(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.)Good morning. Trump associates’ guilt, a 95-year-old ex-Nazi guard and a look at how many Asians in the U.S. are far from “Crazy Rich.” Here’s what you need to know:ImageCreditRichard Drew/Associated Press• A bad legal day for President Trump. Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, was convicted on eight counts in his fraud trial, bringing a dramatic end to a politically charged case and handing a victory to the special counsel, Robert Mueller. Check here for the latest.And Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, above, agreed to plead guilty to campaign finance charges over his payments to secure the silence of a pornographic film actress about an affair she said she had with Mr. Trump.Other stories gripping the U.S.: A key Senate panel signaled a willingness to advance new Russia sanctions after new evidence that Russian hackers are targeting conservative U.S. research groups and the Senate’s own web pages.And the Trump administration did impose new sanctions on Russia — related to North Korea._____• A climate dispute in the U.S. The Trump administration unveiled details of its Affordable Clean Energy rule on power plants, to replace the far stricter Obama-era Clean Power Plan.The fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and rates of microscopic airborne particulates. Among the costs: up to 1,400 premature deaths annually, and 48,000 more asthma attacks.Opposition was immediate and vocal. “Once again, the Trump Administration has chosen the profits of polluters over public health and safety,” tweeted Adam Schiff, a California representative. He pledged to “resist this all-out assault on the environment.”_____• A less controversial U.S. deportation.Jakiw Palij, a former Nazi concentration camp guard, had lived a quiet life in New York City for decades, having lied on his visa application and immigrated as a war refugee in 1949. He claimed he had been a farmer and factory worker during the time he was a guard.American officials and diplomats had long urged Germany to take in Mr. Palij, but there was resistance because his birthplace, formerly in Poland, is now part of Ukraine. President Trump pressed the issue himself with Chancellor Angela Merkel, officials said.A White House statement said the deportation of Mr. Palij was carried out early Tuesday._____• A missing person in China.Nearly a decade after the country rolled out an ambitious $130 billion health care reform plan, millions of people cannot afford the treatments they need for serious illnesses.When Tang Gongwei, 26, discovered he had stomach cancer, he chose to disappear rather than burden his parents with the expense of his treatment. Above, his father has not stopped hunting for him.The case has riveted China in part because of a cruel irony: The missing man was not a common laborer but a pharmacist. How could someone within the health care system not be able to get treatment?_____• The “Crazy Rich” income gap.The hit romantic comedy “Crazy Rich Asians” offers picture-perfect images of the immigrant success story.The reality is that Asian-Americans are the most economically divided racial group in the U.S. Here’s a close look at the income gap.And we spoke with Kevin Kwan, the author of the novel from which the movie was adapted, about why the film is making white men cry — and the other stories he wants to tell: “Crazy poor Asians. Or just crazy average Asians.”Business• American business leaders warned the Trump administration, which will hold trade talks with the Chinese this week, that imposing tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods would cripple their businesses and raise prices on everything from bicycles to car seats to refrigerators.• Amazon’s $13.4 billion purchase of Whole Foods last year shook the grocery world, setting off an escalating frenzy of deals and partnerships. The latest: Aeon, one of Japan’s largest retailers, invested $110 million in Boxed, a grocery e-commerce company.• Uber hired Nelson Chai, a former executive at Merrill Lynch, to be its new chief financial officer. And the ride-hailing giant is rethinking its plans for self-driving cars, after one fatally struck a woman in March.• Slack, the workplace messaging company, raised $427 million in new funding. The latest round values the company at $7.1 billion, up from $2.8 billion in 2015.• U.S. stocks were up. Barring a sudden plummet, today will mark the longest U.S. bull market yet. The National Stock Exchange of India is closed. Here’s a snapshot of global markets.In the News• Australia’s political turmoil: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull narrowly defeated a challenge to his leadership, but another is in the offing. He could still be the third Australian prime minister in a decade to lose the position over a climate dispute. [The New York Times]• “The danger of terrorist activities, which was the initial cause of events leading to the humanitarian crisis in Rakhine, remains real and present today.” In a speech in Singapore, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi referred obliquely to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, which has blamed the persecuted minority for terrorism. [Reuters]• North Korea’s state news media over the weekend called U.S. accusations of “suspected” secret nuclear facilities “fiction” and said the claims were “derailing dialogue.” [The New York Times]• This week, the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims celebrate Eid al-Adha, a four-day feast that coincides with the final rites of the hajj. This Op-Ed discusses the holiday’s important lessons. [The New York Times Opinion]• El Salvador cut diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to establish ties with China, leaving just 17 nations that recognize the government in Taipei. [The New York Times]• Animal crackers freed. The company behind the iconic Barnum’s Animals crackers redesigned the product’s packaging to remove circus bars in response to pressure from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. [The New York Times]Smarter LivingTips for a more fulfilling life.• What’s the one thing you want to do most, but won’t talk about?• Using apps to track everything may not be a bad idea.• Recipe of the day: Your turn to bring snacks to the office? Make some lemon meltaways.Noteworthy• Kelly Marie Tran takes a stand. In a Times essay, the “Star Wars” actress speaks out for the first time since she deleted her Instagram posts this summer in response to online harassment: “I want to live in a world where children of color don’t spend their entire adolescence wishing to be white.”• The United Arab Emirates makes sure that foreign husbands hold reins of familial authority. In this dispatch from Dubai, our reporter examines how that imbalance of power can be emotionally unsettling and exploitative. (Happy spoiler: In the end, she wins.)• And have you heard of amezaiku? The centuries-old Japanese candy-making technique calls for sculpting molten sugar syrup. A dedicated group of Tokyo craftsmen saved it from extinction. Have a glance: The confections look sweet.Back StoryDorothy Parker, who was born on this day in 1893, once suggested her own epitaph: “Excuse my dust.”It was a classic, coolly unsentimental remark by Ms. Parker, the acerbic wit whose writing was a mainstay in Vanity Fair and The New Yorker for years. But her other plans for after she passed away came as a surprise to many.When she died on June 7, 1967, the bulk of her estate was left to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whom she had never met. Ms. Parker, a champion of humanitarian and left-wing causes, admired the civil rights leader’s work, but even Dr. King was surprised.Her will also stipulated that, if anything were to happen to Dr. King, control of her estate should pass to the N.A.A.C.P., which it did after his assassination the next year. That decision appalled some of her friends.“She must have been drunk when she did it,” her executor, Lillian Hellman, said in an interview with The Times Book Review in 1973.Ms. Parker was cremated, and her ashes were finally placed at the N.A.A.C.P.’s headquarters in Baltimore in 1988, after spending the previous 15 years in her lawyer’s filing cabinet because they were never claimed.Joumana Khatib wrote today’s Back Story._____Featured Crikey articles, usually behind a paywall, are free each day for New York Times readers.Your Morning Briefing is published weekday mornings and updated online. Sign up here to get it by email in the Australian, Asian, European or American morning. You can also receive an Evening Briefing on U.S. weeknights. And our Australia bureau chief offers a weekly letter adding analysis and conversations with readers. Browse our full range of Times newsletters here.What would you like to see here? Contact us at [email protected].

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted on Tuesday of eight counts of financial wrongdoing, giving Special Counsel Robert Mueller a victory in the first trial arising from his investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election. After almost four days of deliberations, a 12-member jury found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. The jury in U.S. federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, said it could not reach a verdict on 10 of the 18 counts with which Manafort was charged. Judge T.S. Ellis declared a mistrial on those counts. While the charges against Manafort mostly predate his work on President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign, the guilty verdict triggered an outburst from Trump, who has repeatedly sought to distance himself from Manafort while denouncing the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt”. “Paul Manafort is a good man. ... It doesn’t involve me, but I still feel - you know, it’s a very sad thing that happened,” Trump said before a rally in West Virginia on Tuesday night. “This has nothing to do with Russian collusion.” Manafort’s conviction on the eight counts came in the same hour that Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in New York to campaign finance violations and other charges. Manafort stood quietly while the verdict was being read by the clerk. It represented a stunning fall for Manafort, a well-known figure in Republican politics for decades. Related CoverageFollow the money: how Mueller's team made the Manafort caseFactbox: Under investigation or convicted - current and ex-Trump aides facing scrutiny Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing, told reporters afterward that his client was disappointed in the verdict and was evaluating his options. “He is trying to soak it all in,” Downing told Reuters. Mueller’s office declined comment on the verdict. Prosecutors accused Manafort of hiding from U.S. tax authorities $16 million he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine to fund an opulent lifestyle and then lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans after his Ukrainian income dried up and he needed cash. The two bank fraud charges on which he was convicted each carry a potential prison term of up to 30 years. But several sentencing experts predicted Manafort, 69, would receive a prison term of about 10 years. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that any attempt by Trump to use his presidential powers to pardon Manafort or interfere in Mueller’s probe “would be a gross abuse of power and require immediate action by Congress.” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said in a statement: “There have yet to be any charges or convictions for colluding with the Russian government by any member of the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.” FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File PhotoMoscow has denied interfering in the 2016 election and Trump has said there was no collusion. David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor in Miami, said the guilty verdict on eight of 18 counts was “a significant victory” for Mueller and that “the mistrial on the remaining 10 counts is a shallow victory for the defense.” Manafort was convicted on all five charges of filing false tax returns. Prosecutors provided evidence he did not report $16 million in overseas income from 2010 to 2014 but used it to purchase clothes and real estate and renovate his homes. The jury found him guilty for failing to report his overseas bank holdings in just one of the four years cited. Manafort’s lawyers sought to portray the law as complex and raised questions about whether Manafort willfully broke it, a notion that may have given some jurors pause. They were hung on three other related counts. Manafort was found guilty on two counts of bank fraud, one involving a $3.4 million mortgage on a Manhattan condominium and a $1 million business loan. In both cases, the evidence showed Manafort provided false information in order to get the loans. The jury was hung on seven other bank fraud counts, however, including all five conspiracy charges, possibly because the jurors doubted the credibility of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man, who pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution. One count on which the jury was hung was a $5.5 million loan that did not close. Ellis, who was hard on the prosecution throughout the trial, questioned in open court why the government was pursuing a charge on a loan that never materialized, a comment that drew criticism from legal experts and prompted an official complaint from Mueller’s team. Ellis gave the prosecution until Aug. 29 to decide whether to retry Manafort on the charges on which the jury deadlocked. As a result, the judge did not set a sentencing date for the charges on which Manafort was found guilty. Slideshow (6 Images)So far, no jurors have spoken to the media and their names were not made public so it is unclear how they determined their verdict. Manafort now faces a second trial on Sept. 17 in Washington in which he is charged with money laundering, failing to register as a lobbyist in the United States for his work for pro-Kremlin politicians in Ukraine, and obstruction of justice. The second trial promises to delve deeper into Manafort’s Russian connections, including his relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukranian-Russian political consultant who was indicted along with Manafort and who Mueller says has ties to Russian intelligence. Reporting by Karen Freifeld, Nathan Layne and Ginger Gibson in Alexandria, Va.; Additional reporting by Pete Schroeder and Katanga Johnson in Alexandria and Jonathan Landay in Washington; Writing by Warren Strobel and Alistair Bell; Editing by Bill Trott and Peter CooneyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The Democrats’ seizure of the House of Representatives and other advances in the US midterms are hugely welcome and a great relief. But Tuesday’s vote did not see the hoped-for blue wave, and was not a turning point in itself. What matters is what the Democrats, and the president, do next.Donald Trump was predictably ungracious and combative in what he claimed as a “big victory”, despite his improbable suggestion that it “could be a beautiful bipartisan type of situation”. He thrives on divisions. The record turnout (up 31m votes on the 114m votes in 2014) testifies to his ability to fire up his base as well as galvanise resistance. Candidates embraced his nativism, with nakedly racist and antisemitic campaigns. Mr Trump has boasted of the strengthened Republican hold on the Senate – an unsurprising outcome, given how strongly this round of contests favoured the party. The Democrats’ Andrew Gillum made striking inroads in Florida but couldn’t take the governorship. In Ohio, equally critical, Democratic senator Sherrod Brown held on but Republicans triumphed in other races. Mr Trump could be much worse placed for 2020.We can expect him to run against the Democratic House in that race: it will make a convenient enemy. That is precisely because the Democrats have ended the era of unchecked Republican power and can now frustrate his agenda on everything from tax cuts to healthcare and immigration. The resistance has moved into the legislature; but they need to show they can be more than the resistance, and can win over opponents. Critically, they now have the power to investigate him; this is not “presidential harassment” but sorely needed oversight. Mr Trump has threatened retaliation, but the biggest challenge for Democrats is picking the right targets and the priority is protecting the work of Robert Mueller, whose report into into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and the alleged collusion of the Trump campaign is pending. No longer fearing electoral repercussions, on Wednesday Mr Trump forced out Jeff Sessions – never forgiven for recusing himself from oversight – and put a senior aide who has called for the defunding and reining in of the investigation in his place as acting attorney-general. There was good news for Democrats in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (where governor Scott Walker was ousted) – all states which fell to Mr Trump in 2016. Beto O’Rourke’s campaign in Texas made him a star. But mobilising support is not enough. The impact of gerrymandering and voter suppression is increasingly obvious. Democrats won the popular vote in four of the five presidential races this century – yet two of those produced Republican presidents. Democratic senators represent around 3.65 million voters and Republicans around 2.5 million. This week shows that electors are waking up. Michigan backed a non-partisan redistricting commission and automatic voting enrolment. Florida passed an initiative restoring voting rights to 1.4 million felons, disproportionately black men; Mr Trump won there by 113,000 votes. The Democrats won’t just need the right candidate and agenda in 2020, but a fairer system too. Topics US politics Opinion US midterms 2018 Donald Trump Republicans Democrats Florida Texas editorials

Republican elected officials have hesitated to criticise Donald Trump after his former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to fraud, implicating the president, and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of financial crimes. A spokesperson for the House of Representatives speaker, Paul Ryan, issued an abrupt statement, saying: “We are aware of Mr Cohen’s guilty plea to these serious charges. We will need more information than is currently available at this point.”Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an erstwhile Trump critic turned golf partner, emphasized that both cases had nothing to do with Russia. “The American legal system is working its will in both the Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen cases,” Graham said in a statement.“Thus far, there have yet to be any charges or convictions for colluding with the Russian government by any member of the Trump campaign in the 2016 election. It’s important to let this process continue without interference. I hope Mr Mueller can conclude his investigation sooner rather than later for the benefit of the nation,” he continued, referring to the Russia investigation being carried out in Washington by special counsel Robert Mueller, into interference in the presidential election and allegations of collusion with Moscow by the Trump campaign.And on Wednesday morning, the Utah Republican senator Orrin Hatch said on Capitol Hill of the Cohen case: “Those are some serious charges and they can’t be ignored,” he said. “I’m not very happy about it, I’ll put it that way and should have never happened to begin with.”However, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who has long been one of the few Republicans willing to consistently break with Trump on policy grounds, offered direct criticism. “Paul Manafort is a founding member of the DC swamp and Michael Cohen is the Gotham version of the same,” said Sasse, referencing Gotham as a popular nickname for New York City. “Neither one of these felons should have been anywhere near the presidency.”Senior Democrats also weighed in. Elizabeth Warren, the high-profile Massachusetts senator, who is seen as eyeing her party’s nomination for the White House in 2020 and is attempting to build support for a new anti-corruption bill, tweeted: “The Trump era has given our country its most nakedly corrupt leadership of our lifetimes. But they didn’t cause the rot – they’re just the biggest, stinkiest example of it. Join the fight for my new bill.”The Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, called for Republicans to delay the confirmation hearings of Trump’s US supreme court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in the wake of Tuesday’s double court drama, calling the developments “a game changer”.Schumer argues that Kavanaugh has refused to answer whether Trump can be forced to comply with a subpoena. He said that refusal, combined with Cohen implicating Trump in a federal crime, makes the danger of Kavanaugh’s nomination “abundantly clear”. The conservative judge’s Senate confirmation hearing is due to begin on 4 September.But the reaction of the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, was surprisingly measured as she steered the party away from focussing on a mission to impeach Trump quickly.Impeaching Trump is “not a priority” for Democrats and despite the implications of the Manafort and Cohen cases, “impeachment has to spring from something else,” she told the Associated Press on Wednesday. Pelosi added that if Democrats win control of the House in the November midterm elections, they should concentrate on ensuring the Mueller investigation can finish its work.In contrast, the former top Trump aide Steve Bannon told the Guardian the rulings would have implications for the midterm elections. “Tonight brings November into complete focus,” he said. “It will be an up or down vote on the impeachment of the president. The Democrats have long wanted this fight and now they have it.” Topics Republicans Donald Trump Paul Manafort Michael Cohen US politics news

Paul Manafort, whose work as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine led to his conviction in a Virginia courtroom on Wednesday, worked more extensively in the former Soviet Union than was previously reported, a new investigation has claimed.According to a report published on Wednesday by the new investigative media outlet Project, Manafort and his fixer Konstantin Kilimnik were sent in 2005 to the central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, where the two promoted Russian interests, including the closure of the US military base Manas.According to the article, their travel was funded by a Russian oligarch who was later sanctioned by the US over meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections. “I heard about Kyrgyzstan – they went there to strengthen Russia’s position,” a former member of Manafort’s team from Ukraine said in the article, which was obtained by the Guardian before its release. A colleague of Kilimnik confirmed to Project that the two men worked there.Kilimnik worked in the country for the then new president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who had come to power following an uprising dubbed the Tulip revolution. It would mark the second time Manafort appeared in a post-Soviet country shortly after a “coloured revolution”, as the uprisings sparked by contested elections which Moscow has blamed on malign US influence are known. While Manafort’s work in the country has not previously been reported, leaked documents had indicated he later wired money that he received from a Ukrainian political party to offshore accounts he held in Kyrgyzstan. Project’s article was co-written by investigative journalists Maria Zholobova and Roman Badanin. The latter is a former editor of the news website RBC who left amid a conflict with management over the paper’s investigative reporting, including a profile of Sergei Roldugin, the Vladimir Putin confidant whose links to a money trail of billions was revealed in the Panama Papers, and a story revealing the identity of Putin’s daughter.The article tracks down Kilimnik, a Russian political operative who served as Manafort’s fixer for close to a decade while the former Trump campaign chairman worked in Ukraine.The piece also asserts that Kilimnik received envelopes containing cash and air tickets for his and Manafort’s travel from the offices of a company owned by Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch close to Putin who was recently sanctioned by the US. The Treasury department’s top sanctions official said on Tuesday that the US had made Deripaska’s business “radioactive”.Representatives of Deripaska denied to Project that he or the company, BasEl, had ever financed Kilimnik. The “private investment relations of Deripaska and Manafort, whose existence is not disputed, have never been aimed at achieving political goals”, a Deripaska representative told Project. The Guardian could not independently confirm the article’s conclusions.While Kilimnik could often be found in Kiev at the Hyatt Regency lobby, he has largely disappeared since leaving for Russia. Project tracked the political fixer to a wealthy gated neighbourhood just north-west of Moscow, where the graduate of the Military University of the Russian Ministry of Defense lives with his wife and shuns publicity.He has also been famously conscious of avoiding having his image taken, but the report included several new photographs of Kilimnik. US officials have speculated about Kilimnik’s loyalties, and an indictment released by Robert Mueller alleged he had links to Russian intelligence. He has denied that, and Manafort has said he was promoting western values in places such as Ukraine. The Project report suggested Kilimnik was acting in the interests of his native country, Russia.“He is absolutely a Soviet man, a patriot,” one of Kilimnik’s friends said. Topics Trump-Russia investigation Paul Manafort Donald Trump Russia Trump administration Robert Mueller Europe news

Mr. Navratil said one reason his agency penalized Huawei was China’s National Intelligence Law, which was passed in 2017 and requires Chinese companies to support, provide assistance and cooperate in the authoritarian nation’s national intelligence work, wherever they operate. While declining to discuss classified intelligence, he offered an analogy.“Imagine there is a restaurant where the hygiene is filthy rotten,” Mr. Navratil said. “The agency overseeing the restaurant has no evidence someone has gotten sick or died. But does that mean you should eat there?”As a result of the agency’s move, Huawei’s business in the Czech Republic could be devastated. The directive doesn’t affect consumer products, such as mobile phones, but it aims to severely restrict the role Huawei can play in 5G, and to block it from supplying equipment to public and private entities deemed critical to national security.“This is the first time we have ever issued such a warning,” Mr. Navratil said.Since then, the Ministries of Health and Justice announced that they would not honor existing contracts to buy servers from Huawei. The country’s largest carmaker, Skoda, has temporarily stopped Huawei from bidding on projects as it undergoes a security review demanded by the new cyberdirective.Even Huawei’s contract with the presidential offices is under review.In turn, Huawei has been hitting back. Last week, the company threatened litigation against the cyberagency, as well as economic retaliation. It also has intensified lobbying campaigns with some lawmakers and others in the political elite, including a Czech delegation that the company hosted in China last month.

Tuesday was a bad day for Donald Trump. His former lawyer Michael Cohen accused the president of joining in what prosecutors might see as a conspiracy to violate elections laws, and his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of eight federal felonies and appears headed for prison.What happens next? One significant new accusation against Trump emerged on Tuesday. In open court, Cohen said that “in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office” he had made hush agreements with two women “for the principal purpose of influencing the election”.The hush money agreements amounted to an illegal corporate donation made directly to a candidate and an illegally large individual donation. The extent of Trump’s involvement was made plain by charging documents which described how Cohen submitted false invoices so that Trump could reimburse him for the payments.As Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in a statement afterwards: “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”Probably not. Past justice department guidance has held that a sitting president may not be indicted for a crime, and Trump’s legal team has said (caveat lector) that special counsel Robert Mueller had assured them he would follow that guidance.Trump could theoretically be indicted upon leaving office, but historically in the US there has not been much appetite for prosecuting former presidents.The worst scenario for Trump would be for Democrats to gain control of congress in the November midterm elections, and start up corruption investigations possibly including impeachment hearings. Basically, Trump’s fate is in the hands of voters.Will the public grow disgusted with the president as he sides with convicted felons such as Manafort who declined to pay taxes on millions in overseas income while buying ostrich jackets and extravagant antique carpets? Or will they get sick of being blatantly lied to by the president to their faces?Or, on the other hand, will that crucial sliver of potentially wavering Trump supporters agree with the president that it’s all a “witch-hunt”?“Let’s remember that this is ultimately about Congress and not the courts,” tweeted Eric Columbus, a senior lawyer in the justice department during the Barack Obama years. “Anyone who thinks Trump will face a criminal trial while president is kidding themselves.”No. Trump is at the center of multiple overlapping state and federal investigations led by Mueller’s investigation of Trump campaign ties with Russia and related matters.Each arm of the investigation appears capable of revealing potentially criminal conduct by the president or by members of his family, or conduct by Trump that might violate his oath of office – or something else. The breathtaking multiplicity of fronts on which Trump appears to be legally vulnerable – from his campaign to his business to his conduct in office – is terrible for him, noted Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, writing in the Atlantic: “The situation gets worse for the president – because nobody, including him, has much idea when the next blow is coming or along which of these fronts.”How about this statistic: “Only 28% of young adults say they are absolutely certain they will vote in the 2018 election compared to 74% of seniors,” according to a study by the non-profit PRRI. If the Democrats can’t take Congress, the notion of accountability for Trump may recede farther into the distance.Trump also has his durable approval rating. In the eyes of the public, he may have been inoculated against certain accusations, such as Cohen’s statement that he was in on the hush agreements, by the fact that his spokesman Rudy Giuliani blurted out the same thing months ago on television, and that Cohen had already released audio tapes appearing to document Trump’s involvement.Neither Manafort nor Cohen has yet agreed with prosecutors to offer testimony in cases running parallel. But this point of encouragement for Trump is a fragile one. If Manafort, facing the prospect of ending his life in prison, decided to testify against the president, his description of Trump campaign contacts with Russians could expose criminality or additional Trump lies.Yes, over things like the surprise news last week that White House counsel Don McGahn has spent 30 hours with the special counsel and the president’s legal team has little idea what he said; or the fact that the longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by Mueller.With the Manafort guilty verdict, the Mueller team would seem to display, from Trump’s perspective, a somewhat disturbing efficiency. The charging documents against Cohen showed how the special counsel has gained detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the Trump Organization – in the case of the hush payments, at least. If the Trump Organization hosted illegal activity, Mueller might discover it and charge it.Mueller also appears to be weighing an obstruction of justice charge against Trump. Again, Trump appears to know as little as the public about what is coming next out of the justice department. As national security specialist and historian Tim Weiner told the Guardian last week: “The president of the United States is terrified.”Exactly. Trump has argued that Mueller is currently on a fishing expedition, having lost sight of his original focus on Russia. Unfortunately for Trump, that does not appear to be the case.In indictments previously returned against Russian individuals and companies, Mueller has documented how Russian agents stole US identities, spied inside the country and carried out a campaign of online hacking and subterfuge to upset US democracy. Many of the Russians’ tactics came to public light for the first time owing to Mueller.Only Mueller and his team know what’s coming next. In one of the lesser news lines Tuesday, Mueller and the legal team for Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, agreed to put off Flynn’s sentencing owing to his ongoing participation in open investigations.Stay tuned. Topics Donald Trump Michael Cohen Paul Manafort US politics Trump-Russia investigation Russia explainers

A federal jury in Virginia found former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts of financial crimes, marking the first major prosecution won by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of Russian meddling during the 2016 election. Interested in Russia Investigation? Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Russia Investigation Add Interest Manafort was found guilty on the eight counts of the special counsel’s 18-count indictment. Each count carries a hefty prison term – when combined, he is facing a maximum of 80 years behind bars, but at sentencing, the total will likely be less. The federal judge declared a mistrial in the other ten counts after jurors could not reach consensus. Manafort showed no emotion as the judge told him to stand and face the jury, and the judge’s clerk declared him guilty on a succession of counts. His wife, Kathleen Manafort, also remained stoic, displaying no response to the verdict was read. Leaving court on Tuesday afternoon, Manafort’s lead counsel, Kevin Downing, told reporters that his client was “disappointed” and “weighing his options.” Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors secured an 18-count indictment on tax- and bank-fraud charges against Manafort back in February. At trial, the special counsel rested its case after parading more than two dozen accountants and associates of Manafort over the course of two weeks, painting the longtime Republican operative as a man who shielded millions of dollars from American authorities in order to fund his lavish lifestyle. During one of the most dramatic moments of the trial, defense attorneys representing Manafort sought to shift blame onto Manafort’s long-time business partner and Trump campaign deputy manager, Rick Gates. During his testimony, Gates admitted to stealing from Manafort and using that money to finance at least one extramarital affair. Last Tuesday, Manafort’s attorneys rested their case, electing not to call any witnesses or mount a defense. In closing arguments on Wednesday, prosecutors slammed Manafort as a liar and a schemer. "When you follow the trail of Mr. Manafort's money, it's littered with lies,” special counsel prosecutor Greg Andres said, telling jurors that Manafort is “not above the law.”MORE: With closing arguments wrapped, Manafort case goes to jury "He lied to his tax preparers, he lied to his bookkeeper, because he wanted to hide that money and avoid paying taxes," Andres added, emphasizing the mountain of documents presented to jurors – not the witnesses – as evidence of Manafort’s guilt. Defense counsel disagreed. Attorneys Richard Westling and Kevin Downing sought to point the finger at Gates, who they say was the mastermind behind Manafort’s legal woes, making the case to jurors that prosecutors failed to meet the burden of proof in charging Manafort with all these crimes.MORE: Manafort trial, first in Mueller investigation, gets underway Having been found guilty, Manafort, 69, faces the possibility of serving the rest of his life in prison. Manafort will be the second figure in Mueller’s investigation to serve a prison sentence. Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators in April and served a 30-day prison term. This past Friday, President Donald Trump expressed sympathy for his former campaign chairman, who he called a “good person,” telling reporters gathered at the White House that “it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.” Asked whether he will pardon Manafort, Trump declined to answer. The president repeated that sentiment Wednesday upon his arrival for a rally in West Virginia. “I feel very badly for Paul Manafort,” Trump told reporters, adding that the conviction on financial charges in his view strayed from the original mission of the Special Counsel probe. “It had nothing to do with Russian collusion so we continue the Witch Hunt,” he said. Manafort faces another trial brought by the special counsel next month in Washington, D.C., where Manafort has been charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and foreign lobbying violations.

Lawyers and politicians have voiced their outrage at the 47-month prison sentence handed to Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, for bank and tax fraud, arguing that white privilege and wealth had led to privileged treatment under the law.Manafort had pleaded with the judge, TS Ellis, to show compassion in his sentencing at the court in Virginia. The federal sentencing guidelines for serious fraud cases such as this are between 19 and 24 years in prison, but Ellis described the guidelines as “excessive” and “out of whack”, saying Manafort had no prior criminal history and had lived “an otherwise blameless life”.The judge sentenced Manafort to three years and 11 months behind bars, acknowledging: “I don’t expect the sentence I’m about to announce to meet with everyone’s approval.”It was met with a wave of anger from many. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the popular and outspoken Democrat who is US Representative for New York’s 14th congressional district, tweeted that Manafort’s sentence showed that “in our current broken system, ‘justice’ isn’t blind. It’s bought.”“Paul Manafort getting such little jail time for such serious crimes lays out for the world how it’s almost impossible for rich people to go to jail for the same amount of time as someone who is lower income.”Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for president in 2020, was equally scathing. “Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, commits bank and tax fraud and gets 47 months. A homeless man, Fate Winslow, helped sell $20 of pot and got life in prison. The words above the Supreme Court say “Equal Justice Under Law”—when will we start acting like it?” she tweeted.Much of the outrage came from lawyers, in particular public defenders who often represented those from underprivileged backgrounds.They used Manafort’s case as an example of racial disparity in the US justice system. A study of US sentencing data last year found that when black men and white men commit the same crime, black men receive a sentence almost 20% longer on average.Public defender Scott Hechinger pointed out that “for context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room”.Citing another example, Hechinger said: “Three years ago, in the court in which I work, a Brooklyn teenager was sentenced to 19 years (15 more than Manafort) for setting a mattress on fire that inadvertently lead to the death of a responding officer for smoke inhalation.”He added: “I am not making the argument for harsher sentences for anyone including Manafort. I am simply pointing out the outrageous disparity between his treatment and others, disproportionately poor and people of color.”Hechinger was echoed by New York public defender Rebecca J Kavanagh. “While Paul Manafort just received a less than 4 year prison sentence for massive financial fraud, I have a client serving 3 and a half to 7 years in prison for stealing laundry detergent from a drug store,” she said.Lawyer and former public defender Neil W. Blackmon pointed out how rare it was for a judge to choose to override sentencing guidelines for those not of Manafort’s status.“A federal judge defying the sentencing guidelines on the grounds they are ‘excessive’ is a luxury I wish my former PD clients received,” he tweeted. “It’s fair to use the Manafort sentence as a scathing indictment of the justice system’s tendency to treat and sentence defenders differently based on status.”Much of the criticism focused on the difference in sentencing received by Manafort and Crystal Mason, a black woman who accidentally committed voter fraud in the 2016 election, having voted when she was not eligible and was given a five-year-jail term, despite expressing full remorse for her actions.“White privilege: Paul Manafort hides $55m in secret offshore accts to avoid paying $6m tax, defrauds 3 banks of $25m, lies, shows no remorse, sentence recommend 19-24 yrs, gets only 47 mths. Crystal Mason accidentally votes in 2016 U.S. election, shows remorse, gets 5 yrs jail,” wrote one user on Twitter.Others compared the case to Kalief Browder, who was jailed for three years at New York’s Rikers Island after being accused of stealing a backpack as a teenager, charges that were ultimately dismissed. He killed himself after being released from jail.“Kalief Browder was left to rot in Rikers for three years. Denied bail. All for a backpack he never stole. But Manafort cat walks into the court, and moonwalks out with a slap on the wrist. Two justice systems,” tweeted actor and activist Francis Maxwell.Some critics argued Manafort’s sentence was actually fair – but hit a nerve because so many other defendants are hit with unfairly harsh punishments.“47 months is a very long time and I think the only reason we don’t think of a 47 month sentence as a very harsh punishment is that American sentences are cruelly and unreasonably long so it looks short compared to other high-profile punishments,” wrote ThinkProgress columnist Ian Millhiser.Manafort also faces sentencing in a separate case in Washington on 13 March on two conspiracy charges to which he pleaded guilty last September. While he faces a statutory maximum of 10 years in the Washington case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson could potentially stack that on top of the prison time Ellis has imposed.• This article was amended on 8 March 2019 to correct one instance where the Manafort sentence was said to be “four years and 11 months” behind bars. Topics Paul Manafort Donald Trump US justice system news

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Conglomerate Swire Pacific (0019.HK) became the latest major Hong Kong company to voice concern about the impact of protests in the city on business activity, saying they are having direct and indirect impact on demand on a number of its businesses. FILE PHOTO: Logo of Swire Group is seen in Hong Kong, China December 6, 2017. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu The comments by Swire, whose business spans retail to property to airlines, come after similar concerns raised by Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (0293.HK) and Hongkong and Shanghai Hotels (0045.HK)’s on Wednesday. Swire owns 45% of Cathay Pacific, Refinitiv data shows. “The protests in Hong Kong have had some effect on retail sales at our malls, particularly at Pacific Place. If the protests continue, sales are likely to continue to be affected,” Michelle Low, Swire Pacific finance director said in the interim results statement on Thursday, referring to its high-end shopping mall in Admiralty, a financial district where many of the mass protests took place. “Trading conditions for our hotels are expected to be stable in the second half of 2019, except that occupancy in Hong Kong has been affected somewhat by the protests and this is likely to continue if the situation persists.” Swire said the global trade tensions were also causing uncertainty. Millions have taken to Hong Kong streets in anti-government protests that have intensified since mid-June, at times forcing banks, stores, shopping malls, restaurants and even government buildings to close as the demonstrations degenerated into violent clashes between police and activists. Hong Kong’s Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau said on Thursday the drop in inbound tourists accelerated in the past few weeks, with the first week of August declining 31% from a year ago, compared to just single digit percentage drop in mid-July. He said the logistics and retail sectors together employ over 1 million people in Hong Kong, and it could hurt the city’s employment if the sectors continue to be under pressure. Travel Industry Council chairman Jason Wong told Reuters the number of tours from mainland China has fallen 40% to about 140 tours per day in the first week of August, from about 230 tours a day in the same period last year. Wong also expressed concern that the number of business visitors would reduce as some business meetings and conferences were seen scaling back the size or being canceled. “Many related workers may need to take no pay leave and their income will be affected,” Wong said. Also on Thursday, MTR Corp Ltd (0066.HK) and Giordano International Ltd (0709.HK) said in their interim results statement that the current social unrest could weigh on the their business. “This time, it is like a perfect storm,” Wharf Real Estate Investment (1997.HK) chairman Stephen Ng said on Tuesday, as Hong Kong faces both internal and external pressure, including a weakening global economy and U.S.-China trade tensions, at the same time. He is not optimistic about the retail and hotel industry in the second half, he added. Reporting by Donny Kwok and Clare Jim; Additional reporting by Lukas Job; Editing by Muralikumar AnantharamanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

In the nearly two years since he resigned from the Senate in disgrace following multiple allegations of inappropriate behavior, Al Franken has been slowly making his way back into the spotlight. He started with a weekly podcast, followed by his first major interview with The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and then this week’s announcement that he will be joining SiriusXM to host a weekly radio show and help cover the 2020 election. And on Thursday night, Franken sat down for his first late-night appearance since leaving the Senate with his old friend and former Saturday Night Live colleague Conan O’Brien. “We have a great deal to talk about,” O’Brien said while introducing his guest, and the host did not hesitate to get into the difficult questions at the top of the interview. “The #MeToo movement, I think we can all agree, has brought to light a lot of offensive behavior by a lot of men and rightfully so and has been to the great good,” O’Brien began. “Many people think that your case—it made them feel uneasy, and there was some questions and uneasiness about your particular situation and how it was resolved.” Referring specifically to the several Democratic senators who now say they regret pushing Franken out, he asked, “Is this a watershed moment for you?” Franken said it was “very gratifying” for him to get an apology from his former colleagues, adding, “They just basically all said that I deserved due process. And I believe I did too.”Why then, O’Brien wanted to know, did Franken resign on his own volition instead of fighting to clear his name. “I don't want to name any names, but, you know, my committee work would be at risk. I mean, basically losing that,” Franken said. “My staff would be isolated. And I just couldn't serve the people of Minnesota. But, you know, it really needed to have a process, but I just couldn't stay either. It was awful. There were no good choices.” He said he felt a “tremendous amount of pressure” to walk away and ultimately didn’t think he had “any other choice” but to do so. Asked what he’s learned from the experience, Franken said, “When this first happened, if you had asked me, ‘Have you ever made a woman feel uncomfortable by the way you put your arm around her or touched her or something like that’ I would have said no. And after all these allegations came in, I thought, well, I must be doing something wrong. Right? Ever since, I've been a lot more mindful in my interactions with pretty much everyone.” “People who know me know that I'm not that guy,” he added. “That guy that 36 of my colleagues demanded that I go and the pressure came on me in no uncertain terms that I had to go.” Overall, O’Brien was just about as sympathetic an interviewer as Franken could have asked for, going on to praise him for being a “really effective, hard-working senator” and expressing how much he believes he’s missed now that the country is on the verge of impeachment hearings. Despite his return to a career in radio, Franken clearly misses his old job as well. Asked by O’Brien if he ever finds himself “yelling at the screen” during Senate hearings “because you have the right idea for the question and the person on the screen is not asking that question,” he took a long pause before replying, “Yes. Yes, that happens.” “It is very frustrating,” Franken added, revealing that he’s gone so far as to email former colleagues in the middle of hearings with his suggestions. “When I left the Senate, I said I'm giving up my seat, I'm not giving up my voice,” Franken told O’Brien before promoting his new SiriusXM show, where he’ll have a lot less power than he once did but plenty of space to express his opinions.

The Piltdown man – perhaps the most famous fraud in the history of paleontology –combined a 600-year-old skull, an orangutan’s jaw and a chimpanzee’s tooth to feign being the remains of the Missing Link between man and the apes.Now, more than a century later, the Piltdown man has come to US politics with Friday’s release of a declassified memo by Devin Nunes, the chairman of the misnamed House intelligence committee. The Nunes memo connects mismatched shards to suggest a missing link between Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and the Hillary Clinton campaign’s efforts to discredit Donald Trump. The triggering event was a 21 October 2016, foreign intelligence surveillance court (Fisa) warrant for electronic surveillance of Carter Page, an energy consultant and sometime Trump adviser who had been under FBI scrutiny since 2013. According to the Nunes memo, a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele and partly funded by the Clinton campaign was “an essential part” of the rationale for the warrant. We can quibble about what “an essential part” means. Especially since the FBI in an unprecedented Wednesday press release stated: “We have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.” Unmentioned by Nunes were all the other documents that the FBI and the justice department presented to the Fisa court to justify eavesdropping on Page. But even if you accept the world according to the House Republicans (a personal plea: don’t), Page represented a circuitous route to get at Trump. Page had withdrawn from the campaign a month earlier in the wake of news stories about his suspicious meetings in Moscow. And Trump himself later belittled Page as “a very low-level member of I think a committee for a short period of time.” To summarize: in a document that the FBI called inaccurate, House Republicans claim that the Democrats had some shadowy role in a pre-election Fisa warrant against a “very low-level” Trump adviser who had already left the campaign. Compared with the Nunes memo, the never-ending, dry-hole Republican Benghazi investigations look like textbook examples of prudent congressional oversight. To Trumpian true believers, the Nunes memo proves that the FBI and the rest of the Deep State were conspiring to throw the election to Hillary. Of course, this omits the pesky detail that on 28 October 2016, the FBI director, James Comey, announced that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation based on what had been found on Anthony Weiner’s computer. Guess which late October event had more effect on wavering 2016 voters: Comey’s dramatic public statement raising fresh doubts about the Democratic nominee or a secret warrant against a peripheral Trump adviser?The Nunes memo makes one major concession to reality – the FBI opened its Russian investigation three months before the Steele dossier was used, in some fashion, to justify the Page Fisa warrant. In a scene that might have been lifted from the 2016 version of All the President’s Men, a young Trump foreign policy adviser named George Papadopoulos had the foolish notion of trying to drink an Australian diplomat under the table. Instead, Papadopoulos (who later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI) blabbed that the Russian government had a trove of hacked Hillary Clinton emails. Once the Australian government passed this nugget on to Washington, the FBI opened up its Russian front. Ever since Watergate, the standard for any scandal is whether there is a smoking gun left next to a corpse. In the case of the Nunes memo, we lack a body and the gun is a child’s toy pistol. All this raises the question of why Nunes, the Republican majority on the House intelligence committee, Paul Ryan and Trump were so willing to go to war with the FBI over a cap-gun memo. We even have hyper-ventilating Republican congressmen shouting “treason”. The glib answer is that this a pretext for Trump to fire Mueller and the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. But Mueller is never mentioned in the Nunes memo and Rosenstein makes only a cameo appearance. More attention is devoted to articles by journalists David Corn (Mother Jones) and Mike Isikoff (Yahoo News). Perhaps a more convincing answer is that we have reached that alarming moment when right-wing Republicans actually believe the conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Sean Hannity on Fox News, who claims the memo reveals an “attempted coup” against Donald Trump plotted by the “Deep State”. At least, the original fabricator of the Piltdown man knew that it was all a hoax. Walter Shapiro, who has covered the last 10 presidential campaigns, is a columnist for Roll Call and a lecturer in political science at Yale. Topics US news Opinion US politics Republicans comment

Hundreds of protesters have broken into Hong Kong’s legislature, spraying graffiti on the walls and raising the former colonial flag, which includes the British union jack.For hours the protesters had been repeatedly striking reinforced glass walls with a metal trolley and poles as hundreds of others watched on. Once inside they threw chairsand tore down and defaced portraits of past lawmakers.Police who earlier in the day had been standing guard armed with pepper spray and guns marked “less lethal” were nowhere to be seen.The direct action unfolded after a peaceful march of half a million people made its way through other parts of the city on the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China. For the past month protesters have been demanding the withdrawal of a bill that would allow extraditions to the Chinese mainland.Before the protesters broke in to the legislative building, at one point about half a dozen pro-democracy and independent lawmakers came between the demonstrators and police and called for calm.They pushed against the trolley, acting as human shields between it and the building. They were roughly handled by dozens of young protesters, some of whom punched and pulled their arms. They were shouted down and the protesters continued pounding the glass.“They simply wouldn’t listen to me,” said Lam Cheuk-ting, one of the lawmakers. “The movement at large is peaceful, but some young people are overwhelmed by a strong sense of helplessness and they’re emotionally charged.”The police had called on the march organisers to consider rescheduling or shortening it, but it left just before 3pm when tens of thousands began snaking their way through the city.The organisers, the umbrella group the Civil Human Rights Front, did change the end point of the march. Marchers who carried on beyond the approved march route could potentially be charged with illegal assembly under Hong Kong law.Police issued a statement earlier saying they “absolutely” respected people’s right to “assembly, procession and expression of opinion in a peaceful and orderly manner”, but that there was “a serious safety threat” in the Admiralty and Wan Chai areas of the city. They advised the public to carefully consider whether they should join the public procession.China reiterated its stance against what it called “foreign interference” in Hong Kong. Speaking in Beijing, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said the UK’s rights and obligations under the joint declaration on the 1997 handover of Hong Kong had ended.“Britain has no so-called responsibility for Hong Kong. Hong Kong matters are purely an internal affair for China. No foreign country has a right to interfere,” Geng told a daily news briefing.“Recently Britain has continuously gesticulated about Hong Kong, flagrantly interfering. We are extremely dissatisfied with this and resolutely opposed.”Earlier in the day, the chief executive of Hong Kong, Carrie Lam, attempted to calm the mood, as an official ceremony took place at a convention centre in Wan Chai to mark the 22nd anniversary of the handover.In her speech, Lam referred to the protests, saying they had made her realise “the need to grasp public sentiments accurately”. She said: “I am also fully aware that while we have good intentions, we still need to be open and accommodating.”The rallies are the latest manifestation of growing fears that China is stamping down on the city’s freedoms and culture with the help of the finance hub’s pro-Beijing leaders.Although returned to Chinese rule in 1997, Hong Kong is still administered separately under an arrangement known as “one country, two systems”. The city enjoys rights and liberties unseen on the autocratic mainland, but many residents fear Beijing is already reneging on that deal.While the recent protests were initially sparked by Lam’s attempts to pass the proposed extradition legislation, the demonstrations have morphed into a wider movement against her administration and Beijing. Topics Hong Kong China Asia Pacific Carrie Lam news

“They’re nonbelievers in what the media tells them. They think there’s more to the story,” he said. “They think there’s aliens, and the government knows about that and they’re not telling them. They’re all religious, and they’re very concerned about the direction the government is going.”“He’s really good at scaring people,” Mr. Cooper said of Mr. Jones. “He gives them that sense of urgency — they need to hurry up and do something. Now.”Last February, two former employees came forward with allegations that they faced discrimination at Infowars. In interviews, they depicted Mr. Jones as the leader of a racially charged workplace.Robert A. Jacobson, 43, started working with Mr. Jones in 2004 as a video editor, and said that over the years he was taunted for being Jewish. He said that the harassment escalated after August 2015 when Mr. Jones interviewed David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard.Ashley L. Beckford, who was hired as a production assistant in June 2016, said that she was called racial slurs, paid less because of the color of her skin and forced to fend off unwanted sexual advances, including from Mr. Jones. Ms. Beckford, 32, said that an employee once called her a “coon,” that she was shown swastikas in the office, that Mr. Jones once grabbed her buttocks, and that staff members repeatedly used the term “fat black bitch” around her.On his show, Mr. Jones denied the allegations and called both former employees liars.Mr. Jones’s image and credibility as a provocateur are closely linked to his credibility as a marketer of supplements and other products.Consequently, sales of the fluoride-free toothpaste he promotes might decline if he recants his bogus claim that fluoridated water causes cancer and stunts the brains of children. Demand for Infowars-branded gun components that can be purchased without a firearms permit might fall if he backs off his predictions of a looming civil war.

Hundreds of protesters in Hong Kong blocked access to commuter trains on Tuesday, causing widespread disruption during the morning rush hour.Activists prevented trains from leaving across the city. Some blocked doors while others sounded emergency alarms.Crowds of passengers were left stuck on subway platforms and services were badly delayed for much of the morning.Anti-government protests have rocked the city in recent weeks and are causing ongoing disruption.The demonstrations began over a controversial bill that would have enabled extraditions to mainland China, but they have since morphed into a broader movement focused on democratic reform. The background you need on the protests Were triads involved in the attacks? Police fire tear gas at Yuen Long protest "I think my work and meeting could wait," one commuter told the BBC. "But our freedom, safety [and] human rights are being taken away and that can't wait - so I'm OK with it.""I think it's OK because the government should respond to the demands of the citizens," another said.There were some scuffles between protesters and commuters, who were advised by travel companies to seek alternative forms of transport.Some travellers grew frustrated. "It's so inconvenient and annoying," one 64-year-old man told Reuters news agency, "I am in a hurry to work, to make a living."But one masked protester said: "It's not our intention to inconvenience people, but we have to make the authorities understand why we protest."We don't have a leader, as you can see this is a mass movement now," she told Reuters.Rail company MTR Corp said trains had resumed by 11:30 local time (03:30 GMT). "We understand some people want to express their view but we regret that their actions affected train services and other passengers," a spokesman for the company said.It followed a similar protest last Wednesday, when dozens of demonstrators brought trains to a halt during rush hour.Hong Kong has seen eight consecutive weekends of anti-government and pro-democracy demonstrations. Some have been marred by violent clashes between protesters and the police.While the government has paused work on the controversial extradition bill, protesters now want it withdrawn completely, as well as an independent inquiry into police violence, and democratic reform.They want the territory's leader, Carrie Lam, who is not directly elected by voters and whose handling of the crisis has been widely criticised, to resign. "She doesn't co-operate with the people of Hong Kong or respond to their demands," commuter Jason Lo, 31, told Reuters.Some protesters have also expressed their anger at the mainland Chinese government, which they say has been eroding freedoms in Hong Kong.All pictures subject to copyright.

By Feb. 21, 2019 10:14 am ET NEW DELHI—Washington has hit an unlikely roadblock in its extraordinary global push to sideline China’s Huawei Technologies Co.: the world’s biggest democracy, India. Policy makers and telecommunications firms here are so far largely unpersuaded by U.S. warnings that using Huawei’s equipment to upgrade India’s telecom networks presents a major cybersecurity threat, according to more than a dozen government officials and industry executives. Many argue that any such risk is outweighed by Huawei’s cut-rate prices and technological... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In

The deputy mayor of Adolf Hitler’s home town has resigned after publishing a poem about immigration whose imagery was described by Austria’s chancellor as “disgusting, inhuman and deeply racist”.Christian Schilcher, the deputy mayor of Braunau am Inn, published his poem in the Easter edition of a local newspaper affiliated to his far-right Freedom party.The poem, Die Stadtratte (Nagetier mit Kanalisationshintergrund), roughly translates as The City Rat (Rodent with Sewerage Background).The title is a play on words referring to a categorisation, “person with migrant background”, commonly used in German-language media and government correspondence for ethnic minority or mixed race citizens.The poem’s rodent narrator advises migrants to to integrate or “quickly hurry away”.Austria’s chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, has demanded that the Freedom party – with which his own People’s party is in coalition – distance itself from the “abominable” poem, while the Social Democrat leader, Pamela Rendi-Wagner, said she was reminded of the language of National Socialist propaganda.Schilcher initially defended himself, saying his poem had been designed to “provoke, but not to offend or hate” and apologised for the “historically charged” comparison between human beings and rats.On Tuesday morning, the Austrian deputy chancellor and Freedom party leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, confirmed Schilcher had resigned over the poem.While Hitler did indeed liken his political enemies to rats four times in his manifesto, Mein Kampf, some analysts of the Austrian far right said they were more disturbed by the ideas of social Darwinism behind the verses.“What is truly frightening about the poem is the point it articulates towards the end: that migrants will destroy Austria if they are allowed to mingle with the population,” said Natascha Strobl, an expert on the new Austrian right. “That kind of language is even breaking a taboo within the Freedom party.”The poem does not liken humans to rats in a derogatory way, but rather posits the animal as a purer embodiment of what it sees as nature’s moral laws. The rat is aghast at human politicians spending money on “integration”, warning that “if you mix two cultures […] it’s as if you destroy them”.Hitler repeatedly drew comparisons to the animal world in Mein Kampf in order to assert the need for a racially purified German nation, writing: “Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, […] the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse.” Any crossing of two beings, he argued, would produce a racially lower being that would be likely “succumb in the struggle” for survival. Topics Austria The far right Europe news

Did Hillary Clinton mastermind a global child-trafficking ring from a Washington pizzeria? No. Did George W Bush orchestrate a plot to bring down the Twin Towers and kill thousands of people in 2001? Also no. So, why do some people believe they did? And what do conspiracy theories tell us about the way we see the world? Conspiracy theories are far from a new phenomenon. They have been a constant hum in the background for at least the past 100 years, says Prof Joe Uscinski, author of American Conspiracy Theories. They are also more widespread than you might think. "Everybody believes in at least one and probably a few," he says. "And the reason is simple: there is an infinite number of conspiracy theories out there. If we were to poll on all of them, everybody is going to check a few boxes." This finding isn't peculiar to the US. In 2015, University of Cambridge research found most Britons ticked a box when presented with a list of just five theories. These ranged from the existence of a secret group controlling world events, to contact with aliens.This suggests that, contrary to popular belief, the typical conspiracy theorist is not a middle-aged man living in his mother's basement sporting a tinfoil hat. "When you actually look at the demographic data, belief in conspiracies cuts across social class, it cuts across gender and it cuts across age," Prof Chris French, a psychologist at Goldsmith's, University of London, says. 'Pizzagate': The fake story that shows how conspiracy theories spread How to spot a conspiracy theory #QAnon: The pro-Trump conspiracy theory Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy? Equally, whether you're on the left or the right, you're just as likely to see plots against you."The two sides are equal in terms of conspiracy thinking," Prof Uscinski says, of research in the US."People who believe that Bush blew up the Twin Towers were mostly Democrats, people who thought that Obama faked his own birth certificate were mostly Republicans - but it was about even numbers within each party." The theory that the Moon landings were faked has prompted detailed explanations rebutting the claims Claims that Nazi war criminal Rudolf Hess was replaced by a double in jail were debunked by DNA provided by a distant male relative Musicians Beyoncé, Paul McCartney and Avril Lavigne have all faced rumours that they were replaced by clones Some versions of claims that a shadowy group called the Illuminati control the world suggest celebrities and politicians are members To understand why we are so drawn to the notion of shadowy forces controlling political events, we need to think about the psychology behind conspiracy theories. "We are very good at recognising patterns and regularities. But sometimes we overplay that - we think we see meaning and significance when it isn't really there," Prof French says."We also assume that when something happens, it happens because someone or something made it happen for a reason."Essentially, we see some coincidences around big events and we then make up a story out of them. That story becomes a conspiracy theory because it contains "goodies" and "baddies" - the latter being responsible for all the things we don't like.In many ways, this is just like everyday politics. We often blame politicians for bad events, even when those events are beyond their control, says Prof Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University."People will blindly reward or punish the government for good or bad times without really having any clear understanding of whether or how the government's policies have contributed to those outcomes," he says.This is even true when things that seem very unrelated to government go wrong."One instance that we looked at in some detail was a series of shark attacks off the coast of New Jersey in 1916," Prof Bartels says."This was the basis, much later, for the movie Jaws. We found that there was a pretty significant downturn in support for President [Woodrow] Wilson in the areas that had been most heavily affected by the shark attacks." The strange normality of life in a breakaway state How many Brits abroad are there? Why are so many countries now saying cannabis is OK? The one thing that makes you 30 times more likely to laugh The "us" and "them" role of conspiracy theories can be found in more mainstream political groups as well. In the UK, the EU referendum has created a group of Remainers and a similarly sized group of Leavers. "People feel they belong to their group but it also means that people feel a certain sense of antagonism towards people in the other group," Prof Sara Hobolt, of the London School of Economics, says.Remainers and Leavers sometimes interpret the world differently. For example, confronted with identical economic facts, Remainers are more likely to say the economy is performing poorly and Leavers to say it is performing well. Conspiracy theories are just another part of this."Leavers, who, in the run-up to the referendum, thought they were going to be on the losing side, were more likely to think that the referendum might be rigged," Prof Hobolt says."And then that really shifted after the referendum results came out, because at that point the Remainers were on the losing side."It may not be terribly cheering to learn that conspiracy theories are so embedded in political thinking. But it should not be surprising. "It's often the case that we're constructing our beliefs in ways that support what we want to be true," Prof Bartels says. And having more information is little help."The people who are most subject to these biases are the people who are paying the most attention," he says.For many, there is little reason to get political facts right, since your individual vote won't affect government policy."There is no cost for me to be wrong about my political views," Prof Bartels says. "If it makes me feel good to think that Woodrow Wilson should have been able to prevent the shark attacks, then the psychological pay-off from holding those views is likely to be much greater than any penalty that I might suffer if the views are wrong."In the end, we want to feel comfortable, not be right. It is why particular conspiracy theories come and go, but also why conspiracy will always be part of the stories we tell about political events. About this pieceThis analysis piece was commissioned by the BBC from an expert working for an outside organisation. James Tilley is professor of politics and fellow of Jesus College, University of Oxford.His programme Conspiracy Politics was broadcast on BBC Radio 4's Analysis on 11 February and can be listened to here.Edited by Duncan Walker

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Months of increasingly violent protests in Hong Kong are taking a growing toll on the city’s economy, weighing on confidence and scaring away tourists from one of the world’s most vibrant shopping destinations. FILE PHOTO: A shopkeeper looks out from a closes door as protesters attend a march at an anti-parallel trading at Sheung Shui, a border town in Hong Kong, China July 13, 2019. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/File PhotoEconomists say the impact of anti-government protests over the past eight weeks is already worse than in 2014, when a so-called “Umbrella revolution” paralyzed the city’s financial district for 79 days. Demonstrations are more spread out across the city this time and violence has been more intense, prompting local and foreign shoppers to avoid certain areas. Stores and even bank branches have been forced to close for prolonged periods. Many businesses in the port city on the southern Chinese coast are already facing strains from China’s economic slowdown and fallout from the year-long Sino-U.S. trade war. Various strikes are planned in coming weeks, while disruptive civil disobedience actions are taking place almost daily and look set to continue for months. On Tuesday, hundreds of protesters blocked train services, causing commuter chaos. The main retail association has warned members expect a double-digit drop in sales in July and August. The government will release June sales data on Thursday. “Hong Kong’s retail industry will be affected both internally and externally,” said Angela Cheng, economist at CMB International Capital Corporation Limited, adding she had revised her 2019 retail sales forecast to as much as a 10% drop, twice as deep as her previous estimate. Brokerage CLSA downgraded local jeweler Chow Tai Fook, one of the city’s most popular brands with mainland tourists, to ‘sell’ from ‘outperform’ on July 23, saying the protests could cause permanent long-term damage. Luxury group Richemont warned in July that protests hurt its sales, while Swiss watchmaker Swatch said political turbulence contributed to a double-digit decline in sales in Hong Kong, one of its most important markets globally. Around the Admiralty district, where much of the protests have centered, staff at several restaurants and shops told Reuters on Monday that patrons have dropped by a third from a month earlier. Bobby Tang, a 21-year-old sales representative at a Gucci store in the Causeway Bay shopping district, where protest barricades were raised for the first time on Sunday, supports the civil movement. He says the government has failed to respond to any of its demands, which at first were focused on withdrawing a controversial China extradition bill, but have morphed into a much wider pro-democracy struggle. But he also worries about his job at the French luxury group. Prior to the protests, the store had one client per minute, he said, but now it was 3-4 per hour and daily sales have fallen to HK$20,000 ($2,560) from HK$100,000. “If the protests last until October, I worry if I can earn enough salary,” Tang said. Shopping malls are often being used for rest breaks by protesters wearing helmets and goggles and sometimes carrying makeshift weapons. The protesters have been largely respectful of the premises, but on one occasion one mall turned into a battle ground. As police tried to disperse crowds in the Sha Tin working class district on July 14, it ended up chasing them into a shopping center managed by Sun Hung Kai Properties. Fighting erupted and scenes of regular shoppers with bulky bags running away while trying to maintain balance on bloody, slippery floors were broadcast worldwide. Tourism, especially from mainland China, has dropped markedly. Britain, Japan, Singapore and others have issued travel alerts. Hong Kong’s Federation of Trade Unions said hotel occupancy rates fell 20% in June year-on-year, and probably 40% in July. A local tour manager who gave only his surname Yu said around two-thirds of his mainland clients have canceled bookings. LONG-TERM RISKS Fitch Ratings said in a note on Tuesday the unrest could damage business confidence and the quality of governance. It also raised longer-term concerns about policy paralysis and erosion of the rule of law. A 1992 U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act allowing Washington to have a different customs regime with Hong Kong than with mainland China was also crucial for the stability of the Chinese-ruled city. For it to stand, U.S. authorities need to see Hong Kong as sufficiently independent from Beijing, therefore they will scrutinize the latter’s every step during the protests. Fitch affirmed Hong Kong’s AA+ rating on June 11. Slideshow (2 Images)“Evidence of a permanent loss of confidence in public institutions or tangible reduction of the territory’s semi-autonomy as granted under the Basic Law, would ... be grounds to review the ratings,” Fitch said. The American Chamber of Commerce warned that international businesses were feeling pessimistic on short-term prospects and that the government should take immediate actions to address the root causes of the demonstrations. “The protests have a chance to last until the end of the year. We may even lose on Christmas, which should be the best sales season,” said Fung, a sales assistant for a skin care company who only gave her last name. Additional reporting by Felix Tam and Donny Kwok; Writing by Farah Master; Editing by Marius Zaharia and Kim CoghillOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

A new round of anger and outcry came immediately when Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, was sentenced Wednesday to three and a half years in prison, far less than the 10 he could have gotten. That was on top of less than four years in a separate but related case in which sentencing guidelines had recommended between 19 and 24 years. After Mr. Manafort’s punishment in the first case was announced, lawyers and advocates for leniency in sentencing guidelines flooded television and social media with examples of people who had been handed far longer prison terms for less serious crimes. In one widely circulated post on Twitter, Scott Hechinger, a public defender in Brooklyn, wrote: “For context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room.” In their attempts to add perspective, critics of current sentencing practices raise questions that resonate. Here are some answers. How does Mr. Manafort’s sentence compare with others given to white-collar criminals?About half of all federal sentences were below the guidelines in the 2017 fiscal year. One in five defendants received lower sentences that were not supported by the prosecution.In fraud cases, 43 percent were sentenced within the guidelines. Many of those who received lower sentences were being rewarded for providing “substantial assistance.” Prosecutors have said that Mr. Manafort lied to them and did not provide useful information. “How in the world can we make sense of the sentences that we have been handing down to the poor and to those people of color who didn’t have nearly the opportunities that Paul Manafort had to make an honest living?” said William N. Nettles, a former United States attorney in South Carolina. Mr. Nettles, an Obama administration appointee, added, “This is like sentencing disparity on steroids.”So does that mean Mr. Manafort’s sentence was too light?Maybe, said Marc Mauer, who oversees The Sentencing Project and is an expert in sentencing policy, race and the criminal justice system. “Or maybe the guidelines are overly harsh,” he said.Certainly there were plenty of examples of people who had done arguably less but gotten more time: Crystal Mason, a Texas woman who voted illegally, was sentenced to five years in prison. Juanita Peralta was serving a 15-year sentence in Oklahoma for drug possession when the departing governor, Mary Fallin, commuted her sentence. But such cases do as much to show how extreme the sentences are in the United States, which has by far the largest incarcerated population in the world, as they do to show how lightly Mr. Manafort was punished. In his case, the guidelines, which are no longer mandatory for judges, called for 19 to 24 years. “In a lot of countries you’d have to kill somebody to get anywhere close to that, yet we hand out 20-year sentences for drug crimes every day of the week,” Mr. Mauer said.Much research shows that it is not the severity of the punishment but the likelihood of getting caught that deters crime, so devoting more resources to prosecuting white-collar cases would send a stronger message than handing down a longer sentence, Mr. Mauer said. John Pfaff, a law professor at Fordham University, said every defendant should be treated like a rich white man. Research shows that sentences tend to become lighter when those who mete them out are better able to empathize with the defendant. “What do elite policymakers think the right sentence ought to be? It’s this,” Mr. Pfaff said. “We should use that as the baseline.”Judges are supposed to sentence based on a variety of considerations, including criminal history and the severity of the crime, but also the health of the defendant — Mr. Manafort, 69, has gout — their life circumstances and other factors. How often do judges override sentencing guidelines?In federal sentences, about half the time, usually with the government’s blessing. The federal sentencing guidelines first emerged, in part, because of concerns that white-collar offenders were not receiving harsh enough penalties.But some sentencing experts cautioned Friday that public expectations for Mr. Manafort’s punishment might have been artificially high. “It is a high-loss amount fraud case, and in those cases, your guidelines sentence can climb very rapidly,” said Rachel E. Barkow, a former member of the United States Sentencing Commission. “That’s the point at which many judges depart, and depart more significantly.”Ms. Barkow, a law professor at New York University, said she had expected Mr. Manafort’s penalty to fall below the sentencing guidelines, but she said the “extent of the departure was bigger than I would have guessed.”“This would be a much steeper reduction than we would see,” she said.Similar reactions appeared on social media.Is there a racial disparity in sentencing?African-American men fare far worse when being punished. According to data published by the United States Sentencing Commission in 2017, black men who commit the same crimes as white men receive federal sentences that are almost 20 percent longer on average.In most cases, judges follow the guidelines, said Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Georgetown. But Mr. Butler said that judges are much more likely to break lower for a white defendant.“Prosecutors share some of the responsibility,” he said. “Prosecutors have more control over the outcome of the case because it’s all about the decision to prosecute, and what to prosecute them for.” Data shows that prosecutors are significantly tougher on black and Latino defendants, he said.Adeel Hassan and Julie Bosman contributed reporting.