Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s onetime campaign manager, was sentenced to 47 months in prison by a federal judge in Virginia today (March 7).Manafort, 69, was convicted of eight counts of tax and bank fraud last year that stemmed from Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election. Manafort committed the crimes, some of which were tied to his firm’s work in the Ukraine, before he joined the Trump campaign. His activities provide a case study in how western elites help plunder young democracies, as Quartz wrote.Mueller didn’t make any specific recommendations on how long Manafort should serve in his sentencing memo, which portrayed him as a bold and unrepentant criminal who lied to investigators even after he agreed to cooperate. He had faced up to 25 years.Manafort, who once donned ostrich jackets and custom suits, wore a green prison jumpsuit and sat in a wheelchair. His health has deteriorated while jailed. “The last two years have been the most difficult years for my family and I,” Manafort told judge TS Ellis in an Alexandria courtroom. “Humiliated and shamed would be a gross understatement.”The former political consultant known for his connections to kleptocrats and oligarchic fashion sense could end up behind bars for a longer period of time. He’s set to be sentenced for conspiracy and witness tampering next week.

US President Donald Trump has said he wants the US to become a technology leader through competition rather than by blocking others.Mr Trump said American firms must "step up their efforts, or get left behind". He did not specifically mention China's Huawei, though many interpreted the comments as Mr Trump taking a softer stance on the firm.The US has been pressuring allies to exclude the Chinese telecoms giant from their future 5G mobile networks.Some governments have banned Huawei from supplying parts to their networks due to security fears, but UK cyber-security chiefs recently said the risks are manageable.In a tweet, Mr Trump said he wanted "5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible". "I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies.""American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind," he said. It comes as Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei sounded defiant in an interview with the BBC this week, saying there was "no way the US can crush" the company. Should we worry about Huawei? Ren Zhengfei: 'When the mask fell' Could Huawei threaten the Five Eyes? Some US allies have also taken a softer stance on Huawei recently. UK cyber-security chiefs last week determined that any risk posed by involving Huawei in UK telecoms projects could be managed, while recent media reports also suggested Germany was not ready to exclude Huawei from its 5G network.The dispute over Huawei is part of broader tensions between the world's two largest economies, whose officials are currently in Washington trying to negotiate an end to their trade war.Mr Trump is due to meet Chinese Vice Premier Liu He on Friday as both sides try to achieve a deal ahead of a 1 March deadline. Both countries have imposed tariffs on billions of dollars worth of goods since July last year.

Within a few years of Google’s 1998 launch, its name became a verb synonymous with searching the the web. It wasn’t just the world’s best search engine, full stop: It was the thing that connected us instantly to the stuff we needed. As the company just kept on introducing (or acquiring) a growing array of useful free services and other offerings—including Gmail, YouTube, Google Docs, and the Android mobile OS—people, for the most part, loved them, too.But Google has grown up. And consumers have grown up, too. As the company marks its 20th anniversary today, our relationship with it isn’t quite as uncomplicated as it used to be.In the wake of Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, and fears that the Russians exploited Facebook and YouTube to influence the 2016 presidential election, people are more wary of tech companies these days–especially ones that harvest personal data. This trend won’t reverse itself anytime soon. Google, given the enormity of its presence in our lives, will bear that brunt more than almost anyone else.Related Video: Over its 20 years Google has revolutionized the worldOver the years, consumers have grown more aware–in part because of Facebook’s privacy gaffes–that the reason those cool-and-free Google services exist is because of Google’s massive advertising business, which is fueled in large part by the personal information of users.“Google has become a leader in surveillance capitalism, tracking our web usage in order to make money for itself and others, and has faced scrutiny and numerous fines for privacy violations,” said EFF legal director Corynne McSherry in a note to Fast Company.Google started out by showing ads next to search results that were driven by the search key words. But it soon moved into placing ads for clients via a sprawling ad network on sites across the web and on mobile, and this placement too is driven by personal data.It works. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, brought in $32.66 billion in revenue in Q2, and 86% of that was Google ad revenue. Online advertising space is a duopoly of two personal data harvesting giants: eMarketer projects that Google will take 37.1% of the total U.S. ad spend this year, with Facebook taking 20.6%.[Photo: Michael Mroczek/Unsplash]“Over the last few years, people have come to understand Google’s broad reach in all areas of the digital world, and especially how it could impact people’s privacy,” says Creative Strategies president and longtime Valley analyst Tim Bajarin. “Now it is perceived as less trustworthy, and its credibility has come into question about the way its technology could be used for both good and evil.”A game of trade-offsMany consumers now rightly see using both Facebook and Google services as involving trade-offs. They balance the utility and necessity of the services against the personal information they must forfeit.Facebook has won the job of poster child for the personal data harvesting business model, but perhaps only because of its fast growth and brash approach (“move fast and break things”), its ask-forgiveness-rather-than-permission attitude toward personal privacy, and its clumsiness in answering to the public and regulators about privacy abuses.A Recode/Survey Monkey survey in April this year found that 56% of people trust Facebook with their personal information the least of all the big tech companies. But another survey by The Verge and Reticle Research found that people see Google as being only slightly more transparent than Facebook about how it uses personal data for advertising.Google’s privacy fouls haven’t felt as dramatic as Facebook’s, perhaps in part because it’s proved more skilled at responding, both in words and actions.But from a pure surveillance and privacy point of view, we should look at Google through the same lens as Facebook. Google can actually collect a broader set of information on a user than Facebook can, reports the New York Times‘s Brian X. Chen, even though the Facebook data may be more personal, and hence more powerful for targeting many types of ads.“Google has had a few run-ins where its innovations crossed the line from cool to creepy,” points out Theresa Payton, the White House CIO during the George W. Bush administration and current CEO of the security consulting company Fortalice Solutions. In 2010, she points out, Google’s Street View cars were caught eavesdropping on people’s Wi-Fi connections. In 2012, having found a workaround for the cookie-restricting policy on Apple’s Safari web browser, Google was hit with a lawsuit, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) levied a $22.5 million fine.In 2012, Payton continues, Google combined and consolidated its many privacy policies into one all-encompassing policy. This simplified things, but it also enabled the company to personalize search results and target ads by tracking users across almost all of its services including Calendar, Docs, Gmail, search, and YouTube. This made some customers “feel betrayed that they were a means to an end for selling ads,” Payton says.After vowing to protect users’ privacy, Google in 2016 quietly changed its privacy policy to allow the combination of web-browsing data collected via cookies dropped into users’ browsers with personally identifiable information collected through use of Google services such as search and Gmail. The result was that DoubleClick ads could then be targeted at users with the aid of personal information Google holds, reported ProPublica. “It also means that Google could now, if it wished to, build a complete portrait of a user by name, based on everything they write in email, every website they visit, and the searches they conduct.”Payton says the recent news that Google has signed a deal with Mastercard, which will let it track and correlate people’s brick-and-mortar purchases with online purchases, also gave her pause.On the other hand, Payton gives Google credit for responding to privacy concerns in some substantive ways, including providing consumers with tools to better understand what data has been collected on them, offering ways for consumers to delete personal data from Google servers, and options for shutting off some kinds of tracking.[Photo: John Tekeridis/Pexels]Big company, big targetGoogle’s image troubles have been exacerbated in some ways by its sheer size. It’s become a huge target.The company was slapped with a record $2.7 billion fine by European antitrust regulators in June 2017, after being accused of using its vast market power to shut potential competitors to its many services. Just a month ago, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sent a letter to the FTC asking it to investigate Google for possible antitrust behavior in the U.S.“Many legitimately wonder if it’s gotten so powerful that it will crowd out the emergence of alternatives—the next Googles who can change the world as much as Google has,” said the EFF’s McSherry.Like Apple and other corporate behemoths, Google has been called out for tax avoidance. It’s been accused of being less than neutral in the way it tunes its algorithms to return search results. Advertisers have been frustrated by YouTube’s haphazard attempts to remove graphic, hateful, and otherwise toxic content from its video platform.In 2010, Google received praise for its principled decision to pull out of China, an emerging consumer market of vast importance, rather than give in to government demands for censorship. Lately, however, the company has been criticized for apparently working on a plan to return to the market. The Intercept reported on August 1 that Google is working on a new search engine (under the code name Dragonfly) that would “blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest.”“Google’s own employees have concerns about where the company is headed next—such as considering moving into the Chinese market where it would be providing a censored service to an authoritarian regime,” McSherry said.On Wednesday, Google’s privacy chief Keith Enright testified in front of a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on potential privacy legislation, but the hearing veered to a conversation about China and Dragonfly. Things got a little testy. Enright was cagey, but he finally admitted, in a roundabout way, that the project does indeed exist. But he would say no more, insisting (per Wired) that he was “not clear on the contours of what is in scope or out of scope for that project.” Google again came off as secretive and willing to say whatever is necessary to keep regulators out of its business.This has been the tech industry’s main posture in Washington since forever, but it may not work much longer. Lawmakers have become aware of the privacy and antitrust risk built into Google’s massive size and reach. Europe and California have passed touch data privacy laws, and there’s pressure on lawmakers to pass some kind of privacy protections at the federal level. And this is happening as the country is still trying to figure out the extent to which foreign entities used several major tech platforms to influence the 2016 election.More about Google’s 20th anniversary:How I went from Google intern to the head of Google MapsWhat eight Google products looked like when they were brand-newWith its legions of lobbyists in D.C., does Google not get this? Judging by its recent appearances on the Hill, perhaps not. In early September, Google snubbed a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on election interference by refusing to send Larry Page to testify alongside Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg. Google instead offered its top attorney Kent Walker, who is very capable, but whose face at the witness table cannot symbolize Google’s real concern about the issue and its respect for the government’s concern. So Page’s no-show put off some senators. The committee even left an empty chair for Google at the witness table to play up the snub.“For Google to continue to grow, it will need to carefully deal with this credibility issue and work hard to convince governments and individuals that it will not betray people’s privacy, and be fair and equitable in the way they do business,” Bajarin said.This is especially true when you consider the ways Google intends to grow. CEO Sundar Pichai often emphasizes that AI is at the heart of the company’s future. It’s already begun to infuse its existing products with AI, and is developing new ones, like its eerily human-sounding Duplex bot, that will do entirely new things and potentially play important roles in our lives. Given the anxiety we already have about where AI will land on the benevolent/dystopic scale in the future, Google will need all the trust it can get if it wants to matter as much in 2038–and beyond—as it does today.

Lawmakers of both parties pushed for the legislation to be included in a far-reaching budget bill signed by Mr. Trump in February, but it was dropped at the last minute.Even without action by Congress, generic drug companies say the denial of drug samples needed for testing may violate federal antitrust law because it tends to perpetuate a monopoly for the makers of some brand-name medications. But it typically takes years for courts to resolve such claims.Mylan, a generic drug company, wants to obtain samples to develop a generic version of Revlimid, a brand-name cancer medicine sold by Celgene. At a court hearing in Newark in December, Jonathan M. Jacobson, a lawyer for Mylan, told a federal district judge that “Revlimid costs patients who are dying $20,000 a month.”“These are some of the most ill patients in the world,” he said, and “if there were generics on the market, the price would be much lower, and people would live longer.”Celgene said in court papers that it had no obligation to help a potential competitor and that it had “valid business justifications for declining to sell samples on the terms demanded by Mylan.” Moreover, Celgene said its overriding concern was for the safety of patients.But Mylan, the generic drug company, said this was no excuse because it had devised safety protocols similar to those followed by Celgene.The secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, has repeatedly said that drug prices are too high. The administration, he said, will soon roll out “a whole slate” of proposals to reduce those prices.Mr. Azar has suggested that private companies — pharmacy benefit managers — should have a role in negotiating prices for drugs under Part B of Medicare. Those drugs are typically administered by infusion or injection in doctor’s offices and hospital outpatient departments.

Media player Media playback is unsupported on your device Video Government's worries over backdoors in Huawei’s 5G tech castle Huawei is facing allegations that its next generation 5G equipment could pose a national security risk.There are concerns that China is using Huawei as a proxy and could spy on rival nations and scoop up useful information. The BBC's cyber security reporter Joe Tidy explains why one potential problem with 5G technology may have more to do with castles than you’d expect.

Those of us who want a normal delivery must often resort to small birthing centers with a staff of midwives and nurses, where epidurals are usually not available, or to public hospitals, where, according to a study by the Brazilian think tank Fundação Perseu Abramo, women are more likely to suffer obstetric violence — that is, physical, sexual, and verbal abuse from medical staff during labor. A third option is to hire a whole “birth team” of out-of-network professionals (composed of an obstetrician or midwife, a nurse, a doula, an anesthetist and a neonatologist) who attend to the patient at her home or in a private hospital. But most women cannot afford their fees, which hover around $4,000.In any case, it’s necessary to prepare beforehand — I, for instance, read the W.H.O.’s “Intrapartum Care for a Positive Childbirth Experience” — and write down a birth plan with one’s choices concerning labor and delivery. Mine contained demands which should be self-evident, such as the ability to move around freely during labor, to choose the delivery position, and to have my husband present in the delivery room, as well as a long list of potentially harmful, but nonetheless routine interventions that I didn’t want, such as pubic shaving, the administration of an evacuation enema, and the artificial rupture of membranes. In my research I also learned that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of a procedure called an episiotomy, a surgical incision of the vagina that is performed to, supposedly, protect the pelvic floor from lacerations. The procedure was widely adopted in the past, but has undergone a steady decline over the last four decades as studies have shown that it not only does not provide benefits, but might even contribute to more severe lacerations and pelvic floor dysfunction. But in Brazil, episiotomies are still performed in 53.5 percent of births. So, when my ob-gyn said, “I do perform episiotomies, every time,” I decided to find another doctor. (She also said, “Nobody deserves a 12-hour labor, right?” even though I would have been fine with it.)Instead of a whole team, I decided to hire only an obstetrician and a nurse, who would be complemented by the staff at the hospital. The contractions began on a Sunday morning, in the middle of the World Cup match between England and Panama. I was at home when I started to feel weird and spotted some blood. By the time Japan vs. Senegal had begun, I was vomiting orange juice and frantically calling the nurse. At some point, I saw a black vulture landing on the roof of a neighboring building (seriously).

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - The U.S. judge in the Virginia trial of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Thursday overruled a defense request that could have led to some leniency in his sentencing for bank and tax fraud. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, who could effectively deliver a life sentence to Manafort, 69, said the veteran Republican political consultant should not receive credit for accepting responsibility for his crimes. Further, before recessing Manafort’s sentencing hearing for 15 minutes, he sided with the government in saying the sentencing guidelines were properly calculated. Prosecutors have said they would call for 19-1/2 to 24 years in prison. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Writing by Tim Ahmann; Editing by Eric BeechOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Police fired several rounds of teargas at protesters in resdiential areas of Hong Kong in the third day of mass protests as political unrest deepens. Riot police advanced through thick clouds of tear gas as they fired rounds towards protesters, with protesters arming themselves with umbrellas, scrambling to douse the gas canisters with water and throwing them back towards police lines in the city's Sai Wan district. Police were seen arresting a handful of protesters who were led away in handcuffs. Hong Kong protests against police continue in third day of unrest

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced on Thursday by a U.S. judge to less than four years in prison - far shy of federal sentencing guidelines - for financial crimes uncovered during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis imposed the surprisingly lenient 47-month sentence on Manafort, 69, during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, in which the veteran Republican political consultant asked for mercy but expressed no remorse for his actions. Manafort was convicted by a jury last August of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. Ellis disregarded federal sentencing guidelines cited by prosecutors that called for 19-1/2 to 24 years in prison. The judge ordered Manafort to pay a fine of $50,000 and restitution of just over $24 million. Manafort, brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair because of a condition called gout, listened during the hearing as Ellis extolled his “otherwise blameless” life in which he “earned the admiration of a number of people” and engaged in “a lot of good things.” “Clearly the guidelines were way out of whack on this,” Ellis said. Manafort was convicted after prosecutors accused him of hiding from the U.S. government millions of dollars he earned as a consultant for Ukraine’s former pro-Russia government. After pro-Kremlin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster, prosecutors said, Manafort lied to banks to secure loans and maintain an opulent lifestyle with luxurious homes, designer suits and even a $15,000 ostrich-skin jacket. The judge also said Manafort “is not before the court for any allegations that he, or anyone at his direction, colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.” The sentence was even less than the sentence recommended by Manafort’s lawyers of 4-1/4 to 5-1/4 years in prison. “These are serious crimes, we understand that,” said Thomas Zehnle, one of Manafort’s lawyers. “Tax evasion is by no means jaywalking. But it’s not narcotics trafficking.” Related CoverageManafort's luxurious life nowhere in sight at sentencingTimeline: Big moments in Mueller investigation of Russian meddling in 2016 U.S. electionLegal experts expressed surprise over the sentence. “This is a tremendous defeat for the special counsel’s office,” former federal prosecutor David Weinstein said. Manafort’s sentence was less than half of what people who plead guilty and cooperate with the government typically get in similar cases, according to Mark Allenbaugh, a former attorney with the U.S. Sentencing Commission. “Very shocking,” he said. Ellis, appointed to the bench by Republican former President Ronald Reagan, called the sentence “sufficiently punitive,” and noted that Manafort’s time already served would be subtracted from the 47 months. Manafort has been jailed since June 2018. Manafort’s legal troubles are not over. He faces sentencing next Wednesday in Washington in a separate case for two conspiracy charges involving lobbying and money laundering to which he pleaded guilty last September. Legal experts said the light sentence from Ellis could prompt U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to impose a sentence closer to the maximum of 10 years in the Washington case, and order that the sentence run after the current one is completed rather than concurrently. Jackson was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. Before the sentencing, Manafort expressed no remorse but talked about how the case had been difficult for him and his family. Manafort, who opted not to testify during his trial, told Ellis that “to say I have been humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement.” He described his life as “professionally and financially in shambles.” The judge told Manafort: “I was surprised I did not hear you express regret for engaging in wrongful conduct.” Manafort, with noticeably grayer hair than just months ago, came into the courtroom in a wheelchair holding a cane, wearing a green prison jumpsuit emblazoned with the words “Alexandria Inmate” on the back. It was a far cry from Manafort’s usual dapper appearance and stylish garb. During a break shortly before the sentence was handed down, Manafort turned around and blew his wife, Kathleen, a kiss. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort appears for sentencing in this court sketch in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., March 7, 2019. REUTERS/Bill HennessyThe case capped a stunning downfall for Manafort, a prominent figure in Republican Party circles for decades who also worked as a consultant to such international figures as former Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Yanukovych. Ellis had faced criticism by some in the legal community for comments he made during the trial that were widely interpreted as biased against the prosecution. Ellis repeatedly interrupted prosecutors, told them to stop using the word “oligarch” to describe people associated with Manafort because it made him seem “despicable,” and objected to pictures of Manafort’s luxury items they planned to show jurors. “It isn’t a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending,” Ellis told prosecutors during the trial. Prosecutor Greg Andres urged Ellis to impose a steep sentence. “This case must stand as a beacon to others that this conduct cannot be accepted,” Andres told the hearing on Thursday. Jackson ruled on Feb. 13 that Manafort had breached his agreement to cooperate with Mueller’s office by lying to prosecutors about three matters pertinent to the Russia probe including his interactions with a business partner they have said has ties to Russian intelligence. Manafort is the only one of the 34 people and three companies charged by Mueller to have gone to trial. Several others including former campaign aides Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen have pleaded guilty, while longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone has pleaded not guilty. Trump, a Republican who has called Mueller’s investigation a politically motivated “witch hunt,” has not ruled out giving Manafort a presidential pardon, saying in November: “I wouldn’t take it off the table.” “There’s absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved with any collusion with any government official from Russia,” Kevin Downing, another Manafort lawyer, said outside the courthouse. The Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, quickly accused Downing of making “a deliberate appeal for a pardon” from Trump. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said after the sentencing: “I believe Manafort has been disproportionately harassed and hopefully soon there will be an investigation of the overzealous prosecutorial intimidation so it doesn’t happen again.” Slideshow (6 Images)Mueller is preparing to submit to U.S. Attorney General William Barr a report on his investigation into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe. Trump has denied collusion and obstruction and Russia has denied U.S. intelligence findings that it interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to boost Trump. Manafort worked for Trump’s campaign for five pivotal months in 2016 that included the Republican National Convention where Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination, three of them as campaign chairman. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Andy Sullivan and Jan Wolfe; Additional reporting by Nathan Layne, Eric Beech and Makini Brice; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Peter CooneyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

LONDON/BEIJING (Reuters) - British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday that he had not backed violent protests in Hong Kong, after Chinese state media blamed “Western ideologues” for fomenting unrest in the former British colony. FILE PHOTO: Anti-extradition bill protesters stand behind a barricade during a demonstration near a flag raising ceremony for the anniversary of Hong Kong handover to China in Hong Kong, China July 1, 2019. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/File PhotoHundreds of protesters broke into the Hong Kong legislature on Monday after a demonstration marking the anniversary of the return to Chinese rule in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” formula that includes freedoms not enjoyed in mainland China, including the right to protest. That followed weeks of protests against a now-suspended extradition bill that opponents say would undermine Hong Kong’s much-cherished rule of law and give Beijing powers to prosecute activists in mainland courts, which are controlled by the Communist Party. China has stepped up a war of words with Britain over Hong Kong, especially after Hunt warned of consequences if China neglects commitments made when it took back Hong Kong to allow its way of life for at least 50 years. State media in particular has blamed London, Washington and other Western capitals for offering succour to the demonstrators. “Ideologues in Western governments never cease in their efforts to engineer unrest against governments that are not to their liking, even though their actions have caused misery and chaos in country after country in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia,” the official China Daily said in an editorial. “Now they are trying the same trick in China,” the English-language newspaper said. Hunt, speaking to BBC radio, reiterated his condemnation of the violence. “Let me be clear what I said. I said that I condemned, and we as the United Kingdom condemn, all violence and that people who supported the pro-democracy demonstrators would have been very dismayed by the scenes they saw,” said Hunt, who is vying to become Britain’s next prime minister. China has said Britain has no more responsibility for Hong Kong. Britain says it still considers the Joint Declaration in 1984 on the terms of the return of Hong Kong, which guarantees its freedoms, to be valid. “I don’t think it’s a big surprise that China would react that way but they need to understand that Britain is a country that honors its international obligations and what I was saying was something very uncontroversial, actually, which is that we signed an agreement in 1984 which lasts for 50 years and we would expect all sides to honor that agreement,” Hunt said. “Hong Kong has an independent judiciary and it’s not for me as foreign secretary of the UK to second guess how that judiciary works. What I was saying was that there would be serious consequences if the legally binding international agreement between the UK and China, if that was violated.” On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Theresa May also said China must respect the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong and that she had been in touch with Beijing to raise concerns. Hunt warned on Tuesday of consequences if China did not abide by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. His comments were met by a sharp rebuke from China’s ambassador to the UK, who told Britain to keep its hands off Hong Kong. Speaking at a daily news briefing in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang did not offer any new criticism about Britain having the day before accused Hunt of being “shameless” for his remarks on Hong Kong. “For the time being today, I’ll restrain myself and won’t say anymore. But if certain people in Britain obstinately stick to the wrong path, and keep repeating their mistakes, then I fear I may have more to say.” Widespread damage inside the Legislative Council building, where protesters smashed furniture and daubed graffiti over chamber walls, forced the government to close it for two weeks. The Legislative Council Commission is due to hold a closed-door special meeting at an undisclosed venue later on Thursday. The China Daily accused Western forces of instigating unrest against Hong Kong’s government “as a means to put pressure on the central government”. “The violent behavior that these Western agitators are emboldening tramples on the rule of law in Hong Kong and undermines its social order,” it said. An editorial in the widely read tabloid The Global Times, published by the Communist Party’s People’s Daily, criticized Hunt’s comments and said “the UK’s diplomacy toward China will pay for his behavior”. Additional reporting by Andrew Galbraith in SHANGHAI and Anne Marie Roantree in HONG KONG; Editing by Nick MacfieOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (Reuters) - At his first political rally since the end of the Russia collusion probe, President Donald Trump on Thursday accused backers of the investigation of trying to overturn the 2016 election and attempting “illegally” to claim power. Declaring the country “hurt” by the probe, Trump called his opponents “losers” and celebrated the fact the investigation had come to a close. “After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead. The collusion delusion is over,” he told a crowd of thousands at a Grand Rapids arena. “The Russia witch hunt was a plan by those who lost the election to try and illegally regain power by framing innocent Americans – many of them, they suffered – with an elaborate hoax,” he said. On Sunday, U.S. Attorney General William Barr released a summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s more than 300-page report about his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election. The investigation did not establish that members of Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia during the election. The findings delighted the president and his inner circle, who spent the first two years of his administration confronting a cloud of suspicion over how the New York businessman and political novice won the White House. With that cloud largely lifted, Trump has let loose, calling out those who supported the investigation and referring to evil acts of treason by his opponents. Trump revisited that theme at the rally, knocking the media and Democrats and calling for accountability. “These are sick people and there has to be accountability because it’s all lies and they know it’s lies,” Trump said. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S., March 28, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua RobertsFor the president, the rally capped off a week of rejoicing in the results of the investigation he had repeatedly called a “witch hunt,” and stewing over its origins. Advisers to Trump, who is not known to let go of grudges easily, have debated the merits of going after the president’s opponents and those he blames for sparking the investigation versus claiming a win, moving on and using the momentum of good news to bolster his bid for re-election. In the packed, noisy arena in Michigan, a political swing state that Trump wants to win again in 2020, the view of the crowd was clear. Thousands of supporters, many of them wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats, cheered as the president railed at his opponents. But they seemed as eager to cheer him over policy issues, applauding loudly when he assured them he was building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and promised to secure the border. The industrial state along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, helped propel Trump, a Republican, to his improbable victory in 2016. The crowd’s enthusiasm underscored the risks to Trump of going too far expounding on his chagrin over the Mueller probe. Some advisers feel his best bet is to focus on the strong economy and success in enacting administration priorities like the tax overhaul. Mueller left unresolved in his report the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by impeding the Russia investigation. In his letter to Congress, Barr said he and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed obstruction of justice. Slideshow (7 Images)Democrats were not satisfied with Barr’s determination and have demanded to see the report in full. Some Republicans, including Trump himself, have also voiced support for releasing it. Trump faces other investigations into his personal and business affairs from Democratic lawmakers, who now control the U.S. House of Representatives. But Democrats also risk alienating voters weary of the Russian probe. Trump told the rally his opponents now had to decide whether to keep up their “partisan investigations” or apologize to Americans and focus on issues like infrastructure and healthcare. Reporting by Jeff Mason; Additional reporting by Mohammad Zargham, Eric Beech and Steve Holland in Washington; Editing by Peter CooneyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds.

China’s massing of armed personnel carriers and paramilitary anti-terrorist police near Hong Kong’s border is supposed to send a tough warning to protesters to go home. But that doesn’t mean China wants to intervene.The point of the massive saber-rattling display may be to scare Hong Kong protesters so much that China does not actually have to send in forces.“My feeling is they’re trying to raise the specter of direct military intervention in Hong Kong, so as not to have to actually do it,” said Ben Bland, a Hong Kong expert with the Sydney-based independent think tank the Lowy Institute. “They’re trying to scare off protesters by implying that they’re ready to send in the People’s Liberation Army or to take other forms of direct intervention with the hope that that’s enough to force people to back down.”Hu Xijin, editor of the Communist Party-owned Chinese daily Global Times, says the troop movements in southern China are a “clear warning” to protesters and that the chances of Chinese intervention are rising. Trucks and armored personnel carriers are seen parked at the Shenzhen Bay stadium in Shenzhen, bordering Hong Kong in China’s southern Guangdong province.(Getty Images) Advertisement China has reason to hesitate before sending in forces from the mainland: Doing so could break Hong Kong, a semiautonomous territory.But if Beijing’s threats fail to deter protesters who shut down Hong Kong’s airport this week and paralyzed the city’s transportation system a week earlier, Chinese President Xi Jinping is not likely to accept a compromise that could encourage future political demands from the city’s nimble and aggressive protest movement.An intervention would change Hong Kong forever, undermining the civil rights guaranteed by China when it took Hong Kong back from Britain in 1997, including freedom of speech, the right to protest, an independent judiciary and freedom of the press. It would mark an end to Beijing’s already questionable narrative that Hong Kong has a “high level of autonomy,” which is supposed to be central to Beijing’s “one country, two systems” model for Hong Kong.A large-scale Chinese paramilitary operation to crush protests would risk high civilian casualties in an echo of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre 30 years ago when the People’s Liberation Army fired on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing and rolled over them with tanks. Advertisement China can only intervene if Hong Kong’s government requests it — and this would not be popular with Hong Kongers, who are deeply protective of their rights. The move could drive more support to the protest movement, harden opposition against the Hong Kong administration and potentially trigger a pro-independence insurgency, the polar opposite of what Beijing wants to see. “You can lock these guys up, but how are you going to win people over in Hong Kong?” Ben Bland, Hong Kong expert, Lowy Institute The financial and economic fallout could also be severe. The economy, already teetering on the brink of recession, could collapse. Stocks likely would plummet, highly mobile capital might flee, many companies might relocate and Hong Kong could lose its position as one of the world’s top financial markets.Even the pro-Beijing camp in Hong Kong does not favor Chinese intervention, according to analysts.“They don’t want Hong Kong to become just another city in China,” said Bland.Depending on casualties, Chinese intervention could trigger foreign sanctions. It could see the U.S. end Hong Kong’s special status, no longer treating it as a separate customs zone from China for the purposes of trade. For Hong Kong’s economy, heavily dependent on U.S., this would be a devastating blow.In recent years the U.S. has questioned whether China’s steady encroachment on Hong Kong merits a review of its special status, but has so far concluded the city retains enough autonomy. “What’s becoming increasingly clear in the last weeks and months is the Hong Kong government has extremely little autonomy when it comes to the major issues,” said Bland. “That’s been exposed now. Even if the protests die down, people understand now this is a very different Hong Kong.”Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong is a red line for the Chinese government, core to the Chinese Communist Party’s sense of legitimacy. Xi knows he cannot afford to look weak when it comes to confronting the protests. Advertisement As the party dials up nationalist propaganda condemning the protesters, the demand in China for tough action is becoming more strident. “Beijing doesn’t want to see Tiananmen-style bloodshed. I don’t think it’s inevitable. The situation on the ground is very fluid.” Adam Ni, China analyst at Macquarie University, Sydney Xi, however, has to weigh the risks — political, diplomatic and economic — of sending in forces.Adam Ni, China analyst at Macquarie University in Sydney, said intervention by Chinese military or paramilitary police would be a last resort.“Beijing doesn’t want to see Tiananmen-style bloodshed,” Ni said. “I don’t think it’s inevitable. The situation on the ground is very fluid.”He said Beijing was trying to isolate protesters and convince the broader Hong Kong population that continuing protests were not in their economic interests. “We have a hardening of positions on both sides — on the one side the protesters are hardening their positions and feeling desperate and feeling pushed to carry out more extreme forms of protest, and on the other hand you’ve got the Hong Kong and Beijing governments hunkering down for escalation, willing to adopt more hard-line tactics,” he said.“At some point the Chinese leadership may decide that the costs associated with the military suppression might be worth it — to take the reputational and economic hit, but to put an end to the continuing protests once and for all. They would make that choice if they feel the situation to be spiraling out of control and their control increasingly is being challenged. We’re not there yet, but I think we’re moving in that direction.”What would Hong Kong look like if China made good on the threat implied in the massed troops on Hong Kong’s border? Advertisement “I think bloodshed would be inevitable,” Ni said. “Almost inevitably you’d have confrontation between Hong Kongers and the People’s Armed Police. So you’d have standoffs, you’d have further protests. You would be seen as an occupying force by Hong Kong’s population, creating the seeds for future conflict, even if the current protests are suppressed.“It would create further anger and frustration and I think it would actually galvanize public opinion in Hong Kong against Beijing. I think it would have tragic implications for at least some of the protesters.”He predicted expats, Hong Kongers and businesses could leave because of uncertainty about the rule of law and civil freedoms.“A lot of the things that made Hong Kong successful in the past would no longer be there if the Chinese infantry were to step in. And I think it would put the final nail in the coffin of this idea that Hong Kong has some degree of political autonomy. That would shatter the illusion that Hong Kong government can make decisions.”Even without intervention, analysts predict that tensions and unrest could continue for years with focus points for anger such as trials of protesters or elections.Bland said China could try to minimize damage by opting for a lower-level intervention — for example, sending in limited numbers of Chinese paramilitary police to reinforce Hong Kong’s struggling police.“If it’s something that completely changes the legal system I think that would be very damaging to investor sentiment. If the army or armed police are sent in and there are mass casualties, that would obviously be highly damaging.“If there’s some sort of lower-level operation which scares Hong Kongers to back off, then it might not be as damaging,” he said.But therein lies another risk. A lower level of intervention might not succeed in deterring a determined and mobile protest movement. Protesters, initially angered over a bill to extradite suspects to China, are now mounting new demands including universal suffrage.For Xi and hard-liners in government, the chaos in Hong Kong proves their view that rights to protest, freedom of speech and other democratic freedoms only lead to instability.The protests in Hong Kong have also exposed the contradictions in China’s “one country, two systems” policy and the idea that people with the right to free speech and protest can coexist in an authoritarian state where the bulk of citizens have no such rights.It also exposes the failure of China’s efforts to woo young Hong Kongers with the promise of the economic benefits of China’s vast economy. And it has exposed the difficulties China has selling its authoritarian model in a market where it doesn’t have full control of propaganda and legal sanction against dissent.“One of the lessons of this whole experience is that the Communist Party’s propaganda messaging is really good in the mainland, where they understand the people and their motivations and they also have a monopoly of control over information,” Bland said. “But in the contested space of Hong Kong where people’s mentality, experience and education is very different, they find it very hard to communicate, especially with young Hong Kongers.” The messaging from Beijing over the extradition bill and other matters has been backfiring, he said.“You can lock these guys up, but how are you going to win people over in Hong Kong?”

DUBAI/VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran announced on Monday it had amassed more low-enriched uranium than permitted under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, drawing a warning from U.S. President Donald Trump that Tehran was “playing with fire.” Tehran’s announcement marked its first major step beyond the terms of the pact since the United States pulled out of it more than a year ago. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the move was not a violation of the accord, arguing that Iran was exercising its right to respond to the U.S. walkout. The step, however, could have far-reaching consequences for diplomacy at a time when European countries are trying to pull the United States and Iran back from confrontation. It comes less than two weeks after Trump said he ordered air strikes on Iran, only to cancel them minutes before impact. Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported that the country’s enriched uranium stockpile has now passed the 300-kg (661 lb) limit allowed under the deal. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors Iran’s nuclear program under the deal, confirmed in Vienna that Tehran had breached the limit. Trump, asked if he had a message for Iran, said: “No message to Iran. They know what they’re doing. They know what they’re playing with, and I think they’re playing with fire. So, no message to Iran whatsoever.” The White House said earlier it would continue to apply “maximum pressure” on Iran “until its leaders alter their course of action.” It also said Iran should be held to a standard barring all uranium enrichment. However, there is no international standard prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “That is not the case. That is an American position,” he said. European powers, who remain party to the accord and have tried to keep it in place, urged Iran not to take further steps that would violate it. But they held off on declaring the agreement void or announcing sanctions of their own. “We have NOT violated the #JCPOA,” Zarif wrote on Twitter, referring to the deal by the acronym for its formal title, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He referred to a paragraph of the accord which contains the mechanism for countries to resolve disputes over compliance. “As soon as E3 abide by their obligations, we’ll reverse,” he said, referring to European powers Britain, Germany and France. Iran has demanded they guarantee it the access to world trade envisioned under the deal. The move is a test of European diplomacy after French, British and German officials had promised a strong diplomatic response if Iran fundamentally breached the deal. The Europeans, who opposed last year’s decision by Trump to abandon the agreement had pleaded with Iran to keep within its parameters. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said Britain wants to preserve the pact “because we don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But if Iran breaks that deal then we are out of it as well.” Iran has said it aims to keep the accord in place but cannot abide by its terms indefinitely, as long as sanctions imposed by Trump have deprived it of the benefits it was meant to receive in return for accepting curbs on its nuclear program. A spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said: “Such action by the Islamic Republic of Iran would not help preserve the plan, nor secure the tangible economic benefits for the Iranian people,” and added that it should be resolved using the deal’s mechanism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the European countries should “stand behind their commitments” and impose sanctions on Iran. Iran said in May it would speed up production of enriched uranium in response to the Trump administration sharply tightening sanctions against it that month. Washington has now effectively ordered all countries to halt purchases of Iranian oil or face sanctions of their own, which Tehran calls “economic war” designed to starve its population. FILE PHOTO: The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria March 4, 2019. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger/File PhotoIn the two months since the sanctions were tightened, the confrontation has taken on a military dimension, with Washington blaming Tehran for attacks on oil tankers, and Iran shooting down a U.S. drone, prompting the aborted U.S. air strikes. The nuclear deal imposes limits both on how much enriched uranium Iran can hold and on how pure its stocks can be, thresholds intended to lengthen the “breakout period” - the time Tehran would need to build a nuclear bomb if it sought one. Zarif said Iran’s next move would be to enrich uranium beyond the maximum 3.67% fissile purity allowed under the deal, a threshold Tehran has previously said it would cross on July 7. Iran’s moves so far appear to be a calculated test of the deal’s enforcement mechanisms and the diplomatic response. “This is not an irreversible step the Iranians have taken. Iran, with the remaining partners, can decide how they’re going to proceed. There is a process in the JCPOA to try to cure breaches,” said Wendy Sherman, former President Barack Obama’s lead U.S. negotiator on the deal and now director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School. “This does not in and of itself reduce the breakout time period, which is essential here,” she said. The Europeans say they want to help Iran boost its economy. But so far European efforts to do so have failed, with Iran shunned on oil markets and major foreign companies abandoning plans to invest for fear of falling foul of U.S. rules. David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector who consults with European officials on the Iran nuclear deal, said that while the EU3 are angry that Iran has broken the 300-kilogram ceiling, the violation is not serious enough for them to seek an immediate snapback of international sanctions. They are watching, he said, for graver breaches that could indicate that Iran is returning to the nuclear weapons development track that the CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency determined Tehran had abandoned in 2003. Iran denies it had such a program. “There will be a lot of noise, but not a lot of action on snapback,” said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a think tank. The confrontation has put the United States in the position of demanding that the Europeans ensure Iranian compliance with an agreement that Washington itself has rejected. Trump argues that the deal is too weak because some of its terms are not permanent, and because it does not cover non-nuclear issues such as Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional behavior. Slideshow (5 Images)Washington says sanctions are aimed at pushing Tehran back to the negotiating table. Iran says it cannot talk as long as Washington is ignoring the deal that it signed. Israel, which considers the Iranian nuclear program an existential threat, has backed Trump’s hard line, as have U.S. allies among the rich Arab states of the Gulf, which consider Iran a foe and benefit from having its oil kept off markets. “Just imagine what will happen if the material stockpiled by the Iranians becomes fissionable, at military enrichment grade, and then an actual bomb,” Joseph Cohen, head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, told a security conference. Additional reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh in Geneva, Lesley Wroughton, Jonathan Landay and Steve Holland in Washington; Jeffrey Heller and Ari Rabinovitch in Jerusalem, John Irish in Paris and Elizabeth Piper and Kylie MacLellan in London; Writing by Peter Graff and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Mark Heinrich, Alistair Bell and James DalgleishOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Mr. Stewart’s associations with Mr. Kessler, the Charlottesville rally organizer, and Mr. Kessler’s ties to a Stewart aide, Brian Landrum, have raised the most serious questions.In February 2017, during his governor’s race, Mr. Stewart appeared at a news conference with Mr. Kessler to oppose the Charlottesville City Council’s decision to remove a Robert E. Lee statue from a park.By then, Mr. Kessler’s website included views associated with the so-called alt-right, a racist, far-right movement. During the news conference, Mr. Stewart said he had “nothing to do with that,” but accompanied Mr. Kessler to deliver a court petition. Mr. Kessler also participated in a Charlottesville rally in support of the Lee statue sponsored by Mr. Stewart, and was alongside him at another event, where Mr. Stewart says Mr. Kessler “just happened to show up.”Mr. Stewart backed away from Mr. Kessler before Unite the Right last August. But afterward, in a Facebook video, he questioned why left-wing protesters shouldn’t share equal blame.One of Mr. Stewart’s paid county staff members — Mr. Landrum — has maintained ties with Mr. Kessler, according to court documents. Mr. Landrum recently took part in a Facebook chat with about 20 people, including violent racists, planning a second Unite the Right rally later this month.Mr. Landrum, who also worked in Mr. Stewart’s campaigns, commented only once on the chat, on May 17, with smiley emojis and profanity.In a July deposition in a dispute with the city over a proposed rally this month in Charlottesville, Mr. Kessler described Mr. Landrum as a friend. “Have you had discussions with him in the last couple months?” Mr. Kessler was asked. “Yes,” he answered.

Before 2018, the last scare Mr. King faced was in 2012, when Democrats pumped resources behind their challenger, the former Iowa first lady Christie Vilsack. She mustered less than 45 percent of the vote.This time Democrats face something of a conundrum.Mr. Scholten, a 39-year-old former minor league baseball player, must decide whether to run again for the House or shoot higher. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, flew him to Washington to discuss challenging Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, according to Democrats familiar with the meeting.“The dilemma I’m having right now is that Democrats won the House, and so in order for us to pass some of these things, we need to have at least one senator from the state of Iowa be a Democrat,” Mr. Scholten said. “It’s difficult because King is the most vulnerable he has ever been, but do we advance the things that I’m fighting for if I go back to the House seat?”The decision may not be all Mr. Scholten’s to make. Mr. Schumer and his staff have also made overtures to State Senator Liz Mathis and freshman Representative Cindy Axne — and it is also unclear whether another breakout Democratic candidate exists in the Fourth Congressional District.Mr. King’s supporters say he has been unfairly treated by the national news media, and they praise him as a steadfast ally of agriculture and an anti-abortion crusader. Confronted with the question about white societies at the town hall meeting, Mr. King demurred. But his rambling anger ended with a proclamation of his belief that life begins at conception — and left his questioner agreeing with him.“Ask anyone who talked to him: Didn’t you think he was kind of like your crazy uncle?” Mr. Cullen said. “Didn’t you kind of like the guy when he was talking about white supremacy?”Many will answer yes.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort told a court on Thursday ahead of his sentencing for bank and tax fraud that his life is “professionally and financially in shambles.” “To say I have been humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement,” Manafort told U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, who will hand down a sentence later in the hearing. Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Mohammad ZarghamOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Enlarge this image This courtroom sketch depicts former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort (center in a wheelchair) during his sentencing hearing in federal court before judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria, Va., on Thursday. Dana Verkouteren/AP hide caption toggle caption Dana Verkouteren/AP This courtroom sketch depicts former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort (center in a wheelchair) during his sentencing hearing in federal court before judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria, Va., on Thursday. Dana Verkouteren/AP Updated at 9:06 p.m. ETPresident Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced to just under four years in prison on Thursday after being convicted last year of tax and bank fraud.The 47-month sentence from federal Judge T.S. Ellis III was the culmination of the only case brought to trial so far by the office of Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.The judge also ordered Manafort to pay $24.8 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine. Politics Paul Manafort Sentencing: What You Need To Know Prosecutors laid out their arguments against Manafort last August, charging that he defrauded banks and the U.S. government by skirting millions of dollars in federal taxes.The government described Manafort's lavish lifestyle — he assembled a wardrobe that included a $15,000 ostrich leather jacket and more than $1 million worth of suits — and argued that he had committed the crimes not out of "necessity or hardship," but pure greed. Manafort Sentencing: What You Need To Know Manafort pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys sought to pin the blame for wrongdoing on Manafort's former protégé, Rick Gates, who cooperated with prosecutors by testifying against Manafort in exchange for leniency.Ultimately, jurors found Manafort guilty of eight of the 18 charges he faced: two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one count of failing to declare a foreign bank account.Sentencing guidelines for those convictions recommended a prison sentence of between 19 and 24 years, but the decision was ultimately up to Ellis.At Thursday's sentencing hearing, Ellis called the guidelines range "excessive" and "totally out of whack." He cited a number of similar financial crime defendants who received much shorter sentences."The government cannot sweep away the history of all these previous cases," Ellis said.Still, Ellis said Manafort was convicted of "very serious crimes.""In essence, it's a theft of money from everyone that pays taxes," Ellis said.Manafort asked judge to go easyManafort entered the hearing room Thursday in a wheelchair, dressed in a baggy green prison jumpsuit. National Security Trump: Manafort Pardon Not 'Off The Table' After Briefings From Manafort's Lawyer In asking for a lighter sentence, Manafort's lawyers cited his age — he turns 70 next month — and health problems. He is a first-time offender, and he suffers from gout and other ailments.Manafort did not testify during his trial. But he did speak Thursday for about three minutes to deliver his allocution.He said the past two years have been the hardest he and his family have experienced, and they've taken a toll on his health, finances and professional life."To say I feel humiliated and ashamed would be an understatement," Manafort said. "I ask you for compassion."He did not, however, express regret or remorse for his actions — a point that Ellis noted.Russia connection?Throughout the trial, the special counsel's office never made a case against Manafort related to its overarching mandate — investigating any links or coordination between Trump's campaign and the Russian interference in the 2016 election. Politics The Power Of Presidential Pardons: Ron's Office Hours Ellis made a point of that at the beginning of Thursday's hearing."He is not before the court for anything having to do with colluding with the Russian government to influence the election," Ellis said.Even with Thursday's sentencing, Manafort's legal challenges are not over. National Security Here's What May Happen When The Mueller Investigation Is Completed He is also scheduled to be sentenced next week in a separate but related case in Washington, D.C. He pleaded guilty in that case to two conspiracy counts and agreed to cooperate with investigators.That cooperation deal collapsed after the government accused Manafort of lying to prosecutors. The presiding judge in that case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, heard from both sides on that point and ultimately agreed with the government.Manafort faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison in the D.C. case. The big question hanging over sentencing there, though, is whether whatever time he receives behind bars would be served concurrent with the sentence he received Thursday.Also, a court filing that was inadvertently unsealed earlier this year, revealed that Manafort shared polling data with a business associate who has ties to Russian intelligence services. National Security All The Criminal Charges To Emerge So Far From Robert Mueller's Investigation Analysis The Big Unanswered Questions After Michael Cohen's Capitol Hill Marathon Politics Elderly Trump Critics Await Mueller's Report — Sometimes Until Their Last Breath

Pep Guardiola has said “racism is everywhere” and has to be fought each day. Manchester City’s manager was speaking after Raheem Sterling was allegedly racially abused at Chelsea.Sterling was verbally abused on Saturday and the incident is being investigated by Chelsea and the Metropolitan police. Four Chelsea supporters have been suspended by the club. One of them pictured verbally abusing Sterling has reportedly denied any racial element.On Sunday Sterling highlighted on Instagram the differing newspaper coverage of Phil Foden and Tosin Adarabioyo with regard to them buying houses for family members. Guardiola, asked whether Sterling suffers abuse because he is black, said: “Really, I don’t know. I spoke with him when I arrived and he was active on social media and Instagram and I told him to protect his private life, and he did it. He’s less active than when he was young, more mature, on and off the pitch – he has two kids. I don’t know the reason why. Hopefully the criticism [only] is when he plays shit, he plays bad.“But just for the colour of his skin – believe me that’s ridiculous and that’s why everyone … we have to protect from that situation.“The media, of course [has a responsibility] – everyone and everywhere has. You can write something and offend, create a conflict. Today the real power is the media, not politicians, not the governments, it’s the media. That’s why you have the possibility.”Guardiola’s view is that racism is widespread. “Racism is everywhere; people focus on football but it’s not just in football. How we treat immigrants and refugees, when once in our lives our grandfathers were refugees. How we treat them in society – it’s everywhere. That’s why we have to fight every day.“I appreciate what Chelsea did. If it happened in my club we should do the same. We have to fight for human rights to make a better society for the future. Today it’s dangerous not just in England, all across Europe. The message for the politicians is for them to be tough on human rights and we have to defend democracy in the best way.”Guardiola praised Sterling. “He’s an incredible person,” he said. “It’s tough to understand today what happened to black people in all history. You have to protect them, how equal we are, all together. It’s tough in the 21st century to still be in this position. To have problems with diversity.“We have to be better, everyone. Sport is amazing because you live through different people. My kids go to school, with English, black people, [people] from everywhere. Today this happens but we have to defend and protect.”Sterling has explained why he feels it is important to speak publicly about important issues.“I’m about sharing so that stuff that has happened to me could help someone else as well,” he told the Glass Magazine. “There was a time when I tried to hold stuff back but I know now that there is a 15-year-old boy just like Raheem, or a girl just like Raheem, that will go through these things and hopefully hearing these things from me and not keeping it to myself will help.“I’d like to know I could have helped someone else that is going through something similar. Not everyone is the same but I want to help them along their journey, that’s what I want to do. I always think of the kids from the next generation, you know the kids from London or Manchester or wherever they’re from.”On Wednesday City play Hoffenheim in their final Champions League group game in the midst of an injury crisis. David Silva will be out a for “few weeks” and Fernandinho is also injured, along with Danilo. Sergio Agüero, Kevin De Bruyne and Benjamin Mendy remain out and this has left Guardiola with 15 fit players. “Sergio may be back at the weekend,” he said.City need a point to guarantee their passage to the knockout stage as the group winners. They are aiming to bounce back from Saturday’s first league defeat of the season at Chelsea.Guardiola said: “It’s incredible to review the game and how we played considering the huge quality of the opponents. We had an incredible first half except for 18 minutes when there was a little mistake in our movement.“The rest of the game we played with courage. Football is what it is. Sometimes you accept it. We could have avoided the two goals – two mistakes for the first goal and they scored. That can happen when you play against a good team. If you make mistakes against good teams – Champions League teams, Chelsea – always you concede. It’s part of the process and we have to learn.”Leroy Sané has indicated he could soon sign a new contract. “I felt really at home here from day one and of course it is possible,” the Germany forward said. “From the beginning since I arrived here, I am really happy.”City have announced that the 23-year-old goalkeeper Zack Steffen will join in July from Columbus Crew on a four-year contract. The MLS side said the fee for Steffen, who has six USA caps, was “the largest in club history and most ever received by an MLS club for a goalkeeper”. Topics Raheem Sterling Manchester City Pep Guardiola news

The United States is fighting for the soul of its democracy. While the hateful agenda of Donald Trump was dealt a rebuke in the midterm elections, in a deeply polarized country, the struggle for democracy will only intensify as Trump and his allies attempt to pull America down a dangerous path.The president spouts racist conspiracy theories – which have been used as justification for the mass slaughter of Jews in a synagogue and which appear to have inspired the attempted assassination of Democratic party leaders – with impunity. The president said the US military should shoot at asylum-seeking refugees at the southern border. He attacks the media as the “enemy of the people”. And all this was just in the past month.But the United States isn’t alone – democracies across the world are struggling for their survival. Hungarian president Viktor Orban has launched systematic attacks on his country’s democratic institutions. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has led a campaign of extrajudicial killings of drug users and sellers. Brazil elected as president Jair Bolsonaro, who has defended Brazil’s former dictatorship and espouses hate against women, the LGBTQ community, and others. Whether driven by nationalism, racism, fear of immigration, or other forces, populist movements can be contagious.This should not be surprising, as political transitions can happen in waves. The “third wave” of democratization swept across Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and in 2011 a rapid succession of popular rebellions erupted across the Middle East.Democracies and autocracies learn from one another. In the wake of the murders at a Pittsburgh synagogue, China’s state-run media suggested that the United States employ “anti-extremism education” like that China is using in Xinjiang, where it imprisons roughly a million Uighurs just because of their religion. When Nigeria’s military recently killed protesters who had been accused of throwing rocks, the Nigerian military cited Trump’s comments that the US military could shoot refugees at the southern US border if they threw rocks.While the United States struggles to revitalize its own democracy, it cannot ignore this global trend of democratic backsliding. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., a threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere. The last time America ignored massive democratic backsliding abroad, the second world war exploded and dragged America into its horrors.Though it cannot begin in earnest until Trump leaves office, America must adopt a new foreign policy focused on defending and expanding the ranks of democracies around the world. This will require re-orienting assistance to democracies, finding more effective ways to support democratic movements abroad, and other efforts such as those outlined in a new report by me and my colleagues at the Center for American Progress. And since the notion of “democracy promotion” has been confused with the Iraq war and regime change, let’s be clear: This policy is not about transforming autocracies into democracies, fostering violent revolutions, or imposing democracy by force; it is about helping democracies succeed and pushing back against autocratic encroachments on democracy.At the core of this effort must be building a robust infrastructure for democracies to unite to protect their own democratic systems and push back against autocracy. The skeleton of this system already exists: The European Union is built on democratic principles; the G7 knits together some of the world’s richest democracies to tackle challenges such as poverty and climate change; and the Community of Democracies (CD) convenes democracies to share lessons learned about strengthening democracy.Today, the United States must lead a global effort to stitch together the best parts of these structures into a robust democracy organization. The CD could serve as the home, with three main goals:First, enable democracies to share lessons and provide technical support to one another to strengthen democratic institutions. Democracies must learn from one another to overcome challenges such as how to balance free expression with hate speech and disinformation.The CD already provides this platform, and with a reformed membership that meets at the head of state level every year it could expand its efforts.Second, develop common approaches to strategic issues. The threats are significant: Russia invaded a neighboring state struggling with democracy and threatens others; China is bullying neighbors in Asia. Russia and China frequently prevent United Nations action on issues related to democracy and human rights, and so democracies must band together to coordinate their own pushback against Russia, China, and others when international norms and democracy are threatened.Third, coordinate responses against attempts by autocracies to sow discord in democracies. Russia attacked America in an attempt to sway the 2016 presidential election to Trump, and it uses similar tactics to influence politics across Europe. China is now looking to export its own “digital authoritarianism” to equip other states with the technology to repress their peoples. Democracies must work together to understand how these threats impact them and develop strategies for defending themselves and fighting back.Supporting democracy abroad, of course, is not new. But today, the need is as great as ever. This will be a generational effort. One or two elections at home or abroad will not signal victory or defeat. And for America, it will hinge in part on whether or not America can emerge from its current struggles as a stronger democracy. But for democracy to survive, democracies around the world must band together. Topics US politics Opinion Donald Trump comment