[What is QAnon? Explaining the internet conspiracy theory.]In the days since Mr. Comello’s arrest, his family has all but gone underground. Attempts to reach his parents were unsuccessful; a neighbor said Wednesday that he had seen the family packing bags and leaving their Eltingville home, and thought they had moved out. At Mr. Comello’s older brother’s home, a man said the family did not want to talk. At a separate address listed for an apparent relative, a man told a reporter to “take a walk.”Mr. Cali’s murder was not the Comello family’s first brush with the law. Mr. Comello’s older brother, Alfonso, is currently facing felony assault and burglary charges in Richmond County for an incident in Staten Island last September, charges that he denies and is fighting.According to a criminal complaint, Alfonso Comello entered the home of a woman he knew on Sept. 25 with an accomplice and beat the woman’s face with the handle of a knife. The beating was violent enough to knock out several of the woman’s teeth.The woman, whose name was redacted in court papers, was tied to a bed as Alfonso Comello rummaged through drawers and demanded money. He has pleaded not guilty. His lawyer, Arthur Louis Aidala, said Alfonso Comello categorically denied the charges.Missing from the Comello family troubles, however, is any obvious connection to Mr. Cali.According to the police, Anthony Comello entered Mr. Cali’s neighborhood late on March 13 and backed his blue pickup truck into Mr. Cali’s Cadillac Escalade, knocking off the S.U.V.’s license plate.He rang Mr. Cali’s doorbell and the two walked outside and exchanged words, according to surveillance video obtained by the police. Mr. Comello picked up the Escalade’s license plate, and handed it to Mr. Cali. Then he allegedly pulled a pistol and opened fire and fired 12 shots, hitting Mr. Cali 10 times. He drove away in his pickup.Mr. Comello’s fingerprints were found on the license plate, the police said.“Something went very wrong here,” Mr. Gottlieb said.

Tens of thousands of pro-Beijing protesters are rallying in support of the police in Hong Kong.The demonstrators, dressed in white and blue and waving Chinese flags, oppose the anti-extradition protests that have taken over the city this month.Two record-breaking rallies were held against a proposed law that would see suspects extradited to mainland China.On 12 June police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds - the worst violence in the city in decades.Hong Kong's justice secretary Teresa Cheng later ruled out an investigation into police brutality. How radical youth forced the government's hand The apps powering Hong Kong's 'leaderless' protests All the context you need on the Hong Kong protests However, the demonstrations forced the government to apologise and suspend the planned bill.Local media say about 165,000 pro-Beijing protesters turned up to the rally in Tamar Park on Sunday. This is far fewer than the number of people who protested against the extradition bill - activist groups put the figure at about two million for the latest rally. However it is a sign of significant pro-Beijing movement in the territory."I can't put up with people's behaviour towards police," Frances Yu, 70, told AFP news agency.A 54-year-old office worker, who gave his name only as Wong, also told AFP police were trying to "maintain order", and called the anti-extradition protesters "senseless".A few dozen counter-protesters have also been demonstrating nearby.The controversial bill would have allowed extradition to mainland China, Taiwan and Macau for suspects accused of crimes such as rape and murder.Hong Kong has been part of China since 1997 under the "one country, two systems" principle, which allows it freedoms not seen on the mainland, including judicial independence.But protesters fear the bill could bring Hong Kong more decisively under China's control.Now that the bill has been suspended, protesters have four basic demands: the complete withdrawal of the bill the revocation of the term "riot" to describe the 12 June protests the release of all detained activists the investigation of police violence Joshua Wong, one of the leaders of pro-democracy protests in 2014, was released early from jail on 17 June.Addressing supporters and the media after his release, he called for the city's Beijing-backed leader Carrie Lam to stand down.Another mass rally against the extradition bill is being planned for Monday, to coincide with the 22nd anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China.Hong Kong Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung has appealed for calm.In a blog post addressed to the protesters, he wrote: "It is imperative to restore social order and tranquillity as soon as possible, to stabilise the business environment and bring Hong Kong back on track."Hong Kong is my home - there is no difference between you and me."

A beer bottle label has caused a row in Russia over its use of sado-masochistic imagery, exacerbated by the decision of a state agency to run an online poll for or against it.The Kopytov Brewery in Barnaul, a city in the Altai region of Siberia, launched its new Pryanik Imperial Stout with a stylised close-up of a woman with a ball-gag in her mouth, designed to look like a traditional Russian pryanik honey cake, Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper reports.The brewery's Instagram account lauds the craft beer as an "aromatic tsunami of cinnamon, clove, anise, black pepper and juniper, just like a real pryanik - but damned alcoholic". But Yuliya Shlyakhova, a fashion designer formerly of Barnaul but now living in St Petersburg, complained to the Anti-Monopoly Service that the image "displays violence towards women, and is obscene and offensive". The brewery, meanwhile, insists that it meant no offence, has great respect for women, and favours "humour, art, and what is appropriate". The Altai branch of the Anti-Monopoly Service then took the step of setting up an online vote to see whether or not the public found the advert offensive, on the grounds that "a comprehensive review requires a study of social opinion".The Altai branch has tried this method before over complaints of "fat-shaming" in two adverts by fitness clubs, according to the local Bankfax news site, but it was not prepared for the scale or tenor of the response on this occasion.You may also be interested in: Russian post offices raise funds with beer Danes find secret beer trove Sexism row over German charity event The idea of letting a poll play a role in a quasi-legal process has caused almost as much as a stir as the label itself, and it has all played out on the Service's VK social media account, where it opened a forum for the public to post their views. "I'm amazed that enforcing the law has become a matter of online voting," Yuliya Shlyakhova told the Altai edition of the Moskovsky Komsomolets daily. "So whoever has the most friends on VK decides what's right and wrong?" The VK forum provoked little constructive debate, and the level of personal abuse made the Service close comments within a matter of hours. Some participants asked whether defenders of the advert would find it funny if a man, or they themselves, were shown similarly gagged. Others pointed out the social-media backlash against a Russian Reebok advert with a female empowerment theme last month, not to mention the Gillette campaign about "toxic masculinity".Feminists nationwide "rushed to vote" once they saw the poll leaning 62% in favour of the advert, according to the Altai Bankfax news agency, especially after the influential Kuny ne Nuzhny (Blokes not Needed) site highlighted the issue.In the end the opponents prevailed, as the Anti-Monopoly Service said 58% of the 28,135 votes cast on its official website gave the advert the thumbs-down - although the figures on its social media platforms leaned towards support for the ad. The Service is now considering how to respond, and the brewery could face a hefty fine.As for Yuliya Shlyakhova, she hopes the debate about the advert will lead to a "discussion about tolerance of violence, women's safety, and their rights to decide on what is permissible".Reporting by Martin MorganNext story: Estonia warns anglers off thin iceUse #NewsfromElsewhere to stay up-to-date with our reports via Twitter.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A gauge of stocks around the world reached its highest point in about two months on Monday amid hopes for improving trade relations between the United States and China, while oil prices climbed further. Wall Street’s main stock indexes registered slim gains, pulling back from stronger increases during the session. U.S. President Donald Trump pledged on Sunday to help ZTE Corp “get back into business, fast” after a U.S. ban crippled the Chinese technology company, offering a job-saving concession to Beijing ahead of high-stakes trade talks this week. MSCI’s index of stocks across the globe .MIWD00000PUS gained 0.12 percent, hitting a roughly two-month high during the session. Growing trade tensions have worried investors, with concerns about a global trade war feeding into increased volatility in the stock market in recent months. “It seems like there’s a little less concern about a trade war with China given some of the overtures that President Trump made,” said Chuck Carlson, chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services in Hammond, Indiana. “They’re hoping for a dying down of the trade war rhetoric and, quite frankly, they’re probably looking for some successful deals (to be) made.” The Dow Jones Industrial Average .DJI rose 68.24 points, or 0.27 percent, to 24,899.41, the S&P 500 .SPX gained 2.41 points, or 0.09 percent, to 2,730.13 and the Nasdaq Composite .IXIC added 8.43 points, or 0.11 percent, to 7,411.32. Energy shares .SPNY were the top-performing major group, helped by oil price gains, while defensive sectors such as real estate .SPLRCR and utilities .SPLRCU lagged. Investors also pointed to improving sentiment about geopolitical tensions involving North Korea. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday that Washington would agree to lift sanctions on North Korea if the country agrees to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, a move that would create economic prosperity that “will rival” that of South Korea. The pan-European FTSEurofirst 300 index .FTEU3 lost 0.04 percent. Oil prices rose as OPEC reported that the global oil glut has been virtually eliminated, while U.S. crude’s discount to global benchmark Brent widened to its deepest in nearly five months. U.S. crude CLcv1 settled up 0.37 percent to $70.96 per barrel and Brent LCOcv1 settled up 1.44 percent at $78.23. A man looks at an electronic stock quotation board outside a brokerage in Tokyo, Japan February 9, 2018. REUTERS/Toru HanaiThe report from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries “was bullish. That absolute plunge in Venezuelan production ... just highlights how tenuous the market is in terms of the supply and demand balance,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC. The dollar index .DXY rose 0.09 percent, with the euro EUR= down 0.05 percent to $1.1936. Benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury notes US10YT=RR last fell 7/32 in price to yield 2.9969 percent, from 2.971 percent late on Friday. Additional reporting by Stephen Culp and Ayenat Mersie in New York; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and James DalgleishOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Google’s business and product plans are unconfirmed, making it hard to know exactly which parts of China’s regulations would apply. What’s been disclosed suggests the company would possess user data that could be alluring to Chinese authorities enforcing the country’s controls on political expression.That could force Google to play an active role in unsavory policies. In 2005, writers Wang Xiaoning and Shi Tao were sentenced to 10 years in prison for, respectively, promoting democracy and leaking Communist Party documents, after Yahoo disclosed their personal data to the Chinese government. The company later settled a lawsuit brought by Shi’s family.In the US and other markets, Google’s ad business relies on building rich profiles of people’s online activity such as web searches, which are used by advertisers to target their audience. Google could conceivably operate a search app without such profiles, by showing ads based solely on the query a person entered. But Google also plans to launch a personalized news-aggregation app in China, according to The Information.Hundreds of millions of people in China already use such services, such as Toutiao, which employ machine learning to customize a user’s content. To compete, Google would probably need to collect rich profiles on its users, says Graham Webster, a senior fellow with the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale. “The company would be holding data that would show what users are interested in reading,” says Webster. “If a new topic became newly sensitive, theoretically the authorities could ask to see who has been accessing that information.”Figuring out what authorities could ask for could become a constant headache for Google executives, were the company to offer new services in China.US government demands on Google and other tech companies may not always be transparent, as the Snowden revelations showed. But they generally come via a known legal process that gives companies some mechanism by which to object. Chinese authorities do use court orders and regulations to request data from companies. They also use surveillance and apply informal and secretive pressures that can be unpredictable, says Ruan, of Citizen Lab. “The challenge for Google is that many of these laws are vaguely defined and often subject to interpretation by the authorities,” she says.Bytedance’s public humiliation this spring helps illustrate that point. The company’s travails began with criticism of its services from state media, including complaints that a video app hosted clips of unmarried teenage moms discussing their lives, something China Daily said “does not accord with traditional values.”Depending on how they were implemented, censorship tools or other systems built by Google to comply with China's authoritarian internet policies could conflict with ethical principles for use of AI technology the company released in June. The principles state that Google "will not design or deploy AI ... whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights." They were introduced after employee protests over a Pentagon contract.Before Google can launch apps, it would need approval from the Cybersecurity Administration of China, which regulates the internet, as well as political clearance from the very top of China’s government.Last week’s reports suggest Google’s making progress on both fronts. Company staff are said to have demonstrated versions of search and news apps to regulators. The Intercept says Pichai met last December with Wang Huning, a member of the Chinese Politburo. Wang is a top adviser to President Xi Jinping on matters of both ideology and cyberspace, says Eurasia Group’s Triolo. “He’s the guy you’d have to get approval from, basically,” he says.

President Donald Trump and his supporters have often indulged conspiracy theories that the FBI applied for a warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page, in order to spy on the campaign itself.A controversial memo, authored by GOP aides and declassified by Trump himself today, appears to disprove this claim. It reveals that the FBI applied for the warrant on Oct. 21 2016—after Page left the Trump campaign.Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks has previously said that Page had “no formal role” in the campaign in September.

Google announced today it will open a lab in Beijing dedicated to researching artificial intelligence (AI).The news comes as China’s government and tech companies race ahead to dominate the field, putting Google in a position where it has no choice but to set up locally in order to remain at the cutting edge.According to the search giant, the lab will be led by a small team of researchers and supported by Google engineers already working in China on developing the company’s global-facing products. It will be helmed by Jia Li, head of research and development at Google Cloud AI, and Fei-fei Li, director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab and a chief scientist at Google Cloud AI.In a blog post announcing the move, Li notes that the company is currently hiring for positions at the lab—something media outlets picked up on a few months ago. Searching through Google’s job-posting page for Beijing yields recruitment ads for technical leads and software engineers specializing in machine learning. A company spokesperson says the lab will focus on general-purpose research in the field, rather than product development.“I believe AI and its benefits have no borders. Whether a breakthrough occurs in Silicon Valley, Beijing or anywhere else, it has the potential to make everyone’s life better for the entire world,” Li wrote in the blog post. “As an AI first company, this is an important part of our collective mission. And we want to work with the best AI talent, wherever that talent is, to achieve it.Increasingly, much of that talent is located in China. Tech giants Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu have each plowed resources into various AI fields, including facial recognition, voice assistants, and automation. Smaller startups, like Sensetime, Megvii, and ByteDance, have approached or surpassed billion-dollar valuations thanks to funding from larger Chinese companies, the government, or overseas tech giants. In July, Beijing launched a directive called the “Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan,” which outlines a policy plan to turn China into a “primary innovation center” for AI by 2030.In academia, meanwhile, China has a presence in AI research that’s impossible to ignore. According to Sinovation Ventures AI Institute, a research arm of a venture capital group led by former Google China head Kai-fu Lee, more than half of the citations in the top 100 AI journals and conferences go to ethnic Chinese.Despite having virtually no consumer-facing presence stateside, Tencent, Baidu, and ride-hailing giant Didi Chuxing each have labs located in the US, where staff of all nationalities conduct AI research. By opening a lab in Beijing, Google is merely following this trend in reverse, chasing the talent where it lies.It’s not clear how, if at all, Beijing’s ambivalence toward Google will affect the company’s AI efforts there. On the one hand, it will only boost China’s global reputation as an AI leader, and will presumably contribute more to the domestic talent pool. On the other, Beijing would likely rather see China’s best and brightest AI researchers work for Tencent or Alibaba rather than a US-based competitor. For Google though, wrestling with these issues is probably secondary to ensuring it can do AI research in China to begin with.

Intel to pay $5M to settle pay discrimination allegations The U.S. Department of Labor says it has settled with chip maker Intel Corp. for $5 million over pay discrimination against female, African American...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s Republican allies tangled with one of Trump’s most prominent Democratic critics during a chaotic congressional hearing on Thursday and the U.S. attorney general revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia inquiry report is more than 300 pages long. Hours after Trump went on Twitter to demand that Democrat Adam Schiff resign from Congress, Republican lawmakers called on him to quit as chairman of the bitterly divided House of Representatives Intelligence Committee because of his comments about the president’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Schiff quickly fired back at a tumultuous hearing and called actions by the president’s associates unpatriotic and corrupt. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, defended Schiff and called the actions of Trump and committee Republicans “shameful” and “irresponsible.” Attorney General William Barr, empowered by Justice Department regulations to decide how much of the special counsel’s report to make public, on Sunday released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings. Barr said Mueller did not establish that Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia in the 2016 election. The attorney general informed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler about the length of the report in a telephone call on Wednesday, a Justice Department official said. Barr also agreed to testify before Nadler’s committee, although no date was set, the official said. Republicans in the Senate on Thursday thwarted another effort by Democrats to pass a resolution calling for the Mueller report to be made available to the public and Congress. The House has passed a similar resolution. A Justice Department official said on Tuesday that Barr would issue a public version of the report within “weeks, not months.” But top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said Barr’s delay of the release has “too much of the odor of political expediency to help the man who appointed him, President Trump.” Pelosi also demanded the report’s release. “No, thank you, Mr. Attorney General. We do not need your interpretation. Show us the report and we’ll come to our own conclusions,” she said. Republicans have launched a counter-attack against Democrats since Barr released his summary. Trump used an early-morning Twitter post to assail Schiff, whose committee is investigating Russia’s influence on U.S. elections. “Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!” Trump wrote. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) listens during a House Intelligence Committee hearing titled "Putin's Playbook: The Kremlin's Use of Oligarchs, Money and Intelligence in 2016 and Beyond" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 28, 2019. REUTERS/Brendan McDermidTrump did not give specifics of his accusations against Schiff, who has not been accused by authorities of leaking classified information. Republican members of the intelligence panel opened a Thursday session on Russian meddling with an attack on Schiff. They said all nine Republican panel members had signed a letter asking him to quit. Representative Mike Conaway read the letter to Schiff, accusing him of spreading “false information” and saying Republicans had no faith in his ability “to discharge your duties in a manner consistent with your constitutional responsibility.” Schiff responded by citing a list of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians, from Donald Trump Jr. welcoming a Russian offer of “dirt” on Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, to former national security adviser Michael Flynn secretly discussing easing U.S. sanctions on Russia with Moscow’s ambassador before Trump became president. “You might say that’s all OK,” Schiff said. “You might say that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt - and evidence of collusion.” During his investigation, Mueller brought charges against 34 people, including Russian agents and former Trump aides. Mueller left unresolved in his report the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by impeding the Russia investigation and did not exonerate the president, Barr said. Barr himself concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish that Trump had committed obstruction of justice. Pelosi rallied to Schiff’s defense. “They’re afraid of the truth. They’re afraid of competence,” Pelosi told her weekly news conference. “I’m so proud of the work of Chairman Adam Schiff.” The House intelligence committee has been bitterly split along party lines for years on the Russia investigation, which was taken over by Mueller in May 2017 after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. The committee’s Republicans wrapped up their investigation a year ago, finding no collusion between Trump and Moscow to influence the vote. Democrats, led by Schiff, blasted the announcement as premature. Slideshow (10 Images)Thursday’s hearing, examining the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the country’s wealthiest business leaders, known as oligarchs, continued after the angry exchange between its members. The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia used a campaign of hacking and propaganda to sow discord in the United States, harm Clinton and boost Trump’s candidacy. Russia denied election interference. Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Andy Sullivan; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Susan Cornwell and Makini Brice; Writing by Will Dunham, Doina Chiacu and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Bill Trott and Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The EU has launched an attempt to protect European businesses from Donald Trump’s sanctions against Iran as the US administration voiced its intent to apply maximum pressure on Tehran by vigorously applying its punitive measures.The sanctions came into force at midnight (US east coast time). At the same time, a blocking statute – last used to protect EU firms from US sanctions against Cuba – was brought into force in an attempt to insulate firms and keep alive a deal designed to limit the Iranian government’s nuclear aspirations.European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.Trump announced his intention to hit firms doing business with Iran when he reneged on a deal struck in 2015 designed to help curtail Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in return for limited sanctions relief. A joint statement issued on Monday by the foreign ministers of the EU’s 28 member states, including the UK’s Jeremy Hunt, said there was a “determination to protect” the bloc’s economic interests and the nuclear deal, which Brussels, along with China and Russia, continues to support.The statement said: “The lifting of nuclear-related sanctions is an essential part of the deal; it aims at having a positive impact not only on trade and economic relations with Iran, but most importantly on the lives of the Iranian people.“We are determined to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN security council resolution 2231. This is why the European Union’s updated blocking statute enters into force on 7 August to protect EU companies doing legitimate business with Iran from the impact of US extra-territorial sanctions.”Despite the tough public stance, there are concerns about the efficacy of the blocking statute; EU officials admit that companies continuing to invest in Iran are taking a risk.The Trump administration said on Monday it was not particularly concerned by the EU decision and that the US strategy was designed to apply maximum pressure on Tehran.“This is completely consistent with what the president has done with other less friendly regimes … to keep the maximum pressure until our goals are achieved,” a senior administration official told reporters.The Trump administration said it was ultimately seeking a new deal that addressed “the totality of the Iranian threat”, even as Tehran and key US allies have scoffed at the notion of renegotiating the 2015 nuclear accord known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA).The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, praised the EU for its stance and dismissed the sanctions as “psychological warfare” designed to help Trump’s political allies in the US midterm elections in November. Speaking on state television on Monday, Rouhani also said that Trump’s recent offer to meet him was now meaningless: “The person who has knifed his rival’s arm … now says that he wants talks. They should first take out their knife and put it in their pocket.”The controversial decision to withdraw the US from the JCPOA paved the way for the reimposition of sanctions in two stages. The first round comes into force on Tuesday, and the second takes effect on 4 November, 180 days after Trump ended US participation. The transition period was intended to provide companies already doing business with Iran time to wind down their activities.“Our stated policy has not been regime change, it has been to modify the regime’s behavior,” a US official said.Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, pledged that his country would “overcome this period of hardship”, dismissing the new round of sanctions as mainly psychological warfare. Zarif said the fact that sanctions targeted Iran’s ability to purchase passenger planes showed the US contempt for the Iranian population at large. “If you have [good] relations with people of Iran, then the question is why the first round of sanctions you imposed were targeting planes?” There have been scores of plane crashes in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution, resulting in at least 1,985 deaths. Decades of western sanctions have limited the country’s access to spare parts or new planes. Topics International trade Iran Donald Trump Trump administration European Union Economics Europe news

(Reuters) - Prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller urged a federal judge in Virginia on Friday to impose a strict prison sentence for President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, after a jury last year convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud. In their sentencing memo filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, prosecutors said Manafort, who is 69, deserves between 19.6 and 24.4 years in prison and a fine of between $50,000 and $24 million. “While some of these offenses are commonly prosecuted, there was nothing ordinary about the millions of dollars involved in the defendant’s crimes, the duration of his criminal conduct or the sophistication of his schemes,” prosecutors said in the memo. “Manafort did not commit these crimes out of necessity or hardship,” they said. “He was well-educated, professionally successful and financially well off. He nonetheless cheated the United States Treasury and the public out of more than $6 million in taxes at a time when he had substantial resources.” Friday’s court filing in Virginia came just days after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that Manafort had breached his plea agreement in a parallel case by lying to investigators despite a pledge to cooperate. That finding earlier this week by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia could have a direct impact on how Manafort is sentenced in the Virginia case. Judge T.S. Ellis in Alexandria, Virginia, had planned to sentence Manafort on Feb. 8, but he later postponed that until after Jackson’s ruling, saying it “may have some effect on the sentencing decision in this case.” Manafort was one of the first people in Trump’s orbit to face criminal charges as part of Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to tilt the 2016 presidential election in his favor. Trump has denied colluding and called the probe a witch hunt, while Russia has denied meddling in the election. None of the charges Manafort faced related directly to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. In the Virginia case, prosecutors accused Manafort of hiding from U.S. tax authorities $16 million he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, money he used to fund an opulent lifestyle. Later, when his lobbying work started to dry up following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, prosecutors said Manafort began lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans to keep his lifestyle afloat. After almost four days of deliberations, a 12-member jury found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. In September, Manafort pleaded guilty in a parallel case in Washington to attempted witness tapering and conspiring against the United States, a charge that covers conduct including money laundering and unregistered lobbying. As part of that deal, he pledged to cooperate with the Justice Department. However, prosecutors later said they had caught Manafort in several lies and wanted to tear up the agreement in a move that could cause him to face a much stiffer prison sentence. 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 PhotoEarlier this week, Jackson ruled there was a “preponderance” of evidence that Manafort lied on three different topics, including his communications with his former business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, who prosecutors say has ties to Russian intelligence and helped Manafort try to obstruct justice. Kilimnik has denied such ties. Specifically, Jackson found that Manafort lied about his interactions with Kilimnik including about the sharing of polling data on the Trump campaign and their discussions over a “Ukrainian peace plan,” a proposal that envisioned ending U.S. sanctions on Russia - long an important objective of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government. Prosecutors have said these lies are “at the heart” of their investigation into potential collusion, according to a transcript released last week. Reporting by Sarah Lynch and Nathan Layne in Washington; Editing by David Alexander and Leslie AdlerOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Japan Display Inc., which supplies screens for the iPhone XR, cut earnings estimates for its fiscal year ending in March. It said orders for its latest LCD panels would be much lower than its initial expectations for the three months ending in March.Similarly, Lumentum Holdings Inc., which makes facial-recognition components for iPhones, lowered its earnings forecast by nearly 25% for the three months ending in December, saying one of its largest customers had materially reduced shipments for previously placed orders.While neither supplier mentioned Apple by name, Wall Street responded by driving shares of the iPhone maker down more than 5%, as a tech rout led to broad stock market losses. The selloff extends a decline that began after Apple issued revenue estimates for the current quarter that disappointed investors and said it would no longer report unit sales for iPhones, iPads or Macs. Apple is down nearly 13% since the close of trading Nov. 1 just before it released earnings. Related Dow Falls 600 Points As Tech Rout Hits Stocks Apple had no comment but referred to its previous remarks that its supply chain is complex, and that trying to extrapolate the performance of any one of its products based on suppliers’ forecasts can create a disconnect between anticipated sales and actual sales.The iPhone maker is transitioning from a business driven by the number of devices it ships into one that leans on pricier products and more sales of software and services to drive revenue.Investors are adjusting to that transition, which is contributing to the stock’s decline, said Arif Karim, senior investment analyst at Ensemble Capital Management. The Burlingame, Calif., firm, which has $800 million under management, counts Apple among its top 25 holdings.“What we’re going through now is a series of doubts about the balance between unit growth—the number of iPhones sold—and the value provided to customers, from higher prices to accessories like AirPods to services,” Mr. Karim said. JPMorgan Chase & Co. on Monday trimmed its earnings estimates for Apple by 2 cents a share and forecast a year-over-year decline in iPhone shipments and lower iPhone sales in emerging markets because of economic challenges. However, JPMorgan said it continues to expect Apple’s app-store sales and music-streaming business to deliver strong growth.Apple’s stock performance has long been tied to forecasts from the company’s key suppliers. In 2013, a period when the number of iPhones sold slowed, shares fell 5.5% after iPhone supplier Cirrus Logic warned of a large inventory write-down because of lower demand from an unnamed customer, believed to be Apple. Similar shares declines occurred in 2016 after The Wall Street Journal reported Apple reduced its orders from iPhone suppliers. Apple later reported its first iPhone unit sales decline for its 2016 fiscal year.Still, Ben Bajarin, a technology analyst with Creative Strategies, said it is difficult to read too much into forecast cuts by Apple suppliers like Japan Display and Lumentum because Apple can reduce or increase orders at any time based on iPhone demand. “The real question is: What’s the full calendar year going to look like? It’s hard to predict that this far out,” he said.Apple released three new iPhones this year: the $999 iPhone XS, the $1,099 iPhone XS Max and the $749 iPhone XR. Analysts expected the lower-priced XR, which went on sale Oct. 26, to account for about half of total new iPhone sales.When asked during a call with analysts on Nov. 1 about how the device was doing, Chief Executive Tim Cook said Apple had “very, very little data” on it. However, he said that the more expensive XS and XS Max models that launched a month earlier were “off to a really great start.”—Takashi Mochizuki contributed to this article.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Millions of people have taken to the streets in the past three weeks to protest against a proposed extradition bill that has plunged Hong Kong into political crisis and triggered calls for embattled leader Carrie Lam to step down. Helicopters fly the national flags of Hong Kong and China above riot police and protesters during the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China in Hong Kong, China July 1, 2019. REUTERS/Thomas Peter Amendments to the Fugitives Offenders Ordinance bill would have allowed individuals, including foreigners, to be sent to mainland China to face trial in courts controlled by the Communist Party. The changes were seen by many as a threat to the rule of law in the former British colony. Lam suspended the bill after some of the largest and most violent protests in decades but has stopped short of protesters’ demands to scrap it. Following is a timeline of the key dates around the extradition bill and the protests it triggered. February 2019 – Hong Kong’s Security Bureau submits a paper to the city’s legislature proposing amendments to extradition laws that would provide for case-by-case extraditions to countries, including mainland China, beyond the 20 states with which Hong Kong already has treaties. March 2019 - Thousands take to the streets of Hong Kong to protest against the proposed extradition bill. The American Chamber of Commerce expresses serious reservations in a submission to Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security, John Lee. It says the bill will “undermine perceptions of Hong Kong as a safe and secure haven for international business operations”. April 3, 2019 – Carrie Lam’s government introduces amendments to Hong Kong’s extradition laws that would allow criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. Opponents say the changes would put them at the mercy of Chinese courts, controlled by the Communist Party, with a record of arbitrary detentions, torture and other human rights violations. April 28, 2019 – Tens of thousands of people march on Hong Kong’s parliament to demand the scrapping of the proposed extradition laws. May 8, 2019 – A U.S. congressional commission says the proposed extradition bill could extend China’s “coercive reach” into the financial hub and create serious risks for U.S. national security and economic interests in the city. May 11, 2019 – Scuffles break out in Hong Kong’s legislature between pro-democracy lawmakers and those loyal to Beijing over the extradition bill. May 14, 2019 – Hong Kong legislators clash over the proposed law, with some democrats shouting “Scrap the evil law”. May 21, 2019 – Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam says her administration is determined to push through the bill despite mounting opposition locally and internationally. Authorities say they will bypass normal legislative procedures to expedite the bill. May 24, 2019 - The European Union issues a formal diplomatic “demarche” protest note to Hong Kong’s leader over the extradition bill during a meeting of nearly a dozen diplomats from various EU nations, including the United Kingdom. May 30, 2019 – Hong Kong introduces concessions to the extradition bill, including limiting the scope of extraditable offences, but critics say they are not enough. Canada and Britain say it is vital that extradition arrangements fully respect the city’s high degree of autonomy from China. June 4, 2019 – More than 120,000 students, alumni, staff and parents from 185 secondary schools sign a petition against the extradition law. June 6, 2019 – More than 3,000 Hong Kong lawyers take to the streets dressed in black in a rare protest march against the extradition law. Hong Kong’s last British governor, Chris Patten, says the bill is a “terrible blow” to the rule of law. June 9, 2019 – Protest organizers say around a million people rally against the extradition bill in a march to government headquarters. Violent skirmishes break out late at night between activists and police. Police put the protest numbers at 240,000. June 10, 2019 – Hong Kong vows to press ahead with the extradition bill despite the mass protest. The United States says it is gravely concerned about the proposed amendments. June 11, 2019 – Lam remains defiant as she again vows to push ahead with extradition bill. June 12, 2019 – Police fire rubber bullets and 150 canisters of tear gas as the extradition bill triggers the city’s largest and most violent protests in decades. June 13, 2019 – Hong Kong authorities shut government offices after a day of violence. China’s foreign ministry condemns the behavior of protesters and voices support for the government. June 14, 2019 – Lam indefinitely delays the proposed extradition law in a dramatic retreat after violent street protests. June 16, 2019 – Lam issues a written apology to the public after the second massive protest in a week that organizers said drew around 2 million people. June 18, 2019 – Lam signals the end of the controversial bill but refuses to step down or say the bill is withdrawn. She apologizes in person. June 21, 2019 - Thousands of demonstrators blockade police headquarters as the city braced itself for a third weekend of mass protests. June 24, 2019 - Beijing says it will not allow leaders at the G20 meeting in Japan to discuss the Hong Kong issue. June 25, 2019 - Britain bans sales of tear gas to Hong Kong. June 26, 2019 - Hong Kong activists call on G20 leaders to help “liberate” the city. June 27, 2019 - Fresh protests hit Hong Kong as activists seek a voice at the G20. June 28, 2019 - Anti-extradition protesters rally again near government headquarters. July 1, 2019 - Fresh protests erupt as Hong Kong marks the 22nd anniversary of the handover from British to Chinese rule. Compiled by Anne Marie Roantree and Delfina Wentzel; Editing by Paul TaitOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The Dispatch On the Streets With Hong Kong’s Protesters By AUSTIN RAMZY, CORA ENGELBRECHT, ORLANDO DE GUZMAN and SHANE O’NEILL | Jul. 2, 2019 | 4:39 We saw scenes of violence, as well as hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators. There is still some unity in the face of mainland China’s encroaching influence, but it is less clear how this leaderless protest movement will advance. Show More

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Apple, already the subject of EU antitrust scrutiny, on Thursday became the target of a Dutch investigation for allegedly favoring its own apps on its popular App Store. FILE PHOTO: The logo of Apple company is seen outside an Apple store in Paris, France, April 10, 2019. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann/File PhotoDutch competition agency ACM suggested the investigation may be expanded to Google’s Play Store in future because of similar business practices by the company. Both services are lucrative money spinners for Apple and Google. The investigation was triggered by Dutch apps for news media which provided indications of possible anti-competitive behavior by the iPhone maker during the agency’s study into app stores, ACM said. “ACM will investigate, among other aspects, whether Apple acted in violation of the prohibition of abuse of dominance, for example, by giving preferential treatment to its own apps,” the Dutch enforcer said in a statement. The investigation will also look into Apple’s requirement that app developers use its payment systems for in-app purchases and pay a 30 percent fee in the first year, and also difficulties app developers face in using all functionalities of an iPhone. “ACM is calling on app providers to come forward if they experience any problems with Apple’s App Store, but also if they experience similar problems with Google’s Play Store. ACM will use that information in its investigation,” the Dutch watchdog said. Apple said it treats all app developers equally. “We are confident (ACM’s) review will confirm all developers have an equal opportunity to succeed in the App Store,” the company said in a statement. Google declined to comment. The European Commission, which is looking into Swedish music streaming service Spotify’s complaint that Apple abuses its position, said the Dutch investigation was in line with its own case. “The study and the announced follow-on investigation complement the Commission’s decision on Google Android and the Commission’s ongoing assessment of Spotify’s complaint against Apple’s business practices,” the EU executive said in a statement. Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; Editing by Alissa de Carbonnel and Jane MerrimanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

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

A proposed law that aims to promote respect for one song is causing anxiety to many in Hong Kong about what is expected of them whenever they hear that melody in future.In the US, the Flag Code prescribes etiquette related to the national flag and anthem. But it is a code of practice, not a law like the one proposed in Hong Kong that could send those breaching it to jail. The National Football League athletes who take a knee instead of standing during the US anthem to protest against racism have faced a public backlash—including from Donald Trump—and were threatened with fines. But there was no question of prosecuting them.How will authorities decide if an “insult” to the anthem is intentional or not? I never learned the song. Mandarin is my third language (with Cantonese being the first and English as second)—what if my Mandarin pronunciation is not perfect and I flub words? Could I be penalized for lip-syncing a few lines? What if I accidentally retweet a video showing a funny parody of the anthem, share a song lifting parts of the anthem as inspiration like this Cantopop soccer-themed song, or embed a video of people refusing to sing it?An anthem is a song one grows up with, a piece of music that people are groomed to believe represents their roots and embodies values they identify with, uplifting and unifying a nation. At the Olympics, the anthem of the winning athlete’s country is a key element of a moment of national victory.Hong Kong, however, has never had that kind of relationship with an anthem. Growing up during the British colonial era, I didn’t learn the British national anthem. It wasn’t taught in my school, not even in music classes, nor were we forced to sing the song and raise the British flag during morning assemblies. The idea of a national anthem simply never existed in my world until the summer of 1996, when windsurfer Lee Lai-shan won Hong Kong’s first gold medal at the Atlanta Olympics.Watching the moment when Lee declared “Hong Kong athletes are not rubbish” on live TV upon her landmark victory was the first time that I felt proud of being a Hongkonger. Not only did she represent my home town, she was also from Cheung Chau, the small outlying island where I grew up. But as Lee stepped on the highest level in the center of the podium to receive the shiny gold medal, I remember asking myself: what song will be played to represent Hong Kong?Of course it was the British national anthem, for we were a British colony. I did not even know it was called God Save the Queen at that moment, and it had never represented me or the place I grew up. I did not know the words or the melody. Just months later it was no longer our anthem, as Hong Kong was handed over by Britain to China.Fast forward 20 years, and Hongkongers have become a lot more expressive about the national anthem—a different song this time. In the wake of the pro-democracy Umbrella Movement protests of 2014, which expressed people’s anger over the gradual erosion of Hong Kong’s rights and special status by Beijing, Hong Kong soccer fans have repeatedly booed the March of the Volunteers at international matches played on home turf amid heightened tensions between Hong Kong and mainland China. The Hong Kong Football Association was fined by the Asian Football Confederation and FIFA between 2015 and 2017 as a result.In some cases, those who booed the Chinese anthem also chanted “we are Hong Kong” while the song was played. Some deem the behavior as disrespectful, but how can people identify with a national anthem of a country whose values they increasingly do not identify with, and when that song is not even sung in their mother tongue? Some Hongkongers even considered this song (paywall) by legendary Hong Kong rock band Beyond to be the city’s unofficial anthem during the Umbrella Movement.After these incidents, Beijing felt it imperative to introduce the national-anthem law more than two decades after Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule. The law might be able to stamp out such political expression, but it won’t wipe out the alienation underlying it—and will most likely exacerbate it.Hongkongers already struggle with identifying as Chinese. According to the University of Hong Kong’s long-running opinion poll, only 15% of the population identified themselves as Chinese as of the end of 2018, down from the 18.6% recorded in August 1997, the first month after the handover. Those who identify themselves as Hongkongers, meanwhile, are on the rise, from 60% in 1997 to 66.3% at the end of 2018.Changing people’s hearts and stopping them from embarrassing Beijing further should be an urgent task for the Hong Kong government. Instead, by moving forward with the anthem bill, it has already sparked fresh controversy, confusion, and fear. The city’s pro-democracy lawmakers have criticized the proposed law as a way to harass people with a “legal threat” because parts of the law are broadly worded. Legal experts have questioned why the proposal allows the police up to two years to initiate a proceeding. That allows police to dangle the threat of prosecution over people’s heads for far longer than for many other violations, which have a statute of limitations of six months, they note.This is not a battle to be trifled with. Even without the incoming anthem law, which is expected to pass by July, I wouldn’t have done anything disrespectful regardless of which country’s anthem is being played. But I suppose now is the time to brush up my Mandarin pronunciation and practice singing March of Volunteers properly, not out of love, but out of fear.

A US federal judge has blocked an order issued by President Trump to deny the possibility of asylum to migrants crossing the southern border illegally.US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued the temporary restraining order after hearing arguments by civil rights groups.Mr Trump signed the order earlier this month as thousands of migrants made their way towards the US border. He cited national interest concerns but was opposed by civil rights groups. What is the migrant caravan? A river of people: The caravan in pictures Fake news follows migrant caravan Migrants from across Central America have been travelling north for weeks towards the US-Mexico border. Mr Trump has described the group as a "large caravan of people". They say they are fleeing persecution, poverty and violence in their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.In the run-up to the US mid-term elections, President Trump said many of the migrants were criminals, called the caravan an invasion, and ordered troops to the border. He also repeatedly suggested it was politically motivated.Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford called the asylum system "broken" in a joint statement, noting their departments will continue "to defend" the policy.They said the current system is "being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year", and supported Mr Trump's actions as "legitimate and well-reasoned"."It is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire federal government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled."Judge Tigar, in his ruling, said current legislation made it clear that any foreigner arriving in the US "whether or not at a designated port of arrival" could apply for asylum.He said Mr Trump's proclamation on 9 November was an "extreme departure" from prior practice."Whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Judge Tigar added.He was responding in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights.They argued that Mr Trump's ruling was illegal.The judge's restraining order comes into immediate effect and remains in place until a court hearing in December to decide on the case.The proclamation on 9 November says that anyone who wants to claim asylum in the US has to come in through official points of entry - and their cases will not be heard if they enter illegally.The ban was to last 90 days or until the US reached an agreement with Mexico to turn back asylum-seekers.Under US law, there is a legal obligation to hear asylum claims from migrants if they say they fear violence in their home countries - regardless of how they have entered the country.But the Trump administration invoked the same executive power he used to justify his travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations last year.It said the president had the power to "suspend the entry of all aliens" and to impose "any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate on them" if they were judged to be "detrimental" to US interests under the Immigration and Nationality Act.A statement at the time said: "We are using the authority granted to us by Congress to bar aliens who violate a presidential suspension of entry or other restriction from asylum eligibility."There has been no response yet to the San Francisco ruling.The US website Politico reports that 5,800 troops sent to bolster defences on the border will be home for Christmas. It quotes Army Lt Gen Jeffrey Buchanan as saying they have an "end date" of 15 December.The decision to send troops came at the height of President Trump's dire warnings about the caravan during campaigning for the mid-term elections - and he was accused of deploying active troops for political purposes. About 3,000 members of the caravan have so far arrived in Tijuana, the Mexican city bordering the US.The city's authorities expect numbers to reach 10,000 in coming weeks.The US temporarily closed the San Ysidro border point, its busiest crossing with Mexico, on Monday to install new movable wire-topped barriers. Claiming asylum is a long and difficult process, and people need to prove they are fleeing, or fear prosecution or torture in their country. Economic migrants do not qualify for asylum.Most of them go through a process called "credible fear", in which an asylum officer examines their case. If the fear is determined to be credible, the individuals are referred to immigration courts. In negative cases, they are ordered to be removed. Between October 2016 and September 2017, officials found 60,566 people to have credible fear among 79,710 cases, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Many of them remain detained during the process.After that, it can take years until a decision is reached. In March, the USCIS had 318,624 pending cases.Some 20,455 people were given asylum in 2016, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Click to see content: asylum

FILE PHOTO - A man walks past a logo during the presentation the Huawei's new smartphone, the Ascend P7, launched by China's Huawei Technologies in Paris, May 7, 2014. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer/File PhotoSINGAPORE (Reuters) - China’s commerce ministry said on Thursday Australia had made a “wrong decision” which would have a “negative impact”, after the Australian government banned Chinese firm Huawei Technologies from supplying equipment for its planned 5G mobile network. “The Australian government has made a wrong decision and by doing so, it will have a negative impact on the commercial interests of Chinese and Australian companies,” the ministry said on its website www.mofcom.gov.cn. Earlier on Thursday, Australia said it had banned Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [HWT.UL] from supplying equipment for its 5G mobile network, citing risks of foreign interference and hacking which Beijing dismissed as an “excuse” to tilt the playing field against a Chinese firm. Reporting by Lee Chyen Yee in Singapore and Meg Shen in Hong Kong; editing by Andrew RocheOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Hong Kong is awaiting one of its most important verdicts ever.Tomorrow (April 9), a court will announcement its judgment of the so-called “Umbrella 9,” a group of academics, former student leaders, politicians, and lawmakers involved in the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement protests, which called for greater democratic rights in Hong Kong.The demonstrations, also called the Occupy movement, lasted for 79 days, during which central areas of the city were occupied by protesters who demanded the right for the city’s population to choose its own leader, rather than have Beijing present a short list of candidates for the post. The protests are perhaps best remembered for the use of pepper spray and tear gas by police against the demonstrators, giving rise to the name Umbrella Movement for the umbrellas that people used to protect themselves. The protests ended peacefully, but Beijing did not budge on its decision.The political suppression that resulted from those protests has lasted until today. For example, political parties which emerged from the demonstrations have either been declared illegal, or banned from running for elections, both at the district and legislative level. Many of the movement’s leaders, as well as lesser known participants, have also been sentenced to various prison and community-service terms. Joshua Wong, the former student leader who was only 17 at the time of the protests, served six months in prison.The trial of the Umbrella 9, however, is particularly noteworthy because of the profile of those involved. They include the “Occupy Trio”—two academics and a reverend who laid the foundation for the 2014 protests with their call for mass civil disobedience. Two former student leaders, two pro-democracy lawmakers, and two former politicians are also part of the group. The nine faced counts of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, incitement to commit public nuisance, and incitement to incite public nuisance, three colonial-era criminal provisions that carry a maximum sentence of six years in prison each. All of them pleaded not guilty.That their trial happened at all has been seen as a sign of just how much more repressive Hong Kong has become since the demonstrations nearly five years ago. The defendants are now steeling themselves against the possibility they will serve time.“I guess I have read a lot of letters and books written in prisons even when I was a young man, so it seems that I’ve been preparing for this for quite a while,” said Chan Kin-man, the 60-year-old sociology professor of the Occupy Trio, said in an interview with the Little Red Podcast. “I guess it is almost like a must for society to go through this when fighting for democracy. Some people have to show their commitment to the community that democracy is so important they will be willing to go to jail.”