A remarkable photo of a fox battling a marmot in the remote Qilian mountains of China has won the top award in the prestigious Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition.
The image, captured by Yongqing Bao, shows the Tibetan fox attacking the terrified Himalayan marmot. Dubbed “The Moment,” the photo clinched the grand title in the competition, which saw 48,000 entries received from 100 countries.
The competition winners were named during an awards ceremony at London’s Museum of Natural History on Tuesday.
“Photographically, it is quite simply the perfect moment. The expressive intensity of the postures holds you transfixed, and the thread of energy between the raised paws seems to hold the protagonists in perfect balance,” said Roz Kidman Cox, chair of the judging panel, in a statement. “Images from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau are rare enough, but to have captured such a powerful interaction between a Tibetan fox and a marmot — two species key to the ecology of this high-grassland region — is extraordinary.”
The female fox was hunting to keep her three cubs alive when she pounced on the marmot, according to the museum. Yongqing Bao captured the marmot’s final moments, as the unfortunate rodent was killed by the fox, according to the BBC.
The Natural History Museum notes that, while Tibetan foxes are not hunted or persecuted, their prey is. “The foxes are dependent on a small mammal known as the plateau pika, a species which has been subject to eradication attempts,” it said, in its statement. “If the pikas are wiped out, the foxes will be quick to follow.”
Natural History Museum Director Sir Michael Dixon said that climate change poses a threat to the Tibetan fox’s habitat.
“The area in which this was taken, often referred to as the ‘Third Pole’ because of the enormous water reserves held by its ice fields, is under threat from dramatic temperature rises like those seen in the Arctic,” he said in the statement. “At a time when precious habitats are facing increasing climate pressures, seeing these fleeting yet fascinating moments reminds us of what we need to protect.”
I heard a debate way back when between Warren and some red-meat-republican-truck-driver candidate who kept referring to her as “Professor Warren”.
He claimed he was just showing deference to her academic title, but … nope: he’s trying to portray her as an out-of-touch academic.
I’m a professor. Nobody other than my students calls me “professor” — not my colleagues, not the other employees at my school, not research collaborators. I’m either “Firstname” (informal, which is what I want my students to use), “Mr. Lastname” (formal, but not a professional setting), or “Dr. Lastname” (formal; professional setting).
And certainly nobody calls me “Mr. Dr. Professor Lastname”, which would be the equivalent of “Senator Professor Warren” (and silly).
“I want to thank you for generosity, these kids will never forget your kindness,” one person wrote, according to Faithwire. “No kid should ever have to go hungry while at school so let’s make this happen in every city and in every state!!!” another added.
The School District of Palm Beach County, a much larger area, set up a form for people interested in helping out erase the $50,000 accumulated for over 180,000 enrolled students.
Debate winners and losers, Warren on the defensive, and what we’re watching for before the next Democratic debate. Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Twelve Democratic presidential candidates took to the debate stage Tuesday evening—making it the biggest primary debate in history.
Some candidates needed to make no mistakes. Others needed to stand out from the pack to advance in a frequently diminishing field, while a few of the hopefuls still struggled to get a word in.
Here is our take on how they did:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar came out punching.
The Minnesota Democrat wasn’t afraid to criticize other candidates, in particular, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Klobuchar, who has struggled to get a word in during past debates, went out of her way to differentiate her more moderate policies from the more progressive stances. Although she’s done the same in past debates, she has never been this forceful.
One of Klobuchar’s biggest moments was calling Warren out on how she will pay for a Medicare for All plan, adding that she believes Warren is handing Republicans a gift by offering up a plan they can attack as too expensive.
“I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we’re going to send the invoice,” Klobuchar told to Warren. “The difference between a plan and a pipe dream, is something that you can actually get done.”
The tactic might pay off. Klobuchar has yet to make the November debate stage and this may be the push she needs.
Amy Klobuchar on “Medicare for All:” “I appreciate Elizabeth’s work. But again, the difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something you can actually get done” #DemDebatepic.twitter.com/m2yyF3jQbF
South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg was also ready to take some of his more progressive competitors to task on their policies.
Buttigieg used forceful rhetoric during the debate to showcase his more moderate proposals. Buttigieg, who over the past week has hit Warren on Medicare for All, did so again on Tuesday’s debate stage. He criticized Warren for not fully answering whether she will raise taxes for voters for her Medicare for All plan, claiming it is an example of why people are “so frustrated with Washington.”
“I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage for everyone is by obliterating private plans,” Buttigieg said.
Buttigieg, a combat veteran, was also able to showcase his experience when talking about foreign policy.
“You can put an end to endless war without embracing Donald Trump’s policy,” Buttigieg said. “What we were doing in Syria was keeping our word.”
The 2020 election is nearing and with that, comes the caucuses and primary elections. But what’s the difference? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Tuesday was the first night that foreign policy was talked about substantively after being ignored in the last three debates.
The topic was brought up in response to Trump’s announcement last week that he is going to withdraw troops from Syria, a move that has been criticized by Democrats and some Republicans alike. However, the president has defended the move by saying he wants to extract American soldiers from overseas commitment.
Biden said that decision is the “most shameful thing any president has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy.” Klobuchar also criticized Trump’s decision, questioning how “leaving the Kurds for slaughter, our allies for slaughter” would make “Make America Great Again.”
In a discussion on the disparaging income gap in the United States, all the candidates agreed that the billionaires in this country are benefiting too much from the current tax system—even if they disagreed on how to fix it.
Klobuchar quipped: ”Nobody on this stage wants to protect billionaires—not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires.”
Businessman Tom Steyer, the only billionaire on the crowded stage, commented on the income gap that “It’s absolutely wrong and it’s absolutely undemocratic and unfair.”
Sanders and Warren defended their ideas of a wealth tax, with Sanders grinning largely when asked if he believes that “billionaires shouldn’t exist,” a common one-liner for his campaign.
Elizabeth Warren on closing the income gap: “My question is not why do Bernie and I support a wealth tax, it’s why does everyone else on the stage think it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to invest in an entire generation of Americans?” #DemDebatepic.twitter.com/XHQV586X4W
Warren claimed that she doesn’t “have a beef with billionaires,” but continued to argue that because billionaires have “made a fortune in America,” they should be able help “every other kid in America has a chance to make it.”
No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, it became clear tonight the candidates are not satisfied with the wealth differentials.
Yes or no: Elizabeth Warren on paying for Medicare for All
The Massachusetts senator, who boasts that she has a plan for everything, wouldn’t say if taxes will go up for the middle class to pay Medicare for All when asked to explicitly say so multiple times by debate moderators.
“My view on this and what I have committed to is costs will go down for hard-working middle-class families,” Warren stated, not committing to saying the same for taxes specifically.
She was responding to a question if she would clearly say yes or no on the issue as Sanders did for the same plan. Sanders admitted, “I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up: They’re gonna up significantly for the wealthy and for virtually everybody. The tax increase will be substantially less—substantially less—than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.”
Klobuchar jabbed that “At least Bernie’s being honest here and saying how he’s going to pay this. I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we will send the invoice.”
Warren was attacked by other moderate candidates on the stage largely on this issue, but especially from Buttigieg, who has previously said that she is being “evasive” on the issue, claimed that this was why people are “so frustrated with Washington.”
Buttigieg said, “We heard it tonight. A yes or no question that didn’t get a yes or no answer.”
The candidates who weren’t on the stage tonight
As time goes on, the qualifications for upcoming debates will only get tougher for the crowded field of Democratic hopefuls.
A clear loser for tonight were the seven candidates that didn’t grace the stage tonight.
Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock
Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland
Miramar, Fla. Mayor Wayne Messam
Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan
Former Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania
Author and activist Marianne Williamson
The DNC recently released more difficult requirements candidates must meet to qualify for the November debates.
Williamson isn’t on the debate stage tonight, but she still reminded voters of her presence, tweeting as the debate started, “No, they’re not the only Democratic candidates for President of the United States,” and Delaney tweeted a picture of himself enjoying the night watching the Washington Nationals play their way into the World Series.
Tonight’s debate was a crucial moment for every candidate to make waves as these requirements additionally set up the possibility that several additional candidates may miss the stage compared to tonight’s match-up, potentially ending some campaigns.
Just how critical was tonight? Of the 12 candidates that didappear, four of them, Beto O’Rourke, Klobuchar, Julián Castro and Tulsi Gabbard, still haven’t qualified for next month’s debate. It is unlikely that those who didn’tappear tonight will be on November’s stage.
Climate change, LGBTQ rights, immigration
There were three huge topics for voters that were not discussed at length during Tuesday night’s debate.
Both the climate crisis and LGBTQ rights warranted their own town halls, but the candidates were not provided the opportunity to debate these issues.
Jay Inslee, the prior climate candidate who recently dropped out of the running for the Democratic nomination, tweeted that it was “completely inexcusable.”
Not one single question about the climate crisis. Not one single question about the climate crisis. Not one single question about the climate crisis.
This is the existential crisis of our time. Not one single question, and that’s completely inexcusable. #DemDebate
The “Fahrenheit 9/11” filmmaker, 65, was tweeting during the event when something the 70-year-old presidential candidate said caught his attention. Warren explained that she has a plan to combat corporations only caring about their bottom line that she calls “accountable capitalism.”
In short, the plan calls on companies to be held accountable to their employees and their local communities rather than just shareholders. Moore, who has an estimated net worth of $50 million and who Business Insider previously reported has nine homes, is typically known for his left-leaning point of view. He took issue with Warren’s plan in that it doesn’t do enough to dismantle capitalism.
“Senator Warren (whom I love) just said she believes in ‘accountable capitalism,’” Moore tweeted Tuesday. “There is no such thing. The only thing capitalism is accountable to is weath [sic] and more wealth for the wealthy. It’s only mission is to economically enslave the citizenry so the rich can get richer.”
“We are going to be mounting a vigorous campaign all over this country. That is how I’m going to reassure the American people,” Sanders said while thanking voters, friends and fellow Democratic primary candidates for their support. “I’m so happy to be back here with you this evening.”
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Rudy Giuliani’s long history includes the Reagan Administration, being one of the more successful U.S. Attorneys, and a number of runs for offices. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Rudolph Giuliani, by his own admission, reached out to a foreign government to unearth damaging information about his boss’ potential presidential rival – mixing roles of personal attorney and unofficial diplomat.
Depending on the time of day and who he’s talking to, Giuliani is an attorney advising President Donald Trump on legal matters. An unofficial envoy corresponding with foreign leaders. A cable news attack dog. A freelance investigator.
Giuliani has said he’s an attorney for Trump as well as the two men now in federal custody. But experts say he can’t rely on attorney-client privilege to completely shield himself from answering questions from Congress or prosecutors.
In short, Giuliani can’t have it both ways, said Josh Rosenstein, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who advises clients on foreign lobbying laws.
“Either he is admitting that he was somehow an unofficial emissary of the U.S. government operating outside legal channels and directed by the president to engage in the sort of activity at the root of the impeachment inquiry,” Rosenstein said, “or he was acting as an unregistered agent of foreign principals and potentially assisting them in violating campaign finance laws.”
It’s too early to gauge what Giuliani’s legal exposure might be, experts say – if there is any at all. The opacity and fluidity of his relationship with the president has raised challenging questions about what Giuliani can and cannot reveal to congressional and criminal investigators.
But it’s clear that Giuliani is the latest person in Trump’s orbit to come under scrutiny by federal authorities. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, once said he would take a bullet for his boss. Now he is serving three years in prison.
Giuliani has cast any scrutiny as likely politically motivated and said he is not in any legal jeopardy. “Did nothing wrong,” he said Tuesday, hours after he defied a congressional subpoena for documents related to his dealings in Ukraine.
Two Florida businessmen tied to President Donald Trump’s lawyer and the Ukraine investigation were charged Thursday with federal campaign finance violations. The charges relate to a $325,000 donation to a group supporting Trump’s reelection. (Oct. 10) AP, AP
Giuliani is central figure in inquiries by Congress, prosecutors
Giuliani seems to begin his days much like the president does: with a series of tweets in the wee hours of the morning, often in the same bombastic tone.
He castigates the media, attacks the impeachment inquiry, discredits the whistleblower whose allegations fueled it, pushes baseless claims about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and peddles the conspiracy theory that Ukraine – not Russia – interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Democrats.
Giuliani, however, has been distinctly mum about the arrests last week of two of his associates, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan of funneling foreign money to American political campaigns. Two other men were charged as well.
Prosecutors allege that Parnas and Fruman gave $5,400 to a U.S. congressman and pledged to raise another $20,000 as they sought his help in removing Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
That congressman is former U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging Yovanovitch’s removal. After Parnas and Fruman were arrested, Sessions said he didn’t know about the alleged scheme and would donate their contributions to charity.
That investigation appears to have extended to Giuliani.
Giuliani said Tuesday he had “no such knowledge” of a federal inquiry involving him.
The New York Times has reported that prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York – the office Giuliani led in the 1980s – are investigating whether he violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, in his dealings with Ukraine. The Times reported that the investigation into Giuliani is tied to the criminal case against Parnas and Fruman.
FARA requires Americans who work on behalf of foreign entities to register their activities with the Justice Department.
Federal prosecutors have ramped up their enforcement of FARA, a law meant to identify foreign actors attempting to influence U.S. policy.
Giuliani and his consulting firm have had clients from Latin America to eastern Europe. In an interview with The New York Times, a wealthy developer from the city of Kharkiv in Ukraine described Giuliani as a “lobbyist” who would burnish his city’s reputation in the U.S.
The Justice Department has shown a willingness to prosecute high-profile figures with ties to foreign countries. Among them are two men who once were in Trump’s inner circle: Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser who is awaiting sentencing, and Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman who’s serving seven and a half years in prison.
Giuliani has rejected accusations that he has violated FARA, saying he was working on behalf of Trump, not a foreign entity.
But that claim, legal experts say, could put Giuliani in a bind.
Either he acknowledges advancing Ukrainian interests in his effort to discredit Yovanovitch, or he says he was working at Trump’s behest, which furthers the impeachment inquiry, said Matthew Sanderson, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who advises clients on FARA.
The arrests of Fruman and Parnas also could pose legal risks for Giuliani.
“The risk is all your communications and activities with these people will be exposed, probably, and investigated,” said Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor in New York. “There’s a significant chance that people who know a lot about things they did with Mr. Giuliani may at some point in the future decide to be debriefed by the government.”
Any legal risk to Giuliani, though, remains hypothetical because so littleis known about what evidence the investigators have found, Cotter said.
Giuliani has declined to discuss his dealings with Parnas and Fruman, saying the duo were his clients “on two separate things,” and much of their communication is privileged. He said he has to talk to them to figure out what’s confidential and what’s not.
The shifting nature of the Trump-Giuliani relationship
The nature of Giuliani’s work for the president is murky, experts say, in part because Giuliani himself has described it in different ways. This raises questions about whether he could assert attorney-client privilege during the impeachment inquiry and what limits there could be to that privilege.
For example, Giuliani has identified himself as the president’s lawyer, as he did in an interview with Fox News on Sept. 26. But he has also asserted he is not acting as Trump’s lawyer, as he did in an interview with The Atlantic the same day.
Other times, he’s appeared to act as an unofficial envoy, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity that he spoke to the Ukrainians at the request of the State Department. “I wasn’t operating on my own,” he said.
In that case, conversations between him and Trump may not be protected, experts say. Communication between an attorney and his client is protected only if they pertain to the issue for which the attorney was hired.
Giuliani joined Trump’s legal team in 2018 amid former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. With the Mueller investigation over, experts say it’s now unclear what legal work, if any, Giuliani is doing for Trump.
“The nature and exact extent of their relationship is in question,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former prosecutor under independent counsel Kenneth Starr.
Giuliani can’t avoid testifying in impeachment inquiry, experts say
Still, Rosenzweig said there is no way Giuliani can use attorney-client privilege to shield himself entirely from testifying in impeachment proceedings. “The only thing it will accomplish – and it probably will succeed to some extent – is to delay his testimony,” he said.
Attorney-client privilege is limited to confidential communications between a client and that person’s attorney. Lawyers can’t claim privilege to protect themselves from what they said while representing their clients. Only clients can decide if they want their dealings to be confidential.
That means the privilege does not apply to conversations or correspondence Giuliani had with foreign leaders or State Department officials in the course of his dealings in Ukraine, experts say.
“The conduct at issue – pushing arguments about potential corruption to foreign officials – does not appear to involve providing confidential legal advice,” John Bies, chief counsel at American Oversight, a nonprofit focused on government accountability, wrote on the Lawfare blog.
“It is not even clear that Giuliani’s conduct constitutes legal work performed in his capacity as Trump’s attorney, even if it were charitably viewed as something other than political campaign work,” he wrote.
Bies, a former Justice Department official in the Obama administration,agreed there is no indication that Trump sought legal advice from Giuliani. Instead, Trump directed him “to undertake other (nonlegal) activities” on his behalf, Bies wrote.
“Directives of this sort, of course, would not be privileged,” he wrote.
Giuliani pushed back against the notion that attorney-client privilege wouldn’t apply, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that if the work he did was to “obtain evidence in order to exonerate your client, it damn well does apply.”
There’s one other thing not protected by attorney-client privilege, Rosenzweig said: communication regarding future crimes, either by the client or the attorney.
If attorney-client protections fail, Giuliani cannot assert executive privilege. “Giuliani, so far as I know, holds no executive rank”in the Trump administration, Rosenzweig said.
Many of the recent headlines about Giuliani have drawn parallels with Cohen, who also held dual roles for Trump: attorney and, in his own words, fixer. Cohen pleaded guilty last year to several crimes, including arranging hush-money payments to women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.
The roles the two men played show the president’s desire for someone who can both be a lawyer and a political henchman, Cotter said.
“Both attorneys … have engaged in actions that seem, to me, beyond the bounds and ethics of a lawyer,” Cotter said, “but they do them anyway.”
Contributing: Kevin McCoy, Kevin Johnson and David Jackson
Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/16/rudy-giuliani-under-scrutiny-work-ukraine-lobbying-trump-impeachment/3941845002/
After a five-week run as a brunette, Britney Spears has gone back to her signature blonde hair. The songstress took to Instagram on Tuesday to show off her new look.
“So maybe blondes do have more fun,” the “Gimme More” singer wrote. “It’s not professional Hollywood hair and makeup …. but hey it’s real and I’m watching Vacation !!! PS Just got out of pool so hair is wet … sorry!!!”
The short video showed her sitting on a couch in a white tube-top with her new locks pulled up into a bun on the top of her head.
Just one day earlier, the 37-year-old posted a photo of her sitting in a tree on the beach in Maui, Hawaii rocking her darker tresses.
“Nothing heals more than the ocean,” she wrote in her caption. “I always feel so alive when I see the ocean in Maui …. it’s literally turquoise … it’s unbelievable !!!”
“This pic does not do justice at all for I saw there. In a world where we are all subjected to cell phones and devices …. we get hung up on screens instead of Mother Nature and listening to her. Mother Nature is everything. I find her everytime I go to this magical place ….. here I know there is more,” the star went on to say.
Investigative reporter Ronan Farrow just revealed a personal scoop ― he’s engaged to “Pod Save America” host Jon Lovett.
The journalist included the tidbit in his new book “Catch and Kill,” a Me Too expose that calls out NBC, Harvey Weinstein and others for allegedly attempting to cover up sexual misconduct claims.
Farrow, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Weinstein in The New Yorker, hatched a novel plan to pop the question to Lovett while he was writing “Catch and Kill.”
“I’d send him a draft, and put in a question, right on this page: ‘Marriage?’” Farrow wrote, per People. “On the moon or even here on Earth. He read the draft, found the proposal here, and said, ‘Sure.’”
Emma McIntyre /VF19 via Getty Images Jon Lovett, left, and Ronan Farrow at the 2019 Vanity Fair Oscar party.
The two had a running joke about getting married on the moon, Farrow explained.
The pair met in 2011 following Lovett’s departure from his speechwriting job for President Barack Obama. Lovett later created the short-lived NBC sitcom “1600 Penn.”
Farrow, 31, and Lovett, 37, have kept a fairly low profile on their relationship, but Lovett did promote his fiancé’s book on Twitter last week.
“I’m so proud of @RonanFarrow and I hope you pre-order Catch and Kill,” he wrote.
Authorities in Colorado are looking for a woman who robbed a liquor store in Denver last week while she was caring for two young children — one of whom helped her with the robbery, according to police.
The incident at an East Alameda Ave. liquor store occurred Oct. 9 at about 2:10 p.m., according to a Denver Police Departmenttweet.
The woman, who has not been identified, entered the liquor store and soon proceeded to rummage through shelves and the cash registers, “taking a large sum of money.”
The manager of the liquor store told FOX31 the woman made off with several thousand dollars, though an exact amount wasn’t made public.
Denver Police said the woman had a boy and a girl with her who both appeared to be approximately 6 years old. The 6-year-old boy helped in the search for cash behind the counter of the store, according to police.
Police released a photo of the woman caught on surveillance cameras as she spoke on her phone and walked through the store.
Before hitting the liquor store, the woman also walked into a convenience store in the same strip mall and allegedly used her children there, too, as a diversion while she pilfered items such as lotion and body wash.
“It’s not an excuse to use your kids to do such a thing,” the manager of the convenience store told FOX31.