One of the most common refrains every election season is people swearing they'll move to Canada, a land where healthcare is free, people are friendly, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explains quantum computing just for laughs.

But to actually become a Canadian citizen, you'll first need to go through several steps, like living in the country for at least six years, staying on your best behavior, and knowing a thing or two about the country you'll soon call home.

For those who actually want to head up north, here's how you move to Canada.

SEE ALSO: How to move to New Zealand and become a naturalized Kiwi

Preface: Make sure you're not already a Canadian citizen.

Before you go through the hassle of applying for citizenship, take a short quiz to see if you may already be Canadian.

The government outlines several caveats for being a citizen even if you weren't born there, many of which depend on your parents' citizenship. Maybe you secretly inherited their status at some point along the way.

Be at least 18 years old.

If you're not a legal adult, you've got an uphill climb ahead of you.

Minors need their parent or legal guardian to fill out the application for them; they need to be permanent residents in Canada (more on that later); and the parent must either be a citizen or applying to become one at the same time.

Or enter the pool for skilled immigrants.

Canada has a fast-track system for immigration called Express Entry. It's how skilled workers transition into a role in the country.

All applicants into Express Entry are given specific scores based on their specific talents and job prospects and then ranked with other applicants. Those at the top of the rankings are invited to become permanent residents.

• President Donald Trump's advisers are growing increasingly impatient with the "frustratingly slow" progress with North Korea regarding denuclearization.
• Trump's advisers reportedly don't feel North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is serious about denuclearizing. 
• Recent intelligence suggests the rogue state has privately continued its nuclear activities, despite the president's assurances of progress. 

President Donald Trump's advisers are growing increasingly impatient with the "frustratingly slow" progress with North Korea regarding denuclearization, according to The New Yorker, which spoke with half a dozen former US government officials and allied diplomats who've been briefed by Trump officials on the subject. 

Trump administration officials are particularly concerned, according to the report, with Trump's "very public embrace" of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, widely considered to be among the most repressive rulers in the world.

The president, for example, recently tweeted that "Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims 'unwavering faith in President Trump.' Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!"

Trump and Kim met in Singapore in June, where North Korea ultimately pledged to work toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But recent intelligence suggests the rogue state has privately continued its nuclear activities, despite Trump's assurances of progress. 

The president's top advisers are reportedly perturbed by his views on the matter. One former official told The New Yorker that "none of them is where the president is." 

"Their view is that North Korea is not serious about denuclearizing. The president, however, thinks history began when he became president," the official added. 

Jung Pak, the former top analyst on Kim at the CIA who left the agency last summer, told The New Yorker the North Korean leader is actively trying to divide Trump from his team. Recent statements from the North Korean government, for example, have alleged the president's advisers are trying to "thwart" his wishes when it comes to North Korea. 

"Kim watches us as much as we watch him and, unfortunately for us, this presidency is wide open," Pak said. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I woke up at 4:30 a.m. for a week like a Navy SEAL

• Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is an ancient history buff.
• He recently discussed his fascination with the Roman emperor Augustus in a New Yorker profile.
• Zuckerberg's interest in the ancient historical figure shouldn't come as a surprise — the two share some interesting traits.
• The Facebook CEO's professed interest raises a few questions about how he feels about trade-offs. 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a history buff at heart.

In a recent New Yorker profile, the tech mogul revealed that his fascination with the ancient Roman emperor Augustus even figured into his 2012 honeymoon in Rome.

"My wife was making fun of me, saying she thought there were three people on the honeymoon: me, her, and Augustus," Zuckerberg told the New Yorker. "All the photos were different sculptures of Augustus."

Zuckerberg's enthusiasm for classical history reportedly dates back to his time at Phillips Exeter Academy, where he studied Latin and immersed himself in learning about the civilization's "good and bad and complex figures."

On his fascination with Augustus, Zuckerberg said, "Basically, through a really harsh approach, he established two hundred years of world peace. What are the trade-offs in that? On the one hand, world peace is a long-term goal that people talk about today. Two hundred years feels unattainable."

Zuckerberg's deep interest in another young upstart who disrupted — and connected — the world like never before doesn't come as a surprise. But it might raise some questions about how far the CEO is willing to go in order to achieve Facebook's mission to "bring the world closer together."

Because, as Facebook's controversial role in the 2016 US election demonstrated, whether you're uniting the world through conquest or clicks, everything comes at a price.

Augustus' triumph came at the cost of the Roman Republic

Before Augustus was declared the first citizen of Rome or the son of the divine or a god among men, he was just a teenager named Octavian.

Granted, he was the adopted son of the powerful dictator Julius Caesar. But he wasn't the only power player on the block in the bloody political circus that followed his adopted dad's assassination.

The young man fared well, however. He accrued power and successfully waged war against the assassins, and, eventually, his early allies, like Mark Anthony.

Octavian's victory in the 31 BCE Battle of Actium sank the hopes of Mark Anthony, Cleopatra, and their supporters — the power couple committed suicide shortly after the loss. And so the path was cleared for Octavian — who eventually took on the honorific "Augustus" — to become the sole ruler of Rome.

Let's be clear — Augustus didn't single-handedly murder the Roman Republic. Nor was the Republic some sort of perfect, equitable utopia. The entire system was falling apart long before Augustus came onto the scene. And the republican facade endured during his reign.

But his rule marked the death knell of the Republic and the dawn of the Roman Empire.

The Pax Romana wasn't entirely peaceful, either

Augustus gets a ton of credit for the Pax Romana — or "Roman peace."

And, sure, his reign did kick off a period of relative calm that stretched from the beginning of his rule in 27 BCE all the way into the reign of his five successors, the Five Good Emperors.

Before his time, the Roman Republic had been roiled by a number of civil wars: Rome faced down its various Italian allies during the Social War; generals Marius and Sulla wrestled for control; Julius Caesar squared off against his rival Pompey. And, of course, Augustus himself seized power through violence, and snuffed out his rivals along the way.

But it's inaccurate to think of the Roman Empire during the subsequent Pax Romana as as war-free zone.

In "Rome's Fall and After," historian Walter Goffart writes, "The volume of the Cambridge Ancient History for the years A.D. 70–192 is called 'The Imperial Peace,' but peace is not what one finds in its pages."

There were revolts in Judea, Mauretania, and Illyricum during Augustus' reign, alone. He also annexed Egypt and northern Spain during his stint as emperor.

Reflecting on the darker side of Augustus' rise to power

Comparatively, it's fair to say the Pax Romana did represent a time of peace for Rome. But, as historian Arnaldo Momigliano wrote in the Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, "Pax Romana is a simple formula for propaganda, but a difficult subject for research."

What's more, there was a dark side to the Roman Empire's very definition of peace. Ancient Romans didn't think of peace as some sort of tranquil kumbaya-fest between nations. According to Momigliano, they conceived of peace more as a state in which all of Rome's rivals had been vanquished.

In the New Yorker interview, Zuckerberg rightfully concluded that the Pax Romana "didn't come for free" and vaguely acknowledged that Augustus "had to do certain things" in order to secure the peace.

Today, people around the world are beginning to question the impact that tech giants like Facebook are having on democratic societies. That's not to say that Zuckerberg is a calculating ancient despot like Augustus. But social media platforms are having a real impact on the political realm.

Heck, the title of the New Yorker profile in which he's quoted is "Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy?"

SEE ALSO: I read the 87-year-old book recommended by Elon Musk, and my favorite chapter reveals the dark side of innovation and adventure

DON'T MISS: A day in the life of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who works up to 60 hours a week and has a squad of 12 employees to help him with social media

SEE ALSO: 8 'famous last words' that were probably made up

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ancient Romans made stronger concrete than we do today — here's how

• AMC's "The Terror" is an amazing limited series starring some familiar faces from "Game of Thrones" and "Mad Men." 
• It premiered to high critical acclaim in March, but earned zero Emmy nominations.
• Its lack of nominations is a disgrace, and the biggest snub of the year. 
• The historical-fiction series is a sci-fi horror twist on the stories of real people who went on an expedition to the Arctic and never returned.

AMC's historical-fiction series "The Terror" is the best new TV show of the year so far, and critics loved it when it premiered in March. But in an upsetting twist, "The Terror," which should have dominated all of the limited series categories at the 2018 Emmys, isn't even nominated for one. 

Set in the Canadian Arctic, "The Terror" follows a British expedition stuck in ice, haunted by a horrifying creature. The show is terrifying and impeccably made — from the sets to the costumes to the performances. It is truly unlike anything else on television no, or ever before. 

The first season of "The Terror" stars some of your favorite British actors, including a few from "Game of Thrones" like Ciaran Hinds (Mance Rayder), Tobias Menzies (Edmure Tully), and Clive Russell (The Blackfish). Jared Harris, who played Lane Pryce on AMC's "Mad Men," is the star, and deserved a nomination for best actor in a limited series. 

The series, which premiered on March 26, is based on the 2007 Dan Simmons novel of the same name; both are fictionalized accounts of Sir John Franklin's lost expedition. In May, when the finale aired, Business Insider spoke with David Kajganich, the creator of the series, who said that the show had been in the works for a decade.

The story, however, dates back to the late 1800s.

In 1845, Franklin (Hinds on the show) led the HMS Terror and the HMS Erebus on an Arctic expedition to explore the Northwest Passage. After a few men died, both ships got stuck in ice, and not one person out of 129 ever returned. The remains of the ships were found recently: the Terror in 2016 and the Erebus in 2014. There has always been a lot of speculation about what happened to the lost explorers, and "The Terror" imagines they were hunted by a supernatural being.

"The Terror," which manages to look horrifying and gorgeous at the same time, was (amazingly) not shot outside, though most of the series is set in the open Arctic. What you mostly see are stunning visual effects. 

The AMC anthology series was so successful that the network picked it up for another season in June, with new writers and a new cast. Season two will be a completely new story that's set at a Japanese internment camp during World War II. Similarly to season one, it will depict a dark and disturbing real-life event with an out-of-reality horror elements. 

Here are some of the best things critics said about "The Terror" that will hopefully get you to stop everything you are doing and watch it — and then complain about how it didn't get nominated for any Emmys. 

SEE ALSO: Our Emmys 2018 predictions: who should win, who will win, and who got snubbed

"A lavish event series that could be called 'Master and Commander' Meets 'The Thing.' It's not quite as exciting as that pitch makes it sound, but it is a show that builds up steam around the fourth episode."

— Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com

"As the title suggests, 'The Terror' is interested in fear itself, how it transforms us, how it turns us cruel and savage ... It conjures a piercing dread, both familiar and inconceivable; a portrait of man and nature at their cruelest and coldest."

— Haleigh Foutch, Collider

"'The Terror' can be scary, but it's real achievement is climatological. The freeze is tangible. When you watch it, wear a sweater."

— Darren Franich, Entertainment Weekly

• Paul Manafort wanted to turn "Obama jews" against former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko as part of his lobbying work on behalf of a Ukrainian political party, according to federal prosecutors. 
• Manafort and his firm sought to discredit Tymoshenko in the United States, who garnered international support after being imprisoned by Manafort's client, former President Viktor Yanukovych. 
• Manafort reached a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to two charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice in exchange for his cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. 

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort sought to turn what he termed "Obama jews" against former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko as part of his lobbying work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, according to a Friday indictment prosecutors filed in federal court.

Manafort struck a cooperation deal with federal prosecutors on special counsel Robert Mueller's team on Friday. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of obstruction of justice, two weeks before he was set to be tried on those and other charges in the District of Columbia.

The superseding criminal information document filed in court details Manafort's lobbying activities on behalf of Yanukovych and the Party of Regions, which he pleaded guilty to conducting without registering himself as a foreign agent with the US State Department.

The Yanukovych administration prosecuted and imprisoned Tymoshenko in 2011 for an energy pipeline contract she signed with Russia, but several Western nations, including the United States, argued that the trial was politically motivated and spoke out in support of Tymoshenko. 

Part of Manafort's efforts included proliferating the claim that Tymoshenko was part of an anti-Semitic political party. His aim was to galvanize "Obama jews," apparently referring to former President Barack Obama's Jewish supporters, to "put pressure" on senior Obama administration officials who had expressed support for Tymoshenko to disavow her, thereby benefiting his client Yanukovych. 

Prosecutors say he collaborated with an Israeli official to spread the story that Tymoshenko was allied with anti-Semitic causes to make the administration believe "the Jewish community will take this out on Obama on election
day if he does nothing.”

"I have someone pushing it on the NY Post. Bada bing bada boom," Manafort wrote in an email to one his employees in his consulting firm, identified as Person D1 in the court documents. 

In addition to accusing Tymoshenko of anti-Semitism, Manafort also spread stories that Tymoshenko ordered the killing of a Ukrainian official, telling his deputies on his lobbying firm to promote it "with no fingerprints," the documents said.

"It is very important we have no connection," he wrote, according to the court filing. "My goal is to plant some stink on Tymo." 

Manafort is now the fourth former Trump campaign official to reach a plea deal to cooperate in the special counsel's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In August, a jury in Virginia convicted Manafort on eight federal counts of tax and bank fraud as part of a separate trial also prosecuted by the special counsel. 

SEE ALSO: Paul Manafort pleads guilty to conspiracy and obstruction and will cooperate in the Mueller investigation

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Medical breakthroughs we will see in the next 50 years

• Cannes hosts the Cannes Yachting Festival every September.
• The rich come from around the world to shop some of the sleekest yachts.
• But there's more to the Cannes Yachting Festival than the boats — it's full of Champagne, luxury cars, designer wear, and more.

Luxury. Glamour. Prestige. Such is Cannes, seducer of the rich and famous.

Every September, the French Riviera city plays host to the Cannes Yachting Festival, where wealth and yachts collide for five days to kick off European boat show season. Cannes is always a great place for some superyacht spotting, but at the Cannes Yachting Festival, some of the world's sleekest yachts make their debut as buyers from around the world walk the docks to shop for them.

From the seven- to eight-figure superyachts and the luxury cars that circle the ports to champagne toasts and dapper duds, the Cannes Yachting Festival is an indulgence at best.

But what else would you expect with such a high-net worth clientele? After all, yachts over 100 feet cost $1 million per 3.3 feet, and owners can expect to spend about 10% of the purchase price annually on operating and maintaining a yacht.

But the extravagance doesn't stop at the docks — visitors keep it going throughout Cannes itself.

Here's how the wealthy enjoy the Cannes Yachting Festival.

SEE ALSO: I spent 3 years writing about yachts, and owning one takes way more money than you think

DON'T MISS: What a $1 million vacation looks like in Mykonos, Greece, where you'll fly in on a private jet, sleep in an ocean-view villa, and cruise the seas in a yacht

Located on the French Riviera, Cannes is a hot spot for the glitterati.

Instagram Embed:
//instagram.com/p/BnrQBgwHwQE/embed
Width: 540px

It's best known for the Cannes Film Festival every May.

Instagram Embed:
//instagram.com/p/Bi06CABHBos/embed
Width: 540px

But it's also home to the Cannes Yachting Festival, held from September 11 to September 16.

Instagram Embed:
//instagram.com/p/BnVrA_XhArh/embed
Width: 540px

• Becoming a citizen in some countries is as easy as living there for a few years, but in others, it's nearly impossible.
• In Qatar, you would have to be a legal resident for 25 years to be able to apply for citizenship, and if you're not a Muslim, you shouldn't even bother.
• Here are eight of the countries where it's most difficult to become a citizen.

It seems like US citizenship and immigration restrictions have dominated the news since the 2016 presidential election. It turns out that there are a number of other countries where becoming a citizen is quite difficult.

Aside from ancestry and extended residency, one shortcut to foreign citizenship is being a top-level athlete. Some countries will give citizenship to athletes who will improve their chances of Olympic victory.

If you aren't a world-class pole vaulter, then you may face a long and, in some cases, nearly impossible road to gaining citizenship in countries like Switzerland, China, and Qatar.

Here are eight of the countries where it's most difficult to become a citizen.

SEE ALSO: How paid vacation time is different around the world

1. Vatican City

With about 800 residents and 450 citizens, Vatican City is the smallest country on Earth, perhaps partially because it has one of the toughest immigration policies on the planet.

According to the Library of Congress, you can become a citizen if you are a cardinal living in Vatican City or Rome, if you are a diplomat representing the Holy See, or if you live in Vatican City because you are an official of or worker for the Catholic Church

2. Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein, a tiny, mountainous country between Austria and Switzerland, has a population of just under 40,000 — and the country's immigration policy appears to aim to keep it small.

If you want to become a citizen, you need to live in Liechtenstein for at least 30 years, with each year before you turn 20 counting as two years. If you're married to a Liechtenstein citizen and already live in the country, that time period is shortened to five years of marriage.

If you want a shortcut from the 30-year residency requirement, you can ask your community to vote you in after 10 years. 

Regardless of method, you'll have to give up your current citizenship.

3. Bhutan

The Himalayan nation of Bhutan is known for measuring its success by its National Happiness Index rather than GDP. It is one of the most isolated countries in the world.

The country didn't open to tourism until 1974 and continues to regulate and monitor travel to the country closely, so you can imagine that the immigration process is not easy.

It takes two Bhutanese parents to be born a citizen, and if you only have one, you have to apply for naturalized citizenship after you have lived in Bhutan for 15 years. The 15-year requirement also applies to government employees.

Those with non-Bhutanese parents who don't work for the government may apply after living in the country for 20 years, as long as you meet a list of requirements, including no record of speaking or acting against the king or country. If you do that in the future, your citizenship can be rescinded.

Even if you meet the requirements, Bhutan reserves the right to reject you for any or no reason.

• Terry Crews on Friday shared an apology letter from Adam Venit, the former Hollywood agent Crews accused of sexual misconduct last year.
• Crews said on Twitter that he received the letter from Venit in March, but waited to publicly accept Venit's apology until he resigned from WME. 
• Venit announced earlier this month that he would resign from the agency. 

Terry Crews on Friday shared an apology letter from Adam Venit, the former WME agent who Crews accused last year of groping him at a party in 2016. 

Crews said on Twitter that he received the letter from Venit in March, but waited to publicly accept Venit's apology until he resigned from WME. Venit announced earlier this month that he would resign from the agency. 

Venit did not admit to Crews' allegation of groping in the letter, but he did accept some "responsibility."

Venit wrote: "I know that you didn’t ask for any of this. Again, I take responsibility for us being here now, together in this situation. I am sorry for all of it."

"I want to use this moment to be a positive influence with you and not just another Hollywood story that becomes the narrative of who we both are. We both are so much more and have so much more to offer," Venit wrote. "I even hope that someday we can come together and go forward with compassion and understanding and be an amazing force for positivity and change in our culture."

Crews filed a lawsuit against Venit last year after accusing him of sexual misconduct in November. The suit was settled earlier this month, which coincided with Venit announcing that he would resign from WME. 

Read Venit's letter below:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A top movie actor reveals how he learns different accents

• Veteran reporter Bob Woodward on Friday told radio host Hugh Hewitt he looked "hard" for evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia but didn't find anything.
• But he still thinks the special counsel Robert Mueller has "something" on the president. 
• Woodward suggested Mueller possibly has "a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony." 
• Trump has firmly rejected allegations of collusion between his campaign and Russia in the 2016 US presidential election and often refers to the Mueller probe as a "witch hunt."

Veteran reporter Bob Woodward on Friday told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt he looked "hard" for evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia but didn't find anything.

But he still thinks the special counsel Robert Mueller has "something" on the president. 

Hewitt had Woodward on his show to discuss the reporter's new book, "Fear," which portrays the Trump administration as mired in consistent turmoil. The book paints a picture that suggests Trump's advisers don't respect him and often work against his impulsive nature.

At one point during the show, Hewitt began discussing Trump's former lawyer, John Dowd, who has strongly urged Trump not to sit down for an interview with the special counsel. This discussion led to the subject of collusion.

"Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?" Hewitt asked Woodward. 

"I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are," Woodward said.

The reporter then added that he believes Mueller likely has "something" on Trump. 

"We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right," Woodward said. "He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case."

Trump has firmly rejected allegations of collusion between his campaign and Russia in the 2016 US presidential election and often refers to the Mueller probe as a "witch hunt."

SEE ALSO: All the revelations that have come out so far from Bob Woodward's explosive book on Trump

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One bite from this tick could ruin red meat for the rest of your life

• President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been a key figure in the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling and possible Trump campaign collusion.
• On September 14, Manafort pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of justice in exchange for cooperating with the Mueller probe, becoming the 4th former Trump campaign official to do so.
• Here's what you need to know about his life.

Paul Manafort was born in 1949 and raised in New Britain, Connecticut, a largely liberal town where his father served three terms as a popular Republican mayor.

Like President Donald Trump, Manafort comes from a real-estate family. Alongside his political work, his father also ran the family construction company, Manafort Brothers Inc., founded by his Italian immigrant father.

Instead of taking over the family business, Manafort decided to pursue his interest in politics and moved to Washington, DC, where he earned both an undergraduate business degree and a law degree at Georgetown University.

A Republican operative and international 'gun for hire'

While working at a private law firm two years after graduating from law school, Manafort began advising Republican president Gerald Ford's 1976 campaign.

Since the 1970s, he has established deep and sometimes murky connections in Washington and around the globe, serving as political lobbyist, adviser, and an international political consultant for leaders across the world, including dictators Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.

Manafort's international work has long raised eyebrows among Democrats in Washington.

In 2004, he became a top adviser to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian strongman whom Manafort is widely credited with helping win the presidency in 2010.

Yanukovych was ousted in 2014 after widespread demonstrations again this decision to back out of a deal with the EU that would have distanced Ukraine from Russia and fostered closer ties with the West.

On February 20, 2014, Ukrainian riot police opened fire on thousands of demonstrators who had gathered in central Kiev. Fifty-three protesters were killed that day, and dozens more over the next few days.

Ukrainian prosecutors have said Yanukovych ordered the security forces' attack on protesters, and at least one human-rights lawyer representing the victims is investigating what role, if any, Manafort played in encouraging Yanukovych's crackdown.

Yanukovych fled to Russia amid the protests and is now living under the protection of the Kremlin.

'A sick f---ing tyrant'

The New York Times reported last year that Manafort was in debt to pro-Russian interests by as much as $17 million by the time he joined the Trump campaign.

Legal complaints filed by representatives of Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire allied with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in the Cayman Islands in 2014 claimed Deripaska gave Manafort $19 million that year to invest in a Ukrainian TV company.

The project fell through, and Manafort all but disappeared without paying Deripaska back, the filings claimed. A subsequent court filing from the special counsel Robert Mueller's office in June 2018 revealed Manafort owed Deripaska an additional $10 million for an unpaid loan.

Deripaska and Manafort had worked together before. Deripaska signed a $10 million annual contract with Manafort in 2006, according to the AP, for a lobbying project in the US that Manafort said would "greatly benefit the Putin Government."

In another bizarre twist, hackers broke into Manafort's daughter's iPhone and published four years' worth of purported text messages — roughly 300,000 messages — on the dark web.

In a series of texts reviewed by Business Insider that appear to have been sent by Andrea to her sister, Jessica, in March 2015, Andrea said their father had "no moral or legal compass."

"Don't fool yourself," Andrea wrote to her sister, according to the texts. "That money we have is blood money."

"You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly," she continued, according to the reviewed texts. "As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine. Remember when there were all those deaths taking place. A while back. About a year ago. Revolts and what not. Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that, to send those people out and get them slaughtered."

In another text to her cousin, who was also her father's business partner, Andrea called Manafort "a sick f---ing tyrant."

A Ukrainian member of parliament accused Manafort of accepting nearly $1 million from the country's pro-Russia Party of Regions, and then laundering it through a company that claims to sell computers. Ukrainian lawyers also want to question Manafort about what role he played, if any, in the 2014 police killings of protesters in Kiev.

Manafort has denied all the allegations against him. He has previously said he has "never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration."

Manafort's ties to Trump

Manafort and Trump have been connected since the 1980s when Trump hired Manafort's lobbying firm to help the Trump Organization.

Trump became close with Manafort's business partner at the time, Roger Stone, a self-proclaimed "dirty trickster" who served as an early adviser to Trump's presidential campaign.

In 2006, Manafort and his wife bought a Trump Tower apartment, which Manafort still owns and would resides in when he was in Manhattan.

In March 2016, Trump hired Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention and wrangle delegates into supporting Trump. Manafort had experience convincing delegates to support Gerald Ford in 1976 — the last time the Republican Party began a convention without having selected its presidential nominee.

In May 2016, Manafort was promoted to the position of campaign chairman and chief strategist. He became the campaign's de-facto manager after Trump fired Corey Lewandowski in late June.

The New York Times, citing ledgers uncovered by an anticorruption center in Kiev, reported on August 16, 2016 that $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych's pro-Russia Party of Regions had been earmarked for Manafort for his work with the party from 2007 to 2012.

Three days later, Manafort resigned from the campaign.

The White House has attempted to distance itself from Manafort. Last year, former White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that Manafort "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time" in the campaign, despite having spent five months on the campaign and nearly three of those months as the chairman.

Trump also attempted to minimize Manafort's contributions to the campaign last year.

"I know Mr. Manafort — I haven't spoken to him in a long time, but I know him — he was with the campaign, as you know, for a very short period of time — for a relatively short period of time," Trump said.

But in 2016, those close to Trump were quick to attribute the campaign's success to its former chairman.

"We couldn't be more happy with the work that he's doing, the way he's tackling these things, the way he's handling the organization of everything going forward," the president's eldest son Donald Trump Jr. told the AP in July 2016.

In August 2016, former House Speaker and Trump loyalist Newt Gingrich told Fox News host Sean Hannity that "nobody should underestimate how much Paul Manafort did to get this campaign to where it is right now."

Some legal experts think that Mueller's intense focus on Manafort is an effort to pressure the former campaign chairman into providing damaging information about those close to Trump, and maybe Trump himself.

The FBI investigation heats up

The Justice Department began looking into Manafort's dealings in Ukraine in 2014. He became the subject of a FISA warrant, which allowed the federal government to surveil him.

But since Mueller was appointed as special counsel to lead the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Manafort has come under intensifying scrutiny.

In early August 2017, the Washington Post reported that the FBI conducted a predawn raid of Manafort's home, seizing tax documents, foreign banking records, and other materials relevant to the special counsel investigation.

The Post reported last year that Manafort offered to provide "private briefings" about the Trump campaign to Deripaska.

"If he needs private briefings we can accommodate," Manafort wrote to his longtime employee Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian operative with suspected ties to Russian intelligence.

This email came roughly 10 days before Trump campaign representatives lobbied to alter the language of an amendment to the GOP's draft party policy on Ukraine that denounced Russia's "ongoing military aggression" in Ukraine. Many saw the changes as pro-Russian and some believed Manafort played a role in the policy shift.

The cooperation deal

Manafort was first indicted in the District of Columbia in October 2017 on 12 federal charges, including money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent. He was indicted a second time in February on an additional 18 counts of tax evasion and bank fraud in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Manafort's highly contentious first trial in Virginia on the tax and bank fraud charges concluded with the jury convicting Manafort on eight counts total: five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of hiding foreign bank accounts.

The judge declared a mistrial on the other 10 counts after the jury could not come to a consensus. But the result was still devastating for Manafort, who could spend years in prison. He has not been sentenced yet.

After spending months and millions of dollars in legal fees fighting Mueller, Manafort reached a plea deal including cooperation with the special counsel's team on September 14, becoming the fourth former Trump campaign official to cooperate in the probe, along with George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and his former deputy Rick Gates.

He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of obstruction of justice, and agreed to cooperate "fully, truthfully, and completely" in the investigation, including interviews with the special counsel, turning over relevant documents, and testifying in other criminal proceedings. 

The deal caps his potential prison sentence to 10 years--and it could end up being even less than that when all is said and done, depending on the value of his cooperation to the government.

His plea agreement stipulates he will cooperate in "in any and all matter as to which the government deems the cooperation relevant," which could include court cases completely outside of the Mueller probe--and potentially spell trouble for Trump. 

The "cooperation deal does not necessarily mean that Manafort is getting the deal to flip on Trump," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote on Twitter. "He may be getting the deal because of information he provided about someone else. But the deal does mean that he has to tell Mueller all he knows about Trump."

Natasha Bertrand contributed to a previous version of this story. Sonam Sheth contributed reporting.

SEE ALSO: Paul Manafort pleads guilty to conspiracy and obstruction and will cooperate in the Mueller investigation

SEE ALSO: Court documents: Paul Manafort wanted to galvanize 'Obama jews' against Ukrainian politician as part of his lobbying work

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Paul Manafort is at the center of the Trump-Russia investigation — here's what you need to know about him

• The New York Times on Friday said it was "unfair" to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley in a recent story and made significant changes to the story. 
• The article's original headline suggested she purchased expensive curtains for her office, but that was incorrect. 
• The curtains were purchased by the State Department under the Obama administration. 
• The changes to the story came after a significant amount of criticism leveled against the publication on social media. 

The New York Times on Friday said it was "unfair" to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley in an article and made significant changes to the story after a barrage of criticism.

The article's original headline suggested Haley purchased costly curtains for her official residence, but they were in fact acquired by the State Department under the Obama administration. The headline said, "Nikki Haley's View of New York is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701."

An editors' note was added to the article on Friday afternoon, and the title was changed to "State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy."

The editors' note also apologized for using an image of Haley for the article. 

"An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question," the note read. "While Nikki R. Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations, the decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration, according to current and former officials."

The note added: "The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used."

The changes came after a significant amount of criticism leveled against the paper on social media. 

President Donald Trump has taken frequent aim at the Times, accusing it of bias toward him and his administration.

The president's son Donald Trump Jr. was particularly critical of the Haley story and on Friday called for a correction in a tweet. 

"Except it was Obama’s State Dept. Will you print a correction or just leave it as is because you want it to be true???" he wrote.

Haley, for her part, didn't comment on the episode. But she did retweet a Times account's tweet announcing the addition of the editors' note.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I woke up at 4:30 a.m. for a week like a Navy SEAL

• Amazon and Apple don't offer employees free food as a workplace benefit.
• Free food is a popular perk among Silicon Valley giants — but the trend is starting to get major legislative pushback.
• Apple does run a highly subsidized cafeteria at its Cupertino, California headquarters.
• Employees at Amazon's Seattle base typically grab food at on-campus cafés, nearby restaurants, or the ever-present fleet of food trucks.

Amazon and Apple both bucked the Silicon Valley trend of providing employees with free food.

And now that California localities have begun introducing legislation meant to curtail free meals and boost local eateries, we might see more tech giants beginning to follow suit.

Let's take a look at how employees stay fueled throughout the day at Amazon and Apple: 

SEE ALSO: Even if free food is on its way out in Silicon Valley, there are 3 perks employees might care about more

SEE ALSO: 11 insane perks Amazon is offering its newest employees

SEE ALSO: 8 of the flashiest perks Apple employees get, from discounted iPhones to Maroon 5 concerts

Apple's signature dining space is the massive cafeteria in its Cupertino, California headquarters. The four-story space can hold 4,000 employees.

Source: Business Insider

And now, the cafeteria's massive glass doors can slide open to let light and fresh air stream into the buildings on sunny days.

But this striking setting doesn't offer up any free lunches.

Source: Business Insider

• Actress and Goop founder Gwyneth Paltrow spoke with Net-a-Porter about her diet and exercise routine.

• She said she exercised for two hours a day and usually skips breakfast and eats a low-carb lunch.

• I decided to tackle her habits for a week.

I tried to live like Gwyneth Paltrow for a week, and it didn't quite work out the way I'd planned.

Paltrow famously leads an intense life. In terms of exercise, she used to do an hour of cardio and an hour of weights six days of the week. Her lifestyle brand Goop also hawks all sorts of hardcore detoxes and cleanses.

But all that doesn't really reflect Paltrow's current reality. She recently told Net-a-Porter that she doesn't have the time or energy to tackle that grueling schedule anymore: "I'm getting old, my back hurts! It's depressing. Some days, the gym gives me this rush of energy and I feel amazing, but then my body's like 'f--- you.'"

She also doesn't stick to any Goop cleanses for a long amount of time. She told Net-a-Porter she passes on breakfast and eats a low-carb lunch "so my energy levels don't peak and valley through the day." Then, for dinner, she typically decides to "loosen the reins."

I decided to follow her diet as best I could, as well as take up her previous exercise routine. Here are the rules I was determined to follow for a week:

• Skip breakfast.

• Have a low-carb lunch.

• Put in an hour of cardio exercise.

• Go for an hour of weights-based exercise.

• Eat a dinner along the lines of her typical evening meal: "A glass of wine, maybe a baguette dripping in cheese, some fries."

I didn't prepare at all for this. I just jumped into it, sparking concerns among the people I know. "You're going to die," several coworkers told me when I described my plan. Family members predicted I would "seriously injure" myself and expressed concerns about my shambling running style.

All of this just bolstered my determination to rise to the occasion.

The experiment itself left me somewhat surprised. On the one hand, some of Paltrow's dietary habits were easier to tackle than I thought. On the other, I ended up pulling my shoulder.

Here's a look at what happened when I tried to live like Gwyneth Paltrow for a week:

WATCH: More of my experiment here

Before this Gwyneth Paltrow challenge, bagels were my go-to morning meal. I'd often grab one — poppy seed with cream cheese or butter — before heading into the office.

But, like some other celebrities, Paltrow skips breakfast altogether. So I had to kick the habit. Instead of stopping by the bagel shop, I'd just hop on the train and head to work.

Truth be told, this wasn't particularly challenging for me. Back in college, I rarely ate breakfast. It may or may not be the most important meal of the day, but I've never had a problem skipping it.

• Paul Manafort's decision to plead guilty and flip in the Russia investigation is the single-biggest victory for the special counsel Robert Mueller, so far.
• Before agreeing to a plea deal with Manafort, prosecutors likely sat down with him or his attorney for a proffer session, during which a defendant has to answer several key questions from investigators about his own case or any criminal activity he may have witnessed.
• "This means Mueller's team feels that what Manafort has to offer is not just credible, but important," said one Justice Department veteran.
• Manafort's decision to flip against President Trump likely blindsided his legal team.

Paul Manafort was the chairman of President Donald Trump's campaign when he offered a Russian oligarch "private briefings" on Trump's bid.

He was spearheading the campaign when WikiLeaks began dumping thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been stolen by Russian operatives.

Perhaps most importantly, he was one of three top Trump campaign officials to attend a meeting with two Russian lobbyists offering kompromat on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at the height of the campaign.

On Friday, Manafort pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and obstruction, and Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor working for the special counsel Robert Mueller, told a federal judge that Manafort had flipped and would be cooperating "in any and all matter as to which the government deems the cooperation relevant," including "testifying fully, completely" before a grand jury.

Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Weissmann in the past, didn't mince words when he reacted to the development.

"Manafort's cooperation is the single most important advancement for the Mueller probe," he said. "He is the single most important witness thus far, because his position was such that he can shed light on the most critical question of what the president knew, and when he knew it."

'This is a huge get for Mueller's team'

Mueller is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow to tilt the race in his favor, and whether Trump sought to obstruct justice after the existence of the investigation became public knowledge last year.

News of Manafort's deal with Mueller came after intense speculation over whether the former Trump campaign chairman would plead guilty or go to trial.

Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told Politico earlier this week that Manafort was in a joint defense agreement with the president, and that Trump's team was not worried about Manafort flipping.

He told BuzzFeed early Friday, less than two hours before Manafort's plea hearing, that Manafort had not withdrawn from the agreement, in what appeared to be an indication that even if Manafort entered a guilty plea, he would not be cooperating against Trump.

For that reason, Weissmann's announcement that Manafort had flipped likely "blindsided" the president's legal team, Cotter said.

But Elie Honig, a former Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted hundreds of organized crime cases, said it's common in high-profile cases for a cooperator to stay silent about their agreement with the prosecution until the last minute.

"Joint defense agreements are very common in mob cases," he said. "And when you're working to flip someone in a joint defense agreement, they'd have to keep it a secret. The last people you'd tell are the other people in the agreement because they could threaten you, try to dissuade you, or do other things to derail you."

Giuliani told Business Insider on Friday evening that Manafort had still not withdrawn from his joint defense agreement with Trump.

But Jeffrey Cramer, a longtime former federal prosecutor who spent 12 years at the Justice Department, pointed out that a joint defense agreement in this case is not the same as those in most other federal cases.

"Normal defense agreements involve people on the same indictment," he said, adding that he believed it was likely the most Manafort was getting out of his agreement with Trump was money to cover his legal expenses. "Regardless, he is talking to Mueller now, so I doubt there will be many meetings between the two sides going forward."

What Manafort knows is important for several threads of the Russia investigation, like the hack of the DNC and any communication between Trump campaign members and Russian interests. But the biggest value he brings to Mueller is the ability to shed light on the controversial June 2016 meeting between campaign officials and Russian lobbyists.

Manafort attended the meeting along with Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, and it eventually emerged that, contrary to Trump Jr.'s initial statements, the meeting was pitched as "part of Russia and its government's support" for Trump's candidacy.

It is a federal crime to accept something of value from a foreign government in connection to an American election, and legal experts have suggested that if Trump campaign officials took the meeting to get kompromat on Clinton, it could place them in serious legal jeopardy.

"Manafort has knowledge of that meeting because he was there, there's no speculation on that," Cramer said. "He knows what it was for, what happened at the meeting, and he may even know about the cover-up afterward. This is a huge get for Mueller's team."

'It's getting very lonely on Trump Island'

After Manafort's plea deal was announced, both Giuliani and the White House released statements downplaying its significance.

"Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign," Giuliani said in a statement to Business Insider. "The reason: the President did nothing wrong."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders struck a similar chord.

"This had absolutely nothing to do with the President or his victorious 2016 Presidential campaign," she said in a statement. "It is totally unrelated."

While the charges to which Manafort pleaded are unrelated to Trump, legal experts say Manafort will tell Mueller a lot more than just information about what was in the indictments against him.

"Sanders' statement is just false," Cramer said. "Some things are gray. This is really black and white. The Russia meeting was obviously during the campaign, the DNC hack was obviously during the campaign, as were many other events Manafort may know about."

"The court of public opinion is one thing; the legal system doesn't care about the spin the White House is putting on this," he added.

Honig agreed.

Manafort's cooperation, he said, is a massive victory for the special counsel, because "the way it works with federal cooperation is it's all or nothing."

"The cooperator doesn't just talk about select people or categories, with the exception of close family members at times," he said. "They have to talk about everything they've ever done, all the criminal activity they knew about, every crime they've committed."

Before striking a plea deal with a defendant, prosecutors sit down with them or their attorney for what's known as a proffer session, which involves answering any questions from investigators, including those about their own case and other possible criminal activity they may have witnessed.

Even if Mueller's team didn't have the chance to sit down for a full proffer session with Manafort, experts said he almost certainly knew the broad strokes of what the former Trump campaign chairman had to offer.

Ultimately, prosecutors only agree to a cooperation deal with a defendant if the defendant gives them information that can be confirmed by other witnesses and information investigators have gathered.

Cotter, who was part of the team that convicted the Gambino crime family boss John Gotti after flipping his right-hand man, Salvatore "Sammy the bull" Gravano, said that was the most significant takeaway for him.

"This means Mueller's team feels that what Manafort has to offer is not just credible, but important," he said. "That suggests that what Manafort knows is really critical evidence about that Trump Tower meeting, who knew about it and when, and what other contacts were there between the campaign and people around Trump."

The bottom line? Every day, Cotter said, there are one or two fewer people the president can rely on.

"It's getting very lonely on Trump Island."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

• President Donald Trump's former lead lawyer, John Dowd, complained about sharks in a recent letter he wrote to the editor of a local newspaper in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
• An increased number of seals in the Cape has caused the population of great white sharks in the area to rise dramatically over the past decade, according to experts.
• "The glorification of these dangerous predators in Chatham is reckless and a threat to the future of this beautiful community," Dowd wrote.

President Donald Trump's former lead attorney John Dowd now has a new target: great white sharks.

Dowd, who left the White House in March after going toe-to-toe with special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, urged Cape Cod authorities to take action against the sharks and warned against their "glorification" in a letter to the editor of The Cape Cod Chronicle.

Shark experts in Massachusetts say an increased number of seals on the Cape has caused the population of great white sharks in the area to rise dramatically over the past decade. The first known shark attack on a human in six years was reported in August after a man was hospitalized in Truro.

"I swim in oyster pond twice a day, but not [anymore]," Dowd wrote in the letter dated August 30. "We have seals in the swimming area. The seals need to be regularly harvested to stop the current problem and to end the era of the shark which is scaring visitors."

Dowd's letter responded to an earlier editorial which argued that the fear of sharks on Cape Cod was overblown, and that feeding on seals, who are natural prey for great whites, should not be construed as "attacks," but rather completely normal behavior for sharks.

"I recently took a trip to Martha’s Vineyard. Newport, Block Island and Nantucket. They have no seal or shark problem," Dowd added. "The glorification of these dangerous predators in Chatham is reckless and a threat to the future of this beautiful community."

But conservation experts say shark attacks on humans are extremely rare and usually accidental. On average, sharks kill 6 people a year.

"... Sharks are not known to target people specifically, and when they do bite people, it's usually a case of mistaken identity," the Atlantic White Shark Conservancy said earlier this summer. "Sharks 'test the waters' with their teeth, much like we use our hands. It's how they determine if what they encounter is prey or something to avoid."

SEE ALSO: The population of great white sharks is spiking near Cape Cod — and beachgoers are seeing more of them in the water

SEE ALSO: 11 myths about sharks that you should stop believing

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Medical breakthroughs we will see in the next 50 years

Prince Harry turns 34 on Saturday, September 15, just a few months after marrying 37-year-old actress Meghan Markle in a highly anticipated royal wedding in Windsor on Saturday, May 19.

While His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales is certainly still young, he's already had a pretty incredible life, which is only set to continue into his and Markle's married life as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Aside from his high-profile relationship, Prince Harry travels the world — both with the royal family and as part of this charity efforts — and often competes in Champagne-filled sporting tournaments.

His life hasn't been without hardships, either. He and brother Prince William both struggled with their mental health after the death of their mother, Princess Diana, in 1997.

To commemorate his birthday, we've found the best photos from every single year of Prince Harry's remarkable life. Scroll down to take a look.

SEE ALSO: This is why Harry is called Prince of Wales, not England

Harry was born on September 15, 1984. Here he is with his mother, Princess Diana, and brother, Prince William.

AGE 1: Harry with Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prince William, Diana, and his father, Prince Charles, at the Marivent Palace in Palma de Mallorca on July 9, 1986.

AGE 2: The Princess of Wales holds Prince Harry at the Royal Palace, Majorca, Spain on August 9, 1987.

• People from all over the world are flocking to Singapore for the Singapore Grand Prix motor race on September 16.
• But attendees come for more than just the race — they come for the wild, over-the-top parties.
• The all-weekend extravaganza at Amber Lounge is known to be the most extravagant party of the Singapore Grand Prix. 
• And it's not cheap — ticket packages range from $477 to about $35,000.

If you're coming to Singapore for the Grand Prix, you're also likely going for the parties. 

The weekend's wildest party can be found at Amber Lounge, a pop-up club that is only created for the Singapore Grand Prix, the Monaco Grand Prix, and the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, according to Iolande Skinner, a representative for Amber Lounge.

The Amber Lounge parties attract celebrities and billionaires from all over the world, where they're bound to mingle with the drivers. 

"Every Formula One driver has Amber Lounge on speed dial after a race," Kimi Raikkonen, a 2017 Ferrari driver, told The New York Times. "It’s the only place to celebrate with friends and team members."

Business magnate Richard Branson, singer Justin Bieber, and Kim Kardashian have been seen at Amber Lounge parties in various locations, Skinner told Business Insider. 

The Singapore location for 2018 is Temasek Reflection, Singapore Water Wall behind Millenia Walk, 1 Temasek Avenue, Singapore 039192. 

Here's a look at the club's lavish all-weekend party that will cost you $10,000 just for a table.

SEE ALSO: I stayed in the $6.6 billion mega-hotel in the heart of Singapore, and it wasn't anything like 'Crazy Rich Asians'

Singapore's Grand Prix festivities kick off on the island nation in mid-September, with celebrations culminating the day of the race, September 16, 2018.

Source: Singapore Grand Prix

The swanky Amber Lounge, a pop-up club that only exists during the Singapore, Monaco, and Abu Dhabi Grand Prix races, is famous for hosting the wildest Grand Prix parties.

Source: Amber Lounge

The extravagant Singapore Grand Prix event spans the entire weekend.

Source: Visit Singapore

• Are expensive wines really worth it?
• If you're looking purely at it purely from a taste perspective, probably not, according to Berry Bros. & Rudd wine advisor Felipe Carvallo.
• £100 ($129) was Carvallo's point of diminishing returns.
• That's not to say you shouldn't spend more than $129 on wine, but it's at that point that speculation starts to dominate the price tag.

There's nothing like the taste of a fine wine. But with certain wines selling in the thousands and even tens of thousands per bottle, it begs the question: Is it really worth it?

Business Insider spoke to Felipe Carvallo, a wine advisor at London's oldest wine merchants Berry Bros. & Rudd, to find out if you really are getting enough bang for your bottle.

As it turns out, not really.

When asked if there is a threshold where price no longer correlates with quality, Carvallo said: "In my mind, that figure has always been about £100 ($129) a bottle.

"You can have the most incredible care and attention lavished on a unique vineyard plot of wine, which is produced in an incredibly small scale that has had all of the best winemaking techniques applied to it and that has a certain degree of market rarity — and you can find all of those things under £100."

He added: "When you start pushing that £100 limit, it's the point at which speculation and supply and demand start to dominate the cost of the bottle of wine."

Still, this is not to say you should never spend more than £100 a bottle if you want to.

"There is no doubt about it, those [wines costing thousands of dollars] are some of the greatest wines in the world and the price is justified because they're luxury items and the people buying luxury items are prepared to pay a premium for drinking the best — and drinking the best that is in limited supply," Carvallo said.

It's also important not to go too cheap, though.

Wine expert Amelia Singer told Business Insider earlier this year that slightly more expensive wines are not only better quality, but better value too — and it's all to do with taxes.

"What you have to think about is, money will have been spent on logistics, packaging, excise duty, and so, therefore, in a £5.49 [$7] bottle of wine... only 60p [$0.80] of that bottle will be spent on wine," Singer said.

"However, it's amazing how if you go up to £10 [$13], already, you're gonna get about £2.76 [$3.60] worth of wine. That's actually money spent on the juice of that wine, besides all the other stuff."

According to Devon Broglie, a master sommelier who serves as the wine buyer at Whole Foods, there is a value curve that is at its peak between $15 and $25 a bottle.

"In that price point is where you get an honest, genuine expression of what a great variety is supposed to taste like, from the region of the world that it comes from, made by an actual person," he said.

To summate, if you buy too cheap, you won't actually be getting great value at all, and if you buy too expensive, you're paying for market speculation.

SEE ALSO: The 3 most important things to look for on a wine label, according to an expert

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Medical breakthroughs we will see in the next 50 years

• The Lexus LS 500 is all-new for 2018.
• For Lexus, the LS is its flagship sedan and a reminder of its meteoric rise to become a tier one luxury auto brand alongside Mercedes-Benz and BMW. 
• The 2018 LS 500 is powered by a 416 horsepower, 3.5-liter twin-turbocharged V6 engine. 
• According to Lexus, the LS 500 can hit 60 mph from a standstill in just 4.6 seconds and reach a top speed of 136 mph. 
• We were impressed by the new LS 500's eye-catching looks, swanky interior treatment, high-quality materials, and smooth powertrain. We were less than enamored with the Lexus Enform infotainment system and an unexpectedly harsh ride.
• The 2018 Lexus LS 500 starts at $75,000 while our loaded all-wheel-drive test car cost $115,520. 

Lexus is one of the great automotive success stories in recent automotive history. Launched in 1989, Toyota's premium marque, almost immediately turned the luxury auto market on its head. 

Lexus delivered industry-leading refinement, luxury, technology, and customer service with Toyota's bulletproof reliability at a mere fraction of the price of its established rivals. 

The brand not only made consumers stand up and take notice, it also forced US and European luxury brands to step up their game amid a period of malaise in the luxury market. 

In many respects, Lexus and its "Relentless Pursuit of Perfection" is the reason why the modern luxury cars like the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, BMW 7-Series, Audi A8, and even the Cadillac CT6 are so freaking amazing. 

Leading the charge for Lexus was its groundbreaking flagship LS400 sedan. (There was also an entry-level Toyota Camry-based ES 250.) The LS pampered its occupants supreme luxury and refinement. The original LS was so smooth that a glass of water left sitting on its engine would be left completely undisturbed even as the driver revved the motor. It's a party trick Lexus proudly demonstrated in a now iconic commercial. 

Lexus delivery all of this at significantly lower price point than the competition.

To put things into perspective, a brand new Lexus LS400 costs a mere $35,000 in 1989 while a base BMW 7 Series of the time carried a starting price of $54,000.

Over the years, Lexus has firmly established itself as one of the world's tier one luxury brands alongside the likes of Mercedes-Benz and BMW both in terms of sales prowess and prestige. 

For 2018, Lexus introduced the fifth generation LS sedan, this time dubbed the LS500. It's the first all-new iteration of LS flagship sedan is more than a decade. 

In August, Business Insider had the chance to spend a week with a 2018 Lexus LS500 decked out in a Manganese Luster paint job. As part of our test, we even took the LS on a 500-mile road trip between New York and Washington D.C. 

The 2018 Lexus LS500 starts at $75,000 while our all-wheel-drive test car started at $78,220. With an impressive lineup of optional extras, our test car came to us at an as-tested price of $115,520. 

Let's take a closer look at the new five generation Lexus LS 500 sedan:

SEE ALSO: We drove a $64,000 BMW X5 and a $65,000 Audi Q7 to find out which one is a better luxury SUV — here's the verdict

FOLLOW US: On Facebook for more car and transportation content!

The Lexus LS 400 took the luxury auto market by storm when it debuted back in 1989.

The LS impressed with its luxury, style, and refinement.

The smoothness and the performance of the LS 400's 250 horsepower V8 was remarkable.

• Zara's headquarters are located in Arteixo, a small town on the northwest coast of Spain.
• More than 5,000 employees across various departments including design, photography, sales, and e-commerce work here. The site is also home to Zara's largest distribution center, which is responsible for shipping the retailer's clothing to 96 different countries around the world.
• The presence of these sprawling headquarters has had a profound impact on the nearby city of La Coruña, where many of Zara's employees choose to live. 

Zara may have grown up, but it never really left home. 

The clothing chain has been based in Galicia, on the northwest coast of Spain, since 1975. But what started out as just one store has grown into an enormous, multi-national business that is considered to be the largest fashion retailer on the planet, turning out over $30 billion in sales a year.

Despite this, Zara has always stayed true to its roots, and its billionaire founder, Amancio Ortega, has continued to expand its global headquarters in Galicia to accommodate its growth.

To do so, the company has brought in thousands of employees from different parts of the world to work on its design, photography, sales, and e-commerce strategy. This has had a dramatic impact on the culture of the nearby city of La Coruña, where many of these employees choose to live.

The locals call it the "Impacto Inditex," and it's felt in all areas of the city. Whether it be the fashionistas that roam the streets, dipping in and out of its trendy stores, cafes, and bars, or the disgruntled residents who say they face rising living costs, it's clear that Inditex is having a profound impact on life in La Coruña, for better or worse. 

We visited the city in August to see how much it has changed with the rise of Zara:

SEE ALSO: Zara has a new tactic to compete with Amazon and Asos

Amancio Ortega opened the first Zara store in La Coruña in 1975. He originally named his store Zorba after the 1964 film "Zorba the Greek," but changed it after he discovered a nearby bar had the same name. Ortega reshuffled the letters to come up with Zara.

The first store still exists in La Coruña today, but there is very little distinguishing it from Zara stores you might find anywhere in the world. 

Ortega opened Zara's headquarters in the nearby town of Arteixo in 1977. This is still its home today.

Arteixo, a small town with a population of about 30,000, is a roughly 20-minute drive from La Coruña, or A Coruña, as it's known in Galician. 

Over the course of two decades, the brand expanded dramatically, opening stores across Spain and in different countries around the world. In 1985, Ortega incorporated the chain into a holding company called Inditex.