WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawyers for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort asked a federal judge in Washington on Monday to impose a prison term “significantly below” the statutory 10-year maximum, saying he was remorseful for his misdeeds and facing deteriorating health. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst//File Photo/File PhotoManafort, 69, who is due to be sentenced on March 13, pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington last September to conspiracy against the United States - a charge that includes a range of conduct from money laundering to unregistered lobbying for the pro-Russia Ukrainian government - and conspiracy to obstruct justice for attempts to tamper with witnesses. He can be sentenced up to five years for each count, for a statutory maximum of 10 years. “We respectfully request that the Court impose a sentence significantly below the statutory maximum sentence in this case,” Manafort’s lawyers said in the filing on Monday night. “Mr. Manafort has been punished substantially, including the forfeiture of most of his assets,” the lawyers added. “In light of his age and health concerns, a significant additional period of incarceration will likely amount to a life sentence for a first time offender.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team said in a filing on Saturday that Manafort “repeatedly and brazenly” broke the law, and argued he did not deserve leniency at sentencing. [nL1N20I0CC] While Mueller did not recommend a specific sentence, he portrayed Manafort as a “hardened” criminal who was at risk of repeating criminal behavior if released from prison. Despite Manafort’s agreement to plead guilty and cooperate, Mueller’s team in November accused Manafort of violating the agreement by lying repeatedly to prosecutors on subjects including his interactions with a business partner they have said has ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled earlier this month that Manafort had breached the deal. Manafort’s attorneys on Monday disputed prosecutors’ characterization of their client as a brazen criminal. “This case is not about murder, drug cartels, organized crime, the Madoff Ponzi scheme or the collapse of Enron,” they wrote. Mueller is investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and any collusion between Russia and the campaign of President Donald Trump. Russia denies trying to interfere in the election, and Trump says his team did not collude with Moscow. In Monday’s filing, Manafort’s lawyers stressed that their client had not been charged with Russian collusion. They also provided the judge with quotes from multiple character witnesses, including Manafort’s wife, Kathleen, and daughter Andrea Shand, who said her father is “truly a good man” who is “worthy of forgiveness.” It did not cite any letters from Manafort’s other daughter, Jessica Manafort, who has since legally changed her last name to Bond. Manafort is due to be sentenced on March 8 in a separate case in Alexandria, Virginia. He faces up to 25 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines in that case, in which he was convicted last year of financial crimes. In Monday’s filing, Manafort’s lawyers asked the Washington judge to impose a concurrent sentence if he receives prison sentences in both cases. Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Eric Beech; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Peter CooneyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

HONG KONG — The United States on Wednesday issued an advisory warning people about traveling to Hong Kong, urging visitors to “exercise increased caution” because of “confrontational” protests in the semiautonomous Chinese territory.The alert by the State Department comes two days after a general strike and widespread demonstrations shook the city, and as Chinese officials have warned about the continuing unrest.“Since June 2019, several large scale and smaller political demonstrations have taken place in various areas of Hong Kong,” the advisory warned. “Most have been peaceful, but some have turned confrontational or resulted in violent clashes. The protests and confrontations have spilled over into neighborhoods other than those where the police have permitted marches or rallies. These demonstrations, which can take place with little or no notice, are likely to continue.”Several other countries, including Australia, Britain, Ireland, Japan, and Singapore, have issued similar travel warnings.Protests are planned starting Friday at Hong Kong’s airport, which could disrupt travel to and from the city. And the city has been roiled by daily demonstrations that have led the police to fire tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds at protesters.The Hong Kong government said Thursday that the city remained a welcoming place for visitors and had a long tradition of peaceful protests.“However, in recent weeks, some violent protesters have blocked roadways, vandalized property and confronted police after the end of some processions,” the government said in a written statement. “The impact of these illegal confrontations is confined to a limited area near the procession routes, and is not widespread.”On Wednesday, the top Chinese official overseeing Hong Kong affairs said that the city was experiencing its worst crisis since the former British colony returned to China in 1997. The official, Zhang Xiaoming, the director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, said the turmoil in Hong Kong “has been going on for 60 days straight, getting bigger and bigger,” and added that violence had been intensifying.The advisory urged travelers to the city to “avoid the areas of the demonstrations,” “keep a low profile” and “exercise caution if unexpectedly in the vicinity of large gatherings or protests.”

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan’s big three telecom operators plan not to use current equipment and upcoming fifth-generation (5G) gear from China’s Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [HWT.UL] and ZTE Corp (0763.HK) (000063.SZ), Kyodo News reported on Monday. FILE PHOTO - The logo of China's ZTE Corp is seen on the building of ZTE Beijing research and development center in Beijing, China June 13, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File PhotoThe news, for which Kyodo did not cite sources, comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of Chinese tech firms by Washington and some prominent allies over ties to the Chinese government, driven by concerns they could be used by Beijing for spying. Last week sources told Reuters that Japan planned to ban government purchases of equipment from Huawei and ZTE to ensure strength in its defences against intelligence leaks and cyber attacks. A SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T) spokesman said Japan’s third-largest telco was closely watching government policy and is continuing to consider its options. The amount of equipment in use from Chinese makers “is relatively small”, he said. Japan’s top two telecommunications operators, NTT Docomo Inc (9437.T) and KDDI Corp (9433.T), said the firms had not made any decision yet. Docomo does not use Huawei or ZTE network equipment, but it has partnered with Huawei on 5G trials. KDDI also does not use Huawei equipment in its “core” network, a spokeswoman said, adding it does not use any ZTE network equipment. Asked to comment on the report, Huawei referred to a Japanese government policy document issued on Monday concerning cybersecurity during procurement. That document states the aim of a “free, fair and secure cyberspace”. “These are ambitions Huawei shares and we look forward to continuing to work closely with customers in the Japanese market,” a Huawei spokesman said. ZTE declined to comment on the report. Huawei has already been locked out of the U.S. market, and Australia and New Zealand have blocked it from building 5G networks amid concerns of its possible links with China’s government. Huawei has said Beijing has no influence over it. Japan’s decision to keep it out would be another setback for Huawei, whose chief financial officer was recently arrested by Canadian officials for extradition to the United States. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China has already had “communication” with Japan about the issue. China has all along been asking Japan to provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies operating in the country, and Beijing will continue to pay close attention to this issue, Lu told a daily news briefing. “We believe that Chinese companies’ normal operating activities should not be treated in a discriminatory way,” he added. FILE PHOTO: People walk past a sign board of Huawei at CES (Consumer Electronics Show) Asia 2018 in Shanghai, China June 14, 2018. REUTERS/Aly Song/File PhotoWorld financial markets have been roiled since news of the arrest, on worries it could reignite a Sino-U.S. trade row that was only just showing signs of easing. Shares of SoftBank, which has the deepest relationship with Huawei among the big Japanese telcos, fell the most among the three top Japanese telcos on Monday, ending down 3.5 percent. Industry sources said SoftBank would find it difficult to replace pre-existing Huawei network equipment that is designed for the company and not easily interchangeable. Docomo and KDDI shares fell around 1 percent, in a wider market .N225 that closed down 2 percent. Earlier, SoftBank’s Japanese telecoms unit priced its IPO at an indicated 1,500 yen ($13.31) per share and said it will sell an extra 160 million shares to meet solid demand, raising about $23.5 billion in Japan’s biggest-ever IPO. Reporting by Sam Nussey, Makiko Yamazaki and Yoshiyasu Shida; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Christopher Cushing, Himani Sarkar and Gareth JonesOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Media player Media playback is unsupported on your device Video Hong Kong protests: Police officer points gun at protesters A police officer has been caught on camera brandishing a large gun at protesters in Hong Kong. The incident came during clashes outside the Kwai Chung police station where dozens of protesters are being held.

Reacting to news that Paul Manafort was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for tax and bank fraud, President Donald Trump on Friday said he feels "very badly" for his former campaign chairman. Interested in Donald Trump? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Donald Trump Add Interest “I feel very badly for Paul Manafort. I think it's been a very, very tough time for him,” Trump said as he left the White House with his wife, Melania and son Barron to tour tornado damage in Alabama before heading to Mar-a-Lago in Florida. He zeroed in on comments both the judge and Manafort's lawyer made about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. “If you notice both his lawyer, a highly respected man, and a very highly respected judge, the judge said there was no collusion with Russia. This had nothing to do with collusion there was no collusion. It's a collusion hoax. It's a collusion witch hoax. I don't collude with Russia,” Trump said. But the president, who said he was "honored" by the judge's statement, misrepresented what he said. Judge T.S. Ellis didn’t conclude that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia but instead noted that Manafort was not before his court for any matter related to the issue of collusion. After Ellis noted at the sentencing that Manafort's case did not involve the potential collusion that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating, Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, made similar comments as he left court Thursday evening. "As you heard in court today, Mr. Manafort finally got to speak for himself and made clear he accepts responsibility for his conduct and I think most importantly what you saw today is the same thing we had said from day one," Downing said. "There is absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved in any collusion with any government official or Russia." Asked by ABC News' Kyra Philips on Friday about whether he's ruled out a presidential pardon for Manafort, Trump said it’s not under discussion but also did not go so far as to rule it out. “I don’t even discuss, the only one discussing it is you,” the president said and then quickly pivoted to calling Michael Cohen a liar for his claims related to past overtures with Trump’s legal team for him.(MORE: Michael Cohen asked lawyer to inquire about pardon, sources say, possibly contradicting congressional testimony ) “I know that in watching and seeing you folks at night that Michael Cohen lied about the pardon. It was a stone cold lie and he has lied about a lot of things. When he lied about the pardon, that was really a lie. And he knew all about pardons. His lawyer said that they went to my lawyers and asked for pardons. And I can go a step above that but I won't go to it now,” Trump said. Later, Trump tweeted that Cohen "directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again!" Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2019 The president's comments on Manafort followed a morning tweet in which he decried ongoing congressional probes related to the topic of potential collusion, saying it is "so bad for our Country!"Both the Judge and the lawyer in the Paul Manafort case stated loudly and for the world to hear that there was NO COLLUSION with Russia. But the Witch Hunt Hoax continues as you now add these statements to House & Senate Intelligence & Senator Burr. So bad for our Country!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2019 (MORE: Ivanka is 1 Trump spared from DC investigations. But for how long? ) In the past, Trump has offered glowing praise in defense of Manafort and his handling of the charges brought against him. Soon after Manafort was convicted in August, Trump called Manafort a "very brave man," making a direct contrast to his former personal lawyer and fix, Michael Cohen, who last week testified that Trump had directed him to lie to Congress.I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” - make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018 White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway spoke with reporters on Thursday night -- shortly before Manafort's sentencing -- and, similar to the president's comments Friday morning, emphasized that Manafort's case wasn't related to the issue of potential collusion. She also expressed the view that the potential punishment he faced -- more than 20 years in prison - was overly severe. "I'm not sure what the sentence was but it did seem what their sentence may be was much than perhaps other people get for bigger crimes," Conway said.

Media player Media playback is unsupported on your device Video Yves Saint Laurent Museum opens in Paris As a new museum dedicated to one of the most iconic couturiers of the 20th century, Yves Saint Laurent, opens in Paris, we take a look at his legacy.

A secretive panel called CFIUS is paving the way for President Trump to block more foreign business deals due to national security concerns. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday explains why you’ll hear more about CFIUS during the Trump era. Illustration: Laura Kammerman By June 15, 2018 6:47 am ET Australia is looking at barring Huawei Technologies Co. from taking part in the rollout of next-generation 5G telecommunications infrastructure, which would deal a blow to the Chinese company’s global ambitions to be a leader in the technology. Australia’s security agencies are pushing for Huawei to be locked out of supplying equipment to the latest mobile communications networks because of cyberspying fears. While Australia isn’t a big market, a ban would be significant as the most extensive effort by a U.S. ally to block... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In

A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Paul Manafort to nearly four years in federal prison for financial crimes in the first of two sentencing hearings for the onetime Trump campaign chairman, a term substantially less than prosecutors sought. 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 U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis’ decision came more than a year after special counsel Robert Mueller secured an 18-count indictment against Manafort on charges related to tax and bank fraud. During Thursday's sentencing hearing, the judge said Manafort should receive credit for his time already served, meaning he will serve just over three more years. "I want him to receive credit for the nine months," Ellis said in the courtroom. The Virginia-based jury found Manafort, 69, guilty on eight of those counts after a lengthy trial in Aug. 2018, setting the stage for the hefty upcoming prison term.(MORE: Manafort found guilty on 8 counts in tax fraud trial) In a flurry of court documents filed over the past month, special counsel prosecutors and Manafort’s defense team sparred over what penalty would be appropriate for his crimes. The special counsel's office advocated for a lengthy prison term in line with the findings of an independent pre-sentencing report, which calculated that Manafort's crimes called for a prison sentence of up to 25 years. In response, defense counsel for Manafort sought a term "substantially below" sentencing guidelines, citing their client's age and health. Ellis said Thursday he found those sentencing guidelines "excessive" and "quite high." The judge said Manafort lived an otherwise "blameless life" and earned the admiration of a number of people. "Of course that can’t erase criminal activity," Ellis said, "but those factors should be taken into account."(MORE: Special counsel supports hefty prison term for onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort) Arriving at court Thursday afternoon, a wheelchair-bound Manafort donned a green jumpsuit with a cane in hand. He managed to stand up under his own weight when the judge entered the courtroom. Nearly three hours into his sentencing hearing, Manafort made a direct pitch to Ellis to show “compassion” in his sentence and sought to describe the burden his actions have taken on his family. "My life -- personally and professionally -- is in shambles ... The last two years have been most difficult my family has experienced," he said. "This is an ordeal I am responsible for ... I ask for your compassion." As they left court Thursday evening, Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said, "As you heard in court today Mr. Manafort finally got to speak for himself and made clear he accepts responsibility for his conduct and I think most importantly what you saw today is the same thing we had said from day one. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved in any collusion with any government official or Russia." Special counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on Manafort’s sentence.(MORE: Paul Manafort should face sentence 'substantially below' 10-year maximum: Defense counsel) Despite Ellis' decision, Manafort's legal travails are far from over. He faces another sentencing next week in Washington. He pleaded guilty to those additional federal charges brought by the special counsel’s office in Sept. 2018. Manafort, a longtime lobbyist and Republican political operative, led Trump's campaign for five months, from May to Aug. 2016. Now that he has been sentenced to prison, Manafort's former boss could be his saving grace. In November, Trump told the New York Post that though a pardon for Manafort had never been discussed, he "wouldn't take it off the table." ABC News' Jack Date contributed to this report.

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam said an extradition bill that sparked the territory's biggest political crisis in decades was 'dead', admitting that the government's work on the bill had been a 'total failure'. The bill, which would have allowed people in Hong Kong to be sent to mainland China to face trial, sparked huge and at times violent street protests. In mid-June Lam responded to huge protests by suspending the bill, but that move failed to mollify critics, who continued to demonstrate against the bill and call for Lam's resignation

The judge ordered Mr. Manafort to pay $25 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine. He also gave Mr. Manafort credit for the nine months he had already spent in jail, which could mean Mr. Manafort would be released in just over three years.Mr. Manafort was a prime target for Mr. Mueller, who is believed to be winding down his 22-month investigation and is expected to deliver a report soon to Attorney General William P. Barr. While the prosecutions against Mr. Manafort did not involve his five months of work for the Trump campaign, prosecutors clearly hoped for the collateral benefit of winning his cooperation with the Russia inquiry.At a closed hearing in February, Andrew Weissmann, one of Mr. Mueller’s top deputies, told Judge Jackson that it was highly unusual for the government to strike a plea deal with a defendant like Mr. Manafort who had already put the government through a trial. He alluded to the government’s motives for making such a pact, citing “enormous interest” in “the intelligence that could be gathered in having a cooperating witness in this particular investigation.”But prosecutors abandoned the plea agreement in November, saying Mr. Manafort had repeatedly lied to them. In a recent ruling, Judge Jackson agreed that Mr. Manafort had deceived investigators about three matters.One was revealed through an inadvertent mistake in a court filing in January that showed that Mr. Manafort had lied to the prosecutors about his interactions with a Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, who has been identified by prosecutors as having ties to Russian intelligence. Those interactions included Mr. Manafort’s transferring campaign polling data to Mr. Kilimnik.The special counsel’s office had wanted that information kept out of the public eye to protect an open investigation. It remains unclear why Mr. Kilimnik would want such polling data, what exactly he did with it and whether the data transfer might have helped inform the Russian government’s covert operation to interfere with the American election.It is also unclear why Mr. Manafort lied about it; prosecutors appeared to suggest that Mr. Manafort might have feared that the revelation that he had turned over polling data would have reduced his chances of receiving a presidential pardon for his crimes.

Who can you trust in the Jussie Smollett saga?Kim Foxx, state’s attorney for Cook county, whose office abruptly dropped all charges against the Empire actor, who allegedly faked a hate crime against himself in Chicago in January? Smollett himself, who still maintains that the racist, homophobic attack really happened? Or maybe mayor Rahm Emanuel and police superintendent Eddie Johnson, who have expressed outrage over the “whitewash of justice” and are seeking $130,000 in investigation costs from the actor, but have faced heavy criticism for failing to hold Chicago police similarly accountable for their transgressions in the past?Such is the dilemma here in Chicago, where just about the only thing everyone can agree on in the high-profile case is that the criminal justice system is broken.For Emanuel and Johnson the decision was an example of the rich and famous receiving preferential treatment in the face of the law. “You cannot have, because of a person’s position, one set of rules apply to them and another set of rules apply to everybody else,” the mayor said in a news conference.But for many in Chicago and beyond, that outrage smacked of hypocrisy from a mayor who infamously sought to keep from the public eye a video of former officer Jason Van Dyke gunning down black teenager Laquan McDonald and who has been criticized for his record on police accountability issues.“Is this the same mayor Rahm Emanuel whose police department ran up millions in taxpayer-funded settlements for brutality and wrongful death cases?” the Atlantic’s Vann R Newkirk II wrote .It is a confusing, complex situation that touches on a range of issues, from privilege in the criminal justice system to the relationship between people of color and police, and one that reflects – and could exacerbate – a lack of faith in criminal justice institutions.“We’re talking about wide-ranging impacts that erode public trust,” said Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Legal Studies at Northwestern University. “It’s doing more damage than just this one situation.”The imbroglio began in January, when Smollett, who is black and gay, told Chicago police he’d been assaulted by two men who poured an “unknown chemical substance” on him, tied a noose around his neck, and shouted racial and homophobic slurs, as well as a reference to president Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.The incident drew international headlines and condemnation from celebrities and politicians, including Trump himself, who at the time called the reported attack “horrible.”But in a stunning twist, Chicago police said in February that an investigation had concluded the Empire star had filed a false report and that he had paid two men to help him stage the attack in order to further his career. The 36-year-old actor was eventually indicted on 16 felony counts.But Joseph Magats, the assistant state’s attorney, who took over the case after Foxx recused herself over apparent contacts she had with Smollett’s family at the request of a former aide to Michelle Obama, announced Tuesday that he would drop all the charges against Smollett in exchange for the forfeiture of his $10,000 bond and “volunteer service” the office said the actor had already performed in the community.That didn’t sit well with Emanuel and Johnson, who said the decision was “not on the level”.“Where’s the accountability in the system?” Emanuel asked in a heated presser after the surprise announcement.Foxx defended her office’s move in an interview saying Smollett’s alleged crimes were the “lowest level” of felonies and unlikely to carry prison time, and that the prosecution reached “an outcome that we could expect with this type of case.”But Robert Loeb, a former assistant state’s attorney in Cook county, said that the office’s handling of the case was unusual.“It’s highly irregular,” Loeb said, noting that prosecutors and Smollett continue to differ on the actor’s innocence.The state’s attorney’s office declined to comment for this story. Patricia Brown Holmes, an attorney representing Smollett who has said that the office dropped charges after “we were able to convince them the information was not what they thought it was”, did not respond to a question from the Guardian about the discrepancy between prosecutors and Smollett about his innocence. But her office pointed to a statement from the attorney criticizing Emanuel and Johnson for demanding the actor apologize to the police and the city.“It is the mayor and the police chief who owe Jussie – owe him an apology – for dragging an innocent man’s character through the mud,” Smollett’s team said Thursday. “Jussie has paid enough.”But questions about the case are not going away.In a statement, the National District Attorneys Association offered blistering criticism of Foxx’s office, suggesting the “public’s confidence in the criminal justice system” had been “diminished” by its handling of the Smollett charges. “The case in Chicago illustrates a point that must be discussed in an effort to ensure fairness in our criminal justice system: the rich are treated differently, the politically connected receive favorable treatment, and Lady Justice sometimes peeks under her blindfold to see who stands before her,” the NDAA said.But for many Chicagoans – particularly black and brown residents – that was obvious before the Smollett case.It was evident in the city’s handling of the McDonald killing, other police brutality cases in which activists say authorities were not held accountable, and in policies out of city hall that critics say have ignored or worsened problems in low-income areas, such as his highly controversial school closures. Some rebuked Emanuel and Johnson for failing to express the kind of outrage about those issues that they expressed about the handling of the Smollett charges. Some questioned authorities’ narrative that Smollett had faked the attack, suggesting that city officials and the media were attempting to “vilify” the actor.“Rahm and Eddie are both flunkies for the 1% and I think they both have a lot of nerve criticizing Foxx for doing the kind of job she was elected to do,” Larry Redmond, a Chicago attorney and activist who has been critical of Emanuel and the CPD, said in an email. “She has the discretion to prosecute whomever she pleases. She chose not to prosecute a young black man the press was attempting to vilify. That took guts, and I stand by her for that decision.”Of course, politics – both local and national – have figured heavily into the matter.The Fraternal Order of Police – which had backed Anita Alvarez, the former state’s attorney who was criticized for her handling of the McDonald case, in her failed re-election bid against Foxx in 2016 – is calling for a federal investigation into her handling of the Smollett case, saying that her office’s work was “highly, highly suspicious”.“The entire country is outraged by it,” Martin Preib, of the FOP, told the Chicago Sun-Times “This decision appears to be utterly arbitrary, capricious and suspicious.”“The entire country is getting a window into the absurdity of the Chicago political and legal system,” he added.Trump – whose rightwing allies in the media have latched onto the drama – signaled Thursday that he has taken up the cause, tweeting that the FBI and justice department are reviewing the case. “It is an embarrassment to our nation!” he wrote. Emanuel didn’t welcome the president’s help, urging him to “sit this out”, but demanded more than $130,000 from Smollett to cover the costs of CPD’s investigation and threatened to “prosecute … or pursue any other legal remedy available at law” if he doesn’t pay up within a week.Meanwhile, Chicago and the rest of the country is still looking for answers. They won’t find them in the case’s court papers: they’ve been permanently sealed. Topics Empire Chicago US crime news

Late-night hosts saw through a day of bad defenses, from “first-time” offenders to “fake news”.“I’ve met Donald Trump, but I would not say that we are friends,” Stephen Colbert admitted on Thursday’s Late Show. “And I thank the Lord for that, because today has been a rough one for those close to the president.”Colbert referred first to Trump’s former campaign chairman and “man with resting indicted face” Paul Manafort, who was sentenced on Thursday to 47 months in prison for bank and tax fraud as part of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election.The nearly four-year sentence was considered by many to be surprisingly lenient – far less than the sentencing guidelines of 19.5 to 24 years.The shorter sentence is in part due to Manafort’s defense team, who “tried everything to get their client a reduced sentence – except representing an innocent man”, Colbert said. The defense requested leniency for Manafort as a “first-time offender”, though the prosecution pointed out that for over a decade, Manafort “repeatedly and brazenly violated the law”, such a continually hiding millions of dollars made from his work in Ukraine.Colbert suggested a slight rewording for the defense: Manafort “wasn’t so much a first-time offender as a first-time gettin’-caughter”.Thursday was also a rough day for former fixer Michael Cohen, whose spectacular congressional testimony last week is widely considered to be one of the more significant and stunning days of the Trump presidency. During his public hearing, Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws, evading taxes and lying to Congress, assured Congress that he would not seek a pardon from Trump.“Checks reimbursing me for paying off a porn star? Yes. Pardons? No. I have my dignity,” said Colbert, mocking Cohen’s moral calculations.However, according to the Wall Street Journal, Cohen has instructed his personal lawyer to inquire after a presidential pardon.“This revelation is crucial because it undermines Cohen, a witness who has produced copies of Donald Trump’s checks reimbursing him for paying off porn star Stormy Daniels, which would be a campaign finance violation,” Colbert explained. Naturally, Trump responded on Twitter: “It was not a campaign contribution, and there were no violations of the campaign finance laws by me. Fake News!”In a day of weak court defenses, Colbert especially wasn’t buying Trump’s. “Sir, you’re passionate but just saying ‘It wasn’t me, it wasn’t what it was’, is not a strong defense. After all, Atticus Finch didn’t defend Tom Robinson by saying: ‘Oh no, he did-n’t.’”In other ineffective criminal defense news, Jimmy Kimmel returned on Thursday night to the second portion of disgraced R&B star R Kelly’s startling interview with Gayle King.The part of the interview during which Kelly – who has been accused of physical and sexual abuse – melted into tears and finger-pointing as he vehemently denied the well-documented charges; since then, he went “straight from Gayle to jail”, Kimmel joked, for failure to pay child support.Part two of the interview didn’t fare much better for Kelly. “It’s very interesting the way he speaks to Gayle King, because there’s one person interviewing him – Gayle – but he makes his case to everyone in the room but her,” Kimmel said of the tape, in which Kelly gesticulates wildly to the wall, the camera crew, and a plant, but not to interviewer Gayle King.“He cried, he yelled – it was like he was trying to get a spot on the supreme court,” Kimmel said.Kelly also bizarrely ranted about his marriage and, without context, flying in on a helicopter with a puppy.Kimmel wasn’t moved. “I don’t know who decided to trust this man with a puppy on a helicopter, but that person should be in jail today too,” he quipped. Topics Late-night TV roundup Stephen Colbert Jimmy Kimmel TV comedy Comedy Television news

Paul Manafort, the former chairman of Donald Trump’s campaign, has been jailed for nearly four years for bank and tax fraud uncovered during the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference.Wearing a green prison jumpsuit, Manafort sat still in a wheelchair and betrayed little emotion as the US district judge TS Ellis of the eastern district of Virginia pronounced the sentence, which will be partially offset by nine months already served.“Mr Manafort, you stand accused of very serious crimes,” said Ellis, noting that these included concealing $6m from the Internal Revenue Service. “In essence, that’s a theft of money from everyone who pays their taxes.”The sentence was far shy of federal sentencing guidelines, which call for 19 and a half to 24 years in prison for these types of offenses. 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 acknowledged: “I don’t expect the sentence I’m about to announce to meet with everyone’s approval.” He told Manafort: “Life is making choices, Mr Manafort, and living with the choices you make. You made choices and engaged in criminal conduct and there will be consequences for that decision.”The judge also chided Manafort not for expressing regret in a statement he made to the court minutes earlier. “You did not say, ‘I really, really regret not doing what the law required.’ It will not affect that sentence I impose but I hope you will reflect on that.”In a hushed, packed courtroom, with the clock close to 7pm, Ellis then handed down concurrent sentences totalling 47 months for the eight charges on which the veteran Republican political consultant was convicted in Alexandria, Virginia, last August. But he said Manafort would receive credit for the nine months he has already spent incarcerated.The judge imposed a fine of $50,000 on Manafort – who still owns a house in Alexandria, worth about $3m, and another in Palm Beach, Florida, worth an estimated $1.25m – noting that he was already obliged to pay restitution of $24m to his victims. “I think what I’ve done is sufficiently punitive.”Outside of the courtroom, Ellis’s ruling and his comments that Manafort had lived “an otherwise blameless life” drew sharp criticism. “I’ve rarely been more disgusted by a judge’s transparently preferential treatment to a rich white guy who betrayed the law and the nation,” tweeted Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard.“A federal judge in Virginia gave Paul Manafort less prison time for eight counts of bank fraud, tax fraud, and failing to file a foreign bank account report than Crystal Mason got in Texas for voting once while on probation. America,” noted the writer Jamil Smith.The 69-year-old was convicted after prosecutors accused him of hiding from the US government millions of dollars he earned as a consultant for Ukraine’s former pro-Russia government. After the pro-Kremlin Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted, 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 special counsel Robert Mueller’s charges led to the stunning downfall of Manafort, a prominent figure in Republican party circles for decades who also worked as a consultant to such international figures as the former Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, the former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and Yanukovych.On Thursday he arrived in the sleek modern courtroom looking like a shadow of the dapper, self-confident figure he cut during the 2016 election campaign. His face had aged and his hair had greyed. He was in a wheelchair and carrying a walking stick, which he rested against a table near a blank computer monitor and white polystyrene cup.Manafort wore a green prison jumpsuit with “ALEXANDRIA INMATE” printed on the back, though some of the letters were fading. He was flanked by lawyers and, at least twice during the three-hour hearing, he turned to his wife and muttered brief words of reassurance.Early on, mindful of his big audience in the public gallery, Ellis sought to make one thing clear: “He is not before the court on any allegation that he or anyone under his direction colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.”Trump’s name was never mentioned but Manafort’s defence team argued that, but for extraordinary circumstances of the special counsel investigation, his case would probably have been dealt with by a district attorney’s office rather than going to full trial. Ellis mused: “I’ve been here for 32 years and I’ve seen a great deal. One thing I think everyone can agree with is this case is unusual.”The defence also argued in mitigation that Manafort has spent 50 hours cooperating with Mueller’s team. But the government prosecutor Greg Andres countered: “The reason he met for 50 hours is because he lied. He did not provide valuable cooperation and there is nothing in the record, your honour, to suggest that he did.”Ellis invited Manafort to address the court and told him he could remain seated because the evident physical pain that standing would cause him. Reading from a statement, the former Trump aide said: “The last two years have been the most difficult years for my family and I. To say that I feel humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement.”He spoke about being separated from his family for nine months. “I appreciate the fairness of the trial you conducted,” he added. “My life is professionally and financially in shambles.”Manafort said the “media frenzy” surrounding the case had been tough and that he had time to reflect on his choices. He hoped “to turn the notoriety into a positive and show who I really am”, he added. “I ask you for compassion.”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. Topics Paul Manafort Trump-Russia investigation Virginia US crime news

If you pass through the great hall of Denver airport in Colorado this weekend, you won’t fail to notice the huge amount of building work going on there. Or at least … it looks like building work.Large posters, placed on hoardings around the terminal, cast doubt on what’s really going on. One reads: “Construction? Or cover up?” and features Illuminati insignia on a yellow hard hat. Another shows a reptile head poking out of a suit and asks: “What are we doing?” It offers three potential answers, one of which is: “Remodelling the lizard people’s lair.”The posters seem like some of the wackier outbursts of conspiracy theorist and Trump fanatic Alex Jones, hinting that the airport is part of some kind of satanic plot. In fact, they’ve been put there by the airport as part of a new advertising campaign, which plays up the fact that ever since it was opened in its current iteration in 1995, Denver international airport (DIA) has, for some reason, been the subject of conspiracy theories.There is, to give the tinfoil hat crowd their due, lots that is fishy about DIA. The dedication stone, created for the airport’s opening, bears the logo of the Freemasons and was paid for by two Freemason grand lodges in Colorado, as well as something called the “New World Airport Commission”, an organisation about which there is almost no information. It has led conspiracy theorists to argue that their airport is the headquarters for a secretive new world order linked to the masons or the Illuminati.There are also unusual murals in the airport, painted by the artist Leo Tanguma, which depict creepy images of manmade environmental destruction and genocide. They have been seized upon by conspiracy theorists, although they often neglect to mention that they are part of a four-part series, and the final two murals depict all of humanity coming together to live in harmony and peace.Other theories that have been touted include suggestions that the runways were arranged in the shape of a swastika and that unusual markings on the airport floor are satanic symbols. Another is the huge bunkers under the airport, allegedly created for an automated luggage system that malfunctioned when the airport opened, are in fact an underground lair for the “lizard people”.The theories have been passed around on conspiracy forums and YouTube for years, and were also the subject of an episode of Jesse Ventura’s Tru TV show Conspiracy Theory. In 2008, the airport got a new chief executive, Kim Day, who embraced the suspicion surrounding the airport. Day’s approach included an exhibition about the airport’s suspicious history, art exhibits that used Illuminati imagery, a conspiracy costume party and even a competition to win a trip underneath the airport, to examine its mysterious underground facilities.Now the airport is at it again: with construction taking place in the great hall, they’re playing up suggestions that something unearthly is going on. As well as the posters, there’s also a new web page called Den Files which includes bonus conspiracy theories like “the date of the airport’s dedication is March 19, 1994. And if you add those numbers together (1+9+1+9+9+4), you get 33 ­– the highest level one can achieve in Freemasonry.”Indeed, across YouTube, Google and social media, a majority of results in a search for Denver airport conspiracy theories contain content made by or in conjunction with the airport itself suggesting that while the conspiracy world may have moved on to other things, bosses are keen on the idea that there is more to DIA than being America’s fifth-busiest airport … Topics Denver Air transport Colorado features

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Wednesday that the situation in Syria’s Idlib Province remained of heightened concern and that Russia was talking to various countries about it. “The situation in Idlib is still a matter of heightened concern and worry and, of course, it is on the agenda when it comes to all contacts that the Russian side has at various levels with relevant colleagues,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters during a conference call. Reporting and writing by Andrey Kuzmin; Editing by Andrew OsbornOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

In the authors’ approving view, men like the banker John Pierpont Morgan, the oil baron John D. Rockefeller and the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, all born within a few years of one another in the 1830s, were “giants of energy and ambition” who “exercised more power than anybody other than kings or generals had exercised before.” These men (and they were all men) are “heroes of creative destruction” because they “helped to produce a massive improvement in living standards for all.”ImageThat they also produced social and economic upheaval for many is a small price to pay, the authors contend. The rise of their great corporations, not to mention the industries they helped build and finance, from railroads to autos to retail chains like Sears, Roebuck, displaced millions of workers and small-business owners who were rendered obsolete. Cyrus McCormack’s threshing machine displaced a quarter of the world’s agricultural workers. “People seldom achieve great things without being willing to ride roughshod over the opposition,” the authors note.Not surprisingly, these “giants” attracted popular hostility and resentment — Teddy Roosevelt called them “malefactors of great wealth.” Their success and attendant wealth unleashed a populist backlash. Williams Jennings Bryan campaigned against Wall Street and its “cross of gold.” Congress passed the first antitrust laws. The first federal income tax paved the way to income redistribution.History’s harsh judgment of the era (which culminated in the 1929 stock market crash and ensuing Great Depression) suggests why creative destruction has had trouble gaining much of a following. Like the Robber Barons, today’s drivers of creative destruction, technology and internet entrepreneurs, “are seldom the easiest of heroes, nor the nicest,” the authors note. “They will sacrifice anything, from their own peace of mind to the lives of those around them, to build a business empire and then protect that business empire from destruction.” Such people are prone “to what the Norwegians call Stormannsgalskap, or the ‘madness of great men.’” Tesla’s Elon Musk, who merits several approving mentions, comes to mind. The disruptive forces they unleash generate “unease: the fiercer the gale the greater the unease.”And not all destruction, it should be said, is creative. In a nod to the exotic derivatives and mortgage-backed securities that led to the Great Recession (and went largely undetected by Greenspan’s Fed), Greenspan and Wooldridge acknowledge that “creative destruction can sometimes be all destruction and no creation.”The popular reaction is typically a well-intentioned but misguided effort to preserve the status quo. “People link arms to protect threatened jobs and save dying industries. They denounce capitalists for their ruthless greed. The result is stagnation: In trying to tame the creative destruction, for example by preserving jobs or keeping factories open, they end up killing it,” the authors contend.In their view, America today is already well along that path to stagnation. “Capitalism in America” barely mentions Trump beyond condemning his “dangerous” trade policies and warning about the fiscal recklessness of his tax cuts. But the entire book is an indictment of Trump’s stands on immigration and protectionism and his attempts to resurrect fading mining and industrial concerns — attempts that, as “Capitalism in America” shows repeatedly, are almost surely doomed.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (R) and Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu speak to media over an extradition bill in Hong Kong, China July 2, 2019. REUTERS/Tyrone SiuHONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong’s embattled leader Carrie Lam said on Tuesday that police had exercised restraint in dealing with the latest wave of protests to rock the city over an extradition bill that would allow people to be sent to mainland China for trial. Lam was speaking after police fired tear gas to disperse the protesters who had charged the legislature, destroying pictures and daubing walls with graffiti, on the anniversary of the city’s 1997 return to Chinese rule on Monday. Reporting by Jessie Pang, Writing by Anne Marie Roantree; Editing by Susan ThomasOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The judge ordered Mr. Manafort to pay $25 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine. He also gave Mr. Manafort credit for the nine months he had already spent in jail, which could mean Mr. Manafort would be released in just over three years.Mr. Manafort was a prime target for Mr. Mueller, who is believed to be winding down his 22-month investigation and is expected to deliver a report soon to Attorney General William P. Barr. While the prosecutions against Mr. Manafort did not involve his five months of work for the Trump campaign, prosecutors clearly hoped for the collateral benefit of winning his cooperation with the Russia inquiry.At a closed hearing in February, Andrew Weissmann, one of Mr. Mueller’s top deputies, told Judge Jackson that it was highly unusual for the government to strike a plea deal with a defendant like Mr. Manafort who had already put the government through a trial. He alluded to the government’s motives for making such a pact, citing “enormous interest” in “the intelligence that could be gathered in having a cooperating witness in this particular investigation.”But prosecutors abandoned the plea agreement in November, saying Mr. Manafort had repeatedly lied to them. In a recent ruling, Judge Jackson agreed that Mr. Manafort had deceived investigators about three matters.One was revealed through an inadvertent mistake in a court filing in January that showed that Mr. Manafort had lied to the prosecutors about his interactions with a Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, who has been identified by prosecutors as having ties to Russian intelligence. Those interactions included Mr. Manafort’s transferring campaign polling data to Mr. Kilimnik.The special counsel’s office had wanted that information kept out of the public eye to protect an open investigation. It remains unclear why Mr. Kilimnik would want such polling data, what exactly he did with it and whether the data transfer might have helped inform the Russian government’s covert operation to interfere with the American election.It is also unclear why Mr. Manafort lied about it; prosecutors appeared to suggest that Mr. Manafort might have feared that the revelation that he had turned over polling data would have reduced his chances of receiving a presidential pardon for his crimes.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Paul Manafort had “a huge dumpster of hidden money” abroad, a prosecutor said on Wednesday, urging a jury to convict U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chief on financial fraud charges based more on a paper trail of evidence than on the testimony of a former protege. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Andres gave his closing statement in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where Manafort is on trial on tax and bank fraud charges, along with failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. The jury is expected to begin deliberating on a verdict on Thursday morning. The trial is the first to come out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The charges involve tax and bank fraud, not possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign for president. A Manafort conviction would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller’s Russia inquiry as a political witch hunt, while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel. The star witness against Manafort was seen as Rick Gates, his former right-hand man, who was indicted along with Manafort but pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government. The defense has portrayed Gates as a lying thief who had his hand in the “cookie jar” and was only trying to reduce his own sentence, noting Gates will be allowed to argue for probation even though he admitted to embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars and being involved in Manafort’s alleged crimes. Andres argued that while Manafort did not “choose a Boy Scout” as his associate, Gates’ testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including nearly 400 exhibits, and a series of financial professionals who took the stand for the prosecution. “The star witness in this case is the documents,” Andres told the jury. “That wasn’t a cookie jar,” he added, referring to the tens of millions of dollars Manafort held overseas. “It was a huge dumpster of hidden money in foreign bank accounts.” Prosecutors say Manafort, 69, tried to mislead bankers with doctored financial statements in 2015 and 2016 to secure more than $20 million in loans and failed to pay taxes on more than $15 million that he earned as a political consultant in Ukraine. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File PhotoDefense lawyers decided not to call any witnesses in the trial, and Manafort, a veteran Republican political operative, did not testify in his own defense. In the defense’s closing argument, Manafort’s lawyers argued that issues with his financial situation were known to the bankers before they extended him the loans. They also sought to emphasize the idea that Manafort did not knowingly break the law - a requirement for conviction - and was rather failed by the bookkeepers, accountants and other professionals in whom he trusted his financial affairs. “Sometimes the people we rely on are trustworthy. Sometimes they are not,” said lawyer Richard Westling. The defense took particular aim at Gates, who admitted in court to an extramarital affair. Gates also said he helped Manafort doctor financial statements, hide foreign income and evade hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. income taxes. Manafort’s attorneys have portrayed Gates as living a secret life of infidelity and embezzlement. Defense lawyer Kevin Downing told the jury that Gates had shown himself to be a liar. “He came in here trying to look all clean shaven,” Downing said. “He came in here and tried to get one over on you.” Manafort made millions of dollars working for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians before taking an unpaid position with Trump’s campaign. He was on the campaign team for five months and led it in mid-2016 when Trump was selected as the Republican presidential nominee. Prosecutors say Manafort hid money in offshore bank accounts and then used it to pay for over $6 million in New York and Virginia real estate, items such as antique rugs and fancy clothes, including a $15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin. If found guilty on all 18 charges by the 12-person jury, he could face eight to 10 years in prison, according to sentencing expert Justin Paperny. Manafort also faces a second trial in September in Washington, where he is accused of failing to disclose lobbying for Ukrainian politicians, among other crimes. After the defense concluded its closing argument, Andres objected to Downing’s suggestions that a civil audit would have been more appropriate for Manafort’s tax issues and that Mueller’s office had unfairly singled him out. Slideshow (8 Images)Judge T.S. Ellis sided with Andres, and when he later gave instructions to jurors, he told them that the government was not required to do a civil tax audit before bringing criminal charges. He also instructed them to ignore any argument about the Department of Justice’s motives in bringing the case. “We don’t want the jury deciding this case on that issue,” Ellis said earlier. Before the jurors left for the day, the judge suggested that they not discuss their deliberations with the media after the verdict, claiming it might have a “chilling effect.” Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Nathan Layne; additional reporting by Amanda Becker; writing by Alistair Bell; editing by Jonathan Oatis and James DalgleishOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

There was a time when the world’s two great superpowers were obsessed with nuclear weapons technology. Today the flashpoint is between the US and China, and it involves the wireless technology that promises to connect your toaster to the web. The two countries are embroiled in a political war over the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei. The Americans have recently stepped up long-standing criticisms, claiming the tech giant has stolen trade secrets and committed fraud, and that it has ties to the Chinese government and its military.The company denies the charges and has sought to defend its record on privacy and security. Meanwhile, US allies including Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan have all either imposed restrictions on Huawei’s equipment or are considering doing so, citing national security concerns.Behind the headlines, though, the spat is also about the coming wave of networking technology known as 5G, and who owns it.Here are five things you need to know about the technology and its role in the tensions.Rather than a protocol or device, 5G refers to an array of networking technologies meant to work in concert to connect everything from self-driving cars to home appliances over the air. It’s expected to provide bandwidth of up to 20 gigabits per second—enough to download high-definition movies instantly and use virtual and augmented reality. On your smartphone.The first 5G smartphones and infrastructure arrive this year, but a full transition will take many more years.5G networks operate on two different frequency ranges. In one mode, they will exploit the same frequencies as existing 4G and Wi-Fi networks, while using a more efficient coding scheme and larger channel sizes to achieve a 25% to 50% speed boost. In a second mode, 5G networks will use much higher, millimeter-wave frequencies that can transmit data at higher speeds, albeit over shorter ranges.Since millimeter waves drop off over short distances, 5G will require more transmitters. A lot of them, sometimes just a few dozen meters apart. Connected devices will hop seamlessly between these transmitters as well as older hardware.To increase bandwidth, 5G cells also make use of a technology known as massive MIMO (multiple input, multiple output). This allows hundreds of antennas to work in parallel, which increases speeds and will help lower latency to around a millisecond (from about 30 milliseconds in 4G) while letting more devices connect.Finally, a technology called full duplex will increase data capacity further still by allowing transmitters and devices to send and receive data on the same frequency. This is done using specialized circuits capable of ensuring that incoming and outgoing signals do not interfere with one another.One of 5G’s biggest security issues is simply how widely it will be used.5G stands to replace wired connections and open the door for many more devices to be connected and updated via the internet, including home appliances and industrial machines. Even self-driving cars, industrial robots, and hospital devices that rely on 5G’s ever-present, never-lagging bandwidth will be able to run without a hiccup.As with any brand-new technology, security vulnerabilities are sure to emerge early on. Researchers in Europe have already identified weak spots in the way cryptographic keys will be exchanged in 5G networks, for example. With so many more connected devices, the risk for data theft and sabotage—what cybersecurity folks call the attack surface—will be that much higher.Since 5G is meant to be compatible with existing 4G, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks—in some cases using mesh networking that cuts out central control of a network entirely—existing security issues will also carry over to the new networks. Britain’s GCHQ is expected to highlight security issues with Huawei’s technology, perhaps involving 4G systems, in coming weeks.With 5G, a layer of control software will help ensure seamless connectivity, create virtual networks, and offer new network features. A network operator might create a private 5G network for a bank, for instance, and the bank could use features of the network to verify the identities of app users.This software layer will, however, offer new ways for a malicious network operator to snoop on and manipulate data. It may also open up new vectors for attack, while hardware bugs could make it possible for users to hop between virtual networks, eavesdropping or stealing data as they do.These security worries paint a bleak picture—but there are technical solutions to all of them.Careful use of cryptography can help secure communications in a way that protects data as it flows across different systems and through virtual networks—even guarding it from the companies that own and run the hardware. Such coding schemes can help guard against jamming, snooping, and hacking.Two research papers offer a good overview of the risks and potential solutions: 5G Security: Analysis of Threats and Solutions (pdf); Security for 5G Mobile Wireless Networks (pdf).“If you do it correctly, you will actually have a more robust network,” says Muriel Médard, a professor who leads the Network Coding and Reliable Communications Group at MIT.As the world’s biggest supplier of networking equipment and second largest smartphone maker, Huawei is in a prime position to snatch the lion’s share of a 5G market that, by some estimates, could be worth $123 billion in five years’ time.Stalling the company’s expansion into Western markets could have the convenient side effect of letting competitors catch up. But there are also legitimate security concerns surrounding 5G—and reasons to think it could be problematic for one company to dominate the space.The US government appears to have decided that it’s simply too risky for a Chinese company to control too much 5G infrastructure.The focus on Huawei makes sense given the importance of 5G, the new complexity and security challenges, and the fact that the Chinese company is poised to be such a huge player. And given the way Chinese companies are answerable to the government, Huawei’s apparent connections with the Chinese military and its cyber operations, and the tightening ties between private industry and the state, this seems a legitimate consideration.But the ongoing fight with Huawei also goes to show how vital new technology is to the future of global competition, economic might, and even international security.