Paris 2024 Olympic champion Erislandy Álvarez (65 kg) will headline Cuba’s squad for the Guizhou International Boxing Tournament, to be held in China from November 3 to 12.

RELATED:

U.S. Blockade’s Impact on Cuban Sports Reaches US$36.2 million in 2025

The Cuban delegation will consist of seven men and six women, according to national commissioner Robinson Poll, as reported by the digital publication Jit.

Álvarez returns to competition following his recovery from a surgical procedure that kept him out of the 2026 Central American and Caribbean Games in Santo Domingo and the recent Continental Championship in Puebla. The 2023 Tashkent World Championship silver medalist leads a team aiming to continue Cuba’s strong performance in this international event.

In the men’s division, alongside Álvarez, the roster includes Ángel Sober (50 kg), Deibys Abreu (55 kg), Rolando Martínez (60 kg), Keilor García (80 kg), Fredisney Morales (90 kg), and Joel Duvergel (+90 kg).

The women’s squad features Dayira Mesa (70 kg)—a champion at the 2026 Santo Domingo Games—as well as bronze medalists from that same regional event: Dinaibys de las Nieves (51 kg), Carysney García (54 kg), Magda Massó (57 kg), and Keilor García (80 kg). Rounding out the team are Melani Girado (60 kg) and Naybel Morado (75 kg).

The text reads, “Erislandy Álvarez to reappear at Guizhou tournament
He leads the squad of seven men and six women entered by #Cuba.”

The squad will train under the guidance of coaches Julián González Cedeño, Fermín Espinoza, and Yuri Echevarría. In the previous edition of the tournament, Cuba secured three gold titles—won by Saidel Horta (57 kg), Jorge Cuéllar (71 kg), and Nelson Williams (92 kg)—along with two bronze medals, earned by Arianne Imbert (66 kg) and Yoana Rodríguez (75 kg).

The 2026 Guizhou International Boxing Tournament marks the competitive return of Erislandy Álvarez and offers a new opportunity for Cuban boxing to achieve international success in China.

A little more than a year ago, President Donald Trump publicly demanded that Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, find a crime to pin on former FBI Director James Comey. Trump's underlings have repeatedly tried to do that, first charging Comey with lying to Congress and then accusing him of threatening to assassinate the president. But the first indictment was dismissed because Trump had illegally appointed the prosecutor who obtained it, and the second was doomed right out of the gate because it aimed to punish constitutionally protected political speech.

The Justice Department's latest attempt to follow Trump's marching orders was revealed on Monday, when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden unsealed a "criminal information" that claims Comey illegally shared classified information with The New York Times on October 5, 2016. In an attempt to meet the statutory deadline for that charge, prosecutors filed it exactly 10 years after the alleged disclosure. But Comey's lawyers argue that federal law required the government to obtain a grand jury indictment within 10 years of the alleged offense, which it failed to do.

Whatever you make of that dispute, the president has made it clear that he wants to imprison Comey, a longtime nemesis because of his role in the "Russiagate hoax" during Trump's first term, and does not much care about exactly how that happens. Justice Department officials, meanwhile, are keen to pursue Trump's personal vendetta by using their prosecutorial powers as an instrument of his revenge.

The new case "would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice," Comey said in an online video on Monday. "I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary."

In the New York Times story at the center of the case, Charlie Savage and Nicole Perloth reported that Yahoo had adapted "a system intended to scan emails for child pornography" to comply with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order seeking "messages containing a computer 'signature' tied to the communications of a state-sponsored terrorist organization." Savage and Perloth cited "two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

Dustin Farahnak, a special U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, says that story included "first-time disclosures of classified information not intended for the public domain." According to Farahnak, the government has evidence that Comey "directed staff" to discuss "specific accuracy concerns" about a prior Reuters report on the same subject with Savage. In the process of doing that, Farahnak says, those FBI officials "illegally transferred classified information."

Comey's attempt to set the record straight, according to Trump's henchmen, was a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison under 18 USC 793(d), an Espionage Act provision that applies to an official who "willfully" shares "information relating to the national defense" with an unauthorized recipient when he "has reason to believe" it "could be used to the injury of the United States." Comey also faces a charge of conspiring to violate Section 793, which likewise carries a maximum 10-year sentence.

If Comey's alleged disclosure was such a grave crime, you might wonder, why did it take a decade to charge him? Because two prior investigations of the same incident concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.

Beginning in March 2017, John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, looked into the genesis of the Times article. The investigation found that James Baker, then the FBI's general counsel, was one of the anonymous sources. Baker said he had acted under instructions from FBI Chief of Staff James Rybacki, whom he understood to be conveying Comey's wishes. Durham's investigation included interviews, emails, phone records, and consideration of the relevant statutes. In December 2018, Comey's lawyers note, Durham "wrote a classified memorandum outlining the investigation and recommending 'NO prosecution for Baker or anyone else.'"

The following month, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia "opened an investigation into the same subject matter," Comey's lawyers say. That investigation "was closed without any charges in February 2020" after the office "declined to prosecute."

Given the outcomes of those two investigations, the decision to charge Comey now stinks of desperation to slake Trump's thirst for revenge. According to Comey's lawyers, the tardiness of the charges also fatally undermines the case.

Federal law generally requires that prosecutors file charges within five years of the alleged crime. But the Internal Security Act of 1950 made an exception for Section 793, saying "an indictment for any violation" of that provision "may be found at any time within ten years next after such violation shall have been committed."

The charges against Comey "should be dismissed as time barred," his lawyers argue: "Section 19 of the Internal Security Act gives the government an extended ten-year limitations period in which to charge Section 793 offenses. But as Section 19 unambiguously states, the government may invoke that extended period only by obtaining a grand jury indictment. A criminal information—which the government can issue unilaterally without grand jury involvement—does not suffice. Because the default five-year statute of limitations for federal felonies has long since elapsed on the alleged offenses, and the government's information does not meet the express statutory requirement for an extended ten-year limitations period, the information is untimely and must be dismissed."

Whichever side prevails on that issue, no one should have any illusions that the Justice Department is pursuing the mission suggested by its name. "It remains unclear what [McFadden] will do with the matter and whether DOJ will even be able to secure an indictment—as required by the Constitution," Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox says in an emailed press release. "Should the matter proceed, it is unequivocally clear that this case is a vindictive prosecution—a classic case of lawfare by a weaponized Justice Department."

The post The Justice Department's 3rd Attempt To Imprison James Comey Stinks of Trump's Desperation for Revenge appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Read our breakdown of how to play online slots on sweepstakes casinos and real money casinos

Everything you need to know about the Mega Bonanza Social Casino no deposit bonus

Read our guide to UK slots brands that accept Revolut for deposits and withdrawals

• As a luxury real-estate agent, I tell buyers that a high price tag doesn't mean a sound investment.
• A beautiful renovation with signs of low-quality workmanship is an immediate red flag for me.
• I also pay close attention to a home's location and how long it's been on the market.

As a real-estate agent who works with buyers looking for luxury homes, I know how easy it is to get swept up in a beautiful property.

But after nearly three years in the industry, I like to remind my clients that a higher price tag doesn't automatically make a house a better investment — or mean there aren't problems hiding beneath the surface.

Some of the biggest concerns I notice aren't necessarily the things that stand out during a first showing. They're often in the details — like the quality behind the renovation, the home's location, and its history on the market.

These are the five red flags I always recommend my clients watch for before making an offer.

A pretty renovation doesn't mean it's a quality renovation.

A home may look spectacular online, but sometimes, once you walk through the door and look under the hood, it isn't what it appeared to be in the listing photos. I jokingly call it "lipstick on a pig."

Before making an offer, buyers should understand what they're actually getting, beyond gorgeous photos and expensive-looking finishes.

I like to look more closely at things like the cabinetry and hardware, flooring, countertops, stonework, fixtures, and overall quality of workmanship.

One of the easiest places to spot a lower-quality renovation is the cabinetry — specifically, whether the joints are properly fitted, the drawers glide smoothly, and the cabinet doors align. I also look out for things like uneven tilework, inconsistent grout lines, poorly installed flooring, and gaps around the cabinets or trim.

To me, the biggest concern is whether the renovation will hold up over time. If the materials and workmanship aren't up to par, buyers could end up repairing or replacing finishes far sooner than expected.

When you're paying for a luxury home, you want to know you're investing in quality that will last, not just an aesthetic that looks good in listing photos.

Regardless of how beautiful the home is, location is crucial.

Everyone has heard the term "location, location, location," and there's a reason for that. Almost anything about a home can be renovated or changed — its location can't.

I always tell buyers not to overlook things like road noise, backing to a busy street, an undesirable lot position, or other location factors simply because they love the house.

Those things may not bother you personally, but they could narrow your buyer pool significantly when it comes time to sell.

It's concerning when a house has been on the market for many days.

Seeing a high days-on-market number — the amount of time the property has been actively listed — isn't inherently detrimental, but it's important to understand why a house hasn't been able to sell.

A question I often get from clients is, "How many days on market is considered too many?" The reality is that there isn't a single magic number, as it depends on the area, the specific neighborhood, and the price point.

Just because a home has been on the market for an extended period doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong with the property. It could be road noise, a less desirable location, or simply a matter of pricing. However, I've seen instances where issues were uncovered during inspections, causing buyers to walk away.

Regardless of the reason, I always look at the listing history, previous price reductions, and comparable sales in the area to get a better picture of what's going on.

I'm also not afraid to ask the seller's agent point-blank what the issue has been. All of that information helps me decide how my clients and I should approach and structure an offer.

A luxury price tag doesn't mean a home is problem-free.

Even a picture-perfect home listed for millions of dollars can have an aging HVAC system, roof issues, water damage, plumbing concerns, or other costly problems that aren't obvious during a showing.

That's why inspections are so important. If an inspection reveals that an HVAC system needs to be replaced, that's a significant expense the buyer may not have anticipated when making their original offer.

I always remind my clients that the inspection period is still very much a negotiation period. The key is knowing which issues are worth negotiating, and being strategic about what you ask for.

What a seller spent isn't necessarily what an improvement is worth.

If a listing agent tells me their seller put $300,000 into a home's renovation, that doesn't automatically mean it's worth $300,000 more.

A seller may have spent a significant amount on finishes or design choices they personally loved, but that doesn't necessarily mean the next buyer will place the same value on them.

I think it's important for buyers to separate what someone spent on a home from what the market supports.

High-quality improvements absolutely matter, but ultimately, I don't think a buyer should pay a premium simply because a seller spent a lot of money.

Russian authorities committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine said in a report to the UN General Assembly on 26 October.

International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants for former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, issued in June 2024, already covered alleged crimes linked to Russia’s 2022–2023 strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The UN commission’s new report reaches into last winter, 2025–2026, and the cumulative toll since 2022, documenting what the attacks did to civilians living through outages in freezing temperatures.

“As the cold season approaches, the attacks have intensified once again, raising serious concerns about the threats to civilians’ lives and health,” commission chair Erik Møse said.

Russian commanders knew heating facilities were vital

The commission said Russian commanders knew that heating facilities in large cities were indispensable to civilians, particularly during winter. Russian authorities also made official declarations about further attacks and referred to a plan to carry them out, it said. It found that Russian authorities intentionally directed attacks against civilian objects, constituting war crimes.

The commission also concluded that the attacks were carried out under a state policy aimed at depriving civilians of electricity and other essential energy-dependent services and causing suffering. It classified these acts as crimes against humanity in the form of “other inhumane acts.”

Minus 21°C, weeks without heat, and shelters out of reach for older people

Last winter, temperatures fell to minus 21°C as millions of Ukrainians endured prolonged disruptions to heating, electricity, water, and gas, the commission said.

The commission relied on the accounts of 255 people from Dnipropetrovsk, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Zaporizhzhia, and Zhytomyr Oblasts, alongside officials, doctors, and nongovernmental organizations.

Older people and those with limited mobility were particularly affected. Fear of becoming trapped in elevators during blackouts prevented some residents from reaching shelters during air raid alerts. They remained in unheated homes, sometimes without access to life-support equipment.

A 53-year-old Kyiv resident told investigators he tried to stay awake at night because he feared he might not wake up if he fell asleep in the cold.

Meanwhile, school closures disrupted children’s education, and children fell ill in unheated homes, the report said.

Russia rejects the findings

Russia’s UN mission said Moscow did not recognize the commission’s mandate and dismissed its findings as “falsified data,” the Associated Press reported.

The commission also examined Ukrainian attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia and Russian-occupied Ukraine. It said it could not investigate their impact fully because Russia denied access and did not respond to its requests.

Foreign recruits trafficked to the front

The same report found “compelling evidence” that Russian authorities trafficked men from 29 countries into the Russian armed forces through deception and coercion.

Recruitment agents arranged visas and travel, presenting themselves as legitimate businesses. After arriving in Russia, the men were forced to sign military contracts in Russian and were sent to the front, where many were killed or went missing, the commission said.

A extensão do Doclisboa 2025 regressa a Macau entre 05 e 19 de novembro com a apresentação de dez documentários, incluindo obras dos vencedores do festival de curtas local, anunciou hoje o Instituto Português do Oriente (IPOR).

“Ao integrar na programação os filmes apresentados nas competições de 2025 do DocLisboa e do Festival Internacional de Curtas de Macau, o IPOR enriquece a oferta cultural da cidade, cruzando obras marcantes do documentário contemporâneo do Ocidente e do Oriente e reafirmando a identidade cultural de Macau”, lê-se numa mensagem da diretora do IPOR, Patrícia Quaresma, no programa hoje divulgado.

A abertura do festival, em 05 de novembro, vai ser dedicada a três obras distinguidas no Festival Internacional de Curtas de Macau.

“Voo Nupcial”, de Chan Chon Sin, acompanha um “homem de movimentos graciosos” que começou certo dia “a ver as suas órbitas oculares a encherem-se de sombras irregulares que não desapareciam”, lê-se no programa.

Já “O Desenvolvimento de Macau”, de Zhang Linliang, centra-se na experiência pessoal e criação do fotógrafo Chen Xianyao, radicado em Macau. Já em “Na Órbita Sem Ti”, Leong Hou Wang traz ao grande ecrã a vida da “Tia da Banca”, proprietária de uma loja local.

Neste primeiro dia ainda é possível assistir ao documentário “Maneiras”, de António Sanmarful, sobre “a notável história inerente a três edifícios emblemáticos desenhados” em Macau pelo arquiteto José Maneiras (1935-2025).

A programação inclui ainda “Explode São Paulo, Gil”, da realizadora brasileira Maria Clara Escobar, que vai estar em Macau para o festival. Esta produção luso-brasileira conta o percurso de Gil, que sonha ser cantora e se muda para São Paulo, onde trabalha como doméstica.

“Maria Clara propõe fazer um filme sobre ela. Gil torna-se famosa e elas explodem duas cidades e refletem sobre sonhos, trabalho e esquecimento”, refere-se no programa.

“As Estações”, da luso-francesa Maureen Fazendeiro, combina depoimentos de trabalhadores rurais e notas de campo de um casal de arqueólogos, imagens de arquivo amador e desenhos científicos, lendas e poemas e canções para dar forma a “uma viagem pela história real e inventada” do Alentejo “e dos povos que aí viveram”.

“As brigadas revolucionárias na luta contra a ditadura”, de Luiz Gobern Lopes, “O Riso e a Faca”, de Pedro Pinho, e “Bulanka”, de Leonor Noivo são as outras obras de cineastas portugueses que constam da programação desta edição da extensão a Macau do Doclisboa 2025.

“Bulanka” acompanha mulheres filipinas que “hoje, enfrentam uma nova forma de colonização, a migração forçada pelo trabalho”, refere-se ainda na apresentação, onde se descreve que milhares de filipinas trabalham como empregadas domésticas e cuidadoras em países estrangeiros, “sustentando economias alheias enquanto deixam as próprias famílias para tras”.

O filme chega agora a Macau, onde vive uma numerosa comunidade migrante originária deste país do Sudeste Asiático.

Ainda parte do festival, está a obra do franco-americano Eugène Green “A Árvore do Conhecimento”, uma fábula sobre Gaspar, um adolescente dos subúrbios de Lisboa que cai nas mãos do Ogre, um homem que fez um pacto com o diabo e usa o rapaz para atrair turistas, transformando-os em animais para depois os abater, numa “crítica nem sempre velada ao modo como a cidade se rendeu ao turismo”, lê-se na apresentação desta obra no portal do Doclisboa.