SRINAGAR, India (Reuters) - Indian forces on Monday killed three militants, including the suspected organizer of a suicide bombing in the disputed region of Kashmir that fueled tension between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, police said, with five troops also killed in the clash. The suicide bomb attack on a paramilitary police convoy in Indian-controlled Kashmir last Thursday killed at least 40 men, the deadliest single assault on Indian forces in 30 years of insurgency in the Muslim-majority region. The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) claimed responsibility for the attack. India accuses Pakistan for harboring the group. Pakistan denies that. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, facing an election that must be held by May, is under domestic pressure for decisive action against Pakistan. Modi has promised a strong response and says he has given the military a free hand to tackle cross-border militancy. The three militants killed in the clash on Monday were all Pakistani nationals and members of JeM, two security sources said. “The encounter is still in progress and the security forces are on the job,” police said in a statement. But the 17-hour engagement, that ended shortly before 1330 GMT, came at a cost for India’s security services. Four Indian soldiers and a policeman were killed, while nine troops were wounded, including a brigadier, one of the army’s top roles, and a deputy inspector general of police. A civilian was also killed. “They have protection. Our officers and men are exposed, whereas they’re in the built up area, hiding,” said K. Rajendra Kumar, a former director general of police in Jammu and Kashmir. Security force sources told Reuters one of the dead militants had been identified as Abdul Rashid Gazi, who went by the alias Kamran Bhai and is suspected of playing a leading role in organizing Thursday’s attack. Indian troops had earlier cordoned off Pinglan village in Kashmir’s Pulwama district, where the attack took place on Thursday. An Indian Army soldier carries a rocket launcher near the site of a gun battle between suspected militants and Indian security forces in Pinglan village in south Kashmir's Pulwama district February 18, 2019. REUTERS/Younis Khaliq An indefinite curfew has been imposed and police have asked people to stay indoors. Mohammad Yunis, a journalist in Pulwama, said troops were searching the village and civilians trapped in houses were being evacuated. On Sunday, police said Indian forces had detained 23 men suspected of links to the militants who carried out the Thursday bombing. Kashmir is at the heart of decades of hostility between India and Pakistan. They both claim it in full but rule it in part. India withdrew trade privileges offered to Pakistan after the bomb attack and has warned of further action. The United States had told India it supported its right to defend itself against cross-border attacks, India said on Saturday. With tension mounting, Pakistan withdrew its envoy to India for consultations, a spokesman for Pakistan’s foreign ministry said on Twitter on Monday. The Thursday bomb attack has sparked outrage in India with calls for revenge circulating on social media, and rising animosity towards Kashmiri Muslims in other parts of the Hindu-majority country, to the alarm of rights groups. “We are at a dangerous moment, and authorities must do everything they can to uphold the rule of law,” said Aakar Patel, head of Amnesty India. “Ordinary Kashmiris across India who are only seeking to improve their lives should not be singled out for violence simply because of where they come from.” The anger has also spread to India’s two big obsessions: cricket and its Bollywood film industry. Several cricket fans and a sport official have called on India to boycott a World Cup match against Pakistan in June, while the Cricket Club of India has covered up a portrait of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan - himself a former cricketer - at its Mumbai office. Slideshow (4 Images)The All India Cine Workers Association called for a “total ban” on Pakistanis working in India’s film industry, though they have been largely blacklisted from Bollywood since a similar attack in Kashmir in 2016 in which 19 soldiers died. The Confederation of All India Traders called for a nationwide strike to protest against the attack, and footage from Reuters partner ANI showed shuttered shops in several states on Monday. Additional reporting by Sudarshan Varadhan and Devjyot Ghoshal, Writing by Alasdair Pal and Krishna N. DasEditing by Paul Tait, Robert Birsel, William MacleanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Luxury brand Richemont is the latest firm to report a hit to business over ongoing protests in Hong Kong.The Swiss company said political unrest in Hong Kong, a key market for its watches, has knocked sales. Retailers in the territory forecast a sharp sales drop this year due to the protests, while tourism is also suffering. Demonstrators have filled Hong Kong's streets over the past month with more protests expected this weekend.The demonstrations were sparked by a proposed extradition bill which would allow people to be sent to mainland China for trial.But they now reflect broader demands for democratic reform and concern that Hong Kong's freedoms are being eroded. The background you need on the Hong Kong protests Tens of thousands take to the streets in Hong Kong Why HK's 'dead' extradition bill is bad for business The sometimes violent clashes have disrupted business in the city, a hub for wealthy Asia shoppers. Unrest has forced many stores to close and sparked widespread trading disruption.In a statement on Thursday, Richemont said sales in the Asia-Pacific rose in the three months to June with the exception of Hong Kong, where sales sank due to the recent street protests and the strength of the local dollar. This week the Hong Kong Retail Management Association (HKRMA) said most members had seen sales fall during in the past month, and forecast more pain to come. "The unexpected store closures due to the protests not only led to sales loss, but also directly affected retail staff's take-home income, especially part-time staff and those paid on a commission basis," the HKRMA said in a statement. The group said July and August are peak business seasons retailers and as protests continue and spread, "our members forecast a drop by double digit in the next months".Tourism operators have also voiced their concerns. The Hong Kong Federation of Unions said the number of tour groups from mainland China has declined to 5,641 in June from a monthly average of 7,800 at the beginning of the year, according to reports.The group also said hotel occupancy rates were down as much as 20% in June from a month earlier, and forecast rates could drop 40% this month on the prior year.

He has railed against what he called Donald Trump’s arrogant, racist and inhumane family separation policy. He has lambasted the “erratic” US president’s “hate campaign” against Latin American migrants.But Mexico’s president-elect, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, struck a more diplomatic tone on Monday, promising to “reach an understanding” with his northern counterpart in a half-hour conversation. Just hours after his historic election victory sent thousands of supporters pouring on to the streets, the 64-year-old leftist tweeted that he had received a call from Trump. “I proposed that we explore an integral agreement of development projects, which generate jobs in Mexico and with that reduce migration and improve security. There was respectful treatment and our representatives will speak more.”In an interview with the Televisa news network, López Obrador emphasized the need for mutual respect and cooperation between the two neighbors. “We are conscious of the need to maintain good relations with the United States. We have a border of more than 3,000 kilometers, more than 12 million Mexicans live in the United States. It is our main economic-commercial partner,” he said.“We are not going to fight. We are always going to seek for there to be an agreement … We are going to extend our frank hand to seek a relation of friendship, I repeat, of cooperation with the United States.”Trump was equally tactful, telling reporters: “I think he’s going to try and help us with the border.“I think the relationship will be a very good one,” the US president said of the Mexican politician, whose swearing-in will be in December. “We talked about trade, we talked about Nafta, we talked about a separate deal, just Mexico and the United States.”Such restraint contrasted with Trump’s call to López Obrador’s predecessor, weeks after his own inauguration last year. During that call, Trump told Enrique Peña Nieto that the US military would take care of “bad hombres” south of the border. López Obrador, or Amlo as he is best known, romped to a historic landslide victory on Sunday night, capitalising on public frustration at soaring crime rates and corruption with a promise to drain Mexico’s very own swamp. Indeed, some see similarities between the two men. Like Trump, Amlo cast himself as a political outsider during his campaign, despite having been a professional politician for decades, although Amlo avoided much of the New York billionaire’s nastiness and nativism. Both men are considered inward-looking nationalists with López Obrador claiming “the best foreign policy is domestic policy” and preaching “mexicanismo”, a philosophy some have compared to Trump’s America First. But the US president was not an election issue in the recent Mexican campaign. “Trump is so despised that he is simply not an issue. He is equally opposed by every one of the candidates,” the former Mexican diplomat Jorge Guajardo wrote in the Atlantic last week. Amlo was, on occasion, moved to publicly criticize Trump’s actions. He warned Mexico would not be “the piñata of any foreign government” and hit back at Trump’s claim that Mexico wasn’t doing enough to stop a caravan of Central American migrants . “[We] won’t do the dirty work of any foreign government,” he said. Some observers said they would not be surprised if Amlo and Trump could find some understanding. “They’ll understand each other perfectly. They won’t agree – that’s a different thing,” said Federico Estévez, a political science professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. “At heart, these guys believe the same things, though they will disagree radically because one is on the left and one is on the right.”Eric Olson, a Mexico and Latin America specialist from Washington’s Wilson Centre, also predicted the two leaders would find ways “to work together and to find common ground”. In recent years Mexico and the United States have cooperated closely on security matters, especially with regards to Mexico’s “war on drugs”.“The relationship with the United States – which is vitally important to both sides – may be tense and may take on different moments [under Amlo]. But it’s impossible for the US to walk away from Mexico or for Mexico to walk away from the US,” Olson said. “They are joined at the hip and need to work together even if their presidents don’t like each other and don’t get along. So I think there are some shades of grey here that will merge over time.” Topics Andrés Manuel López Obrador Donald Trump Mexico Americas US foreign policy news

The N.R.C. may well have set in motion a process that has uncanny parallels with what took place in Myanmar, which also shares a border with Bangladesh. In 1982, a Burmese citizenship law stripped a million Rohingya of the rights they had had since the country’s independence in 1948. The Rohingya, like a huge number of those affected by the N.R.C. in Assam, are Muslims of Bengali ethnicity. The denial of citizenship, loss of rights and continued hostility against the Rohingya in Myanmar eventually led to the brutal violence and ethnic cleansing of the past few years. The excuses that majoritarian nationalists made in the context of the Rohingya in Myanmar — that outsiders don’t understand the complexity of the problem and don’t appreciate the anxieties and fears of the ethnic majority — are being repeated in Assam.Throughout the 20th century, the fear of being reduced to a minority has repeatedly been invoked to consolidate an ethnic Assamese identity. If at one time it focuses on the number of Bengalis in the state, at another time it focuses on the number of Muslims in the state, ignoring the fact that the majority of the Muslims are Assamese rather than Bengali. Ethnic hostilities were most exaggerated when they provided a path to power. Between 1979 and 1985, Assamese ethnonationalist student politicians led a fierce campaign to remove “foreigners” from the state and have their names deleted from voter lists. They contested elections in 1985 and formed the state government in Assam. In the 1980s, the targets were Bengali-origin Muslims and Hindus. This began to change with the rise of the Hindu nationalists in India, who worked to frame the Bengali-origin immigrants as two distinct categories: the Bengali-origin Hindus, whom they described as seeking refuge in India from Muslim-majority Bangladesh, and the Bengali-origin Muslims, whom they see as dangerous foreigners who have illegally infiltrated Indian Territory.The N.R.C. embodies both the ethnic prejudices of the Assamese majority against those of Bengali origin and the widespread hostility toward Muslims in India. India’s governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party has been quick to seize on the political opportunity provided by the release of the list. The B.J.P. sees India as the natural home of the Hindus. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a long history of using rhetoric about Pakistan and Bangladesh to allude to Muslims as a threat. In keeping with the same rhetoric, Mr. Modi’s confidante and the president of the B.J.P., Amit Shah, has insisted that his party is committed to implementing the N.R.C. because it is about the “national security, the security of borders and the citizens of this country.”

Enlarge this image A view inside Rhode Island's John J. Moran Medium Security Prison, in Cranston. Rhode Island is the only state to screen every individual who comes into the correctional system for opioid use disorder, and to offer, in conjunction with with counseling, all three medically effective treatments. Andrew Burton/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Andrew Burton/Getty Images A view inside Rhode Island's John J. Moran Medium Security Prison, in Cranston. Rhode Island is the only state to screen every individual who comes into the correctional system for opioid use disorder, and to offer, in conjunction with with counseling, all three medically effective treatments. Andrew Burton/Getty Images In a windowless classroom at the John J. Moran medium-security prison in Cranston, R.I., three men sit around a table to share how and when they began using opioids.For Josh, now 39, it was when he was just 13 years old. "I got grounded for a week in my house, so I grabbed a bundle of heroin and just sat inside and sniffed it all week.""I started using heroin at 19," says Ray, now 23. "I was shooting it. It was with a group of friends that I was working with, doing roof work.""At 26 years old, I experimented with heroin," says Kevin, 50. "I wasn't the person that I wanted to be. Once I put that in my system, I felt like this is what I'm supposed to do and this is what I'm supposed to feel like." Please Tell Us What You Think About Shots Help us make Shots more relevant for you by completing an NPR research survey. Click here to start the questionnaire. This group therapy session is part of a $2 million program the Rhode Island Department of Corrections launched in 2016. These men are all serving prison sentences for crimes driven by their drug addiction — including robbery, shoplifting and possession of controlled substances. NPR agreed to only use their first names so they could speak frankly about illegal behavior.They are among the approximately 275 inmates and pretrial detainees getting medication-assisted treatment behind bars.The program is central to Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo's strategy to reduce opioid overdose deaths in the state. Today, Rhode Island remains the only state to screen every individual who comes into the correctional system for opioid use disorder, and to offer, along with drug counseling, all three types of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat addiction — methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone.While prisons have long offered medication-assisted treatment to small subsets of inmates, such as pregnant women, many prisons in the U.S. do not offer it at all, despite the fact that it's considered by physicians to be the most effective treatment for opioid addiction.The criminal justice reform bill currently before Congress would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to assess its capacity to provide medication-assisted treatment to inmates who are dependent on opioids, and to draw up plans to expand access to medically aided treatment "where appropriate." But the bill leaves open who would determine when and where the medication is appropriate. Shots - Health News Angola Prison Lawsuit Poses Question: What Kind Of Medical Care Do Inmates Deserve? "It's just ludicrous that we have a whole population of people who are by and large incarcerated because of their disease, and we have an effective medication treatment for the disease and we don't give it to them," says Dr. Josiah Rich, director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at the Miriam Hospital in Providence.Rich was one of the experts tapped by Raimondo to identify where best to direct resources to bring down the state's overdose deaths. He made the case for a prison program, given the high death rate among people recently incarcerated."This is a population of the most severely impacted, the most advanced stages of opioid use disorder — the people who have taken the greatest risks and gotten caught up in the system," Rich says. While in prison, the inmates' opioid use usually ends, and so does their ability to tolerate high doses of the drugs without overdosing."Then you get released into a very stressful situation with a lot of triggers, and you typically relapse," Rich says. "And if you relapse back to the same level you were using, you're set up for overdose and death." Law Pennsylvania Prisons Locked Down After Staff Exposed To Suspected Tainted Drugs This is what drove the Rhode Island Department of Corrections to offer medication-assisted treatment not just to people coming into prison, but also to those who began serving their sentences before the program existed. Eight to 12 weeks before their release, inmates with histories of addiction are offered methadone, buprenorphine or naltrexone to ease their transition back to society, beginning with very low doses."Even if somebody has not used in many years, they may still have changes in their brain," says Dr. Jennifer Clarke, the Department of Corrections medical programs director. "The cravings are always going to be there. So, if somebody's going back to the same old neighborhood, chances are they're going to be exposed to the same people as when they were using drugs."So, providing the medication before someone gets out really helps to prevent a relapse," Clarke says.The possibility of relapse is top of mind for the men in group therapy. They have friends who have overdosed and died after serving time.Kevin has just a few weeks left in his sentence, one of many that he's served in his adult life. "It feels good, but I'm nervous. I always get nervous," he says. "As soon as I walk out the gates — my feet, when they hit the pavement outside of here, I have to get busy immediately.""You worry about the drug aspect once you hit the street," says Josh who has also served multiple sentences for drug-related crimes. "Many times, I've gone out of here and overdosed repeatedly. Not on purpose, just accidentally, trying to hide from the pain, hide from myself."This time, Josh says, the treatment program has given him a way to focus on a different way out."I still have to fight the other drugs," he says. "But at least I have something to help with one of the ones that's brought me closer to death than anything else."The program inside the prison is run by CODAC, a behavioral healthcare organization that also runs substance abuse treatment programs outside the prison, with locations across Rhode Island. Prisoners who enter the program remain clients when they exit prison, with treatment outside typically paid for by Medicaid. Discharge planners from CODAC help the inmates get organized for that transition."I already have counseling appointments lined up, doctors appointments lined up," says Ray, who is scheduled to be released in December. In prison, he's been taking buprenorphine, which he'll continue the day he gets out. "I really don't want to use heroin again."Early reports from the program are promising. In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry last spring, researchers found that overdose deaths among people who had recently been imprisoned dropped sharply in the first six months of 2017 as compared to the same period the year before — nine deaths, compared to 26.Researchers continue to track outcomes and are interviewing inmates and correctional staff to learn more about how well the program is functioning.There have been hurdles to overcome, says Lauranne Howard, substance abuse coordinator for the Department of Corrections, starting with resistance from security staff about the use of buprenorphine in the program. Buprenorphine itself is an opioid, though less potent than street drugs in many of its effects, and sometimes ends up sold or given to people outside its intended use. Shots - Health News Addiction Treatment Gap Is Driving A Black Market For Suboxone "The reaction was, why are you going to bring in a medication that we're working real hard to keep out? And that's a legitimate concern," Howard says.In response, the program has made some changes. CODAC's Leslie Barber, who directs the prison program and runs the group therapy sessions, says they launched the program using buprenorphine pills, which take awhile to dissolve."We compromised by switching to the films which, although more expensive, dissolve quicker," she says. CODAC says the buprenorphine pills cost approximately $4 each, while the films cost approximately $8 each.A number of other states have taken notice and sent corrections officials to Rhode Island to learn from their experiences. Clarke points out that Rhode Island has the advantage of being a small state with a combined jail and prison system, so that everyone who is incarcerated comes to the same campus. When an inmate is transferred from jail to prison, there is no disruption in treatment.In other states, it's more complicated. For example, Rikers Island in New York City offers medication-assisted treatment to all medically eligible inmates, but those who are sentenced to time in a state prison where treatment is not offered have to be tapered off methadone or buprenorphine before they leave Rikers Island.Patricia Coyne-Fague, acting director of corrections for Rhode Island, recognizes that even with medication-assisted treatment, people will stumble and make mistakes — even end up reincarcerated. Still, she defends Rhode Island's $2 million annual expenditure with the argument that the program saves lives."Sometimes there can be a negative attitude about whose lives we are saving," she says. "But everybody belongs to somebody. And so, while they may have committed a crime and deserve to be incarcerated, they're still human beings. And if we can keep people from dying, that's a good thing."

American fans, some of them devotees since her "Suits" days, have a very different relationship with Meghan than even her most supportive British fans. By definition: It's a different legal relationship. Our taxes pay for her life. When we meet her, we're obliged to curtsey to her. And her brother-in-law will presumably become our king, with the theoretical power to veto our laws. After all, we aren't citizens in this country; we're subjects.Is the British media already turning on Meghan Markle?Even before Meghan, American interest in the royals has always been frenetic. It can seem amazing to Brits that Americans, who proudly celebrate their republican founding values, contribute in such an outsized fashion to the international fandom that sustains our monarchy.Fixation on Meghan's body and its reproductive functions -- horrific as it is, and very clearly amplified by misogynoir (misogyny directed at black women) -- stems in part from the fact that her child could become our king. From Anne Boleyn to Mary of Modena, British subjects have fantasized about faked pregnancies and surrogate children smuggled in bedpans.Royal women no longer have to give birth in public -- the tradition of the home secretary attending the birthwas only abolishedin 1948 -- but each time Catherine Middleton produces a child, it's only a few hours before she's expected to primp up her hair and face and parade for photographers in heels. If Meghan scraps this barbaric tradition, the world should applaud her.The real problem is that much of this scrutiny is reasonable -- but only within the tortured logic of a royal family's very existence. Consider aTelegraph article, ridiculed in the United States but popular in Britain, that suggested Meghan should wear more British designers. In normal circumstances, only a monster would seek to tell a young woman which designers she should and shouldn't wear.What 'Love Actually,' Cardi B and Meghan Markle share in commonBut Meghan isn't a celebrity spending only her own money anymore; she is supported by the Sovereign Grant, a system built on British tax money, and by the Duchy of Cornwall. (Though it's to her credit that she's one of very few royal wives in recent years to have earned proper money herself.) Of course, Meghan should be championing the fashion industry of the nation that sustains her new role. As for that story about her giving out marijuana in Jamaica: There is plenty of hypocrisy around race and weed, but if the head of state's granddaughter-in-law may have broken the law in a Commonwealth nation, it is a constitutional issue. (Even when it's a bad law.)At the heart of this problem is the fact that Meghan has a personality and a prior public footprint, neither of which royals should have. Traditionally, royal strategists have decreed that royals should cultivate as much distance as possible from the public. The constitutionalist Walter Bagehotwrotethat "we must not let in daylight upon magic" -- that the British people can't have faith in the monarch as national unifier or neutral arbiter of politics if they don't revere her as something of an inhuman god.When Meghan's Hollywood friends, used to a different type of celebrity,post picturesof her home life on Instagram, the daylight floods in dramatically on royalty. But in the next generation, do we expect Prince George to find a wife who has never tweeted a political opinion, or Instagrammed a food preference? At a recent event, Kate Middletonwas askedby a child if the Queen eats pizza. Kate claimed she didn't know. The British monarchy runs on children dreaming about what the monarch eats at home and never getting an answer.Sign up for our new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and FacebookThe simple solution is to abolish such an absurd and anachronistic system. It's clear that Meghan has a chance to make the monarchy more inclusive, but there's a limit to just how inclusive that system can be when it confers deference, alongside all these unchosen pressures, on the basis of bloodline. Prince Harryhas talked in the past about wanting to give up on royal life. If Meghan and Harry want to be truly radical, perhaps they should walk away completely. They could have no greater influence on royal life than by denouncing it.

The body of the notorious 1930s gangster John Dillinger is expected to be exhumed in September at an Indianapolis cemetery, more than 85 years after he was killed by FBI agents.Digging up the remains could resolve conspiracy theories that the man some considered a hero during the Great Depression isn’t buried in his marked grave, said Susan Sutton, a historian with the Indiana Historical Society. Among the tales is that Dillinger’s family tricked the FBI into shooting the wrong man.The Indiana state Department of Health approved a permit in early July sought by Dillinger’s nephew, Michael C Thompson, to have the body exhumed from Crown Hill Cemetery and reinterred there. The permit doesn’t give a reason for the request, and Thompson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.But bringing up the body could be a tough job, because his grave is encased in concrete. Days after his son’s funeral, Dillinger’s father had the casket reburied under a protective cap of concrete and scrap iron topped by four reinforced-concrete slabs, Sutton said.“I think they’re going to have a hard time getting through that,” she said.The reason for the concrete-encased grave was to thwart would-be vandals, she said, citing Crown Hill: History, Spirit, and Sanctuary, a 2013 book the historical society published about the cemetery’s history.“The main fear was that someone would come in and dig up the grave and either desecrate the corpse or steal it,” Sutton said. “The Dillingers had actually been offered money to ‘lend out’ his body for exhibits, so they were concerned.”The Indianapolis-born Dillinger was one of America’s most notorious criminals. The FBI says Dillinger’s gang killed 10 people as they pulled off a bloody string of bank robberies across the Midwest in the 1930s.Dillinger was never convicted of murder and he was lauded by some for robbing banks during the Great Depression as many Americans lost their homes and farms to foreclosure, Sutton said.“So somebody who had, as maybe people would say now – ‘Stuck it to the banker’ – would easily become a folk hero,” she said. “He was also known by some people to be very polite even while he was stealing. It’s an odd combination.”Dillinger was awaiting trial in the slaying of an East Chicago police officer when he escaped from jail in Crown Point, Indiana, in March 1934 with a gun carved out of wood. While on the run, he underwent plastic surgery to alter his face and was said to have tried to remove his fingerprints with acid.Dillinger, who was portrayed by Johnny Depp in the 2009 movie Public Enemies, was fatally shot in July 1934 by FBI agents outside the Biograph theater in Chicago after he was betrayed by a woman who became known in the papers as the “Lady in Red”.The Indiana health department spokeswoman Jeni O’Malley said that based on the permit, the agency expects Dillinger’s body will be exhumed and reinterred on 16 September – the date listed on the document.The Crown Hill Cemetery spokeswoman Crystal King said the cemetery has no information about the plans to exhume Dillinger, whose tomb is an attraction at the hilltop graveyard on Indianapolis’ near north side.Messages seeking comment were also left Tuesday for Jeffery Scalf, whose grandmother was Dillinger’s half-sister, and for Savanah Light, the funeral director whose name is listed on the permit. Topics US news Indiana US crime FBI news

(Reuters) - U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election, is set to meet President Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday to discuss his future. FILE PHOTO: U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein departs the West Wing of the White House after a meeting on FBI investigations into the 2016 Trump presidential campaign with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 21, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File PhotoThe following explains what happens to oversight of the Mueller probe if Rosenstein is no longer in charge. WHAT IS ROSENSTEIN’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MUELLER PROBE? The deputy attorney general took charge of the investigation into Russian interference in the election because U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had some contact with Russian officials while working on the Trump campaign, recused himself. After Trump fired Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey in May 2017, Rosenstein appointed former FBI director Mueller to the role of special counsel and tasked him with investigating Russian interference in the election. Rosenstein supervises Mueller and has signed off on his decisions to bring criminal charges against individuals associated with Trump’s presidential campaign. The probe has so far resulted in more than 30 indictments and six guilty pleas. WHO WOULD SUCCEED ROSENSTEIN IN OVERSEEING THE MUELLER PROBE? If Rosenstein left his job, the task of overseeing Mueller’s investigation would typically fall to the associate attorney general, the No. 3 official at the Department of Justice behind Sessions and Rosenstein. The current holder of that position, Jesse Panuccio, does so in an acting capacity and has not been confirmed by the Senate. That means under Justice Department rules he would not be able to succeed Rosenstein in taking charge of the special counsel probe. Instead, it would fall to U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, according to an internal Justice Department memo on succession from November 2016 that is still in effect. Some legal experts have said Francisco would have to recuse himself because his former law firm, Jones Day, represented the Trump campaign. If that were to happen, the next in line to oversee the special counsel would be Steven Engel, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. President Trump could potentially bypass the Justice Department’s succession order by invoking the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (VRA), which lays out general rules for temporarily filling vacant executive branch positions when the prior holder “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform” their duties. If Rosenstein resigned, the VRA would allow the president to replace him on an interim basis with another official who has already been confirmed by the Senate. That person could be from any part of the executive branch, not necessarily the Justice Department. Some legal experts argue that such a replacement would not be able to oversee the Mueller probe because Rosenstein is doing so as acting attorney general. A Justice Department guideline holds that an official cannot be both acting attorney general and acting deputy attorney general but experts differ on whether that rule would have to be followed. It is also not clear whether the law, intended to address vacancies created by deaths or resignations, would apply if such a vacancy were created by an official being fired by the president. Such an appointment could be challenged in court on that ground. Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Anthony Lin and Bill RigbyOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Guatemala’s government has defied a ruling by the country’s top court to allow the return of the man who heads a UN-backed anti-corruption commission, with officials arguing they have the right to force his replacement.The announcement came after the constitutional court issued a unanimous and binding ruling late on Sunday that the administration must permit entry by the leader of the commission, which has pursued a number of high-profile graft probes, including one against President Jimmy Morales himself.Government officials said the ruling does not mention commission head Iván Velásquez by name, and simply refers to the “commissioner (of either gender)” of the UN anti-corruption body, known as CICIG. They said that means they only have to allow someone in to head the commission but not Velásquez.However, Gloria Porras, one of the court’s five justices, told the Associated Press that the ruling applies to Velásquez.“Iván Velásquez is the current commissioner and as such can enter the country immediately,” Porras said.Morales announced in late August that he was ending the commission’s mandate. He said he would allow the body a year to wrap up its work, but he wants Velásquez replaced immediately. At a news conference Monday, the interior minister Enrique Degenhart, was categorical, saying that “Colombian citizen Iván Velásquez will not enter the country”.The foreign minister, Sandra Jovel, said she had sent a diplomatic letter to the UN asking that it send a list of proposed replacements within 48 hours. She said Guatemala’s government will have to sign off on whoever replaces Velásquez.The UN defended CICIG and its commissioner, saying the body has played “a pivotal role in the fight against impunity in Guatemala”.The commission’s corruption probes have helped put former presidents and other officials behind bars. The body and Guatemalan prosecutors recently asked for a third time that Morales be stripped of his immunity so he could be investigated for alleged campaign finance violations. A legislative vote would be required to do that.Morales denies wrongdoing, but critics have seen his effort to wind down CICIG and bar Velásquez as a manoeuver to protect himself as well as relatives and associates also in the sights of investigators.Among the investigations that the commission has brought was one that led to the resignation and jailing of former president Otto Pérez Molina and his vice-president. Others have ensnared dozens of politicians, public officials and businesspeople. Topics Guatemala United Nations Colombia news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department agreed on Monday to investigate “any irregularities” in FBI tactics related to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign after Trump questioned whether an FBI informant had been planted into his political organization. Trump suggested on Friday that the FBI might have planted or recruited an informant in his presidential campaign for political purposes, citing unidentified reports that at least one FBI representative was “implanted.” The agreement came during a meeting that Trump had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said. The Justice Department “has asked the inspector general to expand its current investigation to include any irregularities with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s or the Department of Justice’s tactics concerning the Trump Campaign,” Sanders said in a statement. The White House will set up a meeting with the FBI, the Justice Department and the intelligence community to let congressional leaders review classified information related to Trump’s accusations, Sanders said. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called the plan to review classified information highly inappropriate and said if such a meeting takes place, it must include Democrats, not just Republicans, as a “check on the disturbing tendency of the president’s allies to distort facts and undermine the investigation and the people conducting it.” Federal investigators are probing whether anyone in the Trump campaign worked with Russia to sway the election to the Republican candidate. Trump has denied any collusion and repeatedly dismissed the investigation as a “witch hunt.” Trump said in a Twitter post on Sunday that he would demand the Justice Department look into whether the FBI “infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Hours later, a spokeswoman said the department asked its inspector general to expand a review of the process for requesting surveillance warrants to include determining whether there was impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its investigation.The FBI was looking into Trump election campaign ties to Moscow before Special Counsel Robert Mueller took over the probe a year ago. U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein departs the West Wing of the White House after a meeting on FBI investigations into the 2016 Trump presidential campaign with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 21, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Rosenstein said in a statement on Sunday evening. Democrats said Mueller and his investigation should be protected and information, such as about any informant, should not be shared with Congress. Justice Department “regulations protect this type of information from disclosure to Congress for legitimate investigative and privacy reasons,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Rosenstein on Monday. Trump has shown increasing signs of impatience with the investigation led by Mueller as it enters its second year, saying it was politically motivated and had its roots in the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama. His Republican allies in Congress, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, have pushed the same message. In March, the Justice Department’s inspector general launched a review into allegations by Republican lawmakers that the FBI made serious missteps when it sought a warrant to monitor a former adviser to Trump’s 2016 election campaign. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said his review will examine whether the FBI and Justice Department followed proper procedures when they applied for a warrant with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to secretly conduct surveillance on former adviser Carter Page and his ties to Russia. Republican U.S. Representative Lee Zeldin said he and 16 other members of Congress will introduce a resolution on Tuesday alleging Justice Department and FBI misconduct involving surveillance in the Trump-Russia probe. Neither Trump nor his new lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, provided any evidence of government infiltration into Trump’s presidential campaign. Slideshow (4 Images)The New York Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the FBI sent an informant to talk to two Trump campaign advisers, Page and George Papadopoulos, after the agency received evidence that the two men had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty last fall to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russia. Reporting by Steve Holland, Doina Chiacu, Roberta Rampton and Patricia Zengerle; editing by Cynthia OstermanOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The term “old age” evokes images that are variously heartwarming—a grandmother knitting by a fire, say—and pity-inducing: A man with a walking stick trying to cross a busy road. Both are hopelessly outdated, argued a panel that convened in London this week to discuss how radically we need to rethink the later part of life, in a world where people routinely live to 100 and are working into their 70s, 80s, or 90s.Longer life is becoming part of the fabric of society across the world. One consequence is a rise in the number of very old people in need of support from families, institutions, and the state. Health problems for this age group can be compounded by social problems, like loneliness. But the prevailing theme at The Longevity Forum, a conference hosted by the Wellcome Collection, was not about combating isolation, or filling the later part of life with leisure and relaxation. Rather, panelists and speakers argued that if a 60-year-old potentially has 40 years of life left to live, then consigning them to a bracket traditionally reserved for people with infirmities and in need of care makes no sense at all.It’s a mistake to keep telling ourselves a story about how “old age” equals infirmity, suggested Andrew Scott, co-author of The 100 Year Life. “What occurs to me time and time again is that we need to try and get a new narrative about the life course,” Scott said. “Trying to get people talking about it at an early stage, trying to think about the whole life course, I think is the key thing.” The 100 Year Life Panel—as it was called—talked mostly about the vast possibilities associated with a group of older people who have built up skills through a long working life and achieved plenty in their careers, but who have energy for new challenges.Another way to think about this is as a “redistribution of time,” said Lynda Gratton, who co-authored The 100-Year Life with Scott and is a professor of management at the London Business School. Potentially this could mean taking more time out earlier in one’s career, and moving workplace productivity later in the overall journey. Working parents, several speakers agreed, were some of the most pressed and busy members of society. If you’re living to 100 and having only one or two children, “why wouldn’t you want to spend time with them?” Gratton asked.Adair Turner, a member of the House of Lords and chair of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, said that it was time to open our mind to “the need for different stages in life, the need for breaks early in life,” and “to get away from idea that there’s a thing called full-time work from 20 to 65, or 68…and that’s it.” Gratton warned, however, that employers are going to have to get with the program. Ageism is a real problem, she said, making it especially hard for people over 50 to re-enter the workforce after a break. And she put a number on when it starts: 45 years old.

Prince’s next of kin are suing the hospital that treated the musician for an opioid overdose a week prior to his death, the New York Times reports.In the lawsuit, his family claim the singer received improper medical care at Trinity Medical Center after his plane made an emergency landing in Moline, Illinois, on 15 April 2016. They argue that his death was a “direct and proximate cause” of the hospital failing to recognise and treat the overdose, in addition to failing to investigate the cause and provide appropriate counselling. It was initially reported that the emergency landing was due to Prince suffering from flu.A hospital representative told the New York Times it does not comment on pending legal matters.Lawyers for Prince’s family said in a statement: “What happened to Prince is happening to families across America. The family wishes, through its investigation, to shed light on this epidemic and how to better the fight to save lives. If Prince’s death helps save lives, then all was not lost.”The suit names the hospital, its parent companies and a doctor who treated the musician. Prince is said to have refused all testing, including blood work and urine toxicology, which his friends have described as his attempt to conceal his painkiller addiction from the public.Prince’s family are also suing the pharmacy chain Walgreens, for allegedly dispensing narcotics “for an invalid medical purpose and failing to conduct the appropriate drug utilisation review”. Walgreens declined to comment to Reuters.Last week, the Prince estate released the musician’s original version of Nothing Compares 2 U, the song he gave to Irish singer Sinéad O’Connor. Prince’s famously guarded vault is due to open again later this year: Troy Carter, the manager overseeing the estate, told Variety magazine that a full-length album will arrive by the end of September.Carter said the album will be released through Warner Bros, the label Prince once protested by writing the word “slave” across his face. It is not known how this release will affect Universal Records, which in February 2017 bought the exclusive rights to Prince’s private music archive and the 25 albums he released on his own NPG Records. Topics Prince R&B Opioids Opioids crisis news

The extreme rightwing ideology that inspired the Christchurch mosque killer has been promoted so effectively by the far right that it has entered mainstream political discourse, new analysis reveals.Researchers have found that organised far-right networks are pushing a conspiracy known as the “great replacement” theory to the extent that references to it online have doubled in four years, with more than 1.5 million on Twitter alone, a total that is rising exponentially.The theory emerged in France in 2014 and has become a dominant concept of the extreme right, focusing on a paranoia that white people are being wiped out through migration and violence. It received increased scrutiny after featuring in the manifesto of the gunman who killed 51 people in the Christchurch attacks in New Zealand in March.Now the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a UK-based counter-extremist organisation, has found that the once-obscure ideology has moved into mainstream politics and is now referenced by figures including US president Donald Trump, Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini and Björn Höcke of the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).Tweets from Trump earlier this year, for example, were interpreted by many as making a white nationalist case for his controversial border wall.Despite its French origins, the ISD’s analysis has revealed that the theory is becoming more prevalent internationally, with English-speaking countries now accounting for 33% of online discussion.Julia Ebner, co-author of the report at ISD, said: “It’s shocking to see the extent to which extreme-right concepts such as the ‘great replacement’ theory and calls for ‘remigration’ have entered mainstream political discourse and are now referenced by politicians who head states and sit in parliaments.”She said that of the 10 most influential Twitter accounts propagating the ideology, eight were French. The other two were Trump’s account and the extreme-right site Defend Europa.The study reveals that alternative social media platforms, image boards, fringe forums and encrypted chat channels are instrumental in diffusing influential ideologies that propagate hatred and violence. Far-right propagandists primarily use mainstream platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter as avenues to disseminate material to audiences, while fringe platforms remain safe havens for the initiated to radicalise further.The new media ecosystem has been used, for instance, to promote the fear of a “white genocide”, a topic that is active across unregulated image-board threads on 8chan and 4chan, censorship-free discussion platforms such as Voat, ultra-libertarian social-media sites such as Gab and Minds, and closed-chat channels. By using MIT tool MediaCloud to collect data, researchers have found that traditional media sites are found within the top 15 sources and are responsible for roughly 7% of total coverage of the term “remigration” alone.Defined as a form of ethnic cleansing through the forced deportation of minority communities, the concept of “remigration” has been a particularly fevered subject. Since 2014, the volume of tweets featuring the word has surged, rising from 66,000 in 2014 to 150,000 in 2018. The first stark increase in conversation around the theory occurred in November 2014, coinciding with the first annual meeting on remigration organised in Paris by Generation Identity.ISD researchers are currently embedded in 50 extreme-right chat channels on applications such as Discord, Telegram and WhatsApp, as well as monitoring groups, communities and discussion boards on 4chan, 8chan, Gab, Minds, Voat and Reddit.Jacob Davey, co-author of the report at ISD, said: “Social media platforms are built to promote clickbait content to get more users liking, sharing and commenting. This research shows how the extreme right is exploiting this to boost hateful content in the form of memes, distorted statistics and pseudo-scientific studies.”Through slick branding and savvy online campaigns, the far-right identitarian youth movement, whose members include neo-Nazis, has been instrumental in spreading far-right propaganda online. The report provides comprehensive evidence of how the “great replacement” and “white genocide” theories have influenced violent attacks, and shows their ongoing impact on political rhetoric in north America and Europe. Calls for action from tech companies and governments to regulate the spread of extremist ideas have been swift.“The far right is able to take ownership of the ‘grey zone’ around contentious issues like migration because politicians and society are less willing to take on the role of thought leaders in these areas for fear of public outcry and outrage,” said Ebner.“The international far right’s potential to incite violence has been systematically underestimated and neglected by governments, security forces and tech firms over the past decade. To prevent future far-right terrorist acts, we need a more proactive, globally coordinated response, as we had in the global response to jihadism.” Topics The far right The Observer Christchurch shooting Prevent strategy news

The government has approved the supply of equipment by Chinese telecoms firm Huawei for the UK's new 5G data network despite warnings of a security risk. There is no formal confirmation but the Daily Telegraph says Huawei will build "non-core" components such as antennas.The US wants its allies in the "Five Eyes" intelligence grouping - the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - to exclude the company.Huawei has denied that its work poses any risks of espionage or sabotage.But Australia has already said it is siding with Washington - which has spoken of "serious concerns over Huawei's obligations to the Chinese government and the danger that poses to the integrity of telecommunications networks in the US and elsewhere". UK at odds with cyber-allies over Huawei Huawei - The world's most controversial company Could Huawei threaten the Five Eyes? 5G: 'A cyber-attack could stop the country' A spokesman for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has said it is reviewing the supply of equipment for the 5G network and will report in due course.Digital minister Margot James responded to the reports by tweeting: "In spite of Cabinet leaks to the contrary, final decision yet to be made on managing threats to telecoms infrastructure."According to the Daily Telegraph, Huawei would be allowed to help build the "non-core" infrastructure of the 5G network.This would mean Huawei would not supply equipment for what is known as the "core" parts - where tasks such as checking device IDs and deciding how to route voice calls and data take place.Huawei, a private company which already supplies equipment for the UK's existing mobile networks, has always denied claims it is controlled by the Chinese government.It said it was awaiting a formal announcement, but was "pleased that the UK is continuing to take an evidence-based approach to its work", adding it would continue to work cooperatively with the government and the industry.Ciaran Martin, the head of the National Cyber Security Centre - which oversees Huawei's current UK work - told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a framework would be put in place to ensure the 5G network was "sufficiently safe".Asked about the potential of a conflict in the position of Five Eyes members, he added: "In the past decade there have been different approaches across the Five Eyes and across the allied wider Western alliance towards Huawei and towards other issues as well."5G is the next (fifth) generation of mobile internet connectivity, promising much faster data download and upload speeds, wider coverage and more stable connections. The world is going mobile and existing spectrum bands are becoming congested, leading to breakdowns, particularly when many people in one area are trying to access services at the same time. 5G is also much better at handling thousands of devices simultaneously, from phones to equipment sensors, video cameras to smart street lights.Current 4G mobile networks can offer speeds of about 45Mbps (megabits per second) on average and experts say 5G - which is starting to be rolled out in the UK this year - could achieve browsing and downloads up to 20 times faster. What is 5G and what will it mean for you? Six UK cities named as 5G pioneers BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera says it is believed the decision to involve Huawei was taken by ministers at a meeting of the government's national security council on Tuesday, chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May.The home, defence and foreign secretaries were reported to have raised concerns during the discussions.In a tweet, shadow Cabinet Office minister Jo Platt said using Huawei equipment would raise "serious questions" about the "government's interests and how they will secure networks".BBC security correspondent Gordon CoreraThe decision on Huawei is one of the most significant long-term national security decisions this government will make and was always going to be contentious. 5G will underpin our daily lives in ways that are hard to predict. So does allowing a Chinese company to build those networks put people at risk of being spied on or even switched off? That is the concern from Washington and other critics who wanted the company excluded. But deciding to ban Huawei entirely from the network would have risked slowing down the development of 5G and also upsetting China. The UK believes it has experience in managing the risks posed by Huawei and can continue to do so going forward. But one retired senior intelligence official recently told me his view on what to do about Huawei had changed. In the past, he said, he had believed the policy of managing the risk had been sufficient. But now he was less sure. The reason was not to do with any change in his view of what the company could do. Rather it was about the risks to relationships with close allies, namely those of the Five Eyes and US. Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Tugendhat tweeted that allowing Huawei to build some of the UK's 5G infrastructure would "cause allies to doubt our ability to keep data secure and erode the trust essential to #FiveEyes cooperation".Speaking on the Today programme, Mr Tugendhat said the proposals still raised concerns, as 5G involved an "internet system that can genuinely connect everything, and therefore the distinction between non-core and core is much harder to make". 'Shoddy' Huawei work risks Westminster ban Huawei sales top $100bn despite backlash Joyce Hakmeh, a research fellow at think tank Chatham House and co-editor of the Journal of Cyber Policy, said the UK's current mobile network needs to be transformed to the "the next level... quicker, more stable 5G".But she added the government would be hoping its decision on Huawei did not upset either China or the US.Limiting - but not barring - Huawei technology from the 5G networks would be a "diplomatic way of managing a difficult situation" for the UK, said Ms Hakmeh.

By Updated Aug. 23, 2018 1:04 am ET Australia banned Chinese telecom firms Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. from its next-generation 5G mobile network, aligning it with U.S. policy on the matter and underscoring concerns about the possibility of cyberspying by Beijing. The Australian government said Thursday that companies that are “likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law” wouldn’t be able to guarantee security of the network. The statement didn’t specifically mention Chinese companies,... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In

Democrats in the House of Representatives are likely to reopen an intelligence committee investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election – and begin assisting the criminal inquiry on the same subject by the special counsel Robert Mueller.Devin Nunes, the committee’s outgoing Republican chairman and a Trump ally, obstructed efforts by Democrats to investigate possible collusion with Russia by Trump’s campaign team, and closed the investigation with leads left unexplored.Nunes also declined to share information with Mueller.But Adam Schiff, Nunes’s likely Democratic replacement, has promised to resume the committee’s inquiries and pursue new avenues such as the Trump Organization’s business links to Russia.The extension of the Republican majority in the Senate, however, may embolden Trump to nominate a harder-line replacement for the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, fired the day after the election, in order to get rid of Mueller and shut down the special counsel’s investigation. If that happens, expect some Democrats to propose rehiring Mueller as an independent counsel to continue his investigation on behalf of the House. Jon SwaineNow that Democrats have the House, President Trump’s dream of a “big, beautiful wall” will be all the more elusive.Before the midterms, the outgoing House speaker, Paul Ryan, promised there would be a “big fight” over the border wall immediately after the election. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said this was still the plan on Wednesday morning, but Republicans now go into that fight against an emboldened Democratic party.By 8 December, Congress must reach a deal on Department of Homeland Security funding, including the wall – a narrow window for Republicans to secure significant wall funding before Democrats take control of the House in January.House Democrats have also said they will try to restore protections for Dreamers, undocumented immigrants who arrived in the US as children. Voters on both sides of the aisle have expressed broad support for creating a pathway to citizenship for this population and the Trump administration has used them as a bargaining chip since revoking their protections in 2017. Amanda HolpuchUnless Trump gets re-elected in 2020, it now looks certain his massive tax bill will be his last. That $1.5tn giveaway, Trump’s largest congressional achievement, mainly benefited the very wealthy and corporations and has polled badly with voters, so badly that Republicans barely mentioned it in the run-up to the midterms. He has since promised another tax cut aimed at the middle class.Now, with Democrats in control of the House, any legislation will be hard to pass.There are areas of common ground – Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway has already mentioned infrastructure – but given the partisan divide in Washington, striking a deal is going to be difficult.The picture on trade also becomes more complex as the president’s powers are curtailed. Politicians in China, Europe, Canada, Mexico and elsewhere will all be watching to see how his defeat will affect the trade disputes he has fueled.Trump can still use executive orders to force through change but the president’s chances of passing meaningful legislation were hobbled on Tuesday. Now he will be buffeted by the larger, outside forces that will decide the US’s economic forces – forces that are beyond his control. Dominic RusheRepublican efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at a national level are almost guaranteed to halt now that the House is in the hands of the Democrats.At the state level, Democratic governors-elect in Kansas, Maine and Wisconsin could expand ACA protections that Republican state leaders rejected. And in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah citizens voted to expand access to free or low-cost health coverage to the poor through Medicaid.Before the election, Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to return to her former role as House speaker, said a legislative priority would be lowering pharmaceutical drug costs – an issue that could have bipartisan support.And reproductive rights groups have called last night’s results a victory. Federal efforts to limit women’s reproductive rights will be challenged with Democrats in control of the House. And in Michigan, Kansas and New Mexico, the three governors-elect have a record for defending women’s reproductive rights. Amanda HolpuchAttempts to ramp up action to address climate change faltered, most notably in Washington state where voters rejected a proposal to implement a price on carbon pollution. The plan, which was vigorously opposed by oil and gas interests including BP, would have placed a $15 fee on each ton of CO2 and potentially acted as a springboard for other states to do likewise.Washington state voters have now rejected carbon pricing on three separate occasions, raising doubts as to whether the concept, backed by many economists as the best way to drive down emissions and avoid disastrous climate change, will gain traction in the US.Elsewhere, a ballot proposal to require that Arizona get half of its electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind was rejected by voters in the state. In Colorado, the fossil fuel industry spent $40m to successfully fend off an attempt to impose a half-mile buffer between drilling operations and people’s homes. In Florida, however, voters backed a measure to ban oil and gas drilling in state waters. Oliver MilmanDemocrats picked up seven governor’s seats by early Wednesday.The governor races are particularly important because of a once-in-a-decade redistricting process due to begin in 2021. States will be required to redraw congressional districts to make sure each one represents the same number of residents.That’s where gerrymandering – the process where a party draws often oddly shaped districts to best maximize their voters – can occur.State legislatures do the redrawing, but it is the state’s governor who has the ability to sign or veto the new congressional map in their state. That means a Democrat governor elected on Tuesday to a four-year term would have the power to prevent Republicans – who have become experts at gerrymandering, most notably in Pennsylvania – from redrawing districts in a way which would benefit them in upcoming elections to the House of Representatives.Florida was seen as particularly important as the state is expected to gain two congressional seats after the 2020 census. That’s down to a long-term population shift away from the north-east and midwest towards states like Florida and Texas. Unfortunately for Democrats, Andrew Gillum lost on Tuesday. Adam Gabbatt Topics US midterms 2018 Trump-Russia investigation US immigration US economy US healthcare Climate change US politics analysis

On its own, the Tax Department’s inquiry may provide political ammunition for Mr. Cuomo more than it presents a legal peril to Mr. Trump. Even if the department found evidence of criminal behavior, it would need to refer the matter to a law enforcement agency, such as the attorney general’s office or a district attorney, for prosecution.In June, the state attorney general sued the Trump Foundation in civil court, accusing the charity of violating campaign finance laws, self-dealing and illegally coordinating with Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. The suit said the foundation was co-opted by the campaign during the 2016 race. Campaign staff not only directed foundation fund-raisers but also controlled who received grants, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit sought to dissolve the foundation, recover $2.8 million in restitution and temporarily bar President Trump and three of his children from serving in leadership positions in New York nonprofits.Administration officials would not say when the Tax Department’s investigation began, but it became public a month after the attorney general’s lawsuit.Beyond the civil charges, the attorney general’s office has not announced a criminal investigation into the foundation, saying only that it would seek a criminal referral from a state agency at the appropriate time. But because the office’s review of the Trump Foundation is still active, the office is coordinating with the Tax Department’s inquiry, according to an official familiar with the investigation, who also requested anonymity because the investigation is active.The Manhattan district attorney’s office is also looking into possible impropriety by the Trump Foundation, according to someone familiar with the matter.Mr. Trump established the Donald J. Trump Foundation in 1987, when he was a New York City real estate developer, with the stated mission of collecting and maintaining money “exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational purposes,” either directly or by donating to other organizations. It had about $1 million in assets in 2016, according to its last I.R.S. filing. Mr. Trump was the foundation’s president until he stepped down after taking office in January 2017.In October 2016, the New York attorney general’s office ordered the foundation to cease soliciting donations in the state, after Mr. Trump admitted he had used the foundation’s money to contribute to political causes. After the election, Mr. Trump announced he would dissolve the foundation to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest, but the attorney general did not approve the proposal, saying the office needed to finish its investigation.

NEW DELHI — Militants in Kashmir struck again on Monday, killing an Indian Army major and at least three other soldiers just days after orchestrating a devastating bombing that left dozens of Indian security forces dead.Fears are now rising that Kashmir, a disputed region that lies between India and its regional rival, Pakistan, could be sliding into an especially deadly phase again.Diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan are breaking down; Kashmiri students are being rounded up and attacked; other young people have been charged with sedition for criticizing the Indian Army; and Indians are lashing out at Pakistani civilians, including Bollywood actors.The recent violence in Kashmir — a majority Muslim region that is mostly controlled by India, a predominantly Hindu nation — has uncapped a wave of jingoism that is sweeping across India. The orange, white and green national flag is going up everywhere, and many people say they want revenge.Pakistan has a long history of supporting militant groups in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. India has accused Pakistan of orchestrating the recent violence and vowed to retaliate. But India has few good military options, analysts say — and the public seems to sense this.“There is a real sense of frustration and anger because Pakistan is in the picture,’’ said Gurcharan Das, an Indian writer. “A lot of Indians feel that India has failed with regard to Pakistan and that it has not been tough enough and has appeased Pakistan.’’“But,’’ he added, “I don’t think anybody really wants a war.’’The trouble on Monday started around 2 a.m. Under the cover of darkness, Indian soldiers in the Pulwama District of the Kashmir Valley surrounded a house that was thought to be a militant hide-out.[On August 5, India revoked Kashmir’s special status.]The militants opened fire on the approaching contingent, killing a major and three soldiers and critically wounding at least one other soldier. At least one civilian was killed in the crossfire.Indian officials said the militants inside the house were members of Jaish-e-Muhammad, or the Army of Muhammad, the separatist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing last week that killed at least 40 Indian soldiers — one of the deadliest attacks in the region in decades.By midafternoon, Indian officials said two militants had been killed. But security forces were struggling to get closer to the house because hundreds of Kashmiri civilians were hurling rocks in an effort to shield the militants, who are widely seen in Kashmir as legitimate freedom fighters.Pakistan has denied involvement in the recent bombing in Kashmir, for which Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India has promised “a befitting reply.”Retaliation would carry huge risks, however. Both nations field nuclear arsenals, and regional dynamics are especially sensitive right now. United States officials have been calling on regional powers to support a peace plan for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan, where Pakistan has long been a powerful influence.But India is headed into major elections in the next few months, and Mr. Modi hardly wants to look weak.Pakistan’s security services have a long history of supporting Kashmiri separatists and other militant groups, often using them as a proxy force against India. The United States considers the Army of Muhammad a terrorist organization; the group is officially banned in Pakistan, but Indian and American officials say it still operates there under different names.The status of Kashmir has been disputed for decades, with India and Pakistan claiming large chunks of the mountainous region. Many of the militants in Kashmir are young men who have spent their entire lives in the Indian-controlled areas and have been shaped by years of heavy occupation by Indian troops. Security analysts say many militants still receive money and weapons from Pakistan.On Thursday, a Kashmiri militant slammed a truck containing an unusually powerful bomb into a convoy of Indian troops moving across the Kashmir Valley. More than 40 paramilitary officers were killed, and Indian officials say they believe the bomb maker slipped in from Pakistan.Since then, Indian security forces have been searching for accomplices, often going house to house.Kashmiri civilians are also being targeted. At a university in Dehradun, someone used WhatsApp to threaten Kashmiri students, saying: “We will not leave you alive.’’A board outside a mobile phone shop read: “Dogs are allowed, but Kashmiris are not allowed.”Witnesses said that mobs swept through Dehradun, beating up Kashmiri students and forcing scores to flee.“I am very scared,’’ said Junaid Ayub Rather, an engineering student who managed to hire a car to leave Dehradun.He cited years of conflict and misery in Kashmir, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed over the decades as India, Pakistan and various militant groups have fought for control.“Tell me,’’ Mr. Rather said, “have you ever heard of Kashmiris attacking or threatening civilians from other parts of the country who reside in Kashmir to avenge that?”Diplomatically, the two countries are pulling apart. On Friday, India recalled its ambassador to Pakistan for consultations. On Monday, Pakistan did the same.Across India, more than a dozen people have been arrested, lost their jobs or were expelled from school for writing social media posts that were seen as critical of the Indian military or interpreted by the authorities as siding with the attackers.Surabhi Singh, a senior coordinator for the Center for Advocacy and Research, a nonprofit that works with marginalized communities, wrote a post on Facebook shortly after the bombing, criticizing the Indian Army’s record.She wrote: “If Attack on Armed Soldiers is Cowardly … Attacking Unarmed Civilians including Hapless Children must be an Act of Bravery.’’Over the weekend, she was fired.“I was targeted,” said Ms. Singh, who has also worked as a translator for international news organizations, including The New York Times. “You’re not allowed to think freely anymore. You have to toe the line of the majority. It is jingoistic.”Even actors are being punished. A number of Indian film organizations announced a boycott of Pakistani actors working in India’s film industry, by far the biggest in South Asia.Suresh Shyamlal Gupta, the president of the All Indian Cine Workers Association, said India needed to attack Pakistan “from all sides.”

This month marks a year since the last general election in Italy. Three months afterwards Matteo Salvini’s League and Luigi di Maio’s Five Star Movement (M5S) took power. It’s time to take stock – even though, to tell the truth, we can’t stop stock-taking – such is the desperate situation the country finds itself in. First and foremost, we are in a democratic emergency. Some feel there’s no need for alarm; after all nobody seized power by force, and the government enjoys a high level of popular support (an approval rating of approximately 60%, according to polls). But clearly, just because a government enjoys support we should not stop being clear-eyed about what it is doing. A liberal democracy does not become authoritarian within a few months, but there are signs, however slight and seemingly unconnected, that seem to chart this depressing journey.A few weeks ago the Italian media greeted with alarm a report the secret services had submitted to parliament. The picture it painted was hugely serious, especially in two areas: the growth of racist incidents as we approach the European elections in May, and the inability – given the propaganda and focus on closing ports to migrants from Libya – to curb secret landings using small, fast boats, which could be bringing passengers linked to terrorist groups.The list of reported racist incidents in Italy from the beginning of this year is shocking. In Lecce province, a young boy from Sierra Leone was battered on the back with a chair as his assailants racially abused him and told him to “go home”. In Rome, a 12-year-old Egyptian was verbally abused and beaten up so badly by a group of older boys that he ended up in hospital. A black brother and sister were pilloried by a schoolmaster in Foligno, in central Italy. Women of colour are more and more treated as if they were sex workers – and not only in the street but even in public offices. Many incidents go unreported, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that what is happening in Italy is a sign of a descent into barbarism.Immigrant ghettos have sprung up, where some people who have official residence permits live on hunger wages and in conditions of slavery. Take, for example, the shanty town of San Ferdinando, in Reggio Calabria province in Italy’s deep south, where Salvini, the minister of the interior, was elected senator. At harvest time, San Ferdinando hosts up to 2,000 migrants who earn 50 cents per crate of picked oranges, or 1 euro per crate of mandarins. Not only do people endure inhumane existences in these shanties and work in the fields like slaves; they actually die there as well, from the cold and fires. To shelter from the cold, they use braziers and gas stoves in cramped quarters made of highly inflammable materials. Last year three immigrants died in San Ferdinando, burned to death in blazing fires.The politics that incites hatred towards migrants does nothing to alleviate these conditions, because of course these workers are useful, especially in the agri-food sector: a low-cost workforce with no rights which can be both exploited and blamed for the purposes of garnering populist votes.This is what we’ve come to in Italy: a climate of racist aggression is spreading, a racism that is directed not only against migrants but against anyone who does not have white skin, even against children adopted by Italian families. When people speak in general terms of populism in relation to this government they risk obscuring truly alarming facts on the ground with abstract political labels.There is no doubt that the blind eye this administration turns to racist attitudes has had serious consequences. Cynically the government gives a nod and a wink to extremist groups whose votes they do not want to lose.The strategy to feed the climate of hatred is twofold. First of all, extremist groups inundate the web with lies and fake news. The biggest is the presumed invasion of Italy by foreigners.We are led to believe migrants are invading Italy and are the root cause of our economic problems. But according to Istat (the national institute of statistics), migrants, including those from the EU, account for 8.7% of the overall population. Illegal immigrants, who provide the basis for the anti-immigration propaganda, represent approximately 533,000 in a country of more than 60 million. In no way therefore can one speak of an invasion, and yet that is the tune we hear sung on a daily basis.Second, those who argue for a different vision and a different country are dismissed as the elite. Having attacked journalists across the board, the first official act of this government’s under-secretary of state for publishing, Vito Crimi (a third-rate politician capable of gratuitous spitefulness), was to cut public funding to the press, striking a blow against those who do not receive advertising revenue but nevertheless provide high-quality information and provide a public service. As a result, we shall be witnessing the demise of Radio Radicale, Il Manifesto and L’Avvenire – three progressive mainstays of the Italian media scene which have never lined up with any government and which no previous government ever dreamed of threatening. To attack these publications is to attack the values of liberal democracy and pluralism. The attack on Radio Radicale, which for 40 years now has been broadcasting the proceedings of parliament and the major institutions of the country, is a vivid illustration of the transformation of the M5S founded by Beppe Grillo. M5S used to stream even closed-door talks on the formation of the government; now, it prefers lights off during parliamentary proceedings and we still don’t know who or what should eventually replace Radio Radicale and the essential job it does. This is the biggest emergency in Italy. It is becoming a country where it is increasingly difficult to publish information and where, if you criticise the government, you become a target. You only have to think of the controversy surrounding the removal of police protection from journalists (like me) who receive death threats because that protection is supposedly too heavy a burden on the state’s coffers.It is never pointed out that, of 600 people who receive protection in Italy, only 20 are journalists. How can there be freedom of expression in a country whose government attacks people who write and report on a daily basis?Last March Italians went to cast our votes having been immersed in anti-migrant propaganda and sick to the back teeth of traditional political parties. Today, in the run-up to May’s European elections, things are even worse. It’s the government – robust, muscular and nasty by vocation – that delivers the propaganda. Every case of a migrant boat turned away from our shores gives rise not to indignation but the kind of cheerleading you see at football stadiums. Anti-migrant posturing is used to camouflage problems both parties have with their respective supporters. M5S has been eclipsed by the League in government. Meanwhile the major entrepreneurs in the north – the traditional power base of the League – are disappointed by its economic policies. But Salvini’s ratings keep shooting up, because every day he serves up a scapegoat for people to get their teeth into, to insult and use violence against.This government’s opponents feel more alone than ever. How can one get people to see they are the victims of an evil spell? Because the economy will certainly not recover if we become more isolated from Europe, or thanks to our Russian ally or our new Hungarian friends. Nor will it revive by removing rights from migrants who live, work and pay their taxes in our country.What we progressives need is not just optimism but a different vision of the future. But the battered parties on the left aren’t listening; they’re focused on solving their own internal problems and seem indifferent to the alarming threats to our democracy. Nowadays whoever attempts to describe a country that must pick itself up, a country that must stand firm and rediscover its virtues, is alone. Utterly alone.• Roberto Saviano is an Italian journalist and the author of Gomorrah Topics Italy Opinion Europe Five Star Movement Matteo Salvini Luigi Di Maio Migration comment