Connect with us

Politics

Trump guilty on all counts in New York criminal trial

Published

on

Trump guilty on all counts in New York criminal trial

Former President Trump was found guilty on all counts in his historic and unprecedented criminal trial, making him the first former president of the United States to be convicted of a crime. 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged former President Donald Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Jurors found the former president guilty on all counts. 

Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of 4 years. In total, Trump faces a maximum sentence of 136 years. 

Advertisement

Judge Juan Merchan invited the jury into the courtroom to read its verdict after two days of deliberations. 

Sentencing for the former president will be July 11 at 10:00 a.m–just five days before the start of the Republican National Convention, where he is expected to be formally nominated as the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. 

Any motions will need to be filed by June 13th.

Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified those records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

TRUMP PREVIEWS CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN ‘SHAM TRIAL’: ‘VERY DANGEROUS DAY FOR AMERICA’

Advertisement

Former president Donald Trump awaits the start of proceedings at Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York.  (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, Pool)

Moments after the verdict was delivered by the jury, the former president spoke to reporters in the hallway outside the courtroom. 

“This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt as a rigged trial and disgrace. It wouldn’t give us a venue change,” Trump said. “We were at five percent or 6% in this district, in this area. This was a rigged, disgraceful trial.” 

Trump said “the real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people.” 

“And they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here,” Trump said. “You have a Soros backed DA and the whole thing.” 

Advertisement

He added: “We didn’t do anything wrong. I’m a very innocent man. And it’s okay. I’m fighting for our country. I’m fighting for our Constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now.” 

Trump said that the case was “done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent.” 

“And I think it’s it’s just a disgrace. And we’ll keep fighting–we’ll fight till the end and we’ll win because our country’s gone to hell,” he said. “We don’t have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We’re a nation of decline, serious decline.” 

Trump said “millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists. And they’re taking over our country. We have a country that’s in big trouble.” 

“But this was a rigged decision right from day one, with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case. Never,” he said. “And we will fight for our Constitution. This is long from over.” 

Advertisement

During closing arguments, defense attorneys for former President Trump told the jury Tuesday he is innocent, did not commit any crimes and that Bragg “did not meet the burden of proof. Period.” 

“President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes. The district attorney did not meet the burden of proof. Period,” Blanche said. 

Blanche added that the case is “simple” and it is “not a guilty verdict.” 

“This case is about documents; it is a paper case,” Blanche said. “This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago. It is not even about a nondisclosure agreement signed eight years ago.”

Blanche said the charges are about whether Trump “had anything” to do with payments to his ex-attorney, Michael Cohen, on his personal accounting ledger.

Advertisement

“The answer? The bookings were accurate and there was no intent to defraud and there was no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election,” Blanche said. “The proof doesn’t add up.”

NY V TRUMP: PROSECUTION SAYS THEY HAVE PRESENTED ‘POWERFUL EVIDENCE’ AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT

Blanche told the jury they cannot convict Trump based on Cohen’s testimony, recalling how Trump’s ex-attorney “took the stand and then lied.”

“The records are not false and there was no intent to defraud,” he said.

Blanche said not one single invoice was sent to Trump directly and that Cohen billed Trump “for services rendered.” He also told the jury Cohen rendered services as Trump’s personal attorney in 2017.

Advertisement

Blanche noted Cohen had lied to both Houses of Congress, federal judges, state judges and family.

“You cannot send someone to prison based upon the words of Michael Cohen,” Blanche said, adding that a verdict needs to be reached based on evidence from documents and witnesses. “If you do that, this is a very quick and easy not-guilty verdict.” 

Meanwhile, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass delivered his closing argument for more than five hours Tuesday, saying the prosecution has presented “powerful” evidence in their case against Trump. 

Steinglass said Trump’s intent to defraud “could not be any clearer,” arguing that it would have been far easier for him to pay Stormy Daniels directly. Instead, the prosecutor said, he concocted an elaborate scheme and everything he and his cohorts did was “cloaked in lies.”

“The name of the game was concealment and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited the most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump,” Steinglass said.

Advertisement

Steinglass defended the prosecution’s use of Michael Cohen as a witness, telling the jury: “I’m not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen. He made his bed.” 

“But you can hardly blame him for making money from the one thing he has left, which is his knowledge of the inner workings of the Trump Organization,” he said. 

“We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn’t pick him up at the witness store,” Steinglass said. “The defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on the defendant’s behalf.” 

Trump defense attorneys, in their second attempt to dismiss the case earlier this month, said no evidence had been presented by the prosecution to connect the former president to any falsification of business records. Defense attorneys motioned for dismissal after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and the prosecution’s “star witness,” finished his testimony. 

Former president Donald Trump waves while leaving Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, May 21, 2024, in New York.  (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

Advertisement

He testified that he personally made the $130,000 payment to Daniels using a home equity line of credit in an effort to conceal the payment from his wife. Cohen said he did this because Trump told him to “handle it” and prevent a negative story from coming out ahead of the election.

But Trump’s defense attorneys maintained that the president never directed Cohen to do so.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump listens as defense lawyer Todd Blanche presents closing arguments duri (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg )

Cohen testified that he was “reimbursed $420,000” for the $130,000 he paid to Daniels. Cohen said former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg suggested he “gross up” the payments and that Trump knew the details of the reimbursement.

Advertisement

The prosecution presented Cohen with 11 checks totaling $420,000. Cohen confirmed that they were all received and deposited. The checks had a description of a “retainer,” which Cohen said was false.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

Advertisement

Politics

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

Published

on

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: The embattled head of a Democratic fundraising behemoth is headed for a congressional grilling next month over allegations of fraudulent donations on its platform.

ActBlue’s CEO Regina Wallace-Jones will testify in a public hearing before the House Administration Committee on June 10, a committee spokesman told Fox News Digital. 

Wallace-Jones’ agreement to testify comes as ActBlue faces mounting scrutiny over whether it misled Congress regarding foreign donations on its payment processing platform.

“Ms. Wallace-Jones allegedly misled our committee at the outset of our investigation into ActBlue’s fraud prevention standards,” House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said in a statement. “It’s past time we set the record straight and got answers for the American people. I look forward to hearing her testify.”

Advertisement

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., holds a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10, 2025. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)

DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT ACTBLUE ROCKED BY ALLEGATIONS IT MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT FOREIGN DONATIONS

The statement referenced an explosive report in The New York Times earlier this year that said ActBlue’s then-outside counsel warned Wallace-Jones in 2023 the group may have misrepresented facts to Steil’s committee about its vetting of potentially illegal foreign donations.

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents are generally prohibited from donating to candidates seeking federal office or political action committees.

Steil previously requested that Wallace-Jones testify before his committee on May 19. The invitation was met with outrage from ActBlue’s lawyers, who dismissed the committee action as a “partisan attack.”

Advertisement

But Republicans have pointed to documents that ActBlue has allegedly withheld in response to subpoenas issued in 2025, which Steil has characterized as “deliberately incomplete.”

All five current or former ActBlue employees who appeared in depositions with the committee invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination a combined 146 times, according to an interim staff report released in April by House Republicans.

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, a delegate from California, wears a U.S.-flag themed outfit ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Ill., on Aug. 19, 2024.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING ‘FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS’

The House Administration Committee has been probing ActBlue’s fraud prevention safeguards since 2023, when Steil’s panel investigated the group’s failure to require credit card verification value (CVV) when processing payments.

Advertisement

“Given ActBlue’s demonstrated history of misleading Congress, there is considerable reason to believe that ActBlue may have deliberately withheld this responsive material to impede our investigation,” Steil and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Wallace-Jones in April.

In the letter, the senior Republicans also directed ActBlue to produce a trove of documents related to its vetting of political contributions from abroad.

Wallace-Jones has denied making false statements to Congress. The group’s lawyers have previously characterized the investigation as politically motivated and contended that ActBlue has been forthright with the committee.

Amid the GOP scrutiny, ActBlue has experienced a wave of resignations from senior legal and compliance staff.

An election countdown calendar hangs at the ActBlue fundraising office in Somerville, Mass. (Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The June hearing notice immediately follows the House Administration Committee advancing legislation to crack down on fraudulent political donations, including illegal contributions from foreigners. The campaign finance measure cleared Steil’s panel unanimously on Thursday. 

“It’s a positive sign that people are beginning to take this risk and this threat seriously,” the Wisconsin Republican told Spectrum News.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

Published

on

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

In recent weeks, several social media influencers have popped up in online feeds touting the California gubernatorial campaign of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer.

Some complain about the price of gasoline. Others mention environmental concerns. One cites her newfound sobriety as evidence that people can change — a nod to Steyer’s self-proclaimed metamorphosis from hedge fund titan to scourge of big corporations.

“I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire, but look at the policies you guys,” said one content creator on TikTok with the user name Jaz R. “Hear me out. I know Tom Steyer is a billionaire, but he also is for the people.”

The posts include direct-to-the-camera appeals, with personal details interwoven into messages of support for Steyer. An influencer goes for a stroll as onscreen text touts Steyer’s policies. Some seek to convey authenticity, if occasionally ham-fistedly; one influencer mispronounces Steyer’s last name.

Advertisement

What they do not include is a disclosure that their creators were paid by the Steyer campaign to produce the videos, according to a complaint filed this week with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a Times review of the posts.

The complaint alleges that the Steyer campaign failed to notify the influencers it hired of their obligation to inform their audience when their posts have been sponsored by the campaign.

California passed a law in 2023 requiring that influencers disclose if they have been paid to create promotional content for or against a candidate or ballot measure, one of the few jurisdictions in the country with such a requirement. There is no such requirement at the federal level.

“Every time there’s a new technology, you have to create legislation that requires them to disclose,” said state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who sponsored the bill.

Violating the law doesn’t carry criminal, civil or administrative penalties, but the FPPC can take influencers who break the law to court and ask a judge to force them to comply.

Advertisement

The complaint was filed by two California women — political influencers themselves — who said they noticed a number of new accounts that suddenly started posting similar-sounding videos promoting Steyer earlier this month.

“They had the exact same language, they had the same talking points,” said Beatrice Gomberg, who worked with Kaitlyn Hennessy in their digital sleuthing efforts.

The FPPC did not comment on the complaint.

Steyer’s campaign appears to have relied on paid influencers more than any candidate for governor, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.

That spending represents only a small fraction of the massive campaign war chest Steyer has seeded with nearly $180 million of his own money. But the complaint highlights the growing degree to which political candidates have come to seek out the authenticity that social media influencers seem to offer.

Advertisement

Steyer campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao said the campaign had properly followed the rules in hiring influencers and that the campaign is “confident” that Gomberg and Hennessy’s complaint is “baseless.”

“Creators make their living generating content. The campaign believes in compensating people for their time and work product and has paid creators to generate content,” Liao said in a statement. “Payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports, and we notify creators we directly work with of their disclosure requirements.”

While many of the new Steyer influencers have few followers, Steyer’s campaign disclosed in its most recent campaign finance report that it had paid thousands of dollars to numerous social media influencers with massive audiences, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Several of the videos produced by these popular social media personalities also failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign, according to the complaint and The Times’ review of the content.

But even accounts with few followers can still have a big impact if they are producing a steady stream of content supporting Steyer, said veteran California political strategist Mike Madrid.

Advertisement

“What they’re trying to do is trip the algorithm,” he said. “It looks like it has a bigger audience than it really does. It’s taking the concept of astroturfing into the digital age.”

Gomberg and Hennessy said they became friends after meeting at an April campaign event for Xavier Becerra, Steyer’s chief Democratic rival in the race, who holds a narrow advantage over Steyer in several recent political polls.

The pair have been prolific social media supporters of Becerra’s campaign ever since, though they insist they are not being paid for their efforts.

They said they discovered that many of the new pro-Steyer accounts seemed to be run by influencers — mostly women — who had previously created different social media accounts to hawk other products.

One of the pro-Steyer influencers had an online portfolio listing numerous clients, including the Steyer campaign and a gummy designed to boost arousal, according to the complaint and the Times review of the publicly accessible website.

Advertisement

The pair said they stumbled on an advertisement placed by a vendor for the campaign on a platform used by creators to find work. The advertisement indicated that creators would be paid $10 for each post, with bonuses for posts that amassed large viewership.

The vendor who posted the ad did not respond to a request for comment.

The advertisement has since been updated to say that it pays $1,000 per month and that creators will have to disclose that it is paid content.

As Gomberg and Hennessy dug deeper, they determined that some of the influencers promoting a candidate for governor weren’t even based in California.

A TikTok account using the handle jess.votes, for example, appears to be connected to a woman registered to vote in Florida. Other accounts were connected to women who indicated elsewhere that they were based in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan.

Advertisement

Several influencers who created seemingly paid content promoting Steyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.

The brouhaha over paid social media content is just the latest instance of the growing political impact of online creators.

Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor — and congressional career — came to an end after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. A pair of influencers had publicly raised concerns about Swalwell’s behavior and helped connect victims with journalists who produced highly detailed reports of the allegations.

The California law requires influencers to disclose in a political post’s audio or text that it was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on the creators to make the disclosure, but campaigns are required to tell them that they must do so. Despite passage of the law, the issue has so far remained largely under the radar.

Advertisement

“I have dozens of candidates and campaigns and I have not heard this issue come up one time,” said a campaign finance lawyer who requested anonymity because they represent numerous candidates with active campaigns.

Gomberg and Hennessy said that they were driven to call attention to potential violations of the disclosure requirements because of their concern about the corrosive influence such paid content could have if left unchecked.

“You have people who have trust in these creators,” Hennessy said. “You have a responsibility to your audience.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending