Urban myths – alligators in the sewers etc – used to be very popular and some were gruesomely entertaining, so why have they disappeared? Have they been replaced by online conspiracy theories and fake news?Gwennan Jones, Michaelston-le-Pit, Vale of Glamorgan Topics Social media Notes and queries features

What happens when lies and conspiracy theories spread out of control online – and you are at the centre of them? This growing phenomenon is becoming a regular occurrence in America, from where the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington tells India Rakusen how he sought out some of the victims and their stories.He also speaks to Marcel Fontaine (pictured), who was accused of being the Parkland school shooter despite having been asleep in bed more than 1,500 miles away at the time of the attack; Lenny Pozner, who was targeted after his son was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre; Brianna Wu, who was singled out by #gamergate trolls; and James Alefantis, a pizza restaurant owner falsely accused of running a paedophile ring. Also today: as part of the Guardian’s megacities series, Jamie Fullerton explores the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, and its famous gangs of roaming monkeys, a vivid example of what happens when expanding cities are forced to accommodate the nature around them.

When the government’s decision to allow Huawei to build parts of Britain’s 5G network leaked from Theresa May’s national security council it set off a furious backlash. Not just that secret cabinet discussions had been revealed, but Britain also found itself in a diplomatic tug of war between the US and China. The US argues the Chinese tech firm is a potential security threat if it has access to critical infrastructure such as 5G networks. Huawei has said the US is creating a smokescreen for protectionism. Joining Anushka Asthana to discuss it all are the Guardian’s Rupert Neate, Alex Hern and Tania Branigan. Also today: David Kogan, author of Protest and Power: The Battle For the Labour Party, argues Labour needs a clear position on Brexit if it is to take power from the Conservatives.

A Mahatma Gandhi statue has been removed from the campus of the University of Ghana after protests from students and faculty who argue the Indian independence leader considered Africans “inferior”.The statue was unveiled at the university in the Ghanian capital Accra two years ago but has been the subject of controversy and was removed in the middle of the night on Tuesday, leaving just an empty plinth.Scholars have highlighted evidence in past years showing the revered freedom-fighter, whose theories of civil resistance helped India throw off British colonialism and inspired generations of activists including Martin Luther King Jr, held derogatory views towards native communities in South Africa.A 2015 book by two South African writers pointed to instances where Gandhi complained that Indians were being forced to use the same separate entrances as Africans, meaning “their civilised habits … would be degraded to the habits of aboriginal natives”.“About the mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly,” he wrote in a letter in 1904.More sympathetic students of Gandhi’s life say his views were ignorant and prejudiced but a product of their time, and that his campaigns for social justice hold universal resonance and have fuelled some civil rights activism in Africa.Students at the university welcomed the decision to remove the statue. “It’s a massive win for all Ghanaians because it was constantly reminding us of how inferior we are,” Benjamin Mensah told Agence France-Presse.The head of language, literature and drama at the Institute of African Studies, Obadele Kambon, said the removal was an issue of “self-respect”.“If we show that we have no respect for ourselves and look down on our own heroes and praise others who had no respect for us, then there is an issue,” he said.“If we indeed don’t show any self-respect for our heroes, how can the world respect us? This is victory for black dignity and self-respect. The campaign has paid off.”Ghana’s former government had said the statue would be relocated to prevent the controversy from “becoming a distraction from our strong ties of friendship” with India. But two years later the statue had still not been relocated.Campaigners in Malawi are trying to stop another Gandhi statue from being erected in the country’s second city, Blantyre.Agence France-Presse contributed to this report Topics Mahatma Gandhi Ghana India Africa South and Central Asia Universities Higher education news

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G20 leaders summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, December 1, 2018. REUTERS/Luisa GonzalezWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said without evidence on Thursday Arizona “is bracing for a massive surge” of immigrants along part of the border that has no protective fence, reiterating his call for Democrats to back funding for his proposed border wall. “Arizona, together with our Military and Border Patrol, is bracing for a massive surge at a NON-WALLED area. WE WILL NOT LET THEM THROUGH,” Trump wrote in a post on Twitter, appearing to maintain pressure on lawmakers seeking to approve legislation to keep the government open through to Sept. 30 next year. Representatives for the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon did not respond immediately to requests for comments. It was unclear if Trump had a specific group of migrants in mind. On Wednesday, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that border agents in Arizona had apprehended two groups of families from Honduras and Guatemala comprising a total of 124 migrants who had crossed into the United States. The U.S. Congress approved a stopgap two-week spending bill on Thursday but lawmakers still need to agree on a longer-term funding measure to fund government agencies until the end of the fiscal year in September. Trump, who has made the construction of the wall a foundation of his presidency, has demanded $5 billion this year from Congress for the boundary and has threatened to shut down the government if lawmakers do not accede. Democrats have argued the wall would be ineffective at ending illegal migration and stemming the flow of illicit drugs across the border. Reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Simon Cameron-MooreOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Larry Krasner, Philadelphia’s district attorney, said he wouldn’t prosecute anyone involved with Safehouse, and the city’s health commissioner, Thomas Farley, is an adviser.San Francisco had been ready to open a safe injection site last year, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a measure that would have protected people who worked there or used the facility from prosecution. In New York, Mayor Bill DeBlasio announced plans last spring to open four safe injection sites if he got state approval, which is still pending. While Philadelphia’s would be the first safe injection site to openly operate in the United States, at least one other has been operating clandestinely for several years.Proponents of safe injection sites say the science is on their side, pointing to studies of sites in Canada, Australia and Europe that suggest the sites may not only reduce overdose deaths but help reduce transmission of H.I.V. and hepatitis C, and get more people into treatment.But critics point out that the research so far is limited. Mr. McSwain pointed to one study done for Philadelphia that warned the existing research had major limitations, even as it concluded that a safe injection site in Kensington, one of Philadelphia’s hardest-hit neighborhoods, “could anticipate substantial reductions in overdose deaths.”Staff at the Philadelphia site, which would include social workers and recovery coaches as well as medical personnel, would all know how to perform CPR and how to use naloxone, the overdose-reversing drug that has saved thousands of lives. The Controlled Substances Act includes a so-called “crack house statute” that makes it a felony to knowingly maintain a place for using a controlled substance. But supporters of safe injection sites say they don’t believe Congress intended it to include places that exist for public health reasons, under medical supervision.

A racist video has once again sparked backlash in South Africa. The controversy reflects the growing power of South Africa’s social-media users to push back against prejudiced views—both by calling for punishment against individuals, and by pushing international brands to react quickly or face the consequences.This time, the outrage centers on a private video which a man, Adam Catzavelos, took while vacationing abroad. In the video, Catzavelos delivers a satirical weather report praising the absence of black people on the beach. “Let me give you a weather forecast here; blue skies, beautiful day, amazing sea and not one k****r in sight,” he says, using an apartheid-era derogatory term for black people. “Fucking heaven on earth,” he says, while the camera pans to show his surroundings.The video leaked onto social media on Tuesday (Aug. 22), its source unknown. Catzavelos was quickly publicly identified. Within 24 hours, he had become a trending hashtag on South African social media. Twitter users called on black people to boycott any business he was associated with—including Nike, where Catzavelos’ wife was said to work as a merchandizing director.Businesses heeded the call, likely hoping to avoid the type of protests H&M recently experienced after it was accused of producing a racist advert, which resulted in several of its South African stores being trashed.Catzavelos was quickly fired from St. George’s Fine Foods, his family’s food manufacturing business, with his brother distancing the family from his “abhorrent” comments in a statement. The business and its associated restaurant were also closed to avoid any protest action. Popular local steakhouses, The Butcher Shop and the Baron Group, also announced they had terminated their contract with the company.Meanwhile, because of the reported connection with Catzavelos’ wife, some Nike outlets in Cape Town and Johannesburg closed on Wednesday, fearing that they would experience backlash.“Nike opposes discrimination and has a long-standing commitment to diversity‚ inclusion and respect,” the company said in a statement to local media, adding that Adam Catzavelos is not a Nike employee, but failing to mention his wife.Catzavelos was also barred from the campus of St. Johns College, his children’s exclusive private school. In a letter to parents, the school said it made the decision not only because his views contradicted that of the school, but also for the safety of his children and others.Twitter users also uncovered that Catzavelos was once a participant in an entrepreneurship training program, forcing the radio station and bank that ran the program to publicly reject his behavior, too.Catzavelos now faces possible criminal charges, as racism is considered a crime in South Africa and carries jail time. Political groups have reported him to the police and the human rights commission.

Richard Ashcraft grew up strapped to the back of his dad’s off-road motorcycle, sometimes literally lashed to his father in case he nodded off. A 20-year veteran of the Clovis Police Department in California’s Central Valley, Cpl. Ashcraft got his motorcycle license before his driver’s license. He knows how to ride.But even he was confused by the simplicity and quiet of Zero’s electric motorcycle when he started using it on patrol.“The Zero doesn’t make a sound and if you forget it’s on, which I have done before, you could grab the throttle and right away you’d take off down the street,” Ashcraft says with a laugh. “They take a little getting used to.”Once he became accustomed to the cycles–the Clovis PD uses Zero’s DSP model–Ashcraft fell in love with them. The dual-sport models can handle on- and off-road terrain and use a 100-percent-electric powertrain that is whisper quiet, cool to the touch, exhaust free, and virtually maintenance free–no gears, clutch, transmission, or fluids, so no oil changes. They allow officers to accomplish things they can’t do on big, rumbling gas cruisers.[Photo: courtesy of Zero Motorcyles]“It makes it easy to jump up on curbs or pass through fields or orchards or whatever we might encounter in our area,” Ashcraft said. “They’re so quiet you can sneak right up on someone in an alley selling drugs or doing anything else illegal… They have really changed how we patrol.”Five years ago, the Santa Cruz-based Zero, which leads electric motorcycle sales in the United States, began producing a cycle for law enforcement, cutting into the share of the iconic Harley Davidson. Over that time, 125 departments in 25 states and two Canadian provinces have bolstered their fleets with Zeros. Company sales director Kevin Hartman estimates that Zero adds two new departments a month and expects that rate to increase.[Photo: courtesy of Zero Motorcyles]“In 2011 and 2012, a couple of departments bought our civilian motorcycles and put their own lights and sirens on them and we suddenly saw a real interest,” Hartman said. “In 2013, we decided to go after the market and developed our own police product. The nice thing is the law enforcement community is pretty tight-knit so it’s a little easier to get recognition in that space compared to in large global civilian market.”Zero’s move represents a huge success for the small company, whose bikes retail for $8,500 to $16,500. But, despite Harley-Davidson’s double-digit drop in Stateside sales over the third quarter in 2018, the iconic American brand remains far-and-away the industry’s dominant player. Harley estimates it supplies motorcycles to as many as 4,000 law enforcement agencies–around 80% of the U.S. market share.Harley still dominant, despite Trump’s call for boycottIn August, President Trump called for a Harley boycott after the company’s CEO said White House tariffs could force some production overseas. It could have been an advantage for Zero or other gas-powered brands. Instead, the Secret Service ordered more Harleys. According to the September purchase order, the Service made the call to maintain a “consistency of appearance, performance, training and parts with the currently existing motorcade motorcycle fleet.” Translation: It costs time and money to switch out vehicles that agents and mechanics already know how to use and maintain.This is a familiar story–new technology can be a hard sell to government agencies. And Zero’s tech and feel offers a radically different experience than that of Harley, or Honda, or BMW. The electric cycles recharge as they break, so stop-and-go city driving mileage estimates for their police bikes run between 150 and 200 miles on a single charge. But flying down the highway at 90 mph, their sustained top speed, will run down the battery in about 60 miles. They are also tiny compared to Harleys–at about 450 pounds, Zero’s popular law enforcement offering, the DSRP, comes in at half the weight of Harley’s police Road King.[Photo: courtesy of Zero Motorcyles]Sgt. Robert Schwalm, who tests cycles for the Michigan State Police Precision Driving Unit, says you won’t see highway patrols switching to Zeros anytime soon.“Other than the fact that you are balancing on two wheels, they are very different motorcycles,” Schwalm says. “We need to go from stop to 110 miles per hour and back to a full stop all day long to do our business every day. The Zero’s not a motorcycle for that.”So instead of going toe-to-toe against the brand, Zero found its niche between the state troopers on hogs and neighborhood officers on mountain bikes.[Photo: courtesy of Zero Motorcyles]“We aren’t going after those frontline motorcycles like the Harleys,” Hartman said. “We have positioned ourselves as another tool for law enforcement.”Like Clovis, big cities such as Los Angeles like Zeros because they provide a tactical advantage thanks to their silent-running, off-road capabilities. But departments have found all kinds of creative uses for them. Without the roar of a gas bike, they make formerly tricky jobs simple, such as enforcing texting while driving prohibitions or seatbelt laws. They are ideal for policing parks, college campuses, stadium parking lots, or even stadiums themselves–no emission fumes, so officers can cruise around indoors. And in California, where there is a greater scrutiny on emission standards, government grants have aided departments such as that in Clovis in adding Zeros to their fleets.Building a new generation of ridersBut Zero won’t be operating in this virgin space for long. Last week at the Milan Motorcycle Show, Harley introduced its first electric product, LiveWire. Due for release next year, the smaller, sleeker bike is key part of Harley’s strategy to build a new generation of riders–the company’s typical rider is in their 50s.[Photo: courtesy of Zero Motorcyles]“We have to breathe life into the sport of motorcycling and this helps us do it,” says Marc McAllister, Harley’s vice president of product planning and portfolio. “LiveWire as it comes to market next year might not be the right way to deliver an electric to law enforcement. But LiveWire is just the first of many electric vehicles that we plan to bring with a portfolio approach.”“We will look at where we can broaden the use of electric vehicles, and certainly fleet motorcycles for law enforcement and emergency services are one of those spaces,” he added.Harley has been struggling as ridership in the States continues to decline but has an aggressive strategy to win new customers–the company plans to develop dozens of new products in the next few years. But after 13 years and nearly 200 million dollars spent developing its technology, Zero welcomes Harley and any other company’s electric offerings.“The entrance of more competitors will force us to get better, but more importantly, it will bring a lot of attention to the electric market that is really hard for us to generate on our own,” Zero CEO Sam Paschel says. “The motorcycle market is large enough that if we captured even one percent of it we would be a wildly successful brand.”Clovis’s Cpl. Ashcraft doesn’t consider Zero just a novelty–he says his department’s seven bikes have become essential enforcement tools. But their novelty does generate buzz. He says people constantly approach officers wondering who makes the bikes and how they work. Richard Duprey, a former police officer who has written about the motorcycle industry for years, thinks that curiosity will be key to Zero becoming a major player.“The market wants smaller, simpler products,” Duprey says. “Zero could find that market with people looking for Vespas or small bikes. And having people see officers riding them could give them some traction. There should be a snowball effect that gets them into the mainstream.”

Has giving my child a phone changed my relationship with them? It’s meant fewer dinners together, and less inclination to share in conversation; greater irritability and less ability to self-regulate or find meaningful non-phone related activities to participate in. Many activities are done with the phone as meditating entity and spatial registry. The phone enhances the need for immediate mediation or gratification. Daniel, USThere is less talking now, and I have to go to greater lengths to have a normal conversation and any possible eye contact. Even then, the attention span is short and the eyes go back to the phone. It’s exasperating and annoying and sometimes I feel it pointless to even start a conversation, as it has become a futile exercise. Anonymous, UKWe do not interact as a family. Kevin, USI gave my child a phone when she was 10, but maintain strict control over the apps on it – no YouTube, no social networking of any kind, and web browser limited to a small set of sites. She gets text messages, games, and a camera, which allows her to have fun, stay connected with her friends, and learn responsible use (no nude photos, ever). Notifications and the ringer automatically deactivate between bedtime and the end of school, so she gets to sleep without her phone going off all night like a Christmas tree.Back in the day, I remember my big brother spending hours on our landline as a teenager. Some amount of that is healthy, in my honest opinion. Elizabeth, USWhen my older son turned 12, he was given a phone because he started having more autonomy. However, my ex, from whom I am happily divorced, gave our 10-year-old a phone at what I thought was far too young an age. I had to parent quite heavily around my 10-year-old’s phone usage – no data, only wifi, block many things/numbers. My younger son is fairly addicted to it now at this point. It’s a shame. Carmen, CanadaWe stopped talking two weeks after my daughter got her phone. We now communicate through text messages and the odd Instagram post – even when we sit opposite each other at breakfast. John Sproule, UKMy daughter’s priorities and allegiances have shifted from family to pretty much everything not family since getting a phone. But then again, she’s 14 and that is what’s supposed to happen at that age. But it may not have happened to the same extent if not for the overwhelming presence of the smartphone. Pascal, USGiving my child a phone has made things better – we text and email one another all day and we remain close. For us, the written word is an easier way to communicate than verbally. Laura Euler, USMy relationship with my daughter has all but disappeared over the course of the last year as she increasingly engages in social interaction through her smartphone. She is 13, and like her friends, almost every contact, dialogue, and interaction is through the smartphone. She has lost the ability to be present with us. She is always distracted, and looking for the next opportunity to see what is sitting out in the digital ephemera – possibly validating her, or perhaps making her feel more salient.It seems at times that she has lost the art of in-person conversation – the “Hello, how are you?” kind of thing. She’s furtive, quiet and awkward when we have guests over. Mind you, she is a straight-A student. But I worry. John P, USMy child having phone is helpful. It is a tool that helps us communicate more often. For example, my teen can text me photos of their homework when it’s done. They text me funny videos, quotes they like, photos. And I can do the same. Your voice can sound redundant as a parent, but text gives you another way to communicate. Cynthia, USI gave my son a really cheap phone that won’t do much. It looks like a smartphone but works really slowly, so he’s not tempted to play on it or use it. We got away with this because right now, nobody at his school is too fussed about what kind of phone anyone has. As there’s no peer pressure, we’ve managed to keep the phone problem very small. He does ask for an iPhone from time to time, but we’re brushing it away successfully at the moment (he’s 12). Nicola, UKIf I could do it over again, I would not give them phones until age 16. Pablo, USSome of our interactions can be more mutual – she has access to all sorts of interesting information which we process and explore together. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a big fan of technology; I’d much rather she was accessing this information through books. But for my daughter, it has been one way in which she belongs with her peer group, among many ways in which she clearly does not. She is on it more than I would prefer, but she shows maturity and restraint a great deal of the time. She does not usually use social media apps, noting that they make her feel bad.I feel very lucky. We talk frequently when she is away from home and stay in regular touch through text. In fact, and in spite of my concerns that it would be otherwise, her phone has brought us closer together and given her a chance to make her own decisions about how she wants to apportion her time and attention. Elizabeth West, USI’m sure there used to be rows about phones at the dinner table when my kids were younger. Now that one of them works in San Francisco and the other periodically works or studies abroad, smartphones keep the daily conversation going – queries, comments, links, photos, recipes, music recommendations. There’s also the occasional challenge, like my second son sending me six seconds of him singing a line and demanding I identify the song! So it’s for the better, ultimately. Karen, UKSubmissions have been lightly edited for clarity Topics Family Parents and parenting Smartphones Mobile phones Telecoms features

(Reuters) - The Manhattan district attorney is pursuing criminal charges against Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, whether or not Trump pardons him for his federal convictions, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday. 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 PhotoThe charges originate from unpaid state taxes and likely are also related to loans, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because charges have not been filed. A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance declined to comment, and as did a spokesman for Manafort. Manafort, 69, was convicted in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court in August of bank and tax fraud and pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case in Washington, both part of the U.S. special counsel’s investigation of possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. He is scheduled for sentencing next month and could be sent to prison for a decade or more. However, Trump has fueled speculation that he might pardon Manafort by not ruling out the prospect and by showing sympathy with his plight. During Manafort’s trial in Virginia, Trump called him a “very good person” and labeled the tax and bank fraud case against him “very sad.” Under an unusual arrangement, Manafort’s attorney also kept Trump informed about his meetings with U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller after he agreed to cooperate, as Reuters reported in October. A U.S. president can only issue pardons for federal crimes, so Manafort could still face prison if he is found guilty of any state charges. However, New York has broad double jeopardy protections that usually prevent the state from prosecuting a person for crimes arising from the same criminal conduct the federal government has prosecuted before. But taxes are fair game, said Marc Scholl, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, noting that the double jeopardy protections do not apply to state taxes. New York amended the law in 2011 after state tax charges against New York hotel owner Leona Helmsley were thrown out because they were based on the “same criminal transaction” as her convictions on federal tax evasion. After that, New York law recognized “that a failure to pay what is owed to the state is different than a failure to pay what is owed to the federal government even if it’s based on the same income,” Scholl said. Democratic lawmakers in New York also have introduced legislation to do away with other protections to prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime in cases of presidential pardon. But the measure has not yet been adopted by the legislature in Albany. The New York Times reported earlier on Friday that a grand jury in Manhattan state court was hearing evidence against Manafort. Bloomberg also reported on possible charges on Friday. Reuters reported last year that some of Manafort’s New York property loans were under investigation by Vance. The state prosecutor issued subpoenas to lenders, including Federal Savings Bank of Chicago, a small bank that provided millions in loans to Manafort. But state prosecutors held off on pursuing their investigation to not impede Mueller’s work. Manafort is the only person charged by Mueller to go to trial. Over 30 other people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty in the investigation of suspected Russian interference in 2016 to help Trump get elected. Both Trump and Russia have denied any wrongdoing. Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Nathan Layne in New York; additional reporting by Lisa Lambert in Washington; Editing by Daniel Grebler and Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

(Reuters) - The Manhattan district attorney is pursuing criminal charges against Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, whether or not Trump pardons him for his federal convictions, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday. 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 PhotoThe charges originate from unpaid state taxes and likely are also related to loans, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because charges have not been filed. A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance declined to comment, and as did a spokesman for Manafort. Manafort, 69, was convicted in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court in August of bank and tax fraud and pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case in Washington, both part of the U.S. special counsel’s investigation of possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. He is scheduled for sentencing next month and could be sent to prison for a decade or more. However, Trump has fueled speculation that he might pardon Manafort by not ruling out the prospect and by showing sympathy with his plight. During Manafort’s trial in Virginia, Trump called him a “very good person” and labeled the tax and bank fraud case against him “very sad.” Under an unusual arrangement, Manafort’s attorney also kept Trump informed about his meetings with U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller after he agreed to cooperate, as Reuters reported in October. A U.S. president can only issue pardons for federal crimes, so Manafort could still face prison if he is found guilty of any state charges. However, New York has broad double jeopardy protections that usually prevent the state from prosecuting a person for crimes arising from the same criminal conduct the federal government has prosecuted before. But taxes are fair game, said Marc Scholl, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, noting that the double jeopardy protections do not apply to state taxes. New York amended the law in 2011 after state tax charges against New York hotel owner Leona Helmsley were thrown out because they were based on the “same criminal transaction” as her convictions on federal tax evasion. After that, New York law recognized “that a failure to pay what is owed to the state is different than a failure to pay what is owed to the federal government even if it’s based on the same income,” Scholl said. Democratic lawmakers in New York also have introduced legislation to do away with other protections to prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime in cases of presidential pardon. But the measure has not yet been adopted by the legislature in Albany. The New York Times reported earlier on Friday that a grand jury in Manhattan state court was hearing evidence against Manafort. Bloomberg also reported on possible charges on Friday. Reuters reported last year that some of Manafort’s New York property loans were under investigation by Vance. The state prosecutor issued subpoenas to lenders, including Federal Savings Bank of Chicago, a small bank that provided millions in loans to Manafort. But state prosecutors held off on pursuing their investigation to not impede Mueller’s work. Manafort is the only person charged by Mueller to go to trial. Over 30 other people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty in the investigation of suspected Russian interference in 2016 to help Trump get elected. Both Trump and Russia have denied any wrongdoing. Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Nathan Layne in New York; additional reporting by Lisa Lambert in Washington; Editing by Daniel Grebler and Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

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, U.S., June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan ErnstWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Manhattan district attorney’s office is pursuing criminal charges against Paul Manafort, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, whether or not Trump pardons him for his federal convictions, according to a person familiar with the matter. The charges originate from unpaid state taxes and likely are also related to loans, the source said. Manafort, 69, was convicted last August in a federal court of bank and tax fraud and pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case in Washington, D.C.. Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Writing by Makini Brice; Editing by Lisa LambertOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

(Reuters) - The Manhattan district attorney is pursuing criminal charges against Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, whether or not Trump pardons him for his federal convictions, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday. 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 PhotoThe charges originate from unpaid state taxes and likely are also related to loans, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because charges have not been filed. A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance declined to comment, and as did a spokesman for Manafort. Manafort, 69, was convicted in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court in August of bank and tax fraud and pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case in Washington, both part of the U.S. special counsel’s investigation of possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. He is scheduled for sentencing next month and could be sent to prison for a decade or more. However, Trump has fueled speculation that he might pardon Manafort by not ruling out the prospect and by showing sympathy with his plight. During Manafort’s trial in Virginia, Trump called him a “very good person” and labeled the tax and bank fraud case against him “very sad.” Under an unusual arrangement, Manafort’s attorney also kept Trump informed about his meetings with U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller after he agreed to cooperate, as Reuters reported in October. A U.S. president can only issue pardons for federal crimes, so Manafort could still face prison if he is found guilty of any state charges. However, New York has broad double jeopardy protections that usually prevent the state from prosecuting a person for crimes arising from the same criminal conduct the federal government has prosecuted before. But taxes are fair game, said Marc Scholl, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, noting that the double jeopardy protections do not apply to state taxes. New York amended the law in 2011 after state tax charges against New York hotel owner Leona Helmsley were thrown out because they were based on the “same criminal transaction” as her convictions on federal tax evasion. After that, New York law recognized “that a failure to pay what is owed to the state is different than a failure to pay what is owed to the federal government even if it’s based on the same income,” Scholl said. Democratic lawmakers in New York also have introduced legislation to do away with other protections to prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime in cases of presidential pardon. But the measure has not yet been adopted by the legislature in Albany. The New York Times reported earlier on Friday that a grand jury in Manhattan state court was hearing evidence against Manafort. Bloomberg also reported on possible charges on Friday. Reuters reported last year that some of Manafort’s New York property loans were under investigation by Vance. The state prosecutor issued subpoenas to lenders, including Federal Savings Bank of Chicago, a small bank that provided millions in loans to Manafort. But state prosecutors held off on pursuing their investigation to not impede Mueller’s work. Manafort is the only person charged by Mueller to go to trial. Over 30 other people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty in the investigation of suspected Russian interference in 2016 to help Trump get elected. Both Trump and Russia have denied any wrongdoing. Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Nathan Layne in New York; additional reporting by Lisa Lambert in Washington; Editing by Daniel Grebler and Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

(Reuters) - The Manhattan district attorney is pursuing criminal charges against Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, whether or not Trump pardons him for his federal convictions, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday. 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 PhotoThe charges originate from unpaid state taxes and likely are also related to loans, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because charges have not been filed. A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance declined to comment, and as did a spokesman for Manafort. Manafort, 69, was convicted in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court in August of bank and tax fraud and pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case in Washington, both part of the U.S. special counsel’s investigation of possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. He is scheduled for sentencing next month and could be sent to prison for a decade or more. However, Trump has fueled speculation that he might pardon Manafort by not ruling out the prospect and by showing sympathy with his plight. During Manafort’s trial in Virginia, Trump called him a “very good person” and labeled the tax and bank fraud case against him “very sad.” Under an unusual arrangement, Manafort’s attorney also kept Trump informed about his meetings with U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller after he agreed to cooperate, as Reuters reported in October. A U.S. president can only issue pardons for federal crimes, so Manafort could still face prison if he is found guilty of any state charges. However, New York has broad double jeopardy protections that usually prevent the state from prosecuting a person for crimes arising from the same criminal conduct the federal government has prosecuted before. But taxes are fair game, said Marc Scholl, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, noting that the double jeopardy protections do not apply to state taxes. New York amended the law in 2011 after state tax charges against New York hotel owner Leona Helmsley were thrown out because they were based on the “same criminal transaction” as her convictions on federal tax evasion. After that, New York law recognized “that a failure to pay what is owed to the state is different than a failure to pay what is owed to the federal government even if it’s based on the same income,” Scholl said. Democratic lawmakers in New York also have introduced legislation to do away with other protections to prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime in cases of presidential pardon. But the measure has not yet been adopted by the legislature in Albany. The New York Times reported earlier on Friday that a grand jury in Manhattan state court was hearing evidence against Manafort. Bloomberg also reported on possible charges on Friday. Reuters reported last year that some of Manafort’s New York property loans were under investigation by Vance. The state prosecutor issued subpoenas to lenders, including Federal Savings Bank of Chicago, a small bank that provided millions in loans to Manafort. But state prosecutors held off on pursuing their investigation to not impede Mueller’s work. Manafort is the only person charged by Mueller to go to trial. Over 30 other people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty in the investigation of suspected Russian interference in 2016 to help Trump get elected. Both Trump and Russia have denied any wrongdoing. Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Nathan Layne in New York; additional reporting by Lisa Lambert in Washington; Editing by Daniel Grebler and Grant McCoolOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House counsel Don McGahn, whose relationship with President Donald Trump has been strained by the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, is set to leave the job in coming weeks. Trump announced on Twitter on Wednesday that McGahn would step down after the U.S. Senate confirms the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That was widely expected to occur before the court begins its next term in early October. McGahn will be the latest senior adviser to leave Trump’s side, underscoring the White House’s persistent turmoil. But it also may open the way for a replacement who Trump would see as more willing to do battle against the Russia investigation team led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. McGahn did not know the president’s tweet was coming, an administration official said, but he had been planning to leave the White House because he felt he had made his mark in getting conservatives named to federal judgeships, rolling back regulations and reeling in the bureaucracy. Trump announced McGahn’s departure less than two weeks after it was reported that McGahn had voluntarily cooperated with Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling and possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign. The president repeatedly has slammed the inquiry as a witch hunt. In his interviews with Mueller’s team, McGahn was asked about Trump’s actions in firing FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Washington Post has reported. Other topics included Trump’s criticism of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Russia probe, the Post said. After sending his tweet, Trump told reporters at the White House that he has “a lot of affection for Don” and said he was not concerned about what McGahn told the Mueller team. “We do everything straight,” he said. “We do everything by the book. And Don is an excellent guy.” Mueller’s investigation already has resulted in guilty pleas for several Trump insiders, indictments, cooperation deals and one conviction. Russia has denied meddling in the election. Trump has not settled on a replacement for McGahn, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters. There has been speculation the job would go to Emmett Flood, a veteran Washington lawyer who joined the White House in May to help with the Russia probe. Flood has kept a low profile since then, but he is well-known for his skepticism about special investigations. FILE PHOTO: White House Counsel Don McGahn sits behind U.S. President Donald Trump as the president holds a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, U.S. June 21, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan ErnstTwo decades ago, he advised President Bill Clinton on impeachment proceedings stemming from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater probe. “People like him,” Sanders said of Flood. “He’s super well-respected around the building but there’s not a plan locked in place at this point.” Also in contention: Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s top antitrust enforcer, who helped McGahn steer Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch through the Senate confirmation process, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing an unnamed source. Delrahim did not respond to questions about the report. Flood’s Ivy League degree may give him an edge, said a person familiar with Trump’s thinking. “Trump is obsessed with credentials for lawyers,” the source said. “Delrahim went to a good school, but Emmet went to Yale.” However, Trump may want to keep Flood focused exclusively on the Russia probe rather than expanding his role, said Andrew Boutrous, a former federal prosecutor. McGahn could not be reached for comment. With his departure, he will become part of an unprecedented level of turnover among modern administrations studied by presidential scholars. Of Trump’s top 27 aides listed on his first annual staff report to Congress, McGahn will be the 17th to depart. It is not unusual for presidents to swap out general counsels. Democrat Bill Clinton went through six top legal aides in two terms in office; Democrat Barack Obama had four; Republican George W. Bush had three. With McGahn’s help, Trump has reshaped the federal judiciary in a conservative direction, tilting the balance on the Supreme Court rightward, and filling a record-breaking number of seats on federal appeals courts. These successes have helped Trump build and retain support among Republican voters. McGahn’s record on judicial nominations prompted Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, to write in a tweet addressed to Trump: “U can’t let that happen.” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell praised McGahn as “the most impressive White House Counsel during my time in Washington.” FILE PHOTO: Don McGahn, the current White House Counsel, leaves a meeting with U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, U.S., August 21, 2018. REUTERS/Alex WroblewskiIn one of his stormiest moments as White House lawyer, McGahn threatened to quit in June 2017 because he was “fed up” after Trump insisted he take steps to remove Mueller, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier this year. McGahn also was involved in the controversy surrounding Trump’s firing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In January 2017, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed McGahn that Flynn had misled the FBI about his discussions with former Russian ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI. Additional reporting by Steve Holland, Jeff Mason, Diane Bartz, Susan Cornwell, Andrew Chung, Makini Brice, Brendan Pierson, Anthony Lin and Lisa Lambert; writing by Roberta Rampton; editing by Bill Trott and Richard ChangOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Trump administration has sharply curtailed a once-common practice of granting long-term reprieves to immigrants targeted for deportation, a Reuters analysis of court records shows, adding to an already huge backlog of cases in U.S. immigration courts. The trend underscores how the Trump administration’s broad crackdown on illegal immigration has sometimes had unintended consequences. Attorney-General Jeff Sessions had vowed to reduce that case backlog, but the government’s aggressive opposition to reprieves has caused the opposite to happen. Under a procedure known as “administrative closure,” judges can indefinitely shelve deportation cases of immigrants who have lived illegally for years in the United States but have not committed serious crimes and have strong family or other ties in the country. The immigrants are not granted full legal status and their cases can be reopened at any time. In the interim they can remain in the country and often are eligible to work legally. The practice became more common after the Obama administration instructed prosecutors in 2011 to prioritize immigration cases involving criminals. Closures accelerated further after a 2012 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which gave judges additional authority to close cases. As a result, the number of shelved cases rose steadily for several years. In the last year of the Obama administration, more than 56,000 such cases were closed, the Reuters analysis of court records found. In the first year after Donald Trump became president, the trend was sharply reversed, with about 20,000 cases closed, 64 percent fewer than the previous year. (Graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2DKhoAJ) Immigrant advocates say some of the most vulnerable immigrants - victims of domestic violence and unaccompanied minors - could potentially be deported even though they are eligible for a visa, because the courts will not set their cases aside. In January, Sessions announced he will review a recent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and consider whether judges should have authority to close cases. He sought legal arguments from all sides as he considers the matter. In a December speech, Sessions skewered the Obama administration for closing “nearly 200,000 pending immigration court cases without a final decision” over a five-year period. “We are completing, not closing, immigration cases,” he said. About 542,000 cases were pending three weeks before Trump took office in January 2017, according to a Department of Justice estimate. Since then, the backlog has grown by another estimated 145,000 cases, a 27 percent increase. In comparison, the Obama administration added an average of 41,000 cases to the backlog each year, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a New York-based research organization. Two young girls watch a soccer match on a television from their holding area where hundreds of mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Arizona June 18, 2014. REUTERS/Ross D. Franklin/PoolTrump was elected on a platform of tightening border security and speeding the removal of people living in the country illegally. Early in his presidency, he announced that all categories of immigrants in the country illegally would be considered targets for deportation. Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley declined to comment on Reuters’ findings and on when Sessions might conclude his review of whether judges can close cases. Groups advocating stricter immigration enforcement have long opposed the policy of administrative closure. “We see this as one more example of attempts by the Obama administration to work around the rules of law,” said Michael Hethmon, senior counsel with the conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington. In a legal filing in the Sessions’ review, the American Bar Association cautioned that “withdrawal of administrative closure ... would have profound and long-lasting consequences on the operation of the immigration adjudication system and the lives of those who must proceed through it.” Supporters of the policy also say it allows judges to focus on cases involving criminals and ones in which an immigrant has little possibility of gaining legal status. They note that many of the closed cases involved immigrants who had applications pending for legal status, through asylum claims, marriages to citizens or other means. After gangs shot her father, paralyzing him and placing him permanently in a wheelchair, Jennifer Mendoza fled Honduras by herself in 2016. She was 10 years old. She was detained after crossing the border, placed in deportation proceedings and held for four months at a facility for unaccompanied minors in Texas until she could be reunited with her mother, Ruth. The two applied for a U visa, which is granted to undocumented immigrants who are victims of violent crime and who help law enforcement try to catch the perpetrators. In February this year, Mendoza moved to close her deportation case while she waited for a decision on her visa. The immigration court judge agreed, but the government lawyer objected and appealed. The case is now pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals. Mendoza’s lawyer, Vicky Dobrin, said the case shows how aggressively the government is fighting closures. Prosecutors used to routinely support closing cases like Mendoza’s, said Dobrin. “Within a few months they were starting to oppose everything,” she said. Slideshow (4 Images)During the last four years of the Obama administration, prosecutors appealed less than one percent of all case closures. Since Trump took office in January 2017, ICE prosecutors have appealed decisions to close cases 10 times more often, Reuters found. Ashley Tabaddor, president of the immigration judges’ union, said the pushback from prosecutors has meant more work for judges. “The case is going to take much longer and is going to take more resources,” she said. Reporting by Reade Levinson; Editing by Sue Horton and Ross ColvinOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The other week, Donald Trump was upstaged at a campaign rally in Florida, not by Representative Ron DeSantis, for whom the rally was ostensibly held, and not by some rowdy supporters, and not by the media. No, Trump was eclipsed by an alleged shadowy figure named Q – a person at the heart of the “QAnon” conspiracy theory, which holds, among other things, that special counsel Robert Mueller is not actually investigating Russian election interference, but rather top Democrats’ involvement in a variety of criminal enterprises, including child sex trafficking.Conspiracy theories, and more generally misconceptions about public policy, are nothing new, but they are taking up greater prominence in media and political discourse seemingly like never before, and not just in the United States. Two-thirds of people surveyed in the Middle East and North Africa gave at least some credence to the idea that the US was secretly trying to help the Islamic State, according to one recent study. In Hungary, the prime minister tells people that liberal Jewish financier George Soros is out to get him. And there are plenty of false beliefs that, while not conspiracy theories, may be much more damaging – substantial numbers of Americans believe, for example, that more than half of the federal budget goes toward paying interest on the national debt. (It does not.)Can these people ever be convinced otherwise?On some level there is hope: political scientists have found that surprisingly simple interventions could be enough to get some people to reverse course, maybe even on some of their most extreme and extremely inaccurate beliefs. But what works in the short term or on a small scale – in other words, what works in an academic experiment – faces some serious obstacles out in the real world.“I have no silver bullets,” says Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies misperceptions. “It’s a complex phenomenon that defies a simple solution.”For years, the standard view among political scientists was that it was pretty hard to change anyone’s mind on anything. In fact, some of Nyhan’s work suggested that if you tried to correct an erroneous belief – say, that vaccines cause terrible side effects and autism – it could actually backfire and strengthen those beliefs. In a 2014 study of such beliefs, Nyhan and his colleagues estimated that showing vaccine skeptics a narrative about a baby who is hospitalized because of measles nearly doubled the fraction of skeptics’ who thought it very likely vaccines had serious side effects from 7.7 to 13.8%.Yet in that same study was a glimmer of something else: when the researchers presented scientific evidence, taken from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, directly refuting a link between autism and vaccines, the correction worked. The portion of people who had strongly agreed that “some vaccines cause autism in healthy children” declined from 9 to 5%.Since that study, there’s been a growing body of evidence to suggest that taking the direct approach works for political misperceptions too. Just this year, Nyhan and Thomas Zeitzoff found that directly refuting myths about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict reduced misperceptions. In 2017, Massachusetts Institute of Technology political scientist Adam Berinsky showed that directly refuting the rumors of death panels and euthanasia associated with the Affordable Care Act raised the portion of those who dismissed the claim, from 50% to 57. And, in a report for the Knight Foundation published earlier this year, Syracuse University political scientist Emily Thorson found that relatively simple corrections could reduce some misperceptions by as much as 20 percentage points or more.Those studies signal a few potential strategies for changing someone’s mind. First, make sure the information comes from a reliable source – keeping in mind that reliable may be in the eye of the beholder. In Nyhan and Zeitzoff’s study on the Israel-Palestine conflict, those corrections were supplied by “a well-respected Israeli historian”. In Berinsky’s study, about twice as many people changed their minds about the ACA euthanasia rumor when the information came from a Republican than when it came from a Democrat.That’s a simple calculus, Berinsky says. “People speaking against their interests [are] more credible,” he says. “What’s more credible: the surgeon general or McDonald’s saying you shouldn’t eat French fries?”Second, it may help to include the corrections wherever someone might read about a subject, an idea Thorson calls “contextual fact-checking”, which really amounts to a sidebar containing background information on a news story. In the Knight Foundation study, Thorson showed 391 people a news story about the national debt, and half of those saw some additional background information. Without that information, 60% of those surveyed believed China held more than half the US national debt, but with it only 43% did. (In fact, only about a third of the debt is owed to other nations, including China.)There are some important caveats to this research. Berinsky also found that merely repeating death panel rumors increased the portion of people who believed it from 17 to 20%, while decreasing the portion who rejected it from 50 to 45 %. Corrections also had little sway over people who actually believed the rumor going in; most of the shifts came from people who weren’t sure about the rumor and then, after reading more information, decided to reject it.In addition, a correction’s effects seem to fade over time. In 2012, Berinsky decided to see how many Americans believed Barack Obama was born in the US and how that number changed over time. In early April of 2011, 55% did, while 15% thought he was born elsewhere and 30% were unsure. After Obama released his birth certificate, large numbers of Americans believed he was born here. But by the next year, that figure was back down below 60%.“Corrections fade quickly,” Berinsky says. “You’ve got to keep whacking the same mole.”The situation is worse when it comes to topics like child actors at Sandy Hook or the Mexican border, says Joanne Miller, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota who studies conspiracy theories. Although those theories have been around for a long time – in the lead-up to the revolutionary war, Miller says, a good many people thought the British intended to enslave Americans – they are spreading faster than ever thanks to the internet and social media. And once they spread, those ideas are often very hard to kill.“There’s a fundamental difference between [misperceptions] and conspiracy theories,” Miller says. “The very nature of a conspiracy theory is a belief in a far-reaching conspiracy,” which makes it more likely that a believer will take any attempt to correct their beliefs as lies promulgated by the conspirators.The better tactic for addressing conspiracy theories, Miller says, may be not “to attack the belief itself, but rather the reasons people believe in conspiracy theories”. That could include working to improve trust in government or addressing deeper anxieties. Conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, for example, reflect a deep desire to reduce randomness and hence anxiety, some of which may itself reflect fears about who is in power – Democrats, for example, are more likely to believe in conspiracies when Republicans are in power, and vice-versa.In the face of that anxiety, changing a person’s beliefs is a tall order. “It’s about wanting to give them the motivation to believe the correct thing,” Miller says. “But tackling the motivation side is a heck of a problem.”That’s a scary thought given the increasingly real-world implications of some conspiracy theories. The theory known as Pizzagate, for example, led an armed man to travel to Comet Ping Pong, the alleged hub of the alleged Clinton sex trafficking operation, to, as he put it, “self investigate”.Even if it never came to shots fired, as it did in that case, and misperceptions and conspiracy theories had no effect on electoral outcomes, beliefs would still matter, says John Bullock, a political scientist at Northwestern University. “You can think of getting the beliefs right as a necessary condition for certain kinds of things that you want voters to do. If you want voters to gauge politicians accurately, well, that entails voters having accurate beliefs, or probably does,” Bullock says. And even if their beliefs aren’t as far from the truth as some suspect, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be the best, most civic-minded citizens we might hope they’ll be.Taking all of it in, Nyhan says, there may be a deeper problem, one that is harder to solve: Not much is going to change until politicians and media outlets commit to telling the truth, over and over again. Nyhan isn’t particularly sanguine about that possibility – the political and economic incentives do not seem to favor it, and given the polarized state of American politics, demand for misleading information “isn’t going away”.Yet there remains some hope. Fact checking politicians might help keep them honest, Nyhan and frequent co-author Jason Reifler found in 2014 – and fact checking is something news media is generally taking more seriously. Then there was the news on Monday that Apple, YouTube, Facebook and Spotify all but booted one of the most popular sources of conspiracies, Alex Jones, from their sites, suggesting that maybe something might start to change. This story originally appeared on Pacific Standard, an editorial partner site. Follow Pacific Standard on Twitter and subscribe to their newsletter to support journalism in the public interest Topics Donald Trump Guardian Selects US politics features

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has decided not to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, disregarding advice from his own ethics officials, a high-ranking Justice Department official said on Thursday. The decision by Whitaker, known for making comments critical of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe before being appointed last month by President Donald Trump, was conveyed in a letter to congressional leaders by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd. Boyd said in the three-page letter department ethics officials determined that Whitaker lacked any personal, political or business conflicts that would disqualify him from supervision of Mueller’s investigation. Ethics officials concluded, however, that if their recommendation were sought “they would advise that the acting attorney general should recuse himself” because “a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts likely would question” Whitaker’s impartiality, Boyd wrote. Boyd said the “appearance-of-impartiality” test in Whitaker’s case was deemed a “close call” in which “credible arguments could be made either way,” a finding he said Whitaker cited in his decision to retain his discretion to oversee the Mueller investigation. “The ultimate decision about whether or not to recuse from a matter in a case such as this rests with the acting attorney general,” Boyd said. The letter, obtained by Reuters, was addressed to the top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, Speaker Paul Ryan, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Mueller’s investigation, which Trump has derided as a “witch hunt,” is also examining whether Trump’s election campaign had colluded with Moscow and any possible obstruction of justice. The probe has already ensnared Trump’s former campaign manager, former personal lawyer and his former national security adviser. Trump has denied wrongdoing and Moscow has said there was no interference. The president’s frequent criticism of the probe has raised concerns he may attempt to shut it down, putting a spotlight on the top Justice Department officials overseeing it. It is unclear how long Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney and conservative commentator, will head the department. His appointment, immediately following Trump’s ouster of Jeff Sessions as attorney general in November, is under challenge in several court cases contending that the president violated the constitution by installing Whitaker without Senate confirmation. Slideshow (2 Images)Trump has already picked former Attorney General William Barr to become the department’s new permanent chief, but the nomination needs to be approved by the Senate. The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said on Thursday Barr was unfit to serve given a memo he wrote to the Justice Department arguing that Mueller should not be permitted to look into possible attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. “The president must immediately reconsider and find another nominee who is free of conflicts and will carry out the duties of the office impartially,” Schumer said. Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Additional reporting by David Shepardson and Lisa Lambert in WASHINGTON and Steve Gorman in LOS ANGELES; Editing by Tim Ahmann, James Dalgleish and Paul TaitOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The internet transformed modern commerce, especially the market for sex. An online marketplace makes it easier for sellers reach more customers, and for those customers to be more informed and discerning thanks to detailed reviews by previous buyers. Economists presume all this information has made the sex trade more efficient, with participants getting better prices and more transparency. The internet expanded the market, boosted pay for sex workers, and improved their safety.The online market for sex is now disappearing after the US Senate passed the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). Donald Trump signed the combined bill this week. Even before the measures passed into law, their effects were apparent.The market for sex was one of the first to move online. Before, sex work mostly consisted of street walkers, often controlled by pimps, and higher-end escorts who typically worked with agencies. The middle men were necessary to find and screen clients. Sex workers gave up control of their lives, and their earnings, for regular access to customers and some modicum of safety. One-third of all sex-worker homicides are due to murder by serial killers (pdf). At the same time, pimps were also a regular source of violence.Starting in the late 1990s, sex workers struck out on their own and advertised on different websites like Craigslist. Soon, specialized websites sprung up to serve different segments of the market: Craigslist personals and Backpage on the lower end, and sites like Eros on the higher end. Providers no longer needed to rely on middle men to find clients because they could advertise directly to them. Sex workers could also screen clients before they met them to ensure they were not violent or police (or both). Sex workers developed a referral network, including message boards to warn each other about dangerous clients. They were able to verify customer identity by calling their employers and asking for forms of ID.Meanwhile, customers reduced their risk by posting detailed reviews on sites like the Erotic Review. This mutual screening made sex worker safer. Baylor economist Scott Cunningham’s research (pdf) found that Craigslist’s erotic services pages led to a 1-17% reduction in homicides, and a modest decline in rape.More money, independence, and safety attracted more sex workers into the market. Yet even as supply and transparency increased, the price for sex also increased. This is because more high-end escorts entered the market, and escorts use the websites to compare pricing information.The sites were able to host ads for illegal sex work because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not hold them accountable for the free speech of their users. The new legislation, however, amends Section 230 so sites can be prosecuted if they engage in the “promotion or facilitation of prostitution” or “facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims.”The purpose of the bill was to reduce sex trafficking following a two-year Senate investigation into Backpage. The investigation found BackPage knowingly aided sex trafficking of women and girls. Last week, the Justice Department announced seven people were indicted on 93 counts related to facilitating prostitution and money laundering. The indictment highlighted several incidents of knowingly advertising minors on the site.Sex-trafficking is small share of the market, and not all websites are Backpage. The language of the law targets any website that advertises sex, even between consenting adults. In response to the new law, The Erotic Review shut down its US website, Craigslist Personals is no more, Backpage is gone, and the future of similar sites remains uncertain.The new law will probably shrink the size of the sex market, but will not eliminate it. No matter how most people feel about sex work, the market for it will never go away. For willing sex workers, the new rules remove a community that helped make their work safer. Glenn Spence, a female sex worker, told New York Magazine:What I’m really concerned about is the loss of screening information and the loss of community blacklists is going to mean. I have enough shaky social capital and have enough latitude that I can say, “Give me some employment verification,” whereas, most workers who are even a degree or two below me on that hierarchy can’t afford to spook clients by asking those questions. The only thing they can rely on is shared community information.The new law may not even help victims of trafficking. Sites like Eros verified the identities of sex workers to confirm they were willing adults. Many sites claim they work with law enforcement to identify victims of trafficking. This may come back to haunt Eros users. How the law will be enforced remains unclear, but it is possible it can be applied retroactively to people who used the sites years before the law was changed.One thing that is certain is shutting down web sites moves trafficking further into the shadows. After Backpage shut down its adult ads section last year, the New York Times reported more sex work moved to the the street, sex workers were more reliant on pimps, and law enforcement had a harder time finding victims.

Trevor Noah on Tuesday addressed the latest revelations regarding the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, particularly the release of damning emails exchanged between the former Trump adviser Felix Sater and Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.“As you know by now, the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia are currently under investigation, both by Congress and separately by Robert Mueller, the special counsel and handsome bird impersonator,” Noah began. “Just to refresh everyone, the big question in all of this is what was the connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government. And all along, the Donald has always answered that question like this.”Noah showed several clips of Trump denying he has connections to Russia, claiming he “knows nothing about Russia”, has “no loans” and furthermore has “no deals” there.“I don’t even know what a Russia is,” Noah said, impersonating the president. “On my map, there’s China and then there’s white China. “So from the beginning, Trump insisted he had absolutely no connections with Russia whatsoever,” Noah continued. “And then this morning, this came out.”The host summarized new reporting that reveals Trump signed a letter of intent during the 2016 presidential campaign to build a new Trump Tower in Moscow; the project was slated to be the tallest building in the world.“How can one person lie so big?” Noah went on. “You have no connections with Russia but you signed a deal to build the world’s tallest building there. Like, the gap between the lie and the truth could not be wider.”Noah continued: “We suspected this before and now it’s confirmed. Yes, during the campaign Donald Trump totally had connections to Russia. The people who Trump signed this Russia deal with aren’t exactly helping his case.”Noah then introduced Sater, a former FBI informant and convicted felon who acted as the middleman between Trump and Russia in facilitating the deal. Sater, Noah explained, was convicted for stabbing a man in the face and neck with a margarita glass in a bar fight.“Trump Tower is the only place where ticking ‘yes’ on criminal conviction is what gets you the job,” Noah quipped. “And in case you were wondering, yes, this Sater guy is also Russian. Apparently Felix Sater also committed non-stabbing crimes including $40m of stock fraud.”Noah showed footage of Trump officials denying their involvement with Sater despite the existence of his business cards, which read “senior advisor” to Donald Trump.“Come on, guys,” Noah said. “This is the same lie as the Russia one. ‘I have nothing to do with this guy. Oh, actually, he’s my senior adviser and I printed it in gold.’ But the big story isn’t just that this shady, Russian-born criminal was acting as a middleman between Trump and the Kremlin. The real story here is what the shady guy was saying.”The Daily Show host then read aloud a newly released email chain between Sater and Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer. In it, Sater writes: “Buddy, our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this.”“So this buddy-boy email may not be the smoking gun for Trump, but what it could end up being is the broken taillight,” Noah explained. “The thing that gives law enforcement the excuse they need to look into Trump’s trunk. And we all know he’s got a lot of junk in that trunk.” Topics Trevor Noah Late-night TV roundup Comedy TV comedy Television US television Donald Trump blogposts