Two journalists who led a now-closed Hong Kong online news outlet will hear a verdict in their sedition case on Thursday, in a trial that’s seen as an indicator of press freedom in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

The trial of Stand News ' former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam began almost two years ago. It’s Hong Kong’s first sedition case involving media since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

The journalists were charged with conspiracy to publish seditious materials under a colonial-era law that’s been increasingly used to target dissent as part of a crackdown that followed huge anti-government protests in 2019.

Here is what you need to know:

What was Stand News?

Stand News was one of the last remaining openly critical media outlets in Hong Kong following the closing of the Apple Daily newspaper in June 2021.

It was founded as a nonprofit by businessman Tony Tsoi and media veterans Yee Ka-fai and Chung in December 2014, promising to uphold independent editorial standards and writing in a founding message that the responsibility of media is to keep power in check.

During the 2019 anti-government protests, Stand News gained prominence for its live-streaming coverage from the front lines and attracted many democracy supporters for its critical reporting of the authorities.

The city’s secretary for security Chris Tang and its police criticized the outlet, saying some of its reports were “misleading,” while Hong Kong residents surveyed by the researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong rated it among the most credible outlets in the city in 2019.
How did the journalists wind up on trial?

In 2021, Hong Kong witnessed the shutdown of dozens of civil society groups under the shadow of a Beijing-imposed national security law, with many prominent activists arrested. In June that year, authorities arrested members of Apple Daily’s top management and froze its assets. The newspaper’s founder Jimmy Lai is now fighting collusion charges and faces up to life in prison if convicted.

On Dec. 29, 2021, police raided the Stand News office. The same day, they arrested Chung and Lam along with four former board members and Chung’s wife Chan Pui-Man, a former Apple Daily editor. Assets worth about 61 million Hong Kong dollars ($7.8 million) were frozen, forcing Stand News to close.

Of the seven people arrested, only Chung and Lam were later charged in connection to Stand News. Chan was charged in the Apple Daily case and later pleaded guilty.
What’s the bigger picture for civil liberties in Hong Kong?

Days after Stand News shut down, independent news outlet Citizen News announced it would cease operations, citing the deteriorating media environment and the potential risks to its staff.

The closing of Apple Daily, Stand News and Citizen News within months dealt a blow to the city’s once vibrant press scene.

The shutdowns were widely seen as casualties during the political crackdown on civil society. Many activists were prosecuted, silenced or forced into self-exile after the 2020 security law took effect. The Hong Kong government in March enacted a new, homegrown security law that critics fear will further curtail civil liberties.

The delivery of the verdict for the Stand News editors has been delayed several times, including once while awaiting the appeal outcome of another landmark sedition case.

Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the case is significant because it was the first sedition case the Hong Kong government brought against news editors and a media outlet since the 1997 handover. Lai said the British colonial government had stopped using the sedition law in its final decades.

The Hong Kong government insists the city still enjoys civil liberties, as guaranteed by its mini-constitution, and the exercise of them may be subject to restrictions that are provided by law.

George Santos, the former New York congressman who spun lies into a brief political career, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, acknowledging that he allowed his ambitions to cloud his judgment.

Santos, 36, is likely to spend at least six years in prison and owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution. His federal fraud case, which led to his expulsion from Congress, was just weeks away from going to trial.

“I betrayed the trust of my constituents and supporters. I deeply regret my conduct,” the New York Republican said, his voice trembling as he entered the plea in a Long Island courtroom.

Santos, 36, said he accepted responsibility for his crimes and intends to make amends. He faces more than six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines and owes at least $370,000 in restitution.

Senior Federal Judge Joanna Seybert scheduled sentencing for Feb. 7.

Santos was indicted on felony charges that he stole from political donors, used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, lied to Congress about his wealth and collected unemployment benefits while actually working.

Santos was expelled from the U.S. House after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” that he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit.

The case has been set to go to trial in early September. If that had happened, federal prosecutors said Monday that they were prepared to call some 40 witnesses, including members of Santos’ campaign, employers and family members.

Santos was once touted as a rising political star after he flipped the suburban district that covers the affluent North Shore of Long Island and a slice of the New York City borough of Queens in 2022.

But his life story began unraveling even before he was sworn into office. At the time, reports emerged that he had lied about having a career at top Wall Street firms and a college degree along with other questions swirling about his biography.

New questions then emerged about his campaign funds.

He was first indicted on federal charges in May 2023, but refused to resign from office.

Santos had previously maintained his innocence, though he said in an interview in December that a plea deal with prosecutors was “not off the table.”

Asked if he was afraid of going to prison, he told CBS 2 at the time: “I think everybody should be afraid of going to jail, it’s not a pretty place and uh, I definitely want to work very hard to avoid that as best as possible.”

Separately Monday, in Manhattan federal court, Judge Denise Cote tossed out a lawsuit in which Santos claimed that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, ABC and Disney committed copyright infringement and unjustly enriched themselves at his expense by using videos he made on the Cameo app for a “Jimmy Kimmel Live” segment. The judge said it was clear that Kimmel used the clips, which were also posted to YouTube, for the purposes of criticism and commentary, which is fair use.

Santos had begun selling personalized videos on Cameo in December shortly after his ouster from Congress. He subsequently launched, then quickly abandoned, a longshot bid to return to Congress as an independent earlier this year.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to publicly disclose additional travel on GOP megadonor Harlan Crow’s private jet, a top Democratic senator who is backing an election-year push to tighten the high court’s ethics rules said Monday.

Thomas and his wife, Virginia, took a round-trip flight between Hawaii and New Zealand in November 2010, according to international flight records maintained by Customs and Border Protection, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote.

The letter to Crow’s lawyer is part of an inquiry that Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened after several reports that Thomas had for years received undisclosed luxury travel from Crow.

Wyden’s letter demands additional information about private jet and superyacht trips. “I am deeply concerned that Mr. Crow may have been showering a public official with extravagant gifts, then writing off those gifts to lower his tax bill,” he wrote. The letter was first reported by The New York Times.

A spokesman for Crow said he has always followed tax law and Wyden’s inquiries have “no legal basis.” “It’s concerning that Senator Wyden is abusing his committee’s powers as part of a politically motivated campaign against the Supreme Court,” said spokesman Michael Zona in a statement.

The Senate Judiciary Committee previously uncovered at least three additional trips in its own investigation, including to Indonesia and California.

Democrats, including President Joe Biden, are separately pushing for changes to the high court, and seeking to capture voter attention in an election year after ethical revelations about some justices, including trips by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.

In recent days, Justice Elena Kagan has voiced support for an enforceable ethics code for her and her colleagues. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in an interview with The Associated Press last week, declined to comment on proposals on ethics and term limits for the high court.

A court in the United Arab Emirates sentenced dozens of Bangladeshi nationals to prison, including three for life imprisonment, over protests against their home government in the Gulf country, state media reported Monday.

The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal on Sunday handed 10-year prison sentences to 53 Bangladeshi nationals and an 11-year term to another Bangladeshi national, in addition to the three life imprisonments, according to the state-owned Emirates News Agency, WAM. The court ordered the deportation of the Bangladeshis from the UAE following their prison terms.

“The court heard a witness who confirmed that the defendants gathered and organised large-scale marches in several streets of the UAE in protest against decisions made by the Bangladeshi government,” WAM reported.

On Saturday, authorities in the United Arab Emirates ordered an investigation and an expedited trial of the arrested Bangladeshi nationals. The protests in the UAE followed weeks of demonstrations in Bangladesh by people upset about a quota system that reserved up to 30% of government jobs for relatives of veterans who fought in Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971. The country’s top court on Sunday scaled back the controversial system, in a partial victory for the mostly student protesters.

The UAE’s attorney general’s office on Saturday indicted the Bangladeshis on several charges, including “gathering in a public place and protesting against their home government with the intent to incite unrest,” obstructing law enforcement, causing harm to others and damaging property, according to WAM.

Bangladeshi nationals make up the UAE’s third-largest expatriate community. Many of them are low-paid laborers seeking to send money back home to their families. The Emirates’ overall population of more than 9.2 million is only 10% Emirati.

Political parties and labor unions are banned in the UAE, a federation of seven sheikhdoms. Broad laws severely restrict freedom of speech and almost all major local media are either state-owned or state-affiliated outlets.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for a Texas man 20 minutes before he was to receive a lethal injection Tuesday evening. The inmate has long maintained DNA testing would help prove he wasn’t responsible for the fatal stabbing of an 85-year-old woman during a home robbery decades ago.

The nation’s high court issued the indefinite stay shortly before inmate Ruben Gutierrez was to have been taken to the death chamber of a Huntsville prison.

Gutierrez was condemned for the 1998 killing of Escolastica Harrison at her home in Brownsville in Texas’ southern tip. Prosecutors said the killing of the mobile home park manager and retired teacher was part of an attempt to steal more than $600,000 she had hidden in her home because of her mistrust of banks.

Gutierrez has sought DNA testing that he claims would help prove he had no role in her death. His attorneys have said there’s no physical or forensic evidence connecting him to the killing. Two others also were charged in the case.

The high court’s brief order, released about 5:40 p.m. CDT, said its stay of execution would remain in effect until the justices decide whether they should review his appeal request. If the court denies the request, the execution reprieve would automatically be lifted.

Gutierrez, who had been set to die after 6 p.m. CDT, was in a holding cell near the death chamber when prison warden Kelly Strong advised him of the court’s intervention.

“He was visibly emotional,” prison spokeswoman Amanda Hernandez said, adding he was not expecting the court stay. “We asked him if he wanted to make a statement but he needed a minute.”

“He turned around to the back of the cell, covered his mouth. He was tearing up, speechless. He was shocked.”

She said Gutierrez then prayed with a prison chaplain and added: “God is great!”

Gutierrez has had several previous execution dates in recent years that have been delayed, including over issues related to having a spiritual adviser in the death chamber. In June 2020, Gutierrez was about an hour away from execution when he got a stay from the Supreme Court.

In the most recent appeal, Gutierrez’s attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing Texas has denied his right under state law to post-conviction DNA testing that would show he would not have been eligible for the death penalty.

Donald Trump’s lawyers are asking a New York judge to lift the gag order that barred the former president from commenting about witnesses, jurors and others tied to the criminal case that led to his conviction for falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal.

In a letter Tuesday, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove asked Judge Juan M. Merchan to end the gag order, arguing there is nothing to justify “continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump” now that the trial is over.

Among other reasons, the lawyers said Trump is entitled to “unrestrained campaign advocacy” in light of President Joe Biden’s public comments about the verdict last Friday, and continued public criticism of him by his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen and porn actor Stormy Daniels, both key prosecution witnesses.

Trump’s lawyers also contend the gag order must go away so he’s free to fully address the case and his conviction with the first presidential debate scheduled for June 27.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Merchan issued Trump’s gag order on March 26, a few weeks before the start of the trial, after prosecutors raised concerns about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s propensity to attack people involved in his cases.

Merchan later expanded it to prohibit comments about his own family after Trump made social media posts attacking the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant. Comments about Merchan and District Attorney Alvin Bragg are allowed, but the gag order bars statements about court staff and members of Bragg’s prosecution team.

Trump was convicted Thursday of 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment to Daniels just before the 2016 election. She claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier, which he denies. He is scheduled to be sentenced July 11.

Prosecutors had said they wanted the gag order to “protect the integrity of this criminal proceeding and avoid prejudice to the jury.” In the order, Merchan noted prosecutors had sought the restrictions “for the duration of the trial.” He did not specify when they would be lifted.

Blanche told the Associated Press last Friday that it was his understanding the gag order would expire when the trial ended and that he would seek clarity from Merchan, which he did on Tuesday.

In his bid to become North Carolina’s first Black governor, Republican Mark Robinson assails government safety net spending as a “plantation of welfare and victimhood” that has mired generations of Black people in “dependency” and poverty.

But the lieutenant governor’s political rise wouldn’t have been possible without it.

Over the past decade, Robinson’s household has relied on income from Balanced Nutrition Inc., a nonprofit founded by his wife, Yolanda Hill, that administered a free lunch program for North Carolina children. The organization, funded entirely by taxpayers, has collected roughly $7 million in government funding since 2017, while paying out at least $830,000 in salaries to Hill, Robinson and other members of their family, tax filings and state documents show.

The income offered the Robinsons a degree of stability after decades of struggle that included multiple bankruptcies, home foreclosure and misdemeanor charges — later dropped — for writing bad checks. In Robinson’s telling, the financial turnaround provided by the organization also allowed for his ascent into the North Carolina government.

“Yolanda’s nonprofit was providing a salary for her that was enough to support us,” Robinson wrote in his 2022 memoir, noting its growth gave him the freedom to quit his furniture manufacturing job in 2018 and begin a career in populist conservative politics.

“I either was making speeches or was downtown at my wife’s office, helping her with her work,” he wrote of juggling his early political activity with Balanced Nutrition, which records indicate paid him about $40,000 in 2018. “When I ran for office, I stopped doing that. ... Now my son does it.”

Yet now in the closing months of a swing state campaign, the nonprofit that provided the family a vital lifeline has become a political liability. In March, state regulators launched a probe of the organization’s finances after flagging years of financial irregularities, including over $100,000 in unaccounted spending.

The scrutiny adds to Robinson’s challenges. He already has drawn negative attention for his history of inflammatory comments that include calling former first lady Michelle Obama a man and using the word “filth” when discussing gay and transgender people.

Robinson, who would oversee a state budget of more than $30 billion if elected governor, has denied any wrongdoing and blasted the inquiry as politically motivated. His campaign declined to make him or any of his family members available for an interview. But campaign spokesman Michael Lonergan defended Balance Nutrition’s work, citing a routine audit that didn’t find any “material weaknesses” in the organization’s 2021 finances.