The producer of the “The Voice of China” saw its stock tumble by the most on record after

North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper on Wednesday vetoed three bills that target LGBTQ youth, setting up a likely effort by the state's Republican-controlled legislature to override him.

England batsman Joe Root has pulled out of next year's Indian Premier League, joining his red-ball skipper Ben Stokes in sitting...

One loadout for Call of Duty: Warzone's STEN sub machinegun could be the build that breaks the current meta.

American chess grandmaster Hans Niemann has been cleared of claims that he cheated in a match last year using vibrating anal beads. The dispute had scandalised the world of chess after world champion Magnus Carlsen implied that Niemann had cheated in a match in late 2022 when he beat Carlsen in the prestigious Sinquefield Cup. Carlsen, who is considered one of the best players in history, quit the tournament immediately. A week later, he also refused to play Niemann in a live broadcast online game, instead choosing to immediately resign the match before making a move. A rising star in the chess world, Niemann found himself a pariah. He filed a $100m lawsuit against Carlsen, as well as the website chess.com and another top grandmaster, American Hikaru Nakamura, who all appeared to support the allegations that he had cheated. Niemann has admitted to cheating online when he was 12 and 16 – a serious offence when you become a top grandmaster – but insists he has never done so in a game over the board. He even promised to play naked to prove his innocence after unfounded claims he may have used vibrating anal beads were amplified by Elon Musk. Chess.com, the world’s most popular chess playing website with millions of users, published a 72-page report in October, claiming that Niemann had “likely cheated” between 2015 and 2020. Niemann denied the allegations. Now, after a US judge dismissed Niemann’s suit in June, he appears ready to move on. On Monday, Chess.com said the parties had agreed to move forward without the threat of legal action. “We are pleased to report that we have reached an agreement with Hans Niemann to put our differences behind us and move forward together without further litigation,” the website said in a statement. “At this time, Hans has been fully reinstated to Chess.com, and we look forward to his participation in our events. We would also like to reaffirm that we stand by the findings in our October 2022 public report regarding Hans, including that we found no determinative evidence that he has cheated in any in-person games. We all love chess and appreciate all of the passionate fans and community members who allow us to do what we do.” Carlsen said: “I acknowledge and understand Chess.com’s report, including its statement that there is no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated in his game against me at the Sinquefield Cup. I am willing to play Niemann in future events, should we be paired together.” Niemann added: “I am pleased that my lawsuit against Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com has been resolved in a mutually acceptable manner, and that I am returning to Chess.com. I look forward to competing against Magnus in chess rather than in court,” he said. Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

Kyle Pitts loves the energy this revamped Atlanta Falcons defense could manifest this season.While most people believe that the Atlanta Falcons could have one of the most explosive offenses in the NFC next year, it is all going to come down to if the defense rises to the occasion in The ATL....

Geraldo Perdomo hit a two-run homer in the second inning and Lourdes Gurriel Jr. added a two-run shot in the third to back Merrill Kelly’s third straight winning decision as the Arizona Diamondbacks beat the Oakland Athletics 5-2

KSI and Tommy Fury will square off in the boxing ring tonight, moments after Logan Paul and Dillon Danis go head to head. The Misfits event at Manchester’s AO Arena is one of the most-anticipated cards of the year, with each of the four fighters possessing thousands of fans and thousands of critics. Briton KSI and American Paul rose to fame on YouTube before crossing into boxing – even facing each other before becoming business partners and launching the Prime energy drink company in 2022. Meanwhile, Fury is best known as the half-brother of heavyweight boxing champion Tyson, and he most recently beat Paul’s younger brother Jake in February to stay unbeaten as a professional. In contrast, Danis is boxing for the first time tonight, though he does have a combat background. The American is a former jiu-jitsu champion and mixed martial artist, who some will know as an ex-teammate of UFC star Conor McGregor. While KSI and compatriot Fury have traded barbs repeatedly ahead of their clash tonight, the build to the all-American bout between Paul and Danis has been especially bitter. Paul’s fiancee Nina Agdal was even granted a temporary restraining order against Danis in September, after he took to social media to share numerous photos of her with various men. Will tonight mark the end of his feud with Paul? Find out below, with live updates and results from KSI vs Fury and Paul vs Danis. Read More KSI ‘spits’ back at John Fury from balcony after having a bottle thrown at him Who is KSI? From ‘endearing’ class clown to YouTuber who has changed the face of boxing Dillon Danis hits Logan Paul in the head with microphone as face-off descends into chaos

Indictments are imminently expected following a federal investigation into efforts from Donald Trump and his allies to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The former president announced he received a target letter – a document formally indicating he is the subject of an investigation – in connection with a sprawling US Department of Justice special counsel probe into an alleged scheme to preserve Mr Trump’s presidency against the wills of millions of voters. A case will not likely be revealed in full until an indictment is unsealed in US District Court, but a wealth of evidence uncovered by members of Congress and in other documents suggests that the former president and potential co-defendants could be prosecuted in what would be a second round of federal charges against him. A House select committee spent a year and a half investigating the events surrounding and leading up to the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, 2021, including a series of blockbuster public hearings laying out evidence and witness testimony describing the depth of Mr Trump’s attempts to remain in office at whatever cost. The panel’s final 845-page report provides a detailed account of Mr Trump’s refusal to cede power – regardless of the outcome of a democratic election – while privately acknowledging that he lost, as his baseless “stolen election” narrative fuelled his supporters to riot in the halls of Congress, an argument that also bolstered his second impeachment in the House of Representatives. In December, lawmakers on the House committee unanimously voted to recommend charges against the former president, claiming that there is enough evidence to prosecute him for at least four crimes – including aiding or providing comfort to an insurrection aimed at toppling the United States government. The panel also referred Mr Trump to the Justice Department for the obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, and conspiracy to make a false statement to the federal government. John Eastman, the attorney who argued that Mr Pence could reject election results, and Kenneth Chesebro, who helped develop the fake elector scheme, were also implicated in the committee’s report, along with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorney Rudy Giuliani, and former assistant US Attorney General Jeffrey Clark. It was a mostly symbolic vote, marking the culmination of the committee’s months-long investigation, but it sent a powerful signal from a bipartisan group of lawmakers bolstered by mountains of evidence that a former president should be held accountable for his alleged crimes against the government. That report and countless investigations into the events surrounding January 6 have painted the attack on the Capitol as part of a much-larger effort to preserve a fragile American democracy in a volatile battle to determine the truth and who wields it. Who is under investigation? The Justice Department, meanwhile, had separately been investigating Mr Trump’s rejection of 2020 results, building on the years of work from federal prosecutors to investigate more than 1,000 people in connection with the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, fuelled by the former president’s ongoing false claims that the election was rigged against him. Prosecutors have talked to a number of chief aides and officials in Mr Trump’s circle, including Mr Pence, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former attorney Rudy Giuliani, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, his former deputy Pat Philbin, and former National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, among several others. They also have spoken with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was on the other end of a call with Mr Trump demanding that the state’s top elections official “find 11,780 votes” – enough for him to overturn Mr Biden’s victory in the state. That call, which was taped, also is at the centre of a separate investigation from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis into election interference in the state. Arizona – ground zero for an election denialism movement that gave rise to leading GOP candidates for the top three statewide offices, including failed candidate for governor Kari Lake – was a focal point for the Trump campaign and his allies, who filed several lawsuits against the state and some counties in an attempt to overturn the lawful results. Mr Biden won the state by roughly 10,000 votes. Federal prosecutors have talked to former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who silenced a call from Mr Trump while Mr Ducey was in the middle of certifying his state’s election results – a process that was being live-streamed and carried across news outlets. Mr Smith’s office also subpoenaed the office of Arizona Secretary of State and has met with top elections officials in Wisconsin, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. Prosecutors also have interviewed Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, whose office provided a tranche of documents that included communications between the state’s election officials and Mr Trump’s former lawyers and members of his campaign as the former president’s allies targeted the critical battleground state. Central to the investigation is whether Mr Trump knew that he lost but pressed ahead with spurious efforts to overturn results anyway, with federal prosecutors reportedly speaking to his son-in-law and former adviser Jared Kushner and former communications directors Hope Hicks and Alyssa Farah Griffin with those questions in mind. What charges could prosecutors bring against Trump? Based on evidence uncovered by the select committee and other filings and reporting, prosecutors are likely investigating several key elements of the sprawling effort to reverse the 2020 election: Mr Trump’s lies about the outcome, his campaign’s attempts to pressure state officials and push false slates of electors to obstruct the certification of the results, a failed attempt to persuade Mr Pence to refuse the outcome, and Mr Trump’s failure to stop a mob of his supporters from breaking into the Capitol. Mr Trump knew he had lost the election but continued to pursue efforts to remain in power, including the so-called alternate elector scheme to fraudulently certify the results submitted to Congress, prosecutors are likely to argue. On 18 July, Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel charged 16 “fake” electors in that state, marking the first criminal charges brought against so-called “alternate” electors who sought to overturn 2020 results. Charges against Mr Trump and others connected to those allegations and similar attempts in other states could include conspiracy to defraud the United States in the administration of elections, the obstruction of an official proceeding, and wire and mail fraud. Obstruction The target letter from federal prosecutors to Mr Trump cites three statutes that the former president likely violated in his attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. One charge – obstruction of an official proceeding – has already been brought against hundreds of people in connection with the Capitol attack. The House select committee and a federal judge who was involved in cases stemming from its inquiry argued that there is evidence that Mr Trump sought to corruptly obstruct the certification of electoral college votes in Congress – a crime punishable up to 20 years in prison, if convicted. Conspiracy That same federal judge and the House select committee also have argued that there is evidence to convict Mr Trump on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government, which is punishable by up to five years in prison. Mr Trump’s efforts through his legal team and his inner circle to block the certification of Mr Biden’svictory in states that he lost, while falsely claiming widespread voter fraud and manipulation had stolen the election from him, would likely form the basis for that charge. The former president also is charged under this statute in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, where he is accused of using a lawyer to lie to the Justice Department. “The illegality of the plan was obvious,” California Judge David O Carer wrote in a ruling from a civil lawsuit involving John Eastman, who was central to the so-called “alternate” electors scheme. Mr Trump, ignoring the nation’s history of the peaceful transition of power, “vigorously campaigned for the vice president to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election,” the judge wrote. Fraud The special counsel investigation suggests that prosecutors are scrutinizing Mr Trump’s vast fundraising arm and the tens of millions of dollars it raised after pleas to supporters for donations to combat election fraud, despite no evidence to defend those claims. In May 2020, with the presidential election still months away, Mr Trump said it would be “rigged” against him if he were to lose. That June, he said the election would be the “scandal of our times”, called it “inaccurate and fraudulent” and the “greatest election disaster in history”. Not a single ballot had yet been cast. His own Justice Department and campaign found no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and dozens of lawsuits filed by his campaign and allies to overturn results were withdrawn or dismissed, while his attorneys and the right-wing network amplifying their false claims face massive defamation lawsuits from the voting machines companies and election workers at the center of them. Lawmakers on the House select committee argued that Mr Trump’s campaign “misled donors as to where their funds would go and what they would be used for,” US Rep Zoe Lofgren said during hearings. “So not only was there the ‘Big Lie,’” she said. “There was the ‘Big Rip-off.’” Is there a case for insurrection? After Mr Pence refused Mr Trump’s argument for his vice president to toss out the results, then-President Trump “went to his last resort: triggering an insurrection in the hope that it would throw Congress off course, delaying the transfer of power for the first time in American history,” according to legal experts at Just Security, outlining a model prosecution memorandum similar to what federal prosecutors would also likely be reviewing. And after delivering remarks to a rally of his supporters while a joint session of Congress convened to certify 2020 election results, a speech that allegedly incited his supporters to storm the Capitol, then-President Trump stood by for 187 minutes before he told them to go home. The House select committee unanimously agreed that Mr Trump should be charged for inciting an insurrection and giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists – a rare and severe charge that prosecutors will approach only with extreme caution, if they decide to prosecute at all. “We believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue it – as did the Select Committee in making a criminal referral of Trump under that statute – but prosecutors may make different choices,” experts at Just Security noted. A conviction on that charge mandates a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and would prohibit Mr Trump from holding office. None of the more than 1,000 people arrested in connection with the attack are facing this charge. Read More Trump news – live: Trump claims he’s ‘not frightened’ by Jan 6 target letter as potential indictment looms

Don’t anticipate big gains from US equity markets anytime soon, says one Wall Street prognosticator who foresaw the

Jenny Hannigan, who resides in Baldwin, was charged with contempt of court for disrupting the proceedings in Manhattan Supreme Court

By Arathy Somasekhar HOUSTON Energy pipeline operator Enterprise Products Partners will expand its natural gas liquids (NGLs) operations,