More stories

  • in

    Why Bragg Dropped Charges Against Most Columbia Student Protesters

    The Manhattan district attorney’s office cited a lack of evidence in deciding not to prosecute 31 of the 46 people charged in the takeover of Hamilton Hall.Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, last week dropped most of the 46 cases against pro-Palestinian demonstrators charged in the April 30 siege of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University because prosecutors had little proof that the cases would stand up at trial.There was limited video footage of what took place inside the campus building, Doug Cohen, a spokesman for the district attorney, said in a statement. The protesters wore masks and covered security cameras, preventing prosecutors from identifying those who had barricaded the doors and smashed chairs, desks and windows during the 17-hour occupation.The district attorney announced the decision to drop 31 of the 46 cases during a court hearing on Thursday. Apart from trespassing, a misdemeanor, proving any other criminal charges would be “extremely difficult,” Mr. Cohen said. For similar reasons, prosecutors also dismissed charges against nine of the 22 students and staff members at City College who were arrested inside a campus building and charged with burglary during a protest that took place on the same night as the arrests at Hamilton Hall. Six other people who were arrested outside the building still face criminal charges: Five were charged with second-degree assault, a felony, and another was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, a misdemeanor. The protests on April 30 grew out of a weekslong encampment on Columbia’s South Lawn that ignited similar demonstrations at college campuses across the country and resulted in hundreds of arrests. As the academic year drew to a close, protesters called on Columbia to divest from Israel, among other demands, sometimes clashing with counterprotesters or with the police.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump and Allies Assail Conviction With Faulty Claims

    After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty, he and a number of conservative figures in the news media and lawmakers on the right have spread false and misleading claims about the Manhattan case.After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, he instantly rejected the verdict and assailed the judge and criminal justice system.His loyalists in the conservative news media and Congress quickly followed suit, echoing his baseless assertions that he had fallen victim to a politically motivated sham trial.The display of unity reflected the extent of Mr. Trump’s hold over his base.The former president and his supporters have singled out the judge who presided over the case, denigrated the judicial system and distorted the circumstances of the charges against him and his subsequent conviction.Here’s a fact check of some of their claims.What Was Said“We had a conflicted judge, highly conflicted. There’s never been a more conflicted judge.”— Mr. Trump in a news conference on Friday at Trump Tower in ManhattanThis is exaggerated. For over a year, Mr. Trump and his allies have said Justice Juan M. Merchan should not preside over the case because of his daughter’s line of work. Loren Merchan, the daughter, served as the president of a digital campaign strategy agency that has done work for many prominent Democrats, including Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign.Experts in judicial ethics have said Ms. Merchan’s work is not sufficient grounds for recusal. When Mr. Trump’s legal team sought his recusal because of his daughter, Justice Merchan sought counsel from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which said it did not see any conflict of interest.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Takeaways From Trump’s Conviction in Hush-Money Trial

    It was an end like no other for a trial like no other: a former American president found guilty of 34 felonies.The conviction of Donald Trump, read aloud shortly after 5 p.m. by the jury foreman as the former president sat just feet away, ended months of legal maneuvering, weeks of testimony, days of deliberation and several nervous minutes after the jury entered the Manhattan courtroom.The former president and the presumptive Republican nominee was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a scheme to cover up an extramarital tryst with a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in 2006. That encounter — which the former president denied — led to a $130,000 hush-money payment whose concealment gave rise to the 34 counts of falsifying business records that made Mr. Trump a felon.Mr. Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11; he has indicated he will appeal.Here are five takeaways from the last day of Mr. Trump’s momentous trial.A grueling trial ended suddenly.Thursday, the second day of deliberations, seemed to be moving toward a quiet conclusion. Then, suddenly the word came from the judge, Juan M. Merchan: There was a verdict.Less than an hour later, the headlines reading “guilty” began to be written.The decision came just hours after the jury had asked to hear testimony involving the first witness — David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer — including his account of the now infamous 2015 meeting at Trump Tower where he agreed to publish positive stories and bury negative stories about Mr. Trump’s nascent candidacy.The Trump Manhattan Criminal Verdict, Count By CountFormer President Donald J. Trump faced 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, related to the reimbursement of hush money paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels in order to cover up a sex scandal around the 2016 presidential election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    New York City Truckers Aim to Challenge Congestion Pricing Policy

    The industry that moves nearly 90 percent of goods within the city is suing to challenge the policy, claiming it unfairly burdens their business.With a month left before drivers start being charged to enter Midtown and downtown Manhattan under New York City’s congestion pricing plan, a new group of challengers is joining a crowded field of critics: truckers.The Trucking Association of New York, a trade group representing a wide range of delivery companies, filed a lawsuit on Thursday seeking to delay the policy, claiming that it would unfairly charge vans and trucks that enter the new tolling zone as much as $36 per trip during peak hours. That cost, the group says, could soon be passed on to local businesses and consumers.“We’re not pushing back on the overall program,” Kendra Hems, the group’s president, said. “It’s simply the way that trucks are being targeted.” The suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan.The congestion pricing plan, scheduled to start June 30, will charge fees to most vehicles entering Manhattan on or below 60th Street. Passenger vehicles entering the zone will be charged up to $15 once a day, with some exceptions. Commercial trucks will be charged $24 or $36 per entry, depending on the size of the vehicle and the time of day.Transit leaders have already built in a 75 percent discount on tolls during off-peak hours, from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. on weekdays and 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. on weekends. But Ms. Hems said that was inadequate, because customers often dictate that deliveries must be made during daytime shifts. The trucking association is seeking lower or less frequent tolls.The program has already raised the ire of critics including the governor of New Jersey, a teachers’ union, the Staten Island borough president and some residents of Battery Park City in Lower Manhattan. With this latest complaint, eight lawsuits challenging the rollout have been filed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    This Is What Worries Me About the Trump Trial

    I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrates that the party has a broken soul.At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but — and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.Let’s first discuss the dreadful facts. Stormy Daniels’s testimony crystallized, better than that of any other witness, the prosecution’s theory that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to pay off Daniels to save his campaign and then fraudulently disguised the reimbursements. It helped answer a key question: Why would a known playboy, a person who has boasted of his affairs with his friends’ wives, suddenly be so keen to suppress details of his encounter with a porn star?Consider the timeline. On Oct. 7, 2016, the “Access Hollywood” story broke. The Washington Post released the infamous recording in which Trump told Billy Bush, one of the show’s hosts, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” Trump went on, saying he could grab women by the genitals. “You can do anything.”The next day, a representative for Daniels told The National Enquirer that Daniels was willing to talk on the record about her encounter with Trump. We now know from Daniels’s sworn testimony that her story was going to essentially affirm the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump used his star power to draw in Daniels and then exploited her.At trial, she did not testify to a frivolous or joyful encounter with Trump; she testified to something far more distressing. He invited her to his hotel room, and after she went to the bathroom, she walked out to find Trump on the bed in just his boxers and a T-shirt. She did not claim he forced himself on her, but she said she left “shaking” and testified that she was ashamed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 16, 2024

    M. Cohen

    Cross/Blanche
    3839
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    And you had been hearing on television that they were
    dangling pardons. So, you directed your lawyer, hey, find out
    if I can get a pardon. I want this nightmare to end, right?
    A Not if I can get a pardon. If the President was going
    to be doing these pre-pardons.
    But you

    you testified that you were 100 percent
    open to accepting it, anything to end this, right?
    8
    A
    Yes, sir.
    9
    And so

    and you did that with a couple of your
    10
    11
    A
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    A
    20
    21
    22
    23
    lawyers, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Costello, correct?
    Mr. Costello was never my lawyer.
    Well, you asked Mr. Costello, putting aside whether he
    was your lawyer, you asked Mr. Costello to reach out to people
    in the administration, including Mr. Giuliani, about the
    possibility of a pardon?
    A We spoke about it.
    And as part of your conversation with him, you asked
    him to reach out to Mr. Giuliani and explore it, correct?
    Yes, sir.
    And so, when you testified under oath less than one
    year later, February, on February 27th, 2019, that you never
    asked for, nor would you ever accept a pardon, that was a lie,
    wasn’t it?
    24
    A
    At the time it was accurate.
    25
    Well, the very next day so, again, February 27th,
    Susan Pearce-Bates, RPR, CCR, RSA
    Principal Court Reporter More

  • in

    Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 13, 2024

    M. Cohen Direct/Hoffinger
    3277
    1
    was there at The Trump Organization about executives coming in
    2
    to meet with Mr. Trump?
    3
    A
    Mr.
    Trump had an open-door policy, which, if there was
    4
    5
    6
    somebody in there, you waited; and if not, you knocked on the
    door, and I would say, “Boss, do you have a second?”, and I
    would walk right in.
    7
    Q
    And others did the same, to your knowledge?
    8
    A
    9
    To my knowledge, yes.
    Now, when you met with Mr. Trump at The Trump
    Organization, in his office, did you, generally, need
    10

    I’m
    11
    sorry.
    12
    Did you, generally, record those meetings in your calendar?
    13
    A
    No, ma’am.
    14
    15
    16
    As part of your work at The Trump Organization, did
    you feel that it was part of your job to keep him updated on
    matters that you were handling for him?
    17
    A
    Yes.
    It was actually required.
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    A
    Tell us what you mean by that.
    When he would task you with something, he would then
    say, “Keep me informed. Let me know what’s going on.”
    And what he was saying, what everybody did is, as soon as
    you had a result, an answer, you would go straight back and
    tell him. Especially if it was a matter that was troubling to
    24
    him.
    25
    So, two things, just to break that down.
    Laurie Eisenberg, CSR, RPR
    Senior Court Reporter More

  • in

    Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 10, 2024

    1
    2
    J. Jarmel-Schneider

    Direct/Conroy
    3217
    And if we could just continue going down January and
    February, those two columns, we talked about the one invoice,
    two vouchers; and is there only one check?
    3
    4
    A
    Yes.
    5
    with?
    How many invoices were there, in total, on this chart?
    Eleven.
    And can you just read which counts they’re associated
    Counts 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 and 32.
    After January and February, is there one invoice for
    each month for the rest of the year?
    Going down to vouchers, same question. Could you just
    read the count number for each of the vouchers?

    A
    7
    8
    9
    A
    10
    11
    12
    A
    Yes.
    13
    14
    15
    A
    Sure.
    16
    17
    18
    A
    19
    20
    21
    A
    Sure.
    22
    23
    24
    25
    A
    Yes.
    Counts 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 and 33.
    And is there one voucher for every month in 2017?
    Yes.
    And, finally, in checks, could you read the count
    number for each check?
    It’s counts 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 and 34.
    And after January and February, is there one check for
    each of the remaining months in 2017?
    Laurie Eisenberg, CSR, RPR
    Senior Court Reporter More