s unlikely Manhattan saga faces unprecedented moment | CNN

Published

on

Opinion: Trump’s unlikely Manhattan saga faces unprecedented moment | CNN

Editor’s Notice: Signal as much as get this weekly column as a e-newsletter. We’re wanting again on the strongest, smartest opinion takes of the week from CNN and different retailers.



CNN
 — 

In 1971, an Ivy League graduate in his mid-20s rented a studio condo on Third Avenue and seventy fifth road in New York Metropolis. The window appeared out on an adjoining constructing’s water tank.

“I … tried to divide it up in order that it will appear greater. However it doesn’t matter what I did, it was nonetheless a darkish, dingy little condo. Even so, I liked it,” wrote former President Donald Trump in his 1987 guide, “The Artwork of the Deal,” co-authored with Tony Schwartz. “You must perceive; I used to be a child from Queens who labored in Brooklyn, and all of a sudden I had an condo on the Higher East Aspect. … I turned a metropolis man as an alternative of a child from the boroughs.”

Trump was not the final individual to fall below the spell of Manhattan, with its quick tempo, its hovering towers and its glamorous celebrities. There, he would construct his profession, endure divorces and enterprise bankruptcies, grow to be a legendary determine via his starring position on “The Apprentice” and mount an unlikely marketing campaign for president.

Advertisement

In the end, he’d grow to be the primary New Yorker since Franklin D. Roosevelt to make it to the White Home. However Trump’s Manhattan saga may very well be coming to an in depth on Tuesday only some miles from the place it started, when he’s scheduled to seem in a downtown courtroom to face felony costs.

As with nearly every little thing concerning the former president, there’s no actual precedent for the most recent chapter of his story — and no method to inform the way it will finish.

“It lastly occurred,” wrote authorized analyst Jennifer Rodgers. “After a number of investigations over half a dozen years, former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a grand jury in New York, in accordance with sources acquainted with the matter. Trump fired again, calling the indictment ‘political persecution’ and warned ‘this Witch-Hunt’ will backfire.”

“Although we not but know the small print of the costs, we do know that Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg had been investigating Trump in connection together with his alleged position in a hush cash cover-up scheme involving grownup movie star Stormy Daniels throughout his 2016 presidential marketing campaign…It’s the first time any former president has been criminally charged. As such, we’re getting into uncharted territory.”

“It ought to be evident that nobody is above the regulation, and that Trump ought to be held accountable for his actions in the best way that some other citizen could be. These costs characterize step one towards accountability, however the journey shall be lengthy and winding.”

Advertisement

Trump can proceed working for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 and if he can delay the prosecution and is elected, Rodgers identified, “count on him to argue that the case towards him have to be dismissed as unconstitutional primarily based on the Justice Division’s 2000 steering {that a} president can’t be indicted ‘or tried’ whereas in workplace.”

Elie Honig argued that the primary hurdle for Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg is to beat any movement by Trump’s lawyer to dismiss the costs. However even when he succeeds there, his prosecutors must persuade 12 jurors to vote unanimously to convict.

“Even when a case was tried in part of the nation the place Trump isn’t highly regarded, statistically you might be very more likely to find yourself with a number of Trump voters on the jury of 12 folks,” mentioned Honig. “A choose would inform jurors to place apart their political opinions and private beliefs — however I do know from my days as a prosecutor that jurors are human beings, not robots — they’re topic to the identical feelings, biases, and incentives as any individual could be. And the authorized bar at trial is much greater than within the grand jury…”

Within the political area, “there’s a distinct chance that Trump not solely survives but in addition thrives,” wrote Julian Zelizer. “Trump has an uncanny intuition for utilizing moments of peril to his benefit and his political profession is constructed on punching again towards the folks and establishments he claims are unfairly attacking him. He has already fallen again on the well-worn technique of presenting himself because the sufferer of a corrupt institution and rallying his supporters behind him.”

Advertisement

“It have to be mentioned that of all of the authorized troubles Trump faces, the indictment in New York seems to pale compared to others, such because the potential racketeering and conspiracy costs Atlanta-area prosecutors are contemplating in connection to the try and overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.”

Within the Washington Publish, Henry Olsen wrote, “Anybody who cares about equity in our felony justice system ought to be queasy that Donald Trump shall be prosecuted in one of many nation’s most liberal jurisdictions. By all accounts, this ought to be a federal case.”

“New York state’s total judicial course of is managed by Democrats who might lose their positions in celebration primaries. Alvin Bragg, the district legal professional overseeing the case, boasted throughout his marketing campaign that he had sued Trump or his administration greater than 100 occasions throughout his tenure within the state legal professional common’s workplace, one thing he in all probability did to curry favor with main voters who detest Trump. Each New York state choose who would both strive the case or hear an attraction is elected on a partisan foundation, too. It could take plenty of braveness for a choose to use the regulation pretty and doubtlessly ignore their voters’ want for vengeance.”

05 opinion column 0401

Sorrow, anger and frustration had been among the many feelings folks felt after yet one more college capturing final week — this time in Nashville, Tennessee, the place three kids and three adults had been killed at The Covenant Faculty on Monday.

Jillian Peterson and James Densley have been learning the life histories of practically 200 mass shooters since 1996. Their findings are instructive — “85% confirmed related warning indicators of a disaster and 92% had been suicidal. Additional, 93% of faculty mass shooters communicated violent intent forward of time and 86% confirmed a excessive diploma of planning earlier than the capturing. Lastly, 73% of all college mass shooters had a historical past of childhood trauma…”

Advertisement

All of this raises the query of the best way to forestall shootings. And so they argued that on this entrance, there’s a optimistic growth — a transfer to carry dad and mom accountable in sure instances:

“The dad and mom of a teen who shot and killed 4 college students at Oxford Excessive Faculty in Michigan in November 2021 are set to face trial for involuntary manslaughter after an appellate court docket final week rejected their rivalry that the costs haven’t any authorized justification,” Peterson and Densely noticed.

“James and Jennifer Crumbley, who’ve pleaded not responsible, allegedly uncared for cries for assist from their son for months and dismissed critical considerations from the college the day earlier than and the morning of the capturing. But at the same time as they apparently ignored warning indicators, the Crumbleys purchased their son a gun and took him to focus on observe. Fifteen on the time of the mass capturing, their son pleaded responsible in October to terrorism and homicide costs.”

06 opinion column 0401

President Joe Biden touted efforts to oppose autocratic governments ultimately week’s White Home democracy summit, co-hosted by Costa Rica, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia.

However there was one nation lacking from the gathering — Afghanistan, wrote Peter Bergen.

Advertisement

“This makes the premise of the democracy summit ring considerably hole as a result of whereas the Biden administration does a wonderful job of trumpeting its commitments to democracy and ladies’s rights, solely a yr and a half in the past, it cavalierly deserted 40 million Afghans to the Taliban’s misogynistic theocracy.”

Home Republicans are investigating the tumultuous US withdrawal from Afghanistan and there’s a congressionally mandated bipartisan fee analyzing the complete 20-year conflict in Afghanistan. “After all, any examination of the US report in Afghanistan is one thing of a double-edged sword for Republicans,” Bergen famous, “because it was the Trump administration that signed the settlement with the Taliban in 2020 that set the stage for the entire US withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

The drama taking part in out in Israel this week supplied an indicator of how protest could make a distinction in a democracy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s again in workplace on the power of an excessive right-wing coalition, has been urgent for an overhaul of the nation’s judiciary to put it firmly below the management of the Knesset. “For Netanyahu, the plan was handy,” wrote Frida Ghitis. “It created the opportunity of escaping his personal authorized woes, since one of many controversial payments lately handed would make it harder for a main minister to be declared unfit for workplace…

“It might sound an arcane concern to set off an enormous fashionable rebellion, however Israelis promptly concluded their democracy was at stake, and what adopted was some of the far-reaching, disciplined and decided waves of protests inside a democratic nation in latest reminiscence.”

“On Monday, below practically insufferable stress, Netanyahu agreed to postpone the overhaul -— which was being rammed via the Knesset — till the subsequent legislative time period. The disaster, nonetheless, shouldn’t be over.”

Advertisement

For extra:

Anshel Pfeffer: What on earth was Netanyahu pondering?

“Breakups suck.” So goes the introductory video for a marketing campaign that New Zealand is conducting to assist folks deal with relationships which have ended. “Our conduct doesn’t must” comply with swimsuit, wrote Holly Thomas.

“The nation’s Love Higher marketing campaign … goals to assist younger folks get well from breakups and construct resilience. The marketing campaign features a devoted cellphone, textual content or e-mail helpline run by Youthline, a company devoted to supporting folks ages 12 to 24.”

“It’s a part of a broader technique to assist eradicate household and sexual violence, and it follows a survey of 1,200 16-24-year-olds, 68% of whom reported experiences encompassing self-harm, substance abuse, dangerous sexual behaviors and violence and coercion following rejection. Given the breadth of the potential harm, it’s wild that campaigns like these aren’t ubiquitous in different nations as properly … On the very least, it will enhance our collective psychological well being. At most, it would save lives.”

Advertisement

Is Utah main the best way in fixing what’s mistaken with social media? Kara Alaimo thinks so. Below two new state legal guidelines, “social media corporations must confirm the ages of all customers within the state, and youngsters below age 18 must get permission from their dad and mom to have accounts.”

“Dad and mom may even be capable to entry their children’ accounts, apps received’t be allowed to point out kids adverts, and accounts for youths received’t be capable to be used between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. with out parental permission.”

“It’s about time,” wrote Alaimo. “Social networks in america have grow to be doubtlessly extremely harmful for youngsters, and oldsters can now not defend our youngsters with out the instruments and safeguards this regulation supplies. … Congress ought to comply with Utah’s lead and enact an analogous regulation to guard each little one on this nation.”

04 opinion column 0401

For extra:

Mary Ziegler and Naomi Cahn: From Michelangelo’s David to the 2024 presidential race, ‘dad and mom’ rights’ are all over the place

Advertisement

Final weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin expanded on his plans to station nuclear weapons in Belarus, which borders each Russia and Ukraine. There was little or no new within the announcement, wrote Keir Giles, however it nonetheless set off alarms that the analyst thinks are exaggerated.

“The flurry of alarmist reporting on what this meant highlights a lot of what’s mistaken with Western responses to Russian nuclear intimidation.”

“How Putin’s phrases have been spun within the West could also be a shock to Moscow — however there’s little question it is going to be a extremely gratifying one. As a result of Russia has already ‘used’ nuclear weapons. It’s used them extremely efficiently with out firing them, by buying and selling on empty threats about potential nuclear strikes to very successfully deter the West from absolutely supporting Ukraine towards Russia’s imperialist conflict.”

“By now although, we should always have realized to not confuse what Putin has mentioned with what Russia has performed or is about to do.”

03 opinion column 0401

David Axelrod: The sports activities whiz who may simply save Main League Baseball

Advertisement

Marja Heinonen: Finland’s the happiest nation as soon as once more. Right here’s how we do it

Christina Wyman: How Michelle Obama is deploying her superpower of vulnerability

Sophia Brown: I selected New Faculty as a result of I didn’t have to depart my id on the campus door

02 opinion column 0401

Allison Hope: This Transgender Day of Visibility is extra necessary than ever

Lola Akinmade Åkerström: Why is Sweden afraid of publishing this guide on race?

Advertisement

AND…

01 the real captain american opinion

A yr earlier than the US entered World Struggle II, a gutsy artist and his writing colleague launched a brand new superhero, with the debut cowl of the brand new comedian exhibiting him punching the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

Captain America was born, greater than 82 years in the past. In a bit for CNN Opinion, Roy Schwartz explored his again story, and that of the artist, who adopted the identify of Jack Kirby. Each author and artist had been the youngsters of Jewish immigrants.

Schwartz wrote that Kirby’s son mentioned “he was fearful and livid on the rise of Nazism in Europe and the US, particularly after (British prime minister Neville) Chamberlain’s appeasement and Kristallnacht. He and Simon created their hero in direct response, and Kirby plainly said, ‘Captain America was myself.’ When he drew him punching Hitler, it was his ‘personal anger coming to the floor.’”

That was removed from Kirby’s solely contribution to the historical past of comics.

Advertisement

As Schwartz famous, “After the conflict, superheroes fell out of favor and Kirby wrote and drew different genres of comics. When Stan Lee, by then the editor and head author at what would quickly be named Marvel, requested him to strive superheroes once more in 1961, the 2 created collectively the Unbelievable 4, the Hulk, Thor, Ant-Man, Iron Man, the Avengers, the X-Males, Black Panther and numerous others. This, mixed together with his inventive innovation, earned Kirby the moniker ‘King of Comics.’ It additionally made him some of the influential artists of the twentieth century.”

News

The relentless advance of American asset managers in Europe

Published

on

The relentless advance of American asset managers in Europe

Britain’s national airline might have been expected to choose a UK-based fund manager to look after £21.5bn of pension assets. But in 2021, British Airways turned to New-York based BlackRock to run the money.

It was not the only one. BAE Systems, a defence contractor, followed suit by giving Goldman Sachs its £23bn mandate. This year, Shell asked BlackRock to manage €26bn of its pension assets.

The recent US domination of so-called outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) services is a particularly visible sign of a much broader shift in global money management. Very large US groups are building ever larger beachheads in the UK and Europe — gathering assets, squeezing fees and shaking up the market.

The Americans are profiting as European investors shift money into low-cost tracking funds and exchange traded funds and unlisted alternatives, including private equity, private credit and infrastructure.

Buoyed by rising fee income from vibrant US securities markets, the very largest US asset managers and the asset management arms of Wall Street banks such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs outcompete their European and British rivals in part because they can spread technology and compliance costs across a larger asset base.

Advertisement

“Competition for the largest mandates in the UK, Europe and the Middle East is increasingly between American firms,” says Fadi Abuali, co-chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management International (GSAM). “We have scale, capacity to grow and we’re resilient.”

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

As the world’s largest pension funds and endowments have started consolidating their business with fewer managers, the US groups’ size and diverse product offerings have given them an edge.

“Running an asset manager is becoming more and more expensive, so you need a big-scale platform that is managed very efficiently,” says Rachel Lord, head of BlackRock’s international business. “If you have a platform that can offer a lot of different things across active, index, technology and private markets, you can win.”

Over the past decade, assets under management by US groups in the UK and Europe more than doubled from $2.1tn in 2014 to $4.5tn as of the end of September, according to ISS Market Intelligence. In addition to substantially outpacing European rivals, the Americans are making further inroads in areas where they are globally dominant. These include UK tracker funds, where they now manage 59 per cent of all assets, and in the fast-growing active ETF sector where they control three-quarters of the market. 

Advertisement

Many UK asset managers are also on the wrong side of long-term structural trends, says Jon Godsall, co-lead of McKinsey’s global wealth and asset management practice. Actively-managed funds investing in domestic equities — historically their bread and butter — are in decline, and mid-sized money management firms around the world are struggling.

Godsall adds that what appears to be “a reticence to adapt in the face of overwhelming evidence of the need to adapt” has been a far bigger factor in their decline than fears about the City of London’s standing in international capital markets, or the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

“When I talk to American managers, they have no problem with the City of London or Brexit — it’s going very well for them in the UK.”

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

The pending return of Donald Trump to the White House, along with Republican control of Congress and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, is propelling US momentum further.

Shares in US banks, alternative investment groups and some listed asset managers like BlackRock have soared on the prospect of deregulation, tax cuts and a boom in dealmaking. The industry harbours hopes that the Trump administration will make it easier to sell alternative investments including private equity, credit and cryptocurrencies to individual investors — all of which will increase the size, power and confidence of US asset managers.

Advertisement

“I’ll whisper it because it’s embarrassing, but Trump’s return is actually really good for business,” says a top asset management executive at a US firm. “We’re energised, we’re winning business, we feel good. Clients feel that.” 

By contrast, the UK’s listed asset managers look beleaguered. Schroders and Abrdn have both appointed new bosses to try to boost flagging share prices and cut costs. In continental Europe, asset managers are increasingly trying to pull off big mergers to gain scale in the face of the Americans.

“[Clients] don’t want to talk to losers”, says the US executive “and they certainly don’t want to give their money to someone who may not be here in 10 years.”


The march of US asset managers into the UK and Europe echoes a similar phenomenon that played out decades earlier in stock trading and investment banking.

Margaret Thatcher’s “Big Bang” deregulation of the UK’s financial markets in 1986 stripped away the demarcation between banking, advising corporate clients and share trading. Over the following two decades, venerable City institutions such as Smith New Court, Barclays de Zoete Wedd and Cazenove were swallowed up by bigger US rivals and their European imitators such as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and UBS.

Advertisement

That paved the way for the American full-service investment banking model — where everything from sales and trading to research and mergers and acquisitions advice are brought under one roof — to conquer Europe. US institutions now dominate investment banking and have been stealing market share from European rivals for over a decade.

Money management is much less concentrated than investment banking, and some mid-sized US groups are facing similar structural headwinds to their peers across the Atlantic. But the best positioned US asset managers are now powering past European rivals, fuelled by robust growth at home and a strong dollar, which has supported international expansion.

Total assets under management in North America grew 16 per cent year on year in 2023, versus 8 per cent in Europe and 2 per cent in the UK, according to consultants BCG. 

“This scale advantage allows US firms to invest more substantially in absolute terms in technology and operations, enhancing their competitiveness and allowing them to outcompete local European players,” says Dean Frankle, managing director and partner at BCG in London.

“Slower growth and market fragmentation have presented challenges for European players, who face increased pressure to consolidate and compete.”

Advertisement

A signature deal of the post-Big Bang era was Schroders’ sale of its investment banking division to Citigroup for £1.35bn in 2000. One of the last great dynastic British finance houses, Schroders was also one of a few homegrown investment banks that could compete for big-ticket M&A deals. But its board opted to double down on asset management, which uses less capital and generates reliable fee income.

That decision coincided with the high-water mark of its clients’ allocations to equities. In 1999, UK pension funds invested three-quarters of their assets in equities, with around half going into UK shares and a quarter into non-UK, according to data compiled by New Financial. 

A series of changes to tax and accounting rules led pension schemes to shift assets out of equities and into government bonds. By 2021, the average UK pension fund had cut its equity allocation to 27 per cent — with just 6 per cent in UK shares, sucking capital out of the domestic markets and depriving asset managers of their core client base.

That long-term trend was followed by the UK’s departure from the EU. “Brexit made the UK asset managers not European,” says a second top US executive. “Therefore they didn’t have a backyard of significance and had no real competitive advantage against the American firms.”

These UK-specific challenges were compounded by global trends, such as the shift from active to passive investing and the associated downward pressure on fees. As the number of quoted companies steadily fell, clients wanted more access to private markets, while large institutional investors tended to want closer relationships with fewer asset managers. 

Advertisement

“Most UK players were left with neither global scale, captive distribution nor fast-growing product mixes,” says Huw van Steenis, partner and vice-chair at management consultancy Oliver Wyman, adding that merging with each other is unlikely to rescue them.

The second US executive describes the independent UK asset management industry as “largely irrelevant” and “something circling the drain”.

“London will remain the asset management centre for Europe, but the winners will increasingly be global firms, mostly the Americans.” 


Ironically, the current US success was part-made in Britain. In June 2009, Barclays sold its California-based index fund business to BlackRock. The UK bank netted $13.5bn from the disposal — but BlackRock got the ETF and tracker fund platform that would power its global success.

At around the same time, Vanguard arrived in the UK and began shaking up the retail investment market with the lowest-cost tracking funds that Europe had ever seen.

Advertisement

The march of US managers was also aided by regulatory changes, such as the 2013 UK ban on commissions to advisers for the sales of financial products.

“It set the stage for us to have a low-cost offer in the market,” says Jon Cleborne, Vanguard’s head of Europe, of what was termed the retail distribution review. “Advisers really transitioned from having a commission-based product model to a fee-based planning model,” benefiting low-cost providers such as Vanguard. 

The biggest US managers also benefited from simply being large. “Scale is increasingly important [for] supporting the technology spend, the brand spend, and supporting the regulatory, legal and compliance framework that you need,” says David Hunt, chief executive of New Jersey-based PGIM, which manages $1.3tn. “If you don’t have a lot of assets it gets hard to stay in the competitive war.”

“You need to be able to invest through the cycle, through periods when profits are down and markets are tough,” says Patrick Thomson, chief executive of JPMorgan Asset Management in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. “To be able to do that you need to have a very diversified business.”

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Advertisement

The largest players can also provide more services, from high-fee private markets products to risk management and technology services. BlackRock’s institutional money management software Aladdin, for instance, raked in just shy of $1.5bn in revenues last year.

“The things that make BlackRock and [Goldman Sachs] formidable competitors are the things they offer that are not just asset management,” says Stefan Hoops, chief executive of Germany’s DWS, referring to Aladdin and OCIO.

The big US players also have local sales forces who work with European and UK financial advisers to explain the plethora of new investment products. 

“Go back 10 or 20 years ago, the complexity of the product and the amount of choice was significantly less,” says Caroline Randall, a UK-based member of the management committee at Los Angeles-based Capital Group. “You have to deliver value beyond investment, and we can offer to help our clients with that.”

Brexit also allowed some US groups, most notably BlackRock, to steal a march because they had already started building up domestic sales forces in major continental markets as well as the UK, while their rivals relied on EU passporting rules. 


The momentum of the big US groups is one of the factors forcing European banks, insurers and independent rivals to evaluate their commitment to asset management.

Advertisement

Like Schroders did in 2000, they are weighing up whether to double down, partner with others in pursuit of scale, focus on a specialism where barriers to entry are higher, or exit the sector.

“You need scale, you can’t get to $1tn [of assets under management] and feel that things are good now,” says a banker who works on deals in the sector.

“The squeeze is no longer just felt by the mid-sized European players,” says Vincent Bounie, senior managing director at Fenchurch Advisory Partners. “Firms need capital . . . to support product development, gain efficiencies and reposition strategically towards areas of growth.” 

Thomas Buberl, chief executive of French insurance group Axa, told the Financial Times after agreeing a deal to combine its asset management business with that of BNP Paribas, that “it is the only way to compete in a heavily consolidated fund management sector that is increasingly dominated by big global firms.”

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Advertisement

Several other insurers are in talks to combine their asset management units with those of others, though such deals are difficult to execute. The FT revealed recently that Germany’s Allianz and French asset manager Amundi had paused long-running talks over a potential transaction because of disagreements over how best to structure it.

In the UK, Legal & General’s new chief executive António Simões has combined its substantial index tracking funds business with its private markets offering to create a single asset management division with £1.2tn in assets. “The barbell is where the asset management industry has gone: passive and private markets,” says Simões, adding that he is “considering bolt-on acquisitions, particularly in private markets and the US”.

The strength of the US groups makes them players in European consolidation as well. Goldman Sachs significantly expanded its European presence with its €1.6bn purchase in 2021 of Dutch insurer NN Group’s investment management arm — and beating Germany’s DWS in the process. 

Even as the European firms bulk up, their US rivals continue to steam ahead. Seven of the 10 fastest-growing fund groups in Europe this year are American, according to Morningstar. In the third quarter alone, BlackRock recorded $221bn of global net inflows — more than the entire European investment funds industry put together.

The US executive warns that scale alone is not a panacea. “The problem with most mergers in our industry is a failure to see that the compelling rationale must be centred around the client,” he says, adding that merging on the grounds that “we need to be big and pan-European to compete with the Americans” is not enough.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

New York judge says Trump is not immune from hush money conviction

Published

on

New York judge says Trump is not immune from hush money conviction

Former U.S. President Donald Trump departs the courtroom after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City.

Pool/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Pool/Getty Images North America

A New York judge ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot claim presidential immunity to overturn his felony conviction.

The decision from Judge Juan Merchan marks a temporary setback for the president-elect, who is set to return to the White House in January, and has recently secured a few wins including the indefinite delay of his sentencing in the case.

A New York jury earlier this year found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifyi business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 presidential contest.

Advertisement

Merchan, who presided over the trial earlier this year, still has to decide whether the trial should be dismissed due to Trump’s upcoming inauguration, as Trump’s lawyers have requested.

A Trump spokesperson criticized Merchan’s ruling, saying it violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.

Following his conviction in May, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that presidents have immunity for official acts they take in office.

“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed, as President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt,” said spokesman Steven Cheung in a statement.

Trump’s legal team had argued that various testimony in the hush-money case – such as that of former White House employees – and evidence – like statements made while Trump was president – violate the Supreme Court ruling that excludes official acts from prosecution.

Advertisement

But Merchan said the criminal charges stemmed from Trump’s “private acts” prior to him becoming president. And he argued Trump’s communications about the payments while he was in the White House did not touch on any official acts.

The decision that Trump does not have immunity in this New York state case comes after the U.S. Department of Justice signaled it would take steps to wind down two federal prosecutions against Donald Trump, focused on his alleged efforts to cling to power after the 2020 election and accusations he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The DOJ has a longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Trump became the first former or sitting U.S. president to be tried on criminal charges and convicted. Trump’s legal team received several wins this summer and fall when Merchan postponed Trump’s sentencing twice — the second time purposefully until after Election Day to avoid appearing politically motivated. Trump may be the first president to enter the White House as a convicted felon should his efforts to dismiss the case fail.

But prosecutors in the case argued that since Trump’s lawyers are seeking dismissal only due to the election results, invalidating the jury’s verdict could harm public confidence in the justice system. Still, they proposed staying proceedings until after Trump finishes his presidential term.

Merchan has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss.

Advertisement

Trump’s lawyers are likely to appeal Merchan’s Monday ruling, and have also sought to dismiss the case on other grounds.

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump says Turkey was behind Islamist groups that toppled Assad in Syria

Published

on

Donald Trump says Turkey was behind Islamist groups that toppled Assad in Syria

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Donald Trump said on Monday that he believed Turkey was behind the rebel group that toppled Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, claiming Ankara had mounted an “unfriendly takeover” of its neighbour.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was “a smart guy and he’s very tough”, the US president-elect said at a news conference in Florida, and had made Ankara the most important foreign actor in Syria since Assad’s fall.

“They wanted it for thousands of years, and he got it. Those people who went in are controlled by Turkey,” Trump said. “Turkey did an unfriendly takeover without a lot of lives being lost.”

Advertisement

The president-elect’s comments came as the US carried out air strikes against Isis fighters in Syria, and just days after secretary of state Antony Blinken said Washington was in contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Islamist group that led a lightning blitz on Damascus earlier this month, forcing Assad to flee the country.

Foreign policy analysts said Trump — who will replace Joe Biden as US president next month — was sending a message to Erdoğan, with whom he has enjoyed a turbulent relationship.

“Trump has issued a warning of sorts to the new rulers of Syria and their patrons, which is ‘rule carefully, because we are watching’,” said Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank.

Turkey’s relations with HTS have been complex. It has not directly backed the group but has supported others that co-ordinated with HTS in its lightning offensive.

“I think Turkey is going to hold the key to Syria,” Trump said.

Advertisement

Trump’s comments about Erdoğan reflected the US president-elect’s tendency to keep world leaders on their toes, a foreign policy expert said.

Erdoğan might have thought Trump would be an “ace in the hole”, said Jon Alterman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank. But the Turkish leader would be “not sure exactly where he sits” following Trump’s comments, giving the US’s incoming leader leverage.

Trump and Erdoğan fused personal camaraderie and geopolitical friction during the US leader’s first term as president. Tensions escalated over Turkey’s purchase from Russia of the S-400 missile defence system, which ended in Turkey’s ejection from the US’s F-35 fighter jet programme. Ankara’s detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson in 2016 prompted Trump to blacklist Erdoğan advisers and threaten punitive economic sanctions.

Brunson’s release thawed relations between the leaders. Turkey later capitalised on Trump’s 2019 decision to withdraw US forces from northern Syria, leaving Kurdish forces exposed to Turkish military action.

Ties between Washington and Ankara have improved more recently, according to Turkish officials and western diplomats, despite some tension triggered by Erdoğan’s criticism of Israel over its Gaza offensive.

Advertisement

Turkey also eventually backed Sweden’s accession to Nato earlier this year, after which Washington approved Ankara’s purchase off American F-16 fighter jets. American officials have also hailed Turkey’s role in a prisoner exchange between the US and Russia this year and Ankara’s fight against terrorist groups, including Isis.

Turkey has, however, pushed back strongly against Washington’s support for the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group that Ankara considers indistinguishable from separatists that have battled the Turkish state.

Washington sees the SDF as a crucial partner in keeping Isis from significantly reconstituting in Syria in the political vacuum following Assad’s fall.

The US has been carrying out air strikes in Syria against Isis, including on Monday when US Central Command said strikes killed 12 fighters operating in former regime- and Russian-controlled areas.

Additional reporting by Andrew England in London and Adam Samson in New York

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending