WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When he ran for president in 2016, Donald Trump delighted crowds with his harsh rhetoric on China. As he runs for re-election in 2020, he is likely to keep talking tough, but the reception - at least in some key states - may not be as euphoric. FILE PHOTO: Flags for U.S. President Donald Trump's "Keep America Great!" 2020 re-election campaign are seen at Jiahao flag factory in Fuyang, Anhui province, China July 24, 2018. REUTERS/Aly Song/File PhotoTrade talks between the United States and China ran into serious trouble last week as Beijing backtracked on some key agreements and Trump placed higher tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods, with more to follow. The trade war could continue for some time, bleeding directly into Trump’s efforts to win a second four-year term. Some states that helped propel him to victory in 2016, including farmer-heavy Iowa, have been hit hard by the trade dispute. “If ... he doesn’t resolve this by the time we get deep into the presidential campaign and we have pain in the soybean parts of the country ... it’s going to be a real problem for him,” said one former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Soybeans are the most valuable U.S. farm export but shipments to China dropped to a 16-year low in 2018. The failure to reach a deal that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and other advisers had recently suggested was close also casts a shadow on Trump’s self-proclaimed deal-making prowess. The president himself said recently that Chinese President Xi Jinping would be in Washington soon, presumably to celebrate a deal. Not having an agreement, though, also underscores Trump’s commitment to walk away from a deal that does not meet his objectives. He walked away from face-to-face talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un earlier this year when Kim wanted economic sanctions lifted in exchange for partial denuclearization. Trump’s advisers are confident, particularly with regard to U.S.-China policy, that a show of strength will play well with his base. “By and large I think his tough stance on China benefits him overall,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former White House spokesman and a former official in the U.S. Trade Representative’s office under Republican President George W. Bush. “He has shown that he is truly willing to go out and fight.” Trump’s top trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, has pushed for China to change its practices on intellectual property, forced technology transfer, currency manipulation, and other areas of policy. Trump, though delighted when China agreed to make large purchases of U.S. products such as soybeans, backed Lighthizer’s tough approach and has insisted on more sensitive structural reforms. That determination has garnered support from both major U.S. political parties. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer last week urged Trump to “hang tough” with Beijing. “Don’t back down. Strength is the only way to win with China,” he said in a tweet. Clete Willems, until recently a senior adviser to the president on trade and economic policy who took part in the China trade talks for months, said Democrats and Republicans are “pretty united” on the trade issue. “My expectation is that you won’t see people out on the campaign trail saying ‘Back down on China!’” he said. DEAL-MAKER? But Democratic candidates are almost certain to criticize Trump’s handling of negotiations even if they agree on the need for significant changes to the trade relationship with China. “He just doesn’t know how to cut a trade deal ... Trade by tweets does not work,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said at a weekend campaign stop in Cincinnati, Ohio. Trump’s administration and campaign team are aware of the pain the tariffs have already caused farmers and are seeking to blunt the impact of that with government support and by appealing to farmers’ patriotism. “Farmers are patriotic and understand that someone had to finally call China to account,” Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, said in an emailed statement. “Farmers understand the long game, because long-term planning is what they do, and they know that the end result will be better for the agricultural economy.” The economy will be key in the end. If it remains strong, Trump will have a record that resonates with voters, even in states affected by tariffs. (Graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2WA1LWX) Slideshow (2 Images)If the economy falters, however, Trump’s record will be undercut and Democrats will have a greater chance of beating him in critical states such as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. With his hopes for a deal suffering a setback, Trump is again talking up the benefits of tariffs. “Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker. Just sit back and watch!” Trump tweeted on Friday. Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Kieran Murray and Lisa ShumakerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Envisioned as part of the German capital’s wider cultural landscape of confronting and memorializing the crimes of the Nazis, along with the Topography of Terror documentation center and the city’s vast Holocaust Memorial, the museum’s mission includes exploring Judaism and its role in the world beyond Berlin.Among the sharpest critics of the museum in recent months, however, has been the Central Council of Jews in Germany, which is based in Berlin. Josef Schuster, the council’s president, said in a telephone interview that the museum had become too political, in particular an exhibition about Jerusalem perceived as overtly pro-Muslim. That exhibition, which closed in April, was also condemned by the Israeli government.“The Jewish Museum Berlin represented positions that were not representative of those held by the majority of Jewish people in Berlin,” Mr. Schuster said.The dissatisfaction with the museum came to a head last month over a post on social media. On Twitter, the museum’s account promoted as a “#mustread” a newspaper article critical of a motion passed by the German Parliament condemning the boycott movement against Israel, or B.D.S., as anti-Semitic. The ensuing outcry proved too damaging to Mr. Schäfer.Mr. Schuster would not say directly whether he thought the next leader of the museum should be Jewish, saying only that “it is not a requirement.” Last month, however, he told the Berlin daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung that “a Jewish director certainly wouldn’t be bad.”Museum professionals, both Jewish and non-Jewish, insist that it should not be an issue, and instead emphasize the importance of finding an individual who can listen to all sides, manage a large team and navigate a tricky political terrain.

Twitter and Facebook on Monday both announced the discovery of a disinformation campaign being conducted on their platforms by Chinese-backed groups trying to undermine the recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.Twitter wrote in a post that it had identified 936 accounts originating in China that were “deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong, including undermining the legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement on the ground.”Twitter said it had "reliable evidence" to believe this was a state-backed coordinated operation.As a result, Twitter will no longer accept advertising from state-controlled media outlets, specifically those that are either financially or editorially controlled by a nation-state.“We want to protect healthy discourse and open conversation,” Twitter wrote. “To that end, we believe that there is a difference between engaging in conversation with accounts you choose to follow and the content you see from advertisers in your Twitter experience which may be from accounts you're not currently following. We have policies for both but we have higher standards for our advertisers.”Facebook wrote in a separate post that based on Twitter’s findings, it conducted an internal investigation into what the company described as “coordinated inauthentic behavior in the region.” Facebook removed seven pages, three groups, and five accounts from the platform stemming from the investigation. More than 15,000 Facebook users were estimated to follow the Chinese-backed pages that were removed, while around 2,200 accounts were members of at least one of the groups."We are making progress rooting out this abuse, but as we’ve said before, it’s an ongoing challenge," Facebook wrote. "We’re committed to continually improving to stay ahead. That means building better technology, hiring more people and working more closely with law enforcement, security experts and other companies."Twitter said the accounts removed on Monday were the most “active” accounts in the disinformation campaign, but that around 200,000 accounts were “proactively suspended” before they were able to become “substantially active.”The accounts were all suspended for violations against Twitter’s platform manipulation policies, with the company pointing to violations around spam content, coordinated activity, fake accounts, attributed activity and efforts to evade Twitter bans. Despite Twitter being blocked in China, the company wrote that many accounts there accessed the platform through virtual private networks.All of the accounts suspended have been archived, totaling to what Twitter described as “the largest of its kind in the industry.”Hong Kong has seen weeks of protests by demonstrators calling for political reforms and more democracy as well as violent clashes between protesters and law enforcement.Updated at 3:36 p.m.

North Korea is to be offered unprecedented security guarantees when Kim Jong-un meets Donald Trump in Singapore, the US secretary of state has said on the eve of the summit.Mike Pompeo did not specify what security assurances Trump would offer Kim but made clear they would go even further than a 2005 agreement in which the US pledged not to attack North Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons.The White House said Trump would begin his meeting with Kim, the first US summit with North Korea, at 9am on Tuesday (2am UK time; 9pm on Monday in Washington) with a one-on-one meeting with translators but no advisers or aides. Only after that initial personal session will national security officials join the meeting.The president tweeted on Tuesday morning, hours before the summit was due to begin, that meetings between staff and representatives were going well but “that doesn’t matter”.“We will all know soon if a real deal, unlike those of the past, can happen!” he wrote. In another tweet he said detractors had been proved wrong after he stopped North Korea firing missiles and secured the release of American hostages. “We will be fine!” he wrote.However, there are doubts over whether Trump can persuade Kim to make a clear statement on his intention to dismantle and surrender his nuclear weapons programme. If an effort to close the gap, Pompeo said the US could give Pyongyang more guarantees of security than had hitherto been offered. “It is the case we are prepared to give security assurances necessary for the North Koreans to engage in ... denuclearisation,” Pompeo told reporters. “We are prepared to take actions that will provide them sufficient certainty that they can be comfortable that denuclearisation isn’t something that ends badly for them.”He added: “We are prepared to make ... security assurances that are different, [more] unique than, what America has been willing to provide previously. We think this is both necessary and appropriate.”US and North Korean officials met in Singapore on Monday to prepare for the historic summit, which will take place at a luxury hotel on an island close to central Singapore.While North Korea spoke of establishing a new “permanent peace-keeping mechanism” and its state-run news agency hailed a “new era” in relations with the US, Trump tweeted on Monday about how pleased he was to be in Singapore.“Excitement in the air!” he tweeted.The format for the talks is aimed at establishing a personal rapport between the two leaders. A US official said that the first session on Tuesday morning would be between the two alone apart from translators – with no advisers or aides. They will enter the negotiating room only after the one-on-one session is over. Pompeo said he was optimistic that the summit would be a success, but defined success as an agreement that the negotiations should continue. He said the US was “hopeful that this summit will set the conditions for future talks”.It was reported that Kim planned to fly back to North Korea in the early afternoon on Tuesday, leaving very little time for actual negotiations. There is still considerable uncertainty about what a deal between the leaders would look like.The Pyongyang regime envisages denuclearisation as a gradual and somewhat amorphous process, in which both sides take phased reciprocal steps to defuse tensions with the ultimate but distant goal of nuclear disarmament. The Trump administration has previously insisted on “complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament” (CVID) of North Korea, with the emphasis on unilateral steps by Pyongyang rewarded by US security assurances. But the president has significantly softened the US negotiating stance in the immediate run-up to the summit, accepting the prospect of open-ended negotiations involving multiple future summits.Pompeo muddied the picture further on Monday by melding the two concepts in a tweet showing him at breakfast with US negotiators, saying the US remained “committed to the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”.The North Korean state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun said the meeting would discuss “wide-ranging and profound views on the issue of establishing new DPRK-US relations, the issue of building a permanent and durable peace-keeping mechanism on the Korean peninsula.”The KCNA news agency heralded the summit as part of a “changed era”.Most observers predict the outcome will be a short and vague statement built around the ambiguous aim of the “denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”, leaving it to later bilateral meetings to negotiate what that would mean in practice.Kim was the first to arrive in Singapore, landing at Changi airport on a commercial Air China plane. It is the farthest Kim has travelled since inheriting power in 2011, and only his third known trip outside the country since then, with the use of a Chinese plane raising questions over the state of North Korea’s ageing fleet of Soviet-built aircraft.As Kim’s black Mercedes arrived at the St Regis hotel in downtown Singapore, it was flanked by bodyguards in black suits jogging alongside the car.Kim met the Singaporean prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, briefly on Sunday, smiling broadly as the two posed for photographs.“The entire world is watching the historic summit between [North Korea] and the United States of America, and thanks to your sincere efforts ... we were able to complete the preparations for the historic summit,” Kim told Lee through an interpreter. Kim later departed with his entourage on a night-time tour of Singapore accompanied by local government officials. Singapore’s foreign minister tweeted a selfie with Kim and the education minister, Ong Ye Kung, during the tour. Members of the media were held at bay as they tried to sneak a glimpse of the North Korean leader. There were rumours in the afternoon that Kim would tour several economic projects in the city state and his staff and cars were on call from about 2pm local time.The US president arrived on Air Force One a few hours after Kim, coming directly from a tumultuous G7 summit in Quebec, which ended with a bitter personal exchange between the US president and the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau.Even after touching down in Singapore, it was clear that trade disputes with US allies in Quebec continued to rankle Trump. “Sorry, we cannot let our friends, or enemies, take advantage of us on trade any more,” Trump tweeted. “We must put the American worker first!”Trump and his entourage met the Singaporean prime minister for lunch on Monday. He told Lee: “We’ve got a very interesting meeting in particular tomorrow, and I just think it’s going to work out very nicely.” Topics North Korea Donald Trump Kim Jong-un Singapore Asia Pacific Mike Pompeo news

In a twist of fate that may have seemed bizarre back when bizarreness wasn’t so normal, one of the leading lights of the anti-Trump “resistance” is the ex-FBI director James Comey.Since being fired by Donald Trump in May 2017, Comey has written a book and, this week, gone on a media blitz. The tour may not yet be over, either: some are already speculating that Comey could run for office. Would the left vote for Comey, even after how he handled Hillary Clinton’s emails? It remains to be seen, but one thing is sure – they’re willing to spend a lot of money to see him. On Thursday he was in conversation with the New Yorker editor David Remnick, and reports have suggested tickets have been going for $850.Could this be right? Before taking my seat in the auditorium, I took to the streets outside to find out.Upon first glance it’s a very New York crowd outside the theatre. There’s a mix of older intellectuals who probably own amazing apartments somewhere in Manhattan and urbane millennials who definitely do not.“These are diehard New Yorker readers who are interested in politics and the events that are surrounding this administration,” a 65-year-old man with perfectly round glasses and a beret tells me. What about him, I ask: is he a member of the resistance? “I wouldn’t call myself a member of the resistance – resistance to what?” he replies. Trump, I suggest. “I don’t support Trump but I wouldn’t say I’m an active part of the resistance.” Why? “Because I’m not actively resisting. I resist emotionally but I don’t necessarily do anything.”Not everyone considers themselves so passive. Barbara Stendel is 63, unemployed, and paid $200 for a ticket – more than double face value. She gets a lot of her news from Facebook (“still!” she says) and is an avid user of Twitter. She follows a controversial mix of high-profile resistance members that have sprung up on its fringes. They include self-proclaimed experts, citizen journalists, and conspiracy theorists – people like Eric Garland, Claude Taylor, Seth Abramson and Louise Mensch (although she admittedly “takes Louise with a grain of salt”).What brings Stendel here? “To see Comey live. You know, I follow him on Twitter, I marched in Washington. I’ve been very politically active since Trump won the nomination. Comey is very honourable and has stories to tell,” she says. Would she vote for him if he ran for president? “Probably. He’s an honourable, stand-up guy.” But what about the emails? “He felt he didn’t have a choice, and thought Hillary was going to win.”Sarah Jordan, 80, her husband, Joe, 95, have travelled all the way from Philadelphia to see Comey. Both say Comey showed bad judgment in his handling of the Clinton email investigation, but they use a word to describe him that comes up a lot: “Despite what he did,” says Sarah, “he’s an honourable man.”Not everyone is so sold. Myrsini Stephanides is a 38-year-old literary agent and the daughter of Greek-Cypriot immigrants. She speaks highly of Comey, but remains “split” over whether she’s a fan. “He’s the opposite of Trump in terms of character and integrity and intelligence, so I want to hear him speak,” she says. Would she vote for Comey if he ran for president? “To be determined,” she says. “But I would consider it.” What about his handling of the Clinton emails? “I have co-workers who went to college with him and he’s a man of integrity, people don’t question that,” she says. “Compared to who we have in office right now, I don’t think he did what he did lightly and I want to assume there was a reason for it.”Meanwhile, Joy-Ann Reid, one of the leading figures of the resistance, has suddenly arrived. The host of AM Joy with Joy Reid on MSNBC, she has more than a million followers on Twitter, many of whom she has amassed since Trump’s election.She’s a respected journalist and unafraid of calling out the administration. Does she consider herself part of the resistance? “I consider myself a part of the media,” she says before letting out an awkward laugh, making me think she may resent the question. “I have a take, a point of view – I’m alarmed, like I think any citizen would be, about foreign interference in our election, and I think everyone should be concerned about that.” However, she is a fan of the resistance. “It’s important that people are standing up for constitutional democracy,” she says. “It’s wonderful that people are engaged.”During the talk, Comey repeats a lot of what he’s already said during his many media appearances, but there are some illuminating moments. “Does the FBI have a file on Trump, and if so how many filing cabinets is it?” is one particularly good question he bluntly refuses to answer. The two men also joke about the nine minutes it took Jason Chaffetz to leak Comey’s Clinton email (“there must have been a problem with his forwarding button”), and a re-enactment of Trump’s dinner invitation the night he asked him to pledge loyalty. He describes the president calling him up and asking him over to the White House’s Green Room the same night. “Isn’t that a bit rude?” Remnick interjects.After the crowds file out of the theatre, I manage to bump into Remnick and ask him what he thinks. “It’s not your average book tour!” he says. “My objective was to get a rounded picture of what he believes and feels at any given time. I don’t think he feels like he’s part of any resistance. I think he’s trying to explain the position he was in in real time, and how excruciating it was. I think he wants to be understood by the people who are absolutely enraged by the present state of affairs.”Regarding what he considers to be Comey’s weakest area, his answer is predictable. “The business of reopening the case was unnecessary. And that was borne out by the fact that they went through the emails and in a few days realised they were completely duplicative!”So … would he vote for Comey if he ran for president? Standing atop a subway stairwell he laughs, waves me away, and disappears underground. Topics James Comey US politics New York features

ByteDance, the Beijing-based company behind the popular short-video app TikTok, has started its own search engine to compete with the likes of Baidu. Called “Toutiao Search,” the portal is built into the company’s existing news aggregation service, Jinri Toutiao (“Today’s Headlines”).Like Baidu and Microsoft’s Bing, Toutiao Search appears to be censoring results to appease the Chinese government. For instance, a search for “香港,” the Chinese characters for “Hong Kong,” on Toutiao returns articles mostly from state-sponsored media, which have tried to control the narrative as demonstrators push for democracy in the city. These articles, shown when searching on a computer in the US, characterize anti-government protestors as terrorists and showcase violence against police.“Who are the people destroying Hong Kong with evil violence?” asks one headline from Toutiao.com, translated by Quartz. “Hong Kong has reached a crisis point, the cancer of violence must be removed,” declares another from the overseas edition of the People’s Daily, an official newspaper of the Communist Party of China. Another, sitting on the homepage of Toutiao yesterday (Aug. 13) asks, “The situation in Hong Kong is so nasty. Why hasn’t the Chinese government intervened?”A Toutiao search for “June Fourth,” a phrase Chinese mainlanders use to refer to the Tiananmen Square protests, also returns stories predominantly from Chinese government-sanctioned media, Reuters noted.ByteDance’s selective information surfacing doesn’t end there. On the US version of its TikTok app, the hashtag #HongKong didn’t seem to provide any results related to the Hong Kong protests. A search for #HongKongProtest returned just three results with police and protestors clashing. Together, the clips had fewer than 500 views in total at the time of publishing. However, the hashtag #反送中 (a rough shorthand for the anti-extradition protests) returned a collection of posts, which have garnered about 87,000 views collectively. But those numbers pale in comparison to more popular hashtags, which garner hundreds of millions, or even hundreds of billions of views.ByteDance wasn’t immediately available to explain whether the Chinese version of TikTok, called “Douyin,” has a stricter content removal policy related to the Hong Kong protests or whether the #反送中 posts are visible in China.As a social media user, it’s difficult to reconcile TikTok’s playfulness with ByteDance’s apparent willingness to bow to the Chinese government. TikTok is supposed to be fun and silly, helping ByteDance balloon to over 1 billion users around the world. The ethics of state-sanctioned censorship? Not as much fun.Although Baidu currently controls 76% of China’s online search market, ByteDance could eventually become a meaningful alternative, given its rising popularity. The company was reportedly valued at $78 billion during a financing round last fall.

At the event on Monday, hosted by Mic and Bustle Digital Group, Ms. Gillibrand cited a “double standard,” noting that female senators were pressed for comment about Mr. Franken far more frequently than their male colleagues. “Who is being held accountable for Al Franken’s decision to resign? Women senators, including me. It’s outrageous. It’s absurd,” she said.Ms. Gillibrand has argued that Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat, would not have won a special election in Alabama if Mr. Franken had not stepped aside and provided the party with a clear message against the Republican candidate, Roy S. Moore, a state jurist accused of sexually assaulting teenage girls. Others in her party, including Mr. Schumer, voiced similar concerns.In the New Yorker piece, Mr. Franken alleges that Mr. Schumer forced him to leave, saying that if he refused to resign by 5 p.m. the entire Democratic caucus would demand he quit. People close to Mr. Schumer disputed that description of events, pointing to Mr. Franken’s failure to sufficiently address the allegations both publicly and privately within the Democratic caucus. Mr. Schumer, they point out, was one of the last Democrats in the Senate to come out against Mr. Franken.“Senator Schumer warned Senator Franken repeatedly that it was certain that there would be procedures used against him in the Senate, including the fact that Republicans would go to the floor and demand censure, call for stripping of his committee assignments and more,” said Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer. “And given the number of senators who called for his resignation, such moves would have inevitably succeeded.”The magazine quoted seven current and former Democratic senators — five men and two women — as saying they regretted calling for Mr. Franken to step down.Mr. Franken had appeared unhappy with his choice in real time. “There is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office,” he said in his farewell speech.In recent months, Mr. Franken has gingerly waded back into public life, after sinking into what he called a clinical depression. “I’m angry at my colleagues who did this. I think they were just trying to get past one bad news cycle,” he told The New Yorker.

[What you need to know to start the day: Get New York Today in your inbox.]Several students at an elite private school were involved with a video that the school on Monday said showed them using “racist, homophobic and misogynistic language.”The school, Ethical Culture Fieldston School, said in a statement that the students were seniors in the upper school — its high school division — on its campus in the Bronx. The head of the school, Jessica L. Bagby, wrote in a schoolwide email that one student involved in the incident had already withdrawn from Fieldston.The students were recorded counting down “three, two, one” — and then saying “crack,” followed by a racial epithet.Calling the language in the video a “clear violation of our community values and expectations,” Ms. Bagby said a disciplinary process began soon after school officials became aware of the video a couple of weeks ago. A spokesman for Fieldston, Davidson Goldin, declined to comment on how the other students would be disciplined, citing student confidentiality.Ms. Bagby’s email said a former student had also been involved in the video, which she said had been shot “a few years ago.” It surfaced amid a dispute between the students, according to a person who had been briefed on the situation but spoke on condition of anonymity. The story was first reported by The Daily News, which posted the video on its website.The video injected Fieldston into the national conversation about racism a little more than a month after a blackface video went viral at another private school in New York, Poly Prep Country Day School in Brooklyn. That incident propelled New York City’s private schools, which are overwhelmingly wealthy and white, into an often-painful dialogue as the city struggles to integrate its public schools and issues like income inequality and the concentration of wealth have increasingly figured in the political discussion.Fieldston, with a tuition of $52,993 this academic year, according to its website, said that nonwhite students make up nearly 40 percent of its 1,500-person student body, from prekindergarten through 12th grade. Fieldston said it grants more than $14 million a year in financial aid.Once school officials learned of the video, the school acted rapidly. Ms. Bagby’s email on Monday was the second about the video in two weeks. The first — from Ms. Bagby and the principal of the upper school, Nigel D. Furlonge — was sent on Feb. 13.“The anguish and outrage so many of us feel cannot be overstated enough,” it said. “We have a strict no-tolerance policy when it comes to acts of bias and hate speech.”It also said that in conversations with faculty and staff members and administrators, “many students of color currently in the upper school shared stories of microaggressions and racism that they have experienced during their time” at Ethical Culture Fieldston.In her email on Monday, Ms. Bagby said she was “heartsick about the situation for our children and our school.”She said the upper-school administration had led the investigation into the video and that the school’s discipline committee had met last week to discuss the matter.She said that after consulting with her, Mr. Furlonge, the principal, had “affirmed the Discipline Committee’s recommendations of consequences.”She would not provide details, but added, “The consequences for other students involved have been differentiated based on their responsibility for video, its content and how it was used.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government’s authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies. FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., May 14, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua RobertsThe court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could place such immigrants into indefinite detention anytime without the possibility of bail, not just immediately after they finish prison sentences. The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility that some immigrants could challenge their detention. These immigrants potentially could argue that the use of the 1996 federal law involved in the case, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, against them long after finishing their sentences would violate their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Most of the plaintiffs in the case are legal immigrants. The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers in the case argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime. In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling raises serious due process questions. “It runs the gravest risk of depriving those whom the government has detained of one of the oldest and most important of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms,” Breyer wrote. But Alito wrote that it is not the court’s job to impose a time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court has previously said that “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.” Alito said the challengers’ assertion that immigrants had to be detained within 24 hours of ending a prison sentence is “especially hard to swallow.” It marked Trump’s latest immigration victory at the court. The conservative justices also were in the majority in June 2018 when the court upheld on a 5-4 vote Trump’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. Tuesday’s decision follows a February 2018 ruling in a similar case in which the conservative majority, over liberal dissent, curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for release. American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cecilia Wang, who argued the newly decided case for the challengers, said that in both rulings “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.” Wang said the ACLU is “looking into follow-up litigation along various avenues.” Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigrants since taking office in January 2017. Kerri Kupec, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said administration officials were pleased with the ruling. The case’s plaintiffs included two legal U.S. residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance. In the two detention case rulings, the Supreme Court reversed the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal leaning court with jurisdiction over a large part of the western United States that Trump has frequently criticized. In both cases, litigation against the federal government started before Trump took office. In the latest case, the administration had appealed a 2016 9th Circuit ruling that favored immigrants, a decision it said would undermine the government’s ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes. The 9th Circuit had ruled that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences but then later picked up by immigration authorities could seek bond hearings to argue for their release. Other regional federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue did not rule the same way as the 9th Circuit and were more in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. That means immigrants in those regions who were subject to mandatory detention already were not entitled to bond hearings. Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their sentences. In April 2018, conservative Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling that could hinder the administration’s ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records, invalidating a provision in another law, the Immigration and Nationality Act. Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Will DunhamOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The reaction was even more intense in the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, had planned to use the week to publicize his floor vote to force Democrats to take a stand on progressives’ Green New Deal — an important party-building exercise for Republicans after Mr. Trump’s decision to declare an emergency at the border sparked an insurrection in their ranks this month.Members of Mr. McConnell’s leadership team were incensed at Mr. Mulvaney and allies like the acting White House budget director, Russell Vought, for rekindling a fight that served Democrats so well in 2018 and could harm vulnerable incumbents in 2020, according to two senior aides with direct knowledge of the situation. The maneuver may make it much less likely that Mr. Vought, the chief of staff’s handpicked successor to head the Office of Management and Budget, will be confirmed by the Senate, the aides said.And Democrats pressed their advantage.“The equivalent of a nuclear bomb fell on our country when the president said what he said this week,” Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, said Wednesday as her House subcommittee began pushing through health care legislation. “This is deadly serious.”But Mr. Trump doubled down while talking to reporters in the Oval Office. He predicted that the Texas decision would be upheld by the appeals court, then go to the Supreme Court.“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare,” he said.[What happens if Obamacare is struck down? Read more.]White House press aides did not immediately respond to a request for comment. And one official, who asked for anonymity to speak about the meetings, insisted that Mr. Mulvaney had simply been convening people with various views so that the president could make his own decision. But Mr. Mulvaney was described as leading the charge to back the suit, in an account of the two meetings that was described by a half-dozen people with knowledge of what took place.Politico first reported that Mr. Mulvaney pushed Mr. Trump to get involved in the suit.Mr. Barr did not favor the move but did not object to the White House decision once it had been made, people familiar with what took place said. And one White House official said the administration faced a deadline imposed by the court if it wanted to support the suit.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Thousands of school teachers joined an 11th weekend of anti-government protests in Hong Kong on Saturday, as shops pulled down their shutters and braced for another restive summer night. Weeks of increasingly violent demonstrations have plunged the city into turmoil. Water-filled barricades fortify the airport and government offices. Posters showing bloody clashes are stuck on street corners and there is a protest nearly every night. The unrest began in June in opposition to a now-suspended extradition bill, and have since grown to include broader demands. Following an escalation in violence over the past few days, rallies on Saturday and Sunday are a test of whether the movement can retain the broad support it has appeared to enjoy. Saturday’s mostly peaceful protest suggested that it may - though thousands also attended a pro-police counter-rally, and a clearer picture is not likely to emerge until Sunday when a protest is scheduled that could draw tens of thousands. “The government has been ignoring us for months. We have to keep demonstrating,” said CS Chan, a maths teacher at a rally of teachers, which police said up to 8,300 people had attended, in heavy rain. Organisers said 22,000 were present. Demonstrators say they are fighting the erosion of the “one country, two systems” arrangement that has enshrined some autonomy for Hong Kong since China took it back from Britain in 1997. During the past week they have increasingly directed their frustration toward police, who have responded with fiercer determination to clear them from the streets. As storms cleared, anti-government demonstrators also marched through Kowloon - the main built-up area on the mainland side of Hong Kong harbour - while large pro-police crowds rallied in a harbourside park across the bay. “I’m heartbroken to see the city being split up like this,” a retired telecoms technician, Michael Law, 69, told Reuters at the pro-police rally. “What the violent protesters have been doing shows no respect for Hong Kong’s rule of law.” Organisers said 476,000 people attended the pro-police rally, while police said 108,000 attended. Reuters was not able to verify either estimate. Riot police walk past a shop as they chase anti-government protesters down Nathan Road in Mong Kok in Hong Kong, China August 17, 2019. REUTERS/Thomas PeterMany shops in Kowloon had shut early, even on big retail boulevards, in anticipation of clashes that have tended to turn nasty at night as front-line activists attack police. On Saturday, protesters who had surrounded a police station soon vanished when riot officers advanced with shields and batons. Some said they were saving their energy for Sunday, when the pro-democracy Civil Human Rights Front, which organised million-strong peaceful marches in June, has scheduled another protest. The increasingly violent confrontations have plunged one of Asia’s financial capitals into its worst crisis for decades. The unrest also presents one of the biggest challenges for Chinese President Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012. Hong Kong’s embattled leader, Carrie Lam, has warned activists not tip their home into an abyss. The European Union urged all sides to engage in dialogue, following other calls for restraint as Chinese paramilitary police have run drills close to the Hong Kong border. Police in Australia also warned supporters and opponents of the Hong Kong protest movement to behave after scuffles at a rally in Melbourne. [nL8N25D04J] Chinese officials have likened some actions by protesters to “terrorism” and Chinese state media outlets have urged Hong Kong police to respond more robustly. Protesters have used slingshots to fire marbles at police, shone lasers at them and at times thrown bricks and firebombs. Having fired tear gas to disperse protesters in the streets, and at one point in a subway station, police are warning that they could get tougher. Although their stations have been attacked scores of times during the crisis, they have so far refrained from deploying water cannon, armoured cars or the dog squad. They have made some 750 arrests, charging some protesters with rioting, which can attract a 10-year jail term. Slideshow (20 Images)But many remain on the side of the demonstrators. Yu, a secondary school music teacher in her 40s, said she was determined to show support for protesting students, even though she did not agree with all their actions: “I do appreciate their courage and caring about Hong Kong ... they are definitely braver than our government.” Reporting by Marius Zaharia, Felix Tam, Anne Marie Roantree, Julie Zhu, Donny Kwok and James Redmayne in Hong Kong. Additional reporting by Gabriela Baczynska in Brussels. Writing by Tom Westbrook and Greg Torode; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and Kevin LiffeyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Donald Trump says he 'never worked for Russia' and has attacked the former federal officials who have launched investigations against him. The president called the former executives from the FBI and justice department 'known scoundrels' and 'dirty cops', after the New York Times reported that law enforcement officials began an investigation in 2017 into whether Trump had been working on behalf of Russia against US interests

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, that he had arguably betrayed his country. Sullivan also noted that Flynn had operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump’s campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016 conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador in Washington, about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. The conversations took place between Trump’s November election victory and his inauguration in January 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia ahead of the election, had asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already provided “substantial” cooperation over the course of many interviews. Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison. Flynn’s plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence of between zero and six months. Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent, noting that Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials, who in turn misled the public. The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn’s behavior that have not been made public. At one point, Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged with treason, although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a charge was warranted. “Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan told Flynn. “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense.” Flynn, dressed in a suit and tie, showed little emotion throughout the hearing, and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered questions from the judge. Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency. The judge told Flynn he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison time. Flynn accepted that offer. Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing but asked Mueller’s team and Flynn’s attorney to give him a status report by March 13. Sullivan later imposed travel restrictions on Flynn, ordering him to surrender his passport and to obtain court permission before traveling outside the Washington area. The curbs are typical for people released on their own recognizance, the judge said. Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he could, but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further. Flynn’s attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a case against Bijan Rafiekian, his former business partner who has been charged with unregistered lobbying for Turkey. Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11. Flynn is expected to testify. Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States and is accused by Turkey’s government of backing a 2016 coup attempt. Flynn has not been charged in that case. Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua RobertsFlynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump’s campaign team. At the Republican Party’s national convention in 2016, Flynn led Trump’s supporters in cries of “Lock her up!” directed against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. A group of protesters, including some who chanted “Lock him up,” gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday, along with a large inflatable rat fashioned to look like Trump. Several Flynn supporters also were there, cheering as he entered and exited. One held a sign that read, “Michael Flynn is a hero.” Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January 2017, but lasted only 24 days before being fired. He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24, 2017, that he had not discussed the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had, according to his plea agreement. Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak. Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for him, raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him. “Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him, about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful political campaign. There was no Collusion!” Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday morning. After the hearing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters the FBI had “ambushed” Flynn in the way agents questioned him, but said his “activities” at the center of the case “don’t have anything to do with the president” and disputed that Flynn had committed treason. “We wish General Flynn well,” Sanders said. In contrast, Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to separate charges, a “rat.” Slideshow (8 Images)Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow over his presidency. Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s probe, but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official to do so. Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and entities. Trump has called Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt” and has denied collusion with Moscow. Russia has denied meddling in the election, contrary to the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump’s chances against Clinton. Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Kieran Murray and Will Dunham, Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Ask Joshua Montgomery what’s wrong with smart speakers like the Amazon Echo and Google Home, and you’ll likely get a cynical answer.Montgomery is the CEO of Mycroft, which for the past few years has been building an open-source alternative to big tech’s voice assistants. He doesn’t trust any of those companies–not Google, nor Apple, nor Amazon–to protect people’s privacy or act in users’ best interests.“When you look the history of big tech, and what they’ve done with user data, it’s full of privacy issues. It’s full of user agency issues. It’s full of marketing. It’s full of self-enrichment at the expense of the user,” Montgomery says. “I don’t have any confidence at all that they’re not going to use those same techniques and tactics in their new technology.”But unlike big tech’s smart speakers, Mycroft won’t store any voice data on its servers unless you opt into a program that improves speech recognition for open-source voice projects. Users who do share their data can rescind it at any time. Mycroft has already raised more than double the $50,000 it was seeking to fund the device on Kickstarter and plans to ship by the end of this year.While the goal of creating a privacy-first voice assistant is noble, maintaining tight control over your personal data always comes at a cost. In this case, Mycroft’s all-or-nothing approach to retaining voice data will make speech recognition more challenging, putting the company at an inherent disadvantage against companies that hoover up as much audio as they can.[Photo: courtesy of Mycroft AI]Controlling The FlowTo be clear, Mycroft will treat its speaker’s always-listening element the same way as its larger rivals. The speaker will listen for a wake word using a processor on the device and won’t start uploading audio until it’s been triggered.The key distinction is what happens to the audio after it heads to the cloud. Although Amazon and Google both let users review and delete their voice recordings, neither company offers a way to automatically delete data over time. And when users try to wipe data in bulk–an option only available through Google’s and Amazon’s websites, not their mobile voice assistant apps–both companies discourage it. A pop-up on Amazon’s site says deleting the data “may degrade your experience,” while Google shows a pop-up saying it can “make Google services more useful to you” if you keep those voice samples on file.Nino Tasca, a senior product manager for Google Assistant, said in an email statement that the company uses individual voice samples to improve wake word recognition, determine which user is talking, and learn how users pronounce words and phrases.Amazon did not answer specific questions, and instead provided an email statement describing in broad terms how the company uses voice data. “Alexa uses your voice recording to answer your questions, fulfill your requests, and improve your experience and our services,” the company says. “This includes training Alexa to interpret speech and language to help improve her ability to understand and respond to your requests.”Neither response explains why users don’t at least have the option to automatically delete some voice data over time or anonymize their voice samples. Such practices are the norm for Apple, which only retains voice samples for six months and keeps them anonymous while training Siri’s speech recognition.Not that any of those approaches satisfy Montgomery, who worries that all these companies will become laxer about privacy over time. He also wonders if data could be de-anonymized to satisfy business needs or uphold law enforcement requests–particularly in countries like China where companies have proven willing to sacrifice privacy in exchange for reaching more customers.“Based on the past performance of these companies as they’ve deployed services, I think it would be foolish to anticipate them becoming more private over time,” he says. “The best way to make sure that your data is kept private is to make sure that your data is gone.”Say That AgainThe downside to MyCroft’s hardline stance on privacy is that it limits the company’s ability to improve speech recognition. Instead of training its AI from scratch, Mycroft is using open data sets from Mozilla, which come from volunteer voice recordings and other open sources such as transcribed TED talks. That amounts to a fraction of what Google and Amazon are gathering.“Does big tech have a data advantage? Absolutely,” Montgomery says. Still, he argues that with Mozilla’s reach and concerted efforts by the open source community, it’s still possible to build a compelling alternative to mainstream voice assistants.But even as Montgomery downplays the issue, Mozilla acknowledges that there are significant disadvantages to creating a voice assistant without massive amounts of personal voice data.“Generally, for services like this, the bigger pool of data you have, the easier it is for you to develop a model that is really effective and really responsive,” says Marshall Erwin, Mozilla’s director of trust and security. “And that ultimately is why companies like Google and Amazon have been ahead of the game on this, because they have many different channels that can allow them to create large pools of data for this purpose.”Compared to Montgomery, Erwin’s stance toward tech giants isn’t nearly as hostile. He applauds Google and Amazon for at least showing users their voice data and giving them the option to delete it all. In some ways, he says, that’s even better than Apple’s approach of hiding and anonymizing what it’s collected.“I think transparency might be the best option if you really think the data needs to be collected and retained for some amount of time in the first place,” he says.Erwin would still like to see those companies be more up-front about how long they hang on to voice data, provide retention limits for users who want them, and encourage people who care about privacy to use those management tools. But he also puts some of the burden on users, who should know that the data that Amazon and Google collect from their virtual assistants isn’t all that different from what they gather through users’ activity in other formats.“If I buy detergent with my Alexa, ultimately, I’m creating a similar type of risk compared to when I go on Amazon and buy detergent,” Erwin says. “That’s just a choice that people need to be informed about, to know that these companies have vast pools of data about them.”[Photo: courtesy of Mycroft AI]Open Voice’s FutureMontgomery points out that there’s more to Mycroft than just privacy. The company plans to make its speaker more customizable than an Echo or Google Home, for instance by letting users set up custom wake words. And while Apple, Google, and Amazon all use smart speakers to prioritize their own online services, Montgomery envisions Mycroft as a neutral party.“As these technologies become a significant part of how we interact with technology, the question really becomes, ‘When I ask this device a question, am I getting the best answer for me, or am I getting the best answer for whatever company developed the tech?'” he says.Still, Montgomery admits that Mycroft won’t appeal to everyone, at least not as a consumer product. But selling speakers directly to consumers isn’t Mycroft’s primary business model anyway. The real money is in offering open-source AI to businesses, who might be even more wary about turning over audio logs and user data to tech giants.To that end, one of Mycroft’s backers is Jaguar Land Rover, which invested $110,000 in the company to explore voice control in automobiles. Microphone maker Shure is also an investor. While Mycroft doesn’t have any integration deals yet, Montgomery says he’s in talks with several companies that want to have their own branded voice assistants. They aren’t interested in ceding more control over their customers to Amazon or Google.“They are absolutely 100% certain that that will end badly,” Montgomery says.

Aitan Goelman, Mr. Strzok’s lawyer, denounced his client’s dismissal. “The decision to fire Special Agent Strzok is not only a departure from typical bureau practice, but also contradicts Director Wray’s testimony to Congress and his assurances that the F.B.I. intended to follow its regular process in this and all personnel matters,” Mr. Goelman said.“This decision should be deeply troubling to all Americans,” Mr. Goelman added. “A lengthy investigation and multiple rounds of congressional testimony failed to produce a shred of evidence that Special Agent Strzok’s personal views ever affected his work.”Mr. Strzok’s text exchanges with Ms. Page demonstrated animosity toward Mr. Trump. In one, Ms. Page asks: Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Mr. Strzok responds: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The inspector general, who uncovered the messages, found no evidence that the pair imposed their political views on their investigative decisions but cited that exchange as “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”The report by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, that preceded Mr. Strzok’s firing not only criticized his conduct in sending the texts but also his use of personal email accounts to handle sensitive information. In addition, the inspector general criticized Mr. Strzok’s decision not to move swiftly to examine new emails related to the Clinton investigation just weeks before the 2016 election.Mr. Horowitz said in his report that he was “deeply troubled” by the text messages. Hundreds exchanged over months were found in which the pair disparaged Mr. Trump and, to a lesser extent, Mrs. Clinton, exchanged work gossip and bantered.On Twitter, Mr. Strzok said he was “deeply saddened by this decision,” adding, “It has been an honor to serve my country and work with the fine men and women of the FBI.”Mr. Strzok became emblematic of Mr. Trump’s unfounded assertions that a so-called deep state of bureaucrats opposed to him was undermining his presidency. Mr. Trump contended that Mr. Strzok targeted the president and accused Mr. Strzok of being “treasonous” and a “disgrace.” Mr. Strzok told lawmakers that he never leaked information about the Russia inquiry, which could have upended the election and hurt Mr. Trump’s chances of becoming president.

AIRBASE IN NORTHEAST SYRIA (Reuters) - The commander of U.S.-backed forces in Syria called on Monday for about 1,000 to 1,500 international forces to remain in Syria to help fight Islamic State and expressed hope that the United States, in particular, would halt plans for a total pullout. A fighter from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) rides on a vehicle in the village of Baghouz, Deir Al Zor province, Syria February 18, 2019. REUTERS/Rodi SaidThe remarks by Mazloum Kobani, the commander-in-chief of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, followed talks with senior U.S. generals in Syria and offered perhaps the most comprehensive view to date of his requests for an enduring military assistance from the U.S.-led coalition. It also shows that Kobani is still holding out hope that U.S. President Donald Trump may soften his withdrawal order, which has been criticized by allies at home and abroad and which triggered the resignation of Trump’s defense secretary. “We would like to have air cover, air support and a force on the ground to coordinate with us,” Kobani told a small group of reporters who traveled with the U.S. military to the talks at an airbase at an undisclosed location in northeast Syria. With U.S. help, the Kurdish-led fighters are poised to seize Islamic State’s last holdout in eastern Syria. At the height of its power four years ago, Islamic State held about a third of both Iraq and Syria in a self-proclaimed caliphate. But Islamic State still has thousands of fighters, who, now dispersed, are expected to turn to guerrilla-style attacks. Kobani said there was discussions about perhaps French and British troops supporting the SDF in Syria. But he stressed he also wanted at least “a partial group of American forces”, who now number more than 2,000 in Syria, to stay as well. “American forces must remain beside us,” Kobani said through a translator. U.S. Army General Joseph Votel, head of Central Command, said after talks with Kobani that he was still carrying out Trump’s December order for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. “We certainly understand what they would like us to do, but of course that’s not the path we’re on at this particular point,” Votel told reporters. Asked about any discussions on a continuing U.S. presence in Syria, Votel said: “So the discussion really isn’t about U.S. forces staying here. We’ve looked at potentially what coalition (forces) might be able to do here.” A Reuters witness said there was a lull in fighting on Monday where Islamic State fighters could be seen strolling in their last neighborhood of Baghouz village, near the Iraqi border where they are sheltering among civilians. SDF commanders said the presence of civilians among the militants was compelling their fighters to proceed cautiously. The U.S. military and intelligence officials have warned of the risk of a resurgence of Islamic State. But the pullout raises an even more immediate concern to Kobani’s SDF, which fears that Turkey will make good on threats to attack the Kurdish-led fighters that Ankara brands as terrorists. He warned of a “new genocide” in SDF controlled areas of Syria unless the United States and its allies can reach some agreement with Turkey. Kobani thanked Trump for publicly stating his intent to protect the SDF but said: “I want him to live up to his word.” Without a deal with the U.S.-led coalition, experts say Kobani may have to strike a deal with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to avoid a Turkish sweep or Islamic State revival. Votel is recommending continued support to the SDF as long as it keeps up pressure on Islamic State militants. But Army Lieutenant General Paul LaCamera, who is the commander of the U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, said on Sunday the United States would be legally unable to support the SDF if they partnered with Assad or Assad’s Russian backers. Kobani said he was not seeking a military deal with Assad. “We’re trying to preserve the current situation,” he said, speaking through a translator. “We’re trying to have a political deal with the regime to reach a solution, a constitutional solution, for this part of Syria.” Perhaps sensing an opportunity to stoke doubt among Kurdish communities, Assad warned on Sunday the United States would not protect those depending on it. Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, is among the U.S. lawmakers expressing concern the U.S. withdrawal could deal a devastating blow to Kurdish forces and warned that any sense of U.S. betrayal could cast a long shadow for years to come. “It will chill future potential groups from assisting us if we’re going to treat the people who have been so stalwart on our behalf in this way. It is very dangerous in terms of national security,” he told Reuters in Washington. Turkey wants to set up a safe zone with logistical support from allies and says it should be cleared of the U.S.-backed Kurdish YPG militia. But Kobani said ceding the area to Turkish control would be unacceptable to the SDF, which is led by Kurdish fighters but also includes Arabs. Slideshow (3 Images)The United States is hoping allies will contribute forces to help stabilize areas freed from Islamic State. But it is unclear which allies will send their troops once U.S. forces depart. A French diplomat said Europeans would not provide troops when it was completely unclear what the objectives of such a safe zone would be or how this would monitored or guaranteed. “For now, there is no plan,” the diplomat said. Reporting by Phil Stewart; Additional reporting by John Irish in Munich, Germany; Editing by Alison WilliamsOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - The jury in the bank and tax fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended its first day of deliberations on Thursday without reaching a verdict but with several questions, including how to define “reasonable doubt.” Defense attorneys Brian Ketcham, Kevin Downing, Richard Westling and Thomas Zehnle leave the U.S. District Courthouse following the first day of jury deliberations in former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's trial on bank and tax fraud charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia's role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., August 16, 2018. REUTERS/Chris WattieThe six men and six women considered the charges against Manafort for around seven hours in the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. They will resume deliberations Friday morning. The case is the first to go to trial stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, although the charges largely predate Manafort’s five months working on Trump’s campaign, including three as chairman. Before wrapping up their work for the day, the jurors asked U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis their first questions, including the definition of “reasonable doubt.” In a criminal case the jury must find a defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” “The government is not required to prove beyond all possible doubt,” Ellis said, responding to a note from the jury with the questions. Ellis added that reasonable doubt was “doubt based on reason.” The other questions delved into details of the case. One involved the government’s requirement for taxpayers filing a report regarding the existence of a foreign bank account. Manafort is charged with failing to file reports of his overseas accounts to U.S. authorities for four years. Another question centered on the definition of a “shelf company,” a term referring to a type of inactive company, and legal filing requirements “related to income”. The last question involved how the list of exhibits matched the indictment. Defense lawyers saw the questions as a positive sign. “Overall, a very good day for Mr. Manafort,” Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing said at a bank of TV cameras outside the courthouse. Peter Carr, a spokesman for the prosecution, declined comment. Jury consultant Roy Futterman cautioned not to read too much into the jurors’ first note. “It’s not surprising the defense is given some hope by these questions because it sounds like they’re questioning some fundamental things,” Futterman said. “It would be a mistake to think this is a sign one way or the other.” Manafort faces five counts of filing false tax returns, four counts of failing to disclose his offshore bank accounts, and nine counts of bank fraud. If convicted on all the charges, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. Prosecutors offered evidence that Manafort hid $16 million earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine in overseas bank accounts, and used it to pay U.S. vendors for cars, clothes, and real estate without declaring the income on his tax returns. And when the work in Ukraine dried up, Manafort lied to banks to get more than $20 million in loans to maintain his upscale lifestyle, prosecutors showed during two-weeks of testimony. Closing arguments took place on Wednesday. The defense called no witnesses, arguing that prosecutors failed to prove their case. Manafort’s lawyers have pinned the blame on Rick Gates, his former protege, and others who handled his financial affairs. Gates was indicted by Mueller but pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution. The jurors asked whether someone is required to file the report if they own less than 50 percent of the account, do not have signature authority but control disbursement of funds. Ellis read the jury the law, which requires U.S. taxpayers with at least $10,000 in a foreign bank account to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, known as a FBAR, to the Treasury Department. Despite having millions stashed in 31 overseas bank accounts, Manafort did not file FBARs between 2011 and 2014, prosecutors contend. During the trial Manafort’s lawyers raised questions about whether the law was applicable to Manafort. The jury’s question about shelf companies is likely related to Gates’ testimony. Gates spoke about shelf companies in Cyprus, entities he said he had been used by Ukrainian businessmen who made payments to Manafort. Ellis told the jurors to rely on their recollection when it came to the shelf companies. Slideshow (9 Images)As a general rule of thumb, jurors are thought to want to wrap up their work by the end of the day on Fridays. As they were waiting to be called into the courtroom to hear the answers to their questions, however, the jurors could be heard laughing, a sign they may not be in rush to complete their work, Futterman, the jury consultant, said. “If they’re all getting along well and laughing, you may be in for the long haul waiting for this deliberation to end.” Reporting by Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld; Additional reporting by Amanda Becker and Sarah N. Lynch; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

An accountant for Donald Trump's former election campaign chief Paul Manafort says she helped disguise his foreign income so he could pay less in tax.Cindy Laporta told the court in Alexandria, Virginia, she had been told to concoct a $900,000 (£690,000) loan on his tax return in 2015.Mr Manafort is facing charges of bank fraud, tax fraud, and failing to report foreign bank accounts.The former political consultant has pleaded not guilty to the charges.Last month, Mr Manafort, who ran the Trump campaign for three months, was accused by prosecutors of using numerous accounts in order to evade tax.He could face up to 30 years in jail if found guilty.Read more: The man who helped Trump winNone of the charges that Mr Manafort faces at trial relate to the investigation into possible collusion in 2016 between Russia and the Trump campaign.Testifying on the fourth day of the trial, Ms Laporta, who has been given immunity in exchange for testifying, said she knew what she did with fabricating the loan was "not appropriate". "You can't pick and choose what's a loan and what's income," she said. "I very much regret it."She added that she had agreed to do this under pressure from Mr Manafort's former associate Rick Gates, who had alleged that Mr Manafort did not have the money to pay the full tax.Ms Laporta said Mr Manafort had likely saved up to $500,000 in taxes in 2015.Mr Manafort's lawyers have previously argued that Mr Gates is the one responsible for the financial charges. "This is about Mr Manafort placing his trust in the wrong person," defence lawyer Thomas Zehnle said in his opening statement.However, prosecutors argue that Mr Manafort was closely involved in managing his own finances.Mr Gates has already pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and lying to investigators. He has since been co-operating with the investigation into Mr Manafort.Before joining Mr Trump's team in summer 2016, Paul Manafort had worked on a number of Republican presidential campaigns, including those of Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s and Ronald Reagan from 1978 to 1980.As a lobbyist, he developed a reputation for representing the unrepresentable, including former Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos, who was accused of torturing, abducting and killing thousands of opponents.Mr Manafort took over as chairman of the Trump campaign in May 2016 and aimed to present a more thoughtful candidate, who stuck to scripts instead of ad-libbing in campaign rallies. He was in the hot seat when Mr Trump eventually won the Republican nomination, and organised the Republican convention in July 2016. Who's who in Russia drama? How Trump-Russia scandal has unfolded What is the special counsel? But Mr Manafort quickly faced allegations that he had not disclosed millions of dollars he received for consultancy work he carried out in Ukraine for its then pro-Russian president. At the same time, the Republican Party changed the language in its manifesto regarding the conflict in Ukraine, removing anti-Russian sentiment.Mr Manafort quit Mr Trump's team in August 2016.

Media player Media playback is unsupported on your device Video Will 'Modicare' be a success in India? India has launched its new flagship health insurance scheme, dubbed "Modicare", designed as a safety net for millions of people who struggle to afford quality medical care. It was announced in the annual budget in February. Devina Gupta reports from the northern Indian state of Haryana.

A driver accused of intentionally hitting another vehicle after becoming enraged by its pro-Trump bumper sticker has pleaded not guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon.Chloe Wright, 25, appeared in court in Barnstable, Massachusetts, on Monday also charged with vandalising property and leaving the scene of property damage.According to the Cape Cod Times, the alleged victim told police he had stopped at a red light on 30 June when the driver behind him began honking the horn. At the next light, the man alleged, the other driver called him a racist and other slurs after asking if he had voted for Trump.The man told police the motorist hit his door and the side of his vehicle as she drove around his car. Topics Massachusetts Donald Trump US politics Road transport news