TL;DR: As of October 9, get Windows 10 Pro for just $29.97 — an 84%

Passenger traffic at Dubai international airport leapt 50 percent in the first half of the year, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, its...

By Dietrich Knauth and Nate Raymond U.S. bankruptcy Judge David Jones in Houston has resigned after a federal

The family of a 31-year-old father who died after being tased by Los Angeles police officers is suing the city and members of the department over his death, their attorneys announced on Monday.

It’s a deal no one in Washington claims to really like. But after weeks of negotiations, President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have struck an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and avert a potentially devastating government default. The stakes are high for both men — and now each will have to persuade lawmakers in their parties to vote for it. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said last week that the United States could run out of cash to pay the bills and default on its obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised by June 5. The ultimate agreement, hammered out by Biden, McCarthy and a small group of their deputies, is a two-year budget deal that would essentially hold spending flat for 2024, while boosting it for defense and veterans, and capping increases at 1% for 2025. It would suspend the debt limit until January 2025, after the next presidential election. Republicans had insisted on reducing spending and had passed their own bill with much larger cuts last month. The package would also make policy tweaks, including by adding work requirements for some food aid recipients and streamlining an environmental law that Republicans say has made it harder to build energy projects. Takeaways from the deal, and from the negotiations that led up to it: McCARTHY’S DELICATE BALANCING ACT Ever since McCarthy won the House speakership on the 15th ballot in January, it was clear that the debt ceiling negotiations would be his first and perhaps biggest test. Known more for strategy than policy, McCarthy has had a challenge that seemed almost insurmountable, with a narrow majority and a sizable group of hard-right conservatives certain to oppose anything he negotiated with Biden. And he could still find himself in the middle of a crisis if too many in his caucus revolt when the House votes on the package this week. Through it all, the Californian has exhibited his typical laid-back vibe, projecting confidence about the bill and its success. He said Sunday that he will win a majority of Republicans on the bill and some Democrats. In a conference call on Saturday night, McCarthy said, more than 95 percent of the members in his conference “were overwhelmingly excited about what they see.” But some House Republicans were publicly slamming the deal, arguing it did too little to cut the deficit. Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina tweeted a vomit emoji, complaining that some Republicans on the call were praising the speaker for getting what he said is “almost zippo in exchange” for the debt-ceiling hike. BIDEN’S RELUCTANT COMPROMISE For months, Biden and his aides had a mantra: There would be no negotiation on the debt limit. But then he negotiated anyway. It’s not where Biden, a veteran of the nasty 2011 debt-limit battle that saw the nation’s credit rating downgraded for the first time in history, wanted to be. But it was a likely scenario — with a Republican-controlled House that had made it clear from the start that it would not raise the borrowing authority under a Democratic president without extracting spending curbs or other policy concessions. There was no way Biden, who is running for re-election next year, would want a historic default on his watch. Biden has continued to insist that he was negotiating on the budget, not the debt ceiling. But pushed by a reporter Sunday evening who noted that was precisely what Republicans were seeking in exchange for lifting the debt limit, the president seemed to break from his talking point. “Sure, yeah,” Biden said, chuckling slightly. “Can you think of an alternative?” Now he will have to sell it to House Democrats, who must vote for it in big enough numbers to make up for defecting Republicans. Many progressive members in the House have appeared skeptical of the deal, but they remained mostly quiet over the weekend as they waited for more details. But the deal won early praise from another key Democratic group. The New Democrat Coalition, which has roughly 100 members, praised Biden as having negotiated “a viable, bipartisan solution to end this crisis.” LONG-SOUGHT GOP POLICY Republicans were able to win some policy changes they have sought for years, however modest, including on food aid. The bill would raise the age limit for existing work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps. It would also create a new agency to develop and streamline environmental reviews that Republicans have complained about for decades. The new work requirements for able-bodied SNAP recipients without dependents would phase in by 2025 and expire by 2030. And a provision pushed by Biden would take some vulnerable recipients — like veterans and the homeless — off work requirements entirely. But Republicans made clear that pushing more people to work in exchange for government benefits was a major victory for them, even if mostly symbolic. The bill also would amend the National Environmental Policy Act and designate “a single lead agency” to develop environmental reviews, in hopes of streamlining the process. Republicans had hoped for a much broader permitting package that would make it easier to build and develop energy projects. But Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves, a McCarthy ally who was one of the negotiators, said the bill brings “transformational changes into the permitting and environmental review process” for the first time in four decades. SENATE QUIET, WAITING TO CLOSE McCarthy has said the House will vote on the package Wednesday. If passed, it will then head to the Democratic-led Senate where leaders will have to get agreement from all 100 members to speed up the process and avert a default by next Monday. The White House briefed Democratic senators Sunday and McCarthy briefed Republicans. But most senators remained quiet on the deal as they waited for the full text and to see if McCarthy can navigate it through the House. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky cut themselves out of the negotiating process early on, saying it should be a negotiation between the White House and McCarthy. McConnell issued a statement supporting the legislation on Sunday but some in his caucus have criticized it. The two leaders will have to navigate any potential objections over the coming week as they seek to win full support to move quickly on the deal. “With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?” tweeted Utah Sen. Mike Lee on Saturday, aligning himself with the House Republicans who say the deal is not conservative enough. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Trump's welcome of Scott into 2024 race shows his calculus: The more GOP rivals, the better for him Stock market today: Asian markets mostly higher after Biden-McCarthy deal on US debt What’s in the cliffhanger deal struck by Biden and McCarthy to raise the debt limit?

Ukraine’s capital was hit by a missile barrage overnight, the 19th such attack in the last month. While

Hollywood stars have often expressed their well-thought-out plans for their own funerals

Four people accused of hanging an effigy of Real Madrid player Vinícius Júnior off a highway bridge have been released from custody while still under investigation for perpetrating a hate crime

From the streets of Caracas to trendy eateries in New York, Paris and Tokyo, the arepa, a humble cornmeal flatbread, is riding a wave of Venezuelan emigration and feeding a...

The Department of Justice is preparing to ask a Washington, DC grand jury to indict former president Donald Trump for violating the Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice as soon as Thursday, adding further weight to the legal baggage facing Mr Trump as he campaigns for his party’s nomination in next year’s presidential election. The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”. The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021. That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document ...relating to the national defence,” and “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” can be punished by as many as ten years in prison. It is understood that prosecutors intend to ask grand jurors to vote on the indictment on Thursday, but that vote could be delayed as much as a week until the next meeting of the grand jury to allow for a complete presentation of evidence, or to allow investigators to gather more evidence for presentation of necessary. A separate grand jury that is meeting in Florida has also been hearing evidence in the documents investigation. That grand jury was empaneled in part to overcome legal issues posed by the fact that some of the crimes allegedly committed by Mr Trump took place in that jurisdiction, not in Washington. Under federal law, prosecutors must bring charges against federal defendants in the jurisdiction where the crimes took place. Another source familiar with the matter has said Mr Trump was recently informed that he is a “target” of the Justice Department probe, which began in early 2022 after National Archives and Records Administration officials discovered more than 100 documents bearing classification markings in a set of 15 boxes of Trump administration records retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, the century-old mansion turned private beach club where Mr Trump maintains his primary residence and post-presidential office. Over the course of the last year, grand jurors have heard testimony from numerous associates of the ex-president, including nearly every employee of Mar-a-Lago, former administration officials who worked in Mr Trump’s post-presidential office and for his political operation, and former high-ranking administration officials such as his final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Mr Meadows has already given evidence before the grand jury and is said to be cooperating with the investigation into his former boss. It is understood that the former North Carolina congressman will plead guilty to several federal charges as part of a deal for which he has already received limited immunity in exchange for his testimony. Prosecutors are also prepared to ask grand jurors to indict Mr Trump on charges that he obstructed justice during the year-long investigation and caused false statements to be made to investigators by persons working for him. It is possible that such charges could stem from a declaration submitted to federal investigators roughly a year ago, when FBI agents and prosecutors visited his home to retrieve a sealed folder filled with 38 classified documents which Mr Trump’s attorneys turned over in response to a grand jury subpoena. According to court documents, the government subsequently developed evidence indicating that documents had been removed from a storage room where his attorneys had stated that all such documents were being stored in the days following the receipt of the grand jury subpoena. Using that evidence, which reportedly includes surveillance footage taken by cameras placed in the interior of Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors obtained a search warrant for the property that was carried out by FBI agents on 8 August last year. During that search, special agents discovered 103 documents bearing classification markings, including 18 marked “top secret,” 54 marked “secret,” and 31 marked as “confidential,” including a number of documents that were stored in Mr Trump’s personal office. Read More Serbia's president promises early election amid large protests against his populist rule Pence accuses Trump of treating abortion issue as an ‘inconvenience’ Former vice president Mike Pence launches 2024 campaign attacking Trump on Jan 6 Serbia's president promises early election amid large protests against his populist rule Pence accuses Trump of treating abortion issue as an ‘inconvenience’ Former vice president Mike Pence launches 2024 campaign attacking Trump on Jan 6

Thousands of protesters took part in rallies across France and Britain on Saturday calling for a ceasefire...

Harry Kane compares the pressure of playing for Tottenham and Bayern Munich.