Daniil Medvedev said Sunday that ending his long-standing clay court title jinx was almost equal to capturing...

Argentina has come from behind twice to beat Wales 29-17 in Marseille and reach its third Rugby World Cup semifinal

By Nick Carey LONDON Porsche has a plan to gradually electrify its car lineup so that electric vehicles

Exchange-traded fund issuers are once again venturing into crypto territory that regulators had recently steered them away from.

President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed "brave" Ukraine on the 500th day of Russia's invasion on Saturday, as the war's toll mounted with six deaths...

MADRID Spain's Santander on Thursday announced it appointed Pedro Castro e Almeida as regional head for Europe, replacing

Lynette Mackey stands in front of her family's former Victorian home in San Francisco's Fillmore district, a onetime vibrant neighborhood...

Breaking down the NFL challenge rules.

It is a team from another time, a glimpse of Arsenal’s post-Wenger identity crisis and Mikel Arteta’s decidedly imperfect inheritance. There are David Luiz and Shkodran Mustafi, Dani Ceballos and Ainsley Maitland-Niles, Alexandre Lacazette and Nicolas Pepe. They assume a greater pertinence now, and not merely as signs of the transformation of a side in three years. They remain the only Arteta side to beat Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City, 2-0 in the 2020 FA Cup semi-final, courtesy of a brace from Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang. Now, as Arteta’s current and former clubs prepare to meet at Wembley again, this time in the Community Shield, there is the probability that the Arsenal starting 11 will feature no survivors of one of the manager’s first major wins. Perhaps Kieran Tierney but Granit Xhaka, the last regular in Arteta’s strongest side, was sold in the summer. And while Emi Martinez left Arsenal and went on to lift the World Cup, few of the others have experienced better times since Arteta’s FA Cup win. Since that deceptively good start, the apprentice has begun to pose more of a threat to the master: in the bigger picture, anyway. Arsenal topped the Premier League for 248 days last season; their return of 50 points at the halfway stage put them on course, albeit briefly, to equal City’s record of 100. There was the danger that Guardiola had taught Arteta just too well. And yet the season ended with Guardiola having done different kinds of hat-tricks. There was the treble of trophies. There were also three wins over Arteta: 1-0 against a weakened Arsenal side in the FA Cup and, more emphatically and more importantly, 3-1 and 4-1 in the Premier League. It extended an increasingly impressive record in their private battles: the older man now has an 88 per cent win rate and eight victories against his old assistant. Among managers Guardiola has faced at least nine times, he only has a better record against Sean Dyche, Eddie Howe and Graham Potter, and the majority of those games came when they coached bottom-half teams, not supposed peers. Beating Guardiola over 38 games can entail beating him in two. Thus far this year, Arteta has another kind of triumph: he beat Guardiola to Declan Rice; Arsenal’s prime target attracted City’s attention and yet preferred the capital. Rewind three decades and the most coveted young midfielder outside the title contenders was courted by the top two, rejected Kenny Dalglish and Blackburn after a volte-face and signed for Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United. Which isn’t to say Rice is necessarily the next Roy Keane. But if Arteta spent last summer signing City’s squad players, in Gabriel Jesus and Oleksandr Zinchenko, pipping them to one of their targets felt they were conducting transfer business at another level. For City, Rice’s decision may have been a sign Arsenal are here to stay, that last season was not a one-off. It shapes the possibility that Arteta against Guardiola is the division’s new defining rivalry. If so, it would be the third to involve the Catalan, though the first, and most hyped, actually proved less compelling and enduring than the second. Guardiola against Jose Mourinho was a battle of ideas that the Catalan won and, even when the Portuguese won twice in charge of Tottenham, had lost some of its lustre. The knockout blow had already been struck as the ball was caressed around Guardiola’s midfields. Mourinho has the second most wins against Guardiola – seven – while coming off second-best in their feud. Guardiola against Jurgen Klopp had epic status for at least four seasons, between 2017-20 and then 2021-22. Twice they were only separated by a solitary point at the top of the table. Once, Liverpool knocked City out of the Champions League. Once, they knocked them off their perch as champions of England. The overall score stands at 8-7 to Klopp in one respect, with more victories in their meetings in this country, and 5-1 to Guardiola in another: they have shared the last six Premier League titles, but not equally. Liverpool’s second underwhelming campaign in three, albeit for different reasons in 2022-23 to 2020-21, prompts the question if, like Ferguson against Arsene Wenger, a previously even contest will become more one-sided and if this is a rivalry whose best days are in the past. Then there is the emerging rival in Arteta, lacking Klopp’s record of defeating Guardiola – something the German still did twice last season, including in the Community Shield – but with the more recent title challengers and the transfer business that has the stamp of ambition. Not every manager who runs Guardiola closest proves capable of overhauling him. Mourinho did in Spain, after finishing runners-up in LaLiga with Real Madrid. When his Manchester United came second, however, he was sacked by the end of the calendar year. The same fate befell Ole Gunnar Solskjaer three years later. If Arteta seems to have more staying power, as Klopp did before him, the next challenge is to overcome Guardiola over both 90 minutes and nine months. Read More Eddie Nketiah ready to step up again after Gabriel Jesus’ injury Arsenal striker Gabriel Jesus to miss start of season after knee surgery Arsenal transfer news: Raya, Balogun, Kudus, Pepe and more On this day in 2020: Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang leads Arsenal to FA Cup glory Statue of former Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger unveiled outside Emirates Stadium Arsenal’s Folarin Balogun set for Serie A move as Italian giants spark bidding war

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says it hopes to weed out false or misleading animal-welfare claims on meat and poultry packaging with new guidance and testing

Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the election he lost to Joe Biden less than three years ago. Mr Trump entered his plea on the second-floor courtroom at the E Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington DC on 3 August, just a short walk from where a mob of his supporters began assaulting police officers at the start of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The twice-impeached, now-thrice-indicted ex-president’s appearance in criminal court – his third since April – comes just two days after a Washington DC grand jury charged him with three criminal conspiracies and obstruction in connection with his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. In a poetic twist of fate, Mr Trump’s latest arraignment brought him to the exact same courthouse where hundreds of people have been tried, convicted and sentenced to terms in prison as long as 18 years for charges in connection with January 6. Mr Trump, the man Liz Cheney once credited with having “assembled” and “summoned” members of the mob, is now the latest defendant among them. Three police officers who defended the Capitol that day – Daniel Hodges, Aquilino Gonnell and Harry Dunn – watched the former president’s arraignment from inside the court. “All I have wanted from day one is accountability,” Mr Dunn said in a statement through his attorney. Mr Trump was accompanied by John Lauro, a veteran Washington-based criminal defence attorney, and Todd Blanche, the New York-based lawyer who is leading his defence in the other criminal cases against him. The former president – wearing his customary red tie, white shirt and dark blue suit – sat impassively between his attorneys, while US Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith was seen glancing at the defendant and counsel as the courtroom waited for the arrival of US Magistrate Judge Moxila A Upadhyaya. The court proceedings began at 4.15 pm, with the courtroom standing for the magistrate judge’s entrance. After attorneys for the government and defence introduced themselves, Mr Trump was asked to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the judge reminded participants and media of court rules against recording. Mr Trump was then asked to state his full name: “Donald J Trump – John – Donald John Trump.” Asked for his age, he at first said “seven seven,” then corrected himself and said “77”. After Judge Upadhyaya read the charges and explained the penalties Mr Trump could face if convicted, she advised the ex-president – who she addressed as “Mr Trump” – of his right to remain silent, and his right to an attorney. After explaining each right, she asked if he understood. Each time, he replied: “Yes” or “yes, I do”. Mr Lauro, the attorney for the ex-president, entered a plea of not guilty on all counts on his behalf. Judge Upadhyaya warned Mr Trump that the “most important” condition of his release is that he not commit any crimes while awaiting trial, and said he could face pretrial detention or harsher sentences if he violates that condition. She also warned him of the consequences of failing to appear for future court dates, and specifically cautioned Mr Trump against intimidating, retaliating, or trying to influence any witness in the case against him. Asked if he would comply, the ex-president appeared to answer in the affirmative, at which point the judge ordered a pretrial services officer to swear him to abide by the conditions, which he then signed in the magistrate judge’s presence. Judge Upadhyaya then offered both sides several potential dates for the next hearing in the case, which she said she had come up with after consulting with Judge Tanya Chutkan, the district judge overseeing the case. While the magistrate judge set the next hearing for 28 August, she said Mr Trump is not required to appear, and ordered the government to file a proposed schedule and state how many days it expects to need for trial within seven days. She also ordered the defence to file a response seven days after that. Mr Lauro said the defence would need “an understanding of the magnitude of discovery,” including possible “exculpatory information” before being able to state when Mr Trump would be ready for trial. “There’s no question in my mind that Mr Trump is entitled to a fair and just trial,” he said, adding that he would like information on the “scope and extent” of evidence within two or three days. Mr Windom said in response that the government would “endeavour” to get the materials to defence “very, very quickly” after an appropriate protective order is entered. He added that the case would benefit from “normal order” and “a speedy trial,” after which Judge Upadhyaya said there would be a fair process for both sides. The magistrate judge added that Judge Chutkan intends to set a trial date at the 28 August hearing. Mr Lauro then rose again to suggest that he and his co-counsel could not say when they’d want a trial until after the discovery is turned over, but Judge Upadhyaya said her order for a response from the defence seven days after the government’s proposal would stand. In response, Mr Lauro then told the magistrate judge that it was “somewhat absurd” for the trial to take place within the time frame laid out under the Speedy Trial Act, and suggested that all he is seeking is “a little time”. Judge Upadhyaya then ordered Mr Lauro to file his request to “toll” the Speedy Trial Act’s requirements in a written motion within five days. A relatively small number of pro- and anti-Trump demonstrators joined the dozens of news outlets and makeshift studios on the courthouse grounds. Law enforcement agencies erected temporary barriers around the building and surrounding streets. Many of the pro-Trump figures who came to Washington appeared to be from the same group of die-hard supporters who flocked to his prior federal arraignment in Miami, including members of the “Blacks for Trump” group often seen behind him at his campaign rallies. Another recognisable personality who came to the courthouse was Randy Credico, a comedian and radio host who gained a measure of prominence when he was a witness at the 2019 trial of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone on charges that the veteran GOP operative lied to Congress and committed witness tampering by threatening to harm Mr Credico’s emotional support dog, a Havanese called Bianca. Mr Stone, who was convicted of those charges, was later pardoned by Mr Trump before he left office. The latest criminal charges against Donald Trump The latest four-count indictment against Mr Trump alleges four crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The indictment also lists six unnamed co-conspirators, including Trump-linked attorneys and Justice Department officials. Prosecutors have outlined a multi-state scheme built on Mr Trump’s legacy of lies and conspiracy theories to undermine the democratic process, culminating with an attack on the US Capitol fuelled by that same baseless narrative. According to prosecutors, then-President Trump and his allies conspired with officials in states that he lost to invalidate ballots and use fraudulent electors to cast their electoral college votes on his behalf, relied on the Justice Department to implement the plan, and pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to certify what was a fraudulent outcome when he presided over a joint session of Congress on 6 January, 2021. After Mr Pence refused, Mr Trump and his alleged co-conspirators “exploited” the chaos from a mob of his supporters to delay the certification and make a last-ditch effort to reverse the results, according to the indictment. “Despite having lost, [Mr Trump] was determined to remain in power,” the indictment states. “These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue – often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts – and he deliberately disregarded the truth.” Mr Trump and his allies and right-wing pundits have accused President Biden and the US Department of Justice of “weaponising” the federal government against the former president, cast as a victim of political persecution against his Democratic rival. They claim that the latest indictment is a threat to his First Amendment rights to refute his election loss. The indictment, crucially, states that Mr Trump has the right – “like every American” – to falsely state whatever he wants about the election, even to claim victory when in fact has not. What he cannot do, prosecutors argue, is weaponize those lies in a conspiracy to overturn the results. “Each of these conspiracies – built on the widespread mistrust [Mr Trump] was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud – targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government,” according to the indictment. More criminal charges and trials ahead The case is far from Mr Trump’s only legal obstacle as he campaigns for the 2024 Republican nomination for president. Mr Trump faces two other criminal cases that are scheduled for trial next year. The first, starting March 2024, will be in his former home state of New York, where a Manhattan prosecutor in April charged him with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments used to silence stories of his alleged affairs in the lead-up to his 2016 election, marking the first-ever criminal indictment of a former president. Two months later, he will appear in a South Florida federal courtroom to be tried on a 40-count federal indictment accusing him of illegally retaining classified documents at the Palm Beach mansion turned social club where he maintains his primary residence, and conspiring to obstruct a federal probe into his alleged unlawful retention of the documents with the aid of two co-conspirators. He has pleaded not guilty in both cases. Mr Trump, his three eldest children and his business empire also face a $250m lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James following a three-year civil investigation into allegations of fraud. That case is expected to head to trial on 2 October. And in Georgia, a grand jury is hearing evidence and witness testimony surrounding a pressure campaign from Mr Trump and his allies to overturn 2020 election results in that state following a two-year investigation from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Ms Willis has indicated that potential charges stemming from that investigation would arrive this month. Read More Trump arraignment live updates: Trump heads to DC court to be arraigned for 2020 election charges Trump, January 6 and a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election: The federal investigation, explained Eight key revelations from Trump’s January 6 indictment Donald Trump’s latest indictment is a test for America Who are Trump’s six alleged co-conspirators in the 2020 election probe case?

MADRID The European Central Bank still needs to raise its interest rates further and then leave them in