Foreign News
Have Trump prosecutors made their case at hush-money trial?
For nearly four weeks, Donald Trump has sat quietly in a New York courtroom while state prosecutors laid out the first-ever criminal case against a former US president.
Lawyers from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office have called on a cast of blockbuster witnesses and produced dozens of surreptitiously recorded conversations and documents to help corroborate their case.
They allege Mr Trump directed a hush-money payment to an adult-film star in 2016 to avoid a sex scandal he feared would derail his presidential campaign – and then authorised an illegal reimbursement scheme to cover it up. Mr Trump denies 34 counts of falsifying business records.
The prosecution’s final witness, Michael Cohen, will face further cross-examination on Monday before Trump’s lawyers get an opportunity to present his defence.
Legal experts say the prosecution has done an efficient job. But even with solid evidence and testimony, they acknowledge that a conviction in the complex felony case is far from guaranteed.
“The pieces are all there. But is it there beyond a reasonable doubt?” said former Brooklyn prosecutor Julie Rendelman. “I don’t know.”
“It only takes one juror,” she added.
Laying out the story
Though Mr Trump’s case centres on a reimbursement he made to Cohen, his former fixer, prosecutors spent the first weeks of the trial walking the court through what led up to the $130,000 (£102,000) hush-money payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels.
They started with David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer.
He described a series of meetings in Trump Tower where he, Cohen and Mr Trump hatched a plan to suppress negative stories about Mr Trump – including alleged sexual encounters – as he ran for president.
His testimony proved influential, said former Manhattan prosecutor Lance Fletcher. “He doesn’t have a reputation that’s been blown apart by this. And he came into it really seeming to be Trump’s friend,” Mr Fletcher said. “So I think he comes off as almost an impartial witness.”
From there, prosecutors called a host of others, including former Trump aide Hope Hicks and Daniels’ former attorney Keith Davidson, to corroborate the story.
“They sort of connected a fascinating novel … about how all of these characters interacted,” said Columbia Law School professor John Coffee. “And that was wise.”
They also interspersed evidence such as meeting logs, recordings and receipts of hush-money payments made to a Trump Tower doorman and Playboy model Karen McDougal to bolster witnesses’ stories.
Star witnesses air secrets
Prosecutors used weeks of storytelling and evidence to build up to the most highly anticipated witnesses, including Ms Daniels.

Mr Trump’s attorneys worked hard to limit Ms Daniels’ testimony.
While prosecutors pledged to tread lightly when quizzing her about the alleged sexual encounter at a hotel suite in Nevada in 2006, she still proved at times an uncontrollable witness, Judge Juan Merchan told the court. Mr Trump has denied having sex with her.
Her explicit testimony led to several unsuccessful mistrial motions from Mr Trump’s legal team and may have opened the door for an appeal, some legal experts said.
But others said that context helped prosecutors show why Mr Trump would be desperate to pay for her silence in order to protect his campaign.
“She got into some salacious details, which I thought went too far,” said Ms Rendelman. “But at the same time, the argument for the prosecution is the more salacious it is, the more Trump would want it to be shut down.”
Ultimately, Ms Daniels could only testify to what led up to the hush-money payment.
For the behind-the-scenes reimbursement, they had to rely on a problematic witness: a convicted felon who recently has made a living off attacking Mr Trump.
A calm and collected Cohen takes the stand
Members of the public held their breath earlier this week as Mr Trump’s former fixer-turned foe, Cohen, was called to the stand. Many anticipated the same character who authored fiery social media posts attacking Mr Trump, for whom he once pledged to take a bullet. But the man speaking in a blue suit and tie took them by surprise. Cohen appeared composed as he detailed his decades with Mr Trump.
“He is measured. He is reflective,” said Diane Kiesel, a former New York Supreme Court Justice and Manhattan prosecutor. “He has not let any bias or animus for Mr Trump show through.”
Cohen told the court of his initial admiration, working as Mr Trump’s personal attorney for 10 years. He acknowledged the lows as well, including lying on Mr Trump’s behalf, leading to regrets.
His composure boosted the prosecutors’ case, and his testimony was bolstered by a weak cross-examination from Mr Trump’s legal team on day one, experts said.
Mr Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, appeared disorganised at first, stumbling sometimes in his questioning, experts told the BBC.
But he appeared to make strides on the second day, Thursday, casting doubt on details of Cohen’s testimony, including an October 2016 phone call Cohen made to Mr Trump’s bodyguard in which he claimed to have to talked to Mr Trump about details of the hush-money payment.
It was a reminder of what experts said was one of prosecutors’ largest problems: Cohen’s credibility. The defence hammered home the point that Cohen is a convicted criminal, who spent time in prison after being convicted on several charges including lying to Congress.
Cohen was able to testify to a key part of prosecutors’ case – Mr Trump’s direct knowledge of the hush-money payment reimbursement scheme.
Cohen said former Trump Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg – currently serving a perjury sentence at Rikers Island prison – decided to classify reimbursements from Mr Trump’s account as legal expenses. Cohen testified that he heard Weisselberg get the OK from Mr Trump himself.
As Cohen spoke, prosecutors also displayed the dozens of cheques, ledgers and invoices at the heart of the 34-count indictment.
But Cohen’s story may not sway all jurors.
“You are relying on a witness who in many respects … comes with a larger load of baggage than others,” Ms Rendelman said. “It makes it a bit more difficult to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Connecting the dots
Other challenges remain for the prosecution.
In a relatively novel approach, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office elevated falsifying business records charges to a felony by claiming Mr Trump did so with the goal of concealing another crime.
To prove their case, prosecutors must show intent – that Mr Trump illegally classified records for the purpose of aiding his campaign. Several witnesses seemed to corroborate this.
“He wasn’t thinking at all about [his wife] Melania,” Cohen told the court. “This was all about the campaign.”
But prosecutors must make this connection clear to the jury.
“Essentially they have to connect these payments to a motive that links them to a campaign,” said Ms Kiesel. “This requires a summation of a lifetime, because you really have to connect these dots.”
Mr Fletcher said prosecutors succeeded in doing so, with witnesses arguing the hush-money payment and reimbursement was not made to protect Mr Trump’s family.
“This was all about the election,” Mr Fletcher said. “If I was going to bet, I would bet on a conviction. But I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.”
In the end, the verdict could come down to jury selection, experts said.
The 12 members and six alternates were picked from hundreds who expressed a range of political views and familiarity with Mr Trump and this case.
Jury members are often unpredictable, Ms Kiesel said. “It only takes one person to decide that the people have not met their burden,” she said. “The people have 12 jurors to convince.”
(BBC)
Foreign News
Human rights court orders reparations for forced sterilization case in Peru
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has ordered Peru to pay reparations to the family of Celia Ramos, a mother of three whose death resulted from a campaign of forced sterilizations during the 1990s.
Thursday’s landmark ruling stated that the 34-year-old Ramos was coerced into sterilization against her will, causing an allergic reaction that led to her death.
The court ordered Peru to pay her family $340,000 as part of the ruling.
It noted that the Peruvian government had “failed to fulfill its obligation to initiate and conduct a thorough investigation” into Ramos’s case, heightening the strain on her family.
“Ms Ramos Durand’s family members — especially her three daughters, who were children at the time of the events — suffered profound harm as a consequence of the sterilization and death of Celia Edith Ramos Durand and the impunity surrounding the case,” the IACHR wrote in its decision.
Peru’s campaign of forced sterilization took place under the late President Alberto Fujimori, whose tenure included widespread human rights abuses that continue to cast a shadow over the country.
The scheme largely targeted poor and Indigenous women who were often tricked or coerced into sterilisation procedures.
This week’s ruling is the first time the human rights court has weighed in on the issue, which has been the subject of years of legal contestation in Peru.
“After almost 30 years of searching for justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognised the responsibility of the Peruvian state in the forced sterilization and death of Celia Ramos,” the Peruvian feminist organisation DEMUS said in a social media post, celebrating the ruling.
“This ruling marks a fundamental step in reparations for Celia, her family and the thousands of victims of forced sterilizations in Peru.”
As many as 314,000 women and 24,000 men were sterilized against their will in Peru under Fujimori’s government, which sought to forcibly lower the birth rate as a means of addressing poverty.
The procedures were particularly invasive for the women involved, and some suffered long-term complications, including death.
Family members often received little information about the circumstances that led to loved ones dying after the unnecessary operations. Some survivors did not realise what had happened to them until years later, when they discovered they were unable to have children.
In Ramos’s case, the 34-year-old mother had gone to a state health clinic for medical assistance on July 3, 1997, but was instead forced to undergo tubal ligation.
Ramos, however, suffered a severe allergic reaction during the procedure. She was placed in a recovery room, but the clinic was not able to treat her adequately.
In its decision, the IACHR explained that the clinic “lacked the necessary equipment and medications for adequate risk assessment or to handle emergencies”.
Ramos was ultimately transferred to an intensive care unit in the city of Piura, where she died 19 days later, on July 22, 1997.
The state did not carry out an autopsy and declined to share details with her family.
The compensation outlined in this week’s ruling includes reimbursement for the costs of medical procedures conducted to save Ramos’s life and the estimated loss of income from her death.
In October 2024, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women at the United Nations ruled that Peru’s sterilization programme amounted to sex-based violence and discrimination against poor, rural and Indigenous women.
The committee’s statement cited a lack of adequate medical facilities and a lack of informed consent, just as the IACHR did in its decision this week.
“The victims described a consistent pattern of being coerced, pressured, or deceived into undergoing sterilizations at clinics lacking proper infrastructure or trained personnel,” committee member Leticia Bonifaz said.
“The procedures were carried out without informed consent from these victims, with some of them, especially those from remote areas, unable to read and speak Spanish, or fully understand the nature of the procedure.”
Scholars have concluded that Fujimori’s sterilization campaign was driven, in part, by racist views among government officials who saw rural, Indigenous communities as an obstacle to economic modernisation.
[Aljazeera]
Foreign News
Cost to US for war on Iran is $3.7bn in first 100 hours, says think tank
The United States-Israeli war on Iran is estimated to have cost Washington $3.7bn so far in its first 100 hours alone, or nearly $900m a day, driven largely by the huge expenditure of munitions, according to new research.
An analysis by Washington-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) underlined the colossal cost of the war, which entered its seventh day on Friday, as the US attacks Iran with stealth bombers and advanced weapons systems.
Researchers Mark Cancian and Chris Park said only a small amount of the estimated $3.7bn cost of the war in the first 100 hours – or $891.4m each day – was already budgeted for, while most of the costs – $3.5bn – were not.
That meant the Pentagon would likely need to request more funding soon to cover the unbudgeted costs, they said, which was likely to prove a political challenge for the Trump administration and provide “a focal point for opposition to the war,” they said.
Domestic cost-of-living concerns, inflation, and now a knock-on effect of rising gas prices due to the conflict are likely to further diminish support among US citizens for the war. It is also dividing Trump’s “America First” base, which he had promised in his presidential campaigns to not enter “foreign wars”.
Noting that the US Department of Defense had released limited specifics on its operations, the researchers said their analysis drew on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the operations and support costs for each unit, adjusting for inflation and unit size, and adding 10 percent for costs of “a higher operational tempo”.
Their analysis said the US had expended more than 2,000 munitions of various types in the first 100 hours of the war, and estimated it would cost $3.1bn to replenish the munitions inventory on a like-for-like basis, with the costs increasing by $758.1m a day.
(Aljazeera)
Foreign News
Britney Spears arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence
Britney Spears has been arrested in California under suspicion of driving under the influence.
The singer was detained by California Highway Patrol at around 21:30 local time (05:30 GMT) on Wednesday. A representative for her told the BBC: “This was an unfortunate incident that is completely inexcusable.”
She was released in the early hours of Thursday morning and is due to appear at Ventura County Superior Court on 4 May.
The reason for the singer’s arrest was confirmed to CBS, the BBC’s US partner, by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office in southern California.
Spears’ representative told the BBC: “Britney is going to take the right steps and comply with the law and hopefully this can be the first step in long overdue change that needs to occur in Britney’s life.
“Hopefully, she can get the help and support she needs during this difficult time.
“Her boys are going to be spending time with her. Her loved ones are going to come up with an overdue needed plan to set her up for success for well being.”
The pop star appeared to have deleted her Instagram account on Thursday as news of her arrest broke.
Spears is one of the most successful pop stars ever, with hits such as Baby One More Time, Toxic, Everytime, Gimme More, Womanizer, and Stronger.
The singer said in January 2024 that she would “never return to the music industry”. Her last song was a duet with Elton John in 2022.
However, in a since-deleted social media post from earlier this year, Spears indicated that, although she would not perform in the US again, she was hoping to play live in the UK and Australia in the near future.
For 13 years until 2021, Spears was in a conservatorship – a legal guardianship that saw her finances and personal life controlled by her father.
The singer published her memoir in 2023 titled The Woman in Me, which saw her reflect on her career and detail her struggles living under the conservatorship.
Her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, released his own memoir, You Thought You Knew, at the end of 2025.
[BBC]
-
Features5 days agoBrilliant Navy officer no more
-
Opinion5 days agoSri Lanka – world’s worst facilities for cricket fans
-
News2 days agoLegal experts decry move to demolish STC dining hall
-
Features5 days agoA life in colour and song: Rajika Gamage’s new bird guide captures Sri Lanka’s avian soul
-
Business3 days agoCabinet nod for the removal of Cess tax imposed on imported good
-
Features6 days agoOverseas visits to drum up foreign assistance for Sri Lanka
-
Features6 days agoSri Lanka to Host First-Ever World Congress on Snakes in Landmark Scientific Milestone
-
News1 day agoUniversity of Wolverhampton confirms Ranil was officially invited
