The Kremlin fired a new intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine on Thursday in response to Kyiv’s use this week of American and British missiles capable of striking deeper into Russia, President Vladimir Putin said. In a televised address to the country, the Russian president warned that U.S. air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile, which he said flies at ten times the speed of sound and which he called the Oreshnik — Russian for hazelnut tree. He also said it could be used to attack any Ukrainian ally whose missiles are used to attack Russia. “We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against military facilities of the countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities,” Putin said in his first comments since President Joe Biden gave Ukraine the green light this month to use U.S. ATACMS missiles to strike at limited targets inside Russia. Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh confirmed that Russia’s missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate range missile based on it’s RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. “This was new type of lethal capability that was deployed on the battlefield, so that was certainly of concern,” Singh said, noting that the missile could carry either conventional or nuclear warheads. The U.S. was notified ahead of the launch through nuclear risk reduction channels, she said. The attack on the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro came in response to Kyiv’s use of longer-range U.S. and British missiles in strikes Tuesday and Wednesday on southern Russia, Putin said. Those strikes caused a fire at an ammunition depot in Russia’s Bryansk region and killed and wounded some security services personnel in the Kursk region, he said. “In the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond decisively and in kind,” the Russian president said, adding that Western leaders who are hatching plans to use their forces against Moscow should “seriously think about this.” Putin said the Oreshnik fired Thursday struck a well-known missile factory in Dnipro. He also said Russia would issue advance warnings if it launches more strikes with the Oreshnik against Ukraine to allow civilians to evacuate to safety — something Moscow hasn’t done before previous aerial attacks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov initially said Russia hadn’t warned the U.S. about the coming launch of the new missile, noting that it wasn’t obligated to do so. But he later changed tack and said Moscow did issue a warning 30 minutes before the launch. Putin’s announcement came hours after Ukraine claimed that Russia had used an intercontinental ballistic missile in the Dnipro attack, which wounded two people and damaged an industrial facility and rehabilitation center for people with disabilities, according to local officials. But American officials said an initial U.S. assessment indicated the strike was carried out with an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a Telegram post that the use of the missile was an “obvious and serious escalation in the scale and brutality of this war, a cynical violation of the UN Charter.” He also said there had been “no strong global reaction” to the use of the missile, which he said could threaten other countries. “Putin is very sensitive to this. He is testing you, dear partners,” Zelenskyy wrote. “If there is no tough response to Russia’s actions, it means they see that such actions are possible.” The attack comes during a week of escalating tensions , as the U.S. eased restrictions on Ukraine’s use of American-made longer-range missiles inside Russia and Putin lowered the threshold for launching nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian air force said in a statement that the Dnipro attack was launched from Russia’s Astrakhan region, on the Caspian Sea. “Today, our crazy neighbor once again showed what he really is,” Zelenskyy said hours before Putin’s address. “And how afraid he is.” Russia was sending a message by attacking Ukraine with an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of releasing multiple warheads at extremely high speeds, even if they are less accurate than cruise missiles or short-range ballistic missiles, said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. “Why might you use it therefore?” Savill said. “Signaling — signaling to the Ukrainians. We’ve got stuff that outrages you. But really signaling to the West ‘We’re happy to enter into a competition around intermediate range ballistic missiles. P.S.: These could be nuclear tipped. Do you really want to take that risk?’” Military experts say that modern ICBMs and IRBMs are extremely difficult to intercept, although Ukraine has previously claimed to have stopped some other weapons that Russia described as “unstoppable,” including the air-launched Kinzhal hypersonic missile. David Albright, of the Washington-based think tank the Institute for Science and International Security, said he was “skeptical” of Putin’s claim, adding that Russian technology sometimes “falls short.” He suggested Putin was “taunting the West to try to shoot it down ... like a braggart boasting, taunting his enemy.” Earlier this week, the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to use the U.S.-supplied, longer-range missiles to strike deeper inside Russia — a move that drew an angry response from Moscow. Days later, Ukraine fired several of the missiles into Russia, according to the Kremlin. The same day, Putin signed a new doctrine that allows for a potential nuclear response even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power. The doctrine is formulated broadly to avoid a firm commitment to use nuclear weapons. In response, Western countries, including the U.S., said Russia has used irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior throughout the war to intimidate Ukraine and other nations. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday that Russia’s formal lowering of the threshold for nuclear weapons use did not prompt any changes in U.S. doctrine. She pushed back on concerns that the decision to allow Ukraine to use Western missiles to strike deeper inside Russia might escalate the war. ′′They’re the ones who are escalating this,” she said of the Kremlin — in part because of a flood of North Korean troops sent to the region. More than 1,000 days into war , Russia has the upper hand, with its larger army advancing in Donetsk and Ukrainian civilians suffering from relentless drone and missile strikes. Analysts and observers say the loosening of restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western missiles is unlikely to change the the course of the war, but it puts the Russian army in a more vulnerable position and could complicate the logistics that are crucial in warfare. Putin has also warned that the move would mean that Russia and NATO are at war. “It is an important move and it pulls against, undermines the narrative that Putin had been trying to establish that it was fine for Russia to rain down Iranian drones and North Korean missiles on Ukraine but a reckless escalation for Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons at legitimate targets in Russia,” said Peter Ricketts, a former U.K. national security adviser who now sits in the House of Lords.NoneWASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith moved to abandon two criminal cases against Donald Trump on Monday, acknowledging that Trump’s return to the White House will preclude attempts to federally prosecute him for retaining classified documents or trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The decision was inevitable, since longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. Yet it was still a momentous finale to an unprecedented chapter in political and law enforcement history, as federal officials attempted to hold accountable a former president while he was simultaneously running for another term. Trump emerges indisputably victorious, having successfully delayed the investigations through legal maneuvers and then winning reelection despite indictments that described his actions as a threat to the country's constitutional foundations. “I persevered, against all odds, and WON," Trump exulted in a post on Truth Social, his social media website. He also said that “these cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.” The judge in the election case granted prosecutors' dismissal request. A decision in the documents case was still pending on Monday evening. The outcome makes it clear that, when it comes to a president and criminal accusations, nothing supersedes the voters' own verdict. In court filings, Smith's team emphasized that the move to end their prosecutions was not a reflection of the merit of the cases but a recognition of the legal shield that surrounds any commander in chief. “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” prosecutors said in one of their filings. They wrote that Trump’s return to the White House “sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests: on the one hand, the Constitution’s requirement that the President must not be unduly encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities . . . and on the other hand, the Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.” In this situation, “the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” they concluded. Smith’s team said it was leaving intact charges against two co-defendants in the classified documents case — Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira — because “no principle of temporary immunity applies to them.” Steven Cheung, Trump's incoming White House communications director, said Americans “want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.” Trump has long described the investigations as politically motivated, and he has vowed to fire Smith as soon as he takes office in January. Now he will start his second term free from criminal scrutiny by the government that he will lead. The election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing Trump as he tried to reclaim the White House. He was indicted for plotting to overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in 2020, an effort that climaxed with his supporters' violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But the case quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House. The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial. The case was just beginning to pick up steam again in the trial court in the weeks leading up to this year’s election. Smith’s team in October filed a lengthy brief laying out new evidence it planned to use against him at trial, accusing him of “resorting to crimes” in an increasingly desperate effort to overturn the will of voters after he lost to Biden. In dismissing the case, Chutkan acknowledged prosecutors' request to do so “without prejudice,” raising the possibility that they could try to bring charges against Trump when his term is over. She wrote that is “consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.” But such a move may be barred by the statute of limitations, and Trump may also try to pardon himself while in office. The separate case involving classified documents had been widely seen as legally clear cut, especially because the conduct in question occurred after Trump left the White House and lost the powers of the presidency. The indictment included dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified records from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and obstructing federal efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. The case quickly became snarled by delays, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon slow to issue rulings — which favored Trump’s strategy of pushing off deadlines in all his criminal cases — while also entertaining defense motions and arguments that experts said other judges would have dispensed with without hearings. In May, she indefinitely canceled the trial date amid a series of unresolved legal issues before dismissing the case outright two months later. Smith’s team appealed the decision, but now has given up that effort. Trump faced two other state prosecutions while running for president. One of them, a New York case involving hush money payments, resulted in a conviction on felony charges of falsifying business records. It was the first time a former president had been found guilty of a crime. The sentencing in that case is on hold as Trump's lawyers try to have the conviction dismissed before he takes office, arguing that letting the verdict stand will interfere with his presidential transition and duties. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office is fighting the dismissal but has indicated that it would be open to delaying sentencing until Trump leaves office. Bragg, a Democrat, has said the solution needs to balance the obligations of the presidency with “the sanctity of the jury verdict." Trump was also indicted in Georgia along with 18 others accused of participating in a sprawling scheme to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election there. Any trial appears unlikely there while Trump holds office. The prosecution already was on hold after an appeals court agreed to review whether to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. Four defendants have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. Associated Press writers Colleen Long, Michael Sisak and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.
Andy Murray will coach Novak Djokovic through the Australian Open
TEHRAN - In a commentary published on December 4, German magazine Der Spiegel said Benjamin Netanyahu is waging an endless war in Gaza and delivering Israel into the arms of extremist right wings to stay in power. Der Spiegel was openly referring to some notorious members of Netanyahu’s cabinet including Itamar Ben Gvir who is a convicted supporter of terrorism, and Bezalel Smotrich who defends annexing the Gaza Strip. The following is part of the article: The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for both the Israeli Prime Minister and his former defense minister. With that, Netanyahu is the first freely elected head of government in the world who is suspected of being a war criminal by the judges in The Hague. Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, a country that experienced the worst attack in its history on October 7, 2023, is now officially a suspect. In Israel, all politicians, including Netanyahu’s adversaries, voice criticism of the arrest warrant. Netanyahu, the victim. That is his modus operandi, and it has been for years. In foreign policy, in domestic policy, in his personal affairs: It has always been somebody else’s fault. The media, the judiciary, the opposition, the rest of the world, all unjustifiably criticizing him, persecuting him. It is a narrative that has propelled him to numerous election victories, many of them coming after his political career had been declared over. And it keeps his government going, despite ongoing corruption proceedings. Now 75 years old, Netanyahu has served as Israel’s head of government for a total of 17 years. The Hamas attack was the worst day in the country’s history. Some 1,200 people were killed and more than 250 abducted and taken to Gaza. Many Israelis believe that Netanyahu bears a share of the responsibility because a number of warnings went unheeded. For a time, Netanyahu was the least liked politician in the country. These days, while his government may not have a majority according to current public opinion polls, his party, the national-conservative Likud, remains the strongest. Snap elections don’t appear to be in the near future. Indeed, Netanyahu just recently expanded his coalition by adding the parliamentary group of a former rival. The fact that thousands, even tens of thousands of Israelis take to the streets every week in anti-Netanyahu demonstrations, including former allies and men like his ex-defense minister Moshe Ya'alon? Doesn’t matter. The prime minister has a solid grip on power. "Netanyahu, who hit rock bottom on October 7, once again has very high approval ratings,” says Shtrauchler. Everything is going well for the prime minister – and soon, Donald Trump, who is a huge supporter of Israel, will be moving back into the White House. "I suspect he is waking up every morning with a smile on his face,” says Shtrauchler. Shtrauchler’s narrative of post-October 7 Netanyahu is that of a man who has once again managed to free himself from his troubles. Just as Gulliver broke loose from his chains. But the story can also be told another way: as one of a weak, detested prime minister who is clinging so desperately to his office that he has delivered Israel into the hands of the settlers and the racists. "Because no one else wanted to deal with Netanyahu anymore, he brought the most extreme right-wing people imaginable into his coalition,” says Raviv Drucker, 54, perhaps the best-known investigative journalist in the country. "He gave them enormous power. And since then, we have all been trapped in this nightmare. If the right-wing extremists didn’t have Netanyahu in their grip, the war in Gaza would have been over months ago.” In this narrative, Netanyahu is pulling an entire country down with him as he fights for political survival. A prime minister who has made Israel’s position in the region more tenuous with the war in Gaza, in addition to dividing the international community and triggering protests around the world against the Jewish state. Which narrative is the correct one? Der Spiegel spoke with the family members of hostages, political observers and military leaders in addition to former members of Netanyahu’s inner circle and others who used to work for him. A handful of them still hold Bibi, as he is widely known in Israel, in high regard. Many others, though, have become adversaries, their past experiences with the prime minister now leading them to issue warnings about him. They believe Netanyahu is dangerous because, in their telling, his primary goal is not that of pursuing the country’s best interest, but of remaining in office. Because otherwise, there is a chance he could end up in prison. And that, many believe, means that he is essentially capable of anything. Which is why, before attention can be focused on October 7, the war and its consequences, it must first be turned to rosé champagne, Cohiba cigars and a diamond-studded bracelet worth $42,000. Though there is also a link between the war and the Cohibas. A date is approaching that poses a greater threat to Netanyahu than the arrest warrant from The Hague: On December 10, he must testify in the district court in Jerusalem. The indictment accuses him of fraud, bribery and breach of trust on several counts. If convicted, he could face several years in prison. Essentially, the case revolves around three cases that share a similar pattern: Netanyahu and his wife Sara are thought to have received champagne, cigars and jewelry worth several hundred thousand euros – including the diamond-studded bracelet that, according to a witness, Sara Netanyahu wanted to "exchange” because her husband found it too "Romanian,” too ostentatious. In addition, Netanyahu received something that he likely valued far more highly: nice photos and friendly headlines in the largest media outlets in the country, including the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth and the online news portal Walla. In exchange, such outlets were promised tax breaks, competitive advantages and other favors. The investigation into Jlpossible improprieties began eight years ago and the trial has now been underway for four years, but over and over again, Netanyahu has been able to push back his testimony. Now, though, if nothing completely unexpected takes place, he will soon find himself having to appear in court three times a week – potentially over a period of several months. "Netanyahu could have resigned as Ehud Olmert and Yitzhak Rabin once did,” says Raviv Drucker, the investigative journalist, who works for the broadcaster Channel 13. "But our prime minister decided to do the unthinkable: He simply stayed in office and began fighting for his survival.” Drucker has uncovered numerous affairs and scandals, but Netanyahu’s corruption is his primary focus. He is likely the journalist for whom Netanyahu harbors the most animosity, and the prime minister has sued him three times. "Always unsuccessfully.” He even tried to ramp up pressure on the broadcaster where Drucker used to work to get the journalist fired. But Drucker refused to back down. Now, he is also involved in "The Bibi Files,” which will be released on December 11 on the streaming platform Jolt. At the heart of the documentary are police recordings of witness interrogations that were leaked to the filmmakers Alexis Bloom and Alex Gibney. They show everything: wealthy benefactors and employees who handled the delivery of the gifts to the Netanyahus. And the couple at the center of the affair: Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu. "You are asking me delusional questions,” says the prime minister in the documentary’s introductory scene, his hand pounding angrily on the desk. In contrast to other witnesses, he is not questioned by the police in a sparse interrogation room, but in his office, a large map of the Middle East hanging on the wall behind him. "This is preposterous and insane. You are trying to incriminate the prime minister on nonsense.” During the questioning, Netanyahu gesticulates frequently, often crosses his arms in apparent disgust and makes no secret of his irritation. At times, he is charming, but more often, his voice takes on a lecturing tone. He doesn’t count bottles, he fires back when asked about the amount of champagne he received, but "the number of rockets pointed at us.” Mostly, though, his responses are terse: "I don’t know,” or "I don’t remember.” Many of the witnesses, though, insist that Netanyahu has prodigious powers of recollection. Sara Netanyahu, for her part, prefers a more confrontational, aggressive approach. She denies everything, insulting and yelling at the police officers. When asked about interfering in press coverage, she insists: "I just want a little positive, objective and balanced press!” And: "The people will never know about all the good things I do!” "The Bibi Files” exposes the Netanyahus as a rapacious couple with no cognizance of having done anything wrong – and shows the dramatic effect that has on politics, media and society. Netanyahu usually has only about a quarter of Israeli voters behind him, but he has consistently been able to assemble enough coalition partners to become prime minister. After the election in late 2022, he was only able to form a governing coalition with the ultra-Orthodox and the right-wing extremists. Itamar Ben-Gvir, a convicted racist and supporter of terrorism, became minister of national security. Bezalel Smotrich, who was handed the finance portfolio. Both are the kind of extremists who had previously been unacceptable in positions of political leadership. The first of them has been doing what he can since his appointment to get the police behind him. The other is pushing ahead with settlement construction in the West Bank at a record pace. It has been like handing a flamethrower to a pyromaniac. Israeli right-wing extremists envision a Greater Israel stretching from Jordan to the Mediterranean, within which Palestinians have few rights or, ideally, disappear completely. Most ultra-Orthodox, meanwhile, want to be as free from influence from the secular state as possible and insist on retaining their special privileges – such as a continuation of their conscription exemption and of lavish funding for their communities. Both groups have a common adversary: the Israeli judiciary. It is for that reason that the government, immediately upon taking office in winter 2022, launched a "judicial reform” aimed at stripping the country’s highest court of most of its powers. Because the country has no constitution, the Supreme Court of Israel is the only organ that serves as a corrective to politics. A majority of Israelis correctly understood the project of "judicial reform” as an attack on the separation of powers. Over the course of several months, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate against the planned reform – a wave of protests that came to an end on October 7, 2023. And judicial reform was put on the back burner. "I am convinced, though, that the government intends to pick it up again. It’s not just Ben-Gvir and Smotrich who want it, Netanyahu also wants to destroy these institutions so that he can do whatever he wants,” says a man who was once a close ally to the prime minister. Today, he sees Netanyahu as a threat. "Israel’s fate shifted with the corruption investigations, and that is a great tragedy for Israel. For all of us. Netanyahu makes every decision, really every single one – be it military, political, financial or personal – with this in mind.” He is, the man says, prepared to do anything to stay in power, believing that it is the only way he can avoid a conviction. The man wishes to remain anonymous, and even asked that the site of our meeting remain secret. He is afraid of what he calls Netanyahu’s "poison machine” – attacks on social media from pro-Netanyahu journalists and mudslinging from Bibi’s troll army. "If I were to go public, they would destroy my life.” He, too, has stories to tell of wealthy businessmen who would bring along tailor-made suits for the prime minister and jewelry for his wife. And not just on one occasion, but regularly. "Netanyahu believes that he is entitled to it,” says the one-time confidant. "He sees himself as something between a king and a president.” The former confidant says that Netanyahu no longer differentiates between himself and the state, in part because the prime minister is convinced that everything he is doing to stay in power is ultimately in the service of the country – because he alone can protect Israel. Ever since the beginning of the investigations in 2016, the former confidant says, Netanyahu has been doing all he can to obstruct justice. Not only has he timed his trips abroad to avoid being questioned, the man alleges, but he has also launched campaigns against the police, the Supreme Court and public prosecutors. And his efforts have met with significant success, the former confidant believes. "Ask the people on the street. They will tell you that these institutions are corrupt and controlled by the leftists, who want to topple Bibi.” During his own interrogation in the corruption case, their 33-year-old son Yair insulted the police as "Stasi” and "Gestapo,” the dreaded secret police forces of East Germany and Nazi Germany, respectively. On X, he has posted numerous unhinged tirades against his father’s political opponents over the years, a habit that has resulted in several court appearances. Most recently, he accused the country’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, of wanting to overthrow his father. And he celebrated Donald Trump’s election victory in the U.S. by posting: "Hallelujah!!!” Many of those interviewed for this article believe that Yair Netanyahu says out loud what his father is thinking. In recent years, Benjamin Netanyahu has continually inched ever closer to autocrats and right-wing populists around the world, including Argentinian President Javier Milei, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and, of course, U.S. president-elect Donald Trump. He backed Trump in the U.S. campaign from the very beginning, despite almost unconditional support for Israel from U.S. President Joe Biden over the last 14 months. But for Netanyahu, Trump is even more appealing. His first term in office was a fruitful period for the Israeli prime minister, with Trump moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, as the Israeli right had long been hoping for. But his second term could even be better. The settlers in the West Bank also celebrated the election result and have declared 2025 to be the "year of annexation.” "Netanyahu says he wants to save Israel, but in reality, he is destroying it,” says the one-time confidant. Because every move toward a Palestinian state would rupture his coalition and scare off his right-wing base, the former confidant says, Netanyahu has essentially relinquished the West Bank to the sometimes-violent settlers – damning Israel to an endless conflict with the Palestinians. For the prime minister, says journalist Anshel Pfeffer, who has written a biography of Netanyahu and now works for the Economist, the Palestinians have never been the "real issue,” rather his focus is more on Iran and its allies. With these issues, says Pfeffer, Netanyahu is in his "comfort zone.” Pfeffer adds: "He never wanted to have anything to do with Gaza.” As leader of the opposition in 2009, he demanded a "clear victory” over Hamas in Gaza. That, though, was little more than a slogan, not unlike today’s version, "total victory.” He had hardly entered office before it was no longer mentioned. Instead, Netanyahu built a high-tech border fence, while at the same time allowing Qatar to transport $30 million in cash per month through Israel to Gaza in suitcases. "He nourished the extremists and weakened the moderates,” says Pfeffer. "Netanyahu may not have wanted this war (in Gaza),” says Pfeffer. "But now, he also doesn’t want it to end.” It is a war by slogans,” says Pfeffer, "not by strategy.” The coastal strip is now little more than a heap of rubble. "There is nothing left to do in Gaza. The major achievements have been achieved,” the fired defense minister Yoav Gallant was quoted as saying in a recent meeting with the families of hostages. The International Criminal Court has also issued an arrest warrant against Gallant. "I fear we are staying there just because there is a desire to be there.” Netanyahu’s decision against making a hostage deal and agreeing to a ceasefire, Gallant allegedly said, was neither for military nor for diplomatic concerns. More than anything, though, it seems that Netanyahu doesn’t want to end the war because to do so, he would have to make a deal with Hamas for the hostages. Otherwise, the hostages will not be released – that much has become clear in the more than 400 days that have passed since the terror attack. That is the reason why even large parts of army leadership have been in favor of a hostage deal since spring. Such a deal, however, would result in the right-wing extremists leaving the coalition and allowing the government to fall. To stay in power, the prime minister’s only choice is to continue the military operation. In contrast to the war against Hezbollah: There, too, Ben-Gvir voted against the ceasefire, but he did not threaten to leave the coalition. Which means that military operations in Lebanon have come to an end for now. When it comes to Gaza, however, it seems – as brutal as it sounds – that Netanyahu has decided in favor of clinging to office. And against the hostages.A South Albury woman who used the promise of sex to lure a man who became the victim of an armed carjacking has copped a hefty jail term. or signup to continue reading Mikaela Morgan will remain behind bars for at least another nine months over the incident from August, 2023, when the man was assaulted and had a knife held to his throat. Her two co-offenders had arrived at the BP service station in South Albury several hours after she made contact with him by phoning the number on his Locanto listing. Morgan previously pleaded guilty in Albury Local Court to charges of aggravated assault with the intention to take or drive a vehicle and dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception. For that she was sentenced before the District Court in Albury on Friday, November 29, to three years and three months in jail. Judge Justin Smith set a non-parole period of 18 months, making Morgan eligible for release on August 27, 2025. A 25 per cent discount on sentence was provided because of an early guilty plea by the offender, who will turn 22 next Monday, December 9. Morgan, of Ebden Street, must also pay $7599 compensation to the victim. The court also granted Morgan leave to withdraw a severity appeal against a two-month jail term handed down in the Local Court on a larceny charge, though the starting date for the sentence was varied to begin from October 15. A set of Director of Public Prosecutions agreed facts used on sentence for the aggravated assault and deception charges outlined how the victim was using Locanto "to meet people for a sexual relationship". Morgan responded to the post through a phone call she made on August 16, 2023. He was told she was at an address in Kiewa Street, South Albury, and asked to meet him near the BP service station on Wodonga Place. The man arrived, she got in the car and introduced herself and then asked to go to the nearby McDonald's restaurant followed by the BP. He agreed to buy cigarettes and sunglasses for her from the service station. Morgan then asked if he could drive her to her mother's home in Ebden Street to deliver the McDonald's food she bought. She went inside for five minutes while he waited in the car. When Morgan returned, she asked him for $150 to give to her brother. He gave her $120, then Morgan got out and texted him a few minutes later asking to drive his car. He refused. After another cash request by text, which he refused, he drove to Kiewa Street to collect the then 20-year-old. Morgan and two other men, one her boyfriend, then devised a plan to steal his car and other property. The court was told the victim arrived in Kiewa Street at 2.52am and Morgan got in and they drove to Townsend Street. "My sister's going to bring me out a bag," she told him, then they waited in the car for about 10 minutes. At 3.07am, Morgan got a text from one of the men asking "what way are you facing ... towards BP or Maccas?" to which she replied "BP". Morgan asked the victim to turn off the headlights so he did it by turning off the engine, then two men were seen lurking near the car in the dark. About 30 seconds later, the driver's door opened and one of the men - wearing a face mask and a hoodie pulled over his head - grabbed the victim by the shoulder and held a knife to his throat. He yelled at the victim to "get out of the f---ing car" so he did just that, but with the knife still being held to his neck. The knife was pulled away as the victim stood in the middle of the road, then the man got into the driver's seat. "What the f--- are you doing? I don't even f---ing know you," Morgan said to the man. "Shut up b-----," he replied, "just stay in the car". The man got out with the knife and again approached the victim, who walked backwards with his hands in front of him. With that, the man returned to the car then drove off at high speed towards Ebden Street, before making his way to Townsend Street. Inside the car was the victim's phone, house keys, car keys and wallet. Morgan and the two men travelled to Wodonga, where several purchases were made with the man's debit card before returning to Albury. The victim accessed his internet banking account on August 17 and found an unauthorised transaction for $2599 for the purchase of a Samsung mobile phone. DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement Advertisement
The Michigan Wolverines pulled off a stunning upset over the Ohio State Buckeyes in the 2024 edition of "The Game," with the final score settling in at 13-10. Immediately after the contest, a huge fight broke out between the two teams postgame, and Gus Johnson's commentary of the incident resulted in him getting blasted on social media. Immediately after the Wolverines won, their players rushed to the middle of the field to plant their flag on the Buckeyes logo at the center of Ohio Stadium. Unsurprisingly, Ohio State's players didn't take too kindly to that, and it resulted in the huge fight that ensued. Johnson wasn't too pleased with what he saw, as he called out Michigan for planting their flag on Ohio State's logo right after the game. Given how frequently this happens, though, fans weren't too pleased with Johnson's commentary, and it led to him getting destroyed on social media. Gus Johnson still crying about this 👀🤣 pic.twitter.com/haJDqb07Sg @TomScibelli bashed Johnson on X, formerly known as Twitter, saying, "Gus Johnson is acting like Michigan planting their flag is the equivalent of bombing the stadium." @JackMacCFB and @CFBRep called out Johnson for his bias towards Michigan, saying, "Not Gus Johnson crying about Michigan," and, "Gus Johnson is (an) Ohio State fan," respectively. @badgerbarstool dissed Johnson for complaining about flag planting, saying, "Gus Johnson trying to defend Ohio State is straight comedy. Nothing wrong with planting the flag when you own the other team." © Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images You never want to see fights break out in sports, but for Johnson to completely defend Ohio State for attacking Michigan because they planted their flag at the center of the field certainly was seen as distasteful by fans. Had they played better during the game, the whole incident could have been avoided. Instead, a massive brawl took place, and chances are suspensions will be rolling in for both sides in the future. Johnson also caught quite a bit of flak for how he handled the situation, and while he wasn't directly involved in the fight, it looks like he also may have suffered a pretty big loss here considering what fans are saying about him. Related: Suspensions Likely Looming for Ohio State, Michigan Players After Postgame Brawl
Starting a job search can be both exciting and challenging, especially when navigating the vast online landscape. However, it is important for job seekers to take extra precautions to ensure they have a secure job search experience. They can do this by researching job postings, verifying the poster's identity, and being mindful of the information they share. Aditi Jha, Head - Legal & Public Policy, LinkedIn India says, “Job seekers turn to LinkedIn because it’s a trusted space to connect with potential employers and explore new career opportunities. Our commitment to maintaining a safe, professional platform is why we offer free verification for members and why our Trust team works tirelessly to stop 99% of fake accounts before they even reach you.” Here are some essential tips and tools to help you protect yourself during your job search: Check for Verified Information on Job Postings: A verification badge on a job posting means there is verified information about the company or job poster. This includes if the poster is affiliated with an official company page, has verified their association with a particular workplace, or has verified their identity through one of our identity verification partners. Take Care with What You Share: Consider what personal information you are being asked for. Never give out bank details before the onboarding process. Say “No” to Suspicious Requests: Scammers can use tactics that legitimate employers wouldn’t, like asking you to download encrypted software for an interview or offering jobs with high pay for little work. Job offers after just one remote interview is very rarely a legitimate deal. You can report spam and inappropriate content. Enable Message Warnings: Consider enabling LinkedIn’s optional automated detection of harmful content, which may detect potentially harmful scams. Look for Red Flags: Be cautious of job postings that sound too good to be true or require upfront payments. Common scams include roles like mystery shopper, company impersonator, or personal assistant. Additionally, be wary of anyone asking you to send money, cryptocurrency, gift cards, or to invest. Filter by Jobs with Verifications: You can now filter your job search to show only jobs with verifications. The filter allows you to search exclusively for jobs posted by companies with a verified LinkedIn Page and current job posters associated with those companies. When toggled on, only jobs with these verifications will appear in your search results, and the filter will be visible in the search header. Content Creators Can Support Job Seekers with Authentic Advice: Many job seekers turn to trusted voices on LinkedIn, such as Verified members and Top Voices, for career advice and inspiration. When reviewing organic or sponsored content, look for clear labels like #ad, #sponsored, or #partner as indicators of paid partnerships. We encourage creators to comply with applicable laws and platform guidelines to ensure transparency and authenticity in their endorsements. The significance of safety in the job search process cannot be overstated. Prioritising verification, protecting personal information, and staying alert to suspicious requests are key to safeguarding your search. By leveraging LinkedIn's tools and following these tips, job seekers can enhance their safety and make informed decisions as they pursue new career opportunities. We continue to integrate authenticity signals throughout LinkedIn’s ecosystem, helping you navigate your job search with confidence.
Trump has promised again to release the last JFK files. But experts say don’t expect big revelationsVasko's 4 TDs power Coastal Carolina past Georgia State 48-27 to become bowl eligible
Greens Senator David Shoebridge has rebuked the Albanese government for cutting deals with the Coalition to pass "brutal" immigration bills. On Thursday, Senators sat until close to midnight and passed 31 bills, including the social media ban for under-16s and immigration laws that gave the government additional powers when dealing with non-citizens. Three migration bills were bundled together and passed with Coalition support, giving authority to the Australian government to to pay third-party countries to take non-citizens, as well as banning travellers from certain nations and criminal penalties for non-citizens refusing to cooperate with their deportation case. Mr Shoebridge said the Labor government "gave themselves the power" to deport more than 80,000 people and "weren't telling the truth" about the details of the legislation. However, Immigration Minister Tony Burke told Sky News political editor Andrew Clennell that this "bizarre speculation" was not true. "I think maybe even from your next guest that we're about to deport 80,000 people or something like that. It's nothing like that," Mr Burke said. "But there are... large numbers of people who leave voluntarily every week, small numbers who leave forcibly, and smaller numbers who then lawyer up and say, 'well, I'm not going anywhere'. "And any country has a right to run its own immigration system. And that's what we want to be able to do." Mr Burke also suggested scrapping business visas from countries who were refusing to take back their deportees. Mr Shoebridge said while the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister claimed the legislation would only cover the 250 individuals part of the NZYQ cohort, the law would actually cover 80,000 people. "This is the government not telling the truth," Mr Shoebridge told the Sunday Agenda host. "They've given this power to a potential future Coalition minister, you tell me James Paterson won't be deporting thousands of people? "I want to make sure we don't have James Paterson as a future immigration minister." Mr Shoebridge said the government's "brutal" legislation passed due to it making a deal with the Coalition. "This was the Coalition, and they said it, this was the Coalition driving immigration policy," Mr Shoebridge said. "The reason they were signing onto this was they would never get these powers themselves. "They could only get them through a completely supine, surrendering Labor government that have given in." On Wednesday, Liberal Senator and shadow home affairs minister James Paterson said the Coalition had negotiated in "good faith" with the Albanese government. "We will not allow their mess and incompetence when it comes to community safety and national security to harm the Australian public any more than it already has," he said. Shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan said the Coalition was "basically running the immigration system for the government" after the deal was made. Mr Shoebridge was asked whether it was "reasonable" to be able to get criminals out of the country if they cannot be detained in immigration detention. The Greens Senator said Australia dealt with criminals through the justice system, but immigration matters should be dealt with separately. "We believe the immigration system should deal with immigration matters, not be a quasi-criminal system, not just us, the High Court has been telling the Parliament time after time this," he said.
ORANGEBURG, S.C. (AP) — Ryan Stubblefield threw for two touchdowns and ran for two more to lead South Carolina State to a 53-21 win over Norfolk State on Saturday. The Bulldogs (9-2, 5-0 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference), who have their most wins since getting nine in 2013, wrapped up the conference title and a Celebration Bowl berth a week earlier. They play the Southwestern Athletic Conference champion in Atlanta on Dec. 14. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.Donald Trump and the intellectuals: How do we navigate the darkness ahead?