(Bloomberg) -- Fresh off a debate performance that may have bolstered her standing in the 2020 Democratic race, Senator Elizabeth Warren returned to Massachusetts focused on strengthening her electability against President Donald Trump.Speaking at the Massachusetts Democratic Convention on Saturday, Warren said the Trump administration is “one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s modern history” and called on Democrats to unite toward a common goal: beat Trump in 2020.Warren, a native of Oklahoma who’s represents her adopted home state of Massachusetts, where she taught at Harvard Law School, in the U.S. Senate, has largely avoided directly attacking Trump or her Democratic competitors on the campaign trail.The focus on electability went to answer a persistent question in the minds of Democratic officials and voters about the progressive senator’s candidacy: can she win a general election against Trump in a race that will no doubt be nasty.Warren, 70, highlighted her electability argument by laying out policy proposals that she said will fix the problems that got Trump elected in the first place.‘Dark Moment’“This dark moment requires more than being ‘not Trump,’ because a country that elects someone like Donald Trump is a country that’s already in serious trouble,” Warren said. “We need to talk honestly about what’s broken in America, but even more than that -- we must show American that we have plans to make big, structural changes to fix what’s broken.”Warren’s support has been inching upward as she made one detailed policy proposal after another all year. She’s slowly gaining ground on front-runner Joe Biden and even boosted her polling against Trump. With over four months until the Iowa caucuses, Warren’s second hurdle is to convince voters that she’ll be a unifying candidate for the nation, said Debra Kozikowski, vice-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.“If there’s a problem, she has a plan, a path to get there and puts a price tag on it,” said Kozikowski, who hasn’t publicly endorsed a candidate. “That kind of attention to detail from a presidential candidate can bridge a lot of philosophical differences.”Biden scored a point in Thursday’s Democratic debate in Houston, however, by challenging Warren on how she would pay for one of her central plans, government-run health care often known as Medicare for All. She avoided giving a direct answer, beyond saying that a family’s health-care costs would drop.No Small IdeasBiden, too, has made beating Trump central to his campaign message, pitching himself as the one who can appeal to working class and blue collar voters to win back key states that Trump won in 2016, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Warren, now in second place in most polls along with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has called for structural change in government.“I’m here with a message for Democrats: the time for small ideas is over,” Warren said Saturday. “When I lead the Democratic Party, we will not be a party that nibbles around the edges. Our Democratic Party will be the party of big, structural change.”Her promises seem to be resonating. Among registered voters Warren polled at 51% against Trump’s 44% in a hypothetical general election match-up, according to a Sept. 5 ABC News/Washington Post poll, after coming in tied with Trump at 48% in a similar poll in July.Even as she aligns herself with her competitors when it comes to the urgency of winning back the White House, Warren often says that beating Trump is the floor, not the ceiling, for 2020. Despite concerns about whether her progressive proposals would help or hurt her in a general election match-up, Warren says her policies aren’t ideological.“This is not about being Democrat or Republican or independent. These issues are bigger than that,” Warren told reporters in Springfield, Massachusetts. “So I see it as: I know what’s broken, I know how to fix it.”Warren’s campaign approach has some voters and pundits wondering whether she would tack to more moderate proposals if wins the nomination, as candidates on both sides of the aisle typically do for the general election.“I don’t think she has to do anything in terms of thinking about the ideological divide that might exist in the Democratic Party because it’s going to be so obvious to America who is on their side,” said Massachusetts Representative Lori Trahan, who’s endorsed Warren. “Right now, the boldness of her policies is exactly what’s getting her attention,” Trahan said, adding that “the details are going to be determined by a bunch of factors that we don’t even know yet.”To contact the reporter on this story: Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou in Springfield at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Wendy Benjaminson at firstname.lastname@example.org, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has attempted to brush off concerns about his age and health by asking a reporter who had questioned if he would release his medical records: “you want to wrestle?”The 76-year-old former US vice-president pledged to provide evidence of his fitness for leadership.
Venezuela's state prosecutor's office said on Friday it would open an investigation into Juan Guaido after the interior minister presented photos on state television showing the opposition leader in the company of two suspected members of a Colombian drug-trafficking group. Guaido on Friday said the two men had asked to take a photo with him when he secretly crossed into Colombia from Venezuela in February via an informal border route after a Venezuelan court had barred him from leaving the country. "We didn't ask for their criminal record to take a photo," he told reporters in Caracas.
The controversy swirling around the burial of Zimbabwe's founding leader, Robert Mugabe, centers on his widow, Grace, who has remained dramatically cloaked behind a heavy black veil as she succeeded in getting the country's president to scrap his plans for the ex-leader to be buried in a simple plot alongside other national heroes and instead build a grand new mausoleum for her husband. Known as a strong-willed woman with political ambitions, Grace Mugabe has made the most of her role as the grieving widow — and some in Zimbabwe think she is using the issue to reassert herself as a force to be reckoned with in the country. When the 54-year-old Grace objected to the funeral plans for Mugabe, who died last week at 95, President Emmerson Mnangagwa came to her palatial 25-bedroom residence in Harare's posh Borrowdale suburb to consult her about how the interment should proceed.
Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren declared on Friday that Americans need guns in order to potentially fight off unlimited immigrants coming into the United States, adding that citizens need the ability to “defend ourselves” because “we don’t know” who is coming into the country.Appearing on Fox Business Network’s Varney and Co., the conservative firebrand reacted to Democrats’ calls for stricter gun control in the wake of several mass shootings. Specifically, she took issue with Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke’s call for mandatory buybacks of assault-style weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47.“I would also remind those that might not have a use for a gun or don’t feel they have a use for a gun, many Americans do,” Lahren told Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney. “Many Americans don’t live in the suburbs, who are far away from where police can respond, and so that’s why that self-defense is so important.”And then she brought the threat of “open borders” immigration into the mix.“And all the things the Democrats want to put in place—my goodness, if they want to open our borders, you better be sure the people in Texas, the people in South Dakota, the people in the middle of this country, we are going to be armed and ready,” she exclaimed. “Because we have to have a means to defend ourselves from—who knows who’s coming in? That’s the thing, we don’t know, and we have to be able to protect ourselves.”The right-wing provocateur’s insistence that guns are needed to stave off migrants heading into the U.S. comes barely a month after the El Paso mass shooting that left 22 dead. The suspected shooter admitted that he was targeting “Mexicans” and apparently posted a racist manifesto in which he decried the “Hispanic invasion” of America.This also isn’t the first time that Lahren has fear-mongered over supposed “open borders” immigration. Earlier this year, she devoted a monologue to warning Fox viewers that an extremely high border wall was needed because immigrants are “shifty and adaptable.”After her remarks faced intense backlash that included Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro personally calling her out, Lahren took to Twitter to "apologize" for how her comments "came out."“Not what I meant & I apologize for the way it came out. I simply mean without a secure border we don’t know who is coming into our nation & those who wish to do us harm will exploit it,” she wrote Friday afternoon. “I’m NOT advocating for violence against any person, regardless of race or immigration status.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
In coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about “hints of the case’s weakness” that could possibly have caused grand jurors to “balk,” the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich -- a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing “rumors from reporters” about the filing of a “no true bill” -- i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.While conceding that he “do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,” Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe’s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling -- the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.I’ll add more detail presently. To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.Now, let’s back up.As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. That inquest centered on McCabe’s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information -- specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents. It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed. Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies. Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu’s decision to the Justice Department -- specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general. According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu’s office.It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department’s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent. It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided. Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills. Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case. The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former. Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment. The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle -- probable cause -- has been met. Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved. The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures. And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict. Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn’t mean to lie (multiple times). When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury’s investigation. It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration -- conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe’s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury’s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject -- such as an IG report -- is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury’s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury’s investigation is broader in scope than we’ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz’s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges. Note that in the email to McCabe’s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her. For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she’ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe’s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she’ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn’t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe’s case bungled their way into a no true bill. If I had to bet, I think it’s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment. If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.
A British-Australian woman who has been sentenced to 10 years in a notorious Iranian prison has been identified as Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, a Cambridge-educated academic specialising in Middle Eastern politics. Dr Moore-Gilbert, who was working as a lecturer and researcher for Melbourne University's Asia Institute and has published work on authoritarian governance and activism in the Middle East, was jailed in October 2018. However, her detention had not been reported in case it harmed the prospects of her release. On Saturday, the Australian government confirmed Dr Moore-Gilbert was being held in prison in Iran. A statement from the family of Dr Moore-Gilbert, who is incarcerated in Evin prison, said they were in close contact with Australian authorities on the matter. "Our family thanks the Government and the University of Melbourne for their ongoing support at this distressing and sensitive time. "We believe that the best chance of securing Kylie's safe return is through diplomatic channels." It is not known what Dr Moore-Gilbert was charged with, but 10-year terms are routinely given in Iran for spying. She is one of two British-Australian women whose detentions in Iran have come to light in the past week. Jolie King with her partner Mark Firkin Jolie King, a travel blogger, and her Australian fiancé Mark Firkin were arrested near a military site in Jajrood near Tehran on August 9, it was revealed on Thursday. They had reportedly been using a drone to film aerial footage in the area. They too have been sent to Evin prison, the main detention centre for Iran's political prisoners, which also houses 41-year-old Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian mother of one who is midway through a five-year sentence on spying charges. Tehran has pursued a campaign of detaining Iranian and dual nationality academics in recent years, raising fears the Islamic Republic is using them as diplomatic leverage. The Australian government has said it is lobbying Tehran to ensure all three are appropriately looked after. Iran is believed to be holding the trio captive in the hope of exchanging one of them for an Iranian imprisoned in the US on charges of evading American sanctions. Tensions between Britain and Iran escalated dramatically after it emerged the women were being held in the first recent case of Tehran arresting British citizens who do not also hold Iranian nationality. Sources said Tehran sees the women as bargaining chips to secure the release of Negar Ghodskani, a 40-year-old Iranian woman facing jail in the US after pleading guilty to a conspiracy to export prohibited technology to Iran. Ghodskani was arrested in Australia in 2017 at the request of US government and gave birth to a baby boy while in custody in Adelaide. She was extradited to the US and now faces five years in federal prison. Negar Ghodskani Credit: AP While Iran has not commented publicly on any of the arrests, in April the country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, proposed swapping Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe for Ms Ghodskani. According to the University of Melbourne's website, Dr Moore-Gilbert "specialises in Middle Eastern politics, with a particular focus on the Arab Gulf states," and has published work on the 2011 Arab uprisings, authoritarian governance, and on the role of new media technologies in political activism. In 2018 she was awarded a grant to investigate "Iran’s relationship with Bahrain’s Shi’a after the Arab Uprisings". Dr Moore-Gilbert's LinkedIn profile shows her first degree came in Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge, where she also completed her Master of Arts. Australia's Foreign Minister Marise Payne said she has raised the cases of the three prisoners "many times" with Mr Zarif, and denied the arrests were politically motivated. "We have no reason to think that these arrests are connected to international concern over Iran's nuclear programme, United Nations sanction enforcement or maritime security concerning the safety of civilian shipping," Senator Payne said. What appears to be the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1 off the coast of Tartus, Syria, Credit: Reuters News of the three prisoners has come amid a downturn in relations between Britain and Iran, sparked by issues including the Royal Marines' seizure near Gibraltar in July of an Iranian oil tanker, the Grace I. Iran responded by seizing British-flagged oil tanker the Stena Impero. While Britain released the Iranian tanker, the Stena Impero is still being held. Australia also said in July that it would join the US and the UK in protecting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian threats. Relations between Tehran and the West, especially the United States, have deteriorated significantly since the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions, prompting Iran to ramp up restricted enrichment.
Israel's enemies can't even see them coming.
Tesla's automated emergency braking (AEB) system, which was first introduced in 2017, has improved markedly in a relatively short amount of time. Just a few weeks ago, for example, Tesla demonstrated its next-gen AEB system which can more ably apply the brakes when a pedestrian or cyclist is detected. With that said, we recently stumbled across a new video which shows a Tesla Model 3 abruptly hit the brakes when a police officer on a motorcycle runs a red light and turns left into oncoming traffic. The officer was presumably chasing someone but his sirens were off at the time. As you can see in the video below, the Model 3 owner begins to accelerate at a green light and doesn't see the police officer swooping in from the right-hand side. Luckily, the Model 3 detected the officer and swiftly applied the brakes. https://youtu.be/SZdRTVfRi48 Describing the incident, the Model 3 owner posted the following on his YouTube channel. > Happened this morning; I was rolling about my way when the light turns green, and out of nowhere a cop without their audio on for their sirens runs a red light. If not for Tesla's emergency stop safety features this would not have been a good day. Thank you Tesla and ElonMusk for making the Model3 the safest car ever or I might've scarred myself for life with a horrible accident.Another angle of the incident can be seen below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D3pzSWVjc&t=46s Of course, this is hardly the first time we've seen a Tesla take evasive action and avoid a potentially serious collision. In the video below, a Tesla that was rear ended quickly swerves to the left to avoid the car directly ahead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=QVdTAwU07Jc
In a likely preview of Republican messaging for the 2020 election, an ad from a GOP PAC that aired during Thursday night’s Democratic debate showed a photograph of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with her face engulfed in flames.