The story behind the widely-shared photo of a bikini-clad doctor who helped a patient on the brink of death
Dr. Candice Myhre shared a photo of herself saving someone's life while wearing a bikini to highlight "disgraceful" sexism in medicine.
The Princess Royal is set to turn 70 on 15 August but there's one birthday tradition the Queen's daughter is set to miss out on this year.READ: Prince William and Kate Middleton's sweetest PDA moments in photos Loading the player... WATCH: The Queen and Princess Anne chat over video call in hilarious clipCertain royal birthdays and anniversaries are marked by the ringing of the bells at Westminster Abbey, including for the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, their children, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their children.Following the latest guidelines from the Church of England and the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers, ringing at the Abbey by their volunteer bell ringers is currently suspended during the coronavirus outbreak, as noted on the church's website.Anne married first husband Captain Mark Phillips at the Abbey in 1973Princess Anne isn't the only royal to have missed out on the ringing of the bells this year. The Queen, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke of Cambridge, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis have all missed the tradition this year, as their birthdays fell between April and August. Prince Charles is likely to be the next royal to hear the bells on his birthday in November.The Abbey has played host to some of the biggest royal events in its history, including the Queen's Coronation in 1953 and the weddings of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip in 1947, Princess Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones in 1960, Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips in 1973 and Prince William and Kate Middleton in 2011.MORE: Why the Queen and Prince Philip could be confined to Balmoral EstateWestminster Abbey has hosted many historic royal eventsThe Duke and Duchess of Sussex also took part in their last ever public royal engagement at Westminster Abbey, attending the Commonwealth Day service in early March. Prince Harry and Meghan officially stepped back from royal duties on 31 March and moved to Los Angeles with their one-year-old son Archie.Meanwhile, the Princess Royal reportedly enjoyed a birthday lunch with the Queen at Frogmore House in Windsor earlier this week, before the monarch travelled to her Scottish estate, Balmoral, with the Duke of Edinburgh for their traditional summer break. Make sure you never miss a ROYAL story! Sign up to our newsletter to get all of our celebrity, royal and lifestyle news delivered directly to your inbox.
- PoliticsThe Daily Beast
Donald Trump enters the final months of the 2020 campaign under a dark new cloud: public confirmation that he, his companies and his family are the focus of a wide-ranging criminal investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. As Attorney General William Barr ramps up his scheme to misuse the Department of Justice to interfere with yet another presidential election in Trump’s favor, Vance publicly confirmed on Monday that Trump is in the crosshairs of a wide-ranging grand jury investigation—but only because Trump himself all but begged Vance to make that announcement.Enterprising reporters, aided by public records and occasional leaks— including of old tax records by Trump’s niece, Mary Trump—have spent the past several years piecing together a sordid tale of potential tax and insurance fraud (not to mention frauds upon disfavored family members, like Mary) stretching back decades in the Trump Organization. Unsurprisingly, prosecutors took an interest in the same transactions, leading Vance’s office to seek Trump’s financial records. For over a year, Trump’s been engaged in a litigation campaign focused on preventing a grand jury Vance empanelled from obtaining those records from Trump’s accountants. Now, that campaign has backfired.Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance’s Trump Case Hinges on Tax ReturnsThings had already been going badly for Trump in this legal fight but he bought time as the case made its way up to the Supreme Court, which ultimately rejected his argument, reasoning that “the public has the right to every man’s evidence.” The high court then returned the matter to a district court, while affording Trump with little remaining basis to object, in the absence of any reason to conclude that the subpoena will interfere with his official duties.It is well established that grand juries have wide latitude to conduct investigations. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, a grand jury “can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” Therefore, if Trump had been astute, he would have accepted the high court’s decision and given up on his effort to block Vance’s subpoena. But Trump chose to overplay his hand. Last month, the president’s lawyers declared that the nature and scope of Vance’s investigation is limited to an inquiry into Trump’s illicit efforts to funnel hush money payments to former sexual partners during the months leading up to the 2016 election through his fixer, Michael Cohen, and contended that the purported narrowness of the inquiry meant that Vance had no right to make a broad demand for Trump’s financial records.Yet Trump had no basis to make declarations about the scope of the DA’s investigation; indeed, the only detailed explanation Vance has offered to date is contained in a (properly) secretly filed portion of a declaration by one of his prosecutors that has been reviewed only by the court. Furthermore, by making uninformed assertions about the scope of the investigation, Trump was all but daring Vance to comment about the nature of an ongoing investigation in the run up to an election.And that is just what Vance’s attorneys did, albeit obliquely and with careful attention to grand jury secrecy rules, in a brief filed Monday in opposition to Trump’s desperate last-ditch effort to prevent disclosure of his financial records. After noting that the DA has no obligation to disclose the nature or scope of an ongoing criminal investigation in response to a challenge to a subpoena—let alone improperly disclose grand jury evidence – Vance’s office stated that Trump’s claims about the supposedly limited scope of the investigation “is fatally undermined by undisputed information in the public record.” The DA’s brief then went on to quote the judge himself, who months ago—after reading Vance’s secret account of the matters under review—observed that it is related to “alleged insurance and bank fraud by the Trump Organization and its officers.”But Vance’s office did not end there. In a significant footnote, the filing cited articles from The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal that address some of the wide-ranging evidence of fraud by the Trump Organization that journalists have uncovered over the past several years, which have included allegedly overvaluing assets to defraud investors, bank lenders and insurers (as well as allegedly undervaluing them to defraud disfavored heirs like Mary Trump). Vance’s lawyers did not expressly say that Trump is under investigation for this smorgasbord of financial crimes. Yet Vance can hardly be blamed for creating an inference of potentially wide ranging illegality by the president. After all, Trump’s lawyers all but demanded it by challenging the DA to explain why his grand jury’s subpoena was not overbroad.As a result of his own lawyers’ bad strategy, Trump enters the final stretch of the campaign with the cloud of a broad criminal investigation hanging directly over his head. That investigation is highly unlikely to end before Nov. 3; indeed, Trump’s continued, and all but certainly futile, efforts to stymie the DA’s inquiry make it all the more certain that the investigation will continue for months, regardless of whether Trump, or any of his companies and associates, are ultimately charged, let alone found guilty. All of that would have been properly kept confidential as the grand jury continued its work if Trump’s own lawyers hadn’t opened this can of worms. It’s a can of worms that Trump is familiar with, given how Comey’s serial misconduct in commenting on the FBI’s investigation of Clinton, in contravention of department of justice policy, may well have cost her the election. Notably, it was Comey’s mistreatment of Clinton, rather than any supposed conspiracy against Trump, that Rod Rosenstein cited in recommending Comey’s dismissal to an approving then attorney general Jeff Sessions, with Rosenstein calling Comey’s conduct “gratuitous,” and a breach of the “traditions of the Department and the FBI.”One person who disagreed with that judgment, however, was then private citizen William Barr, who declared in October 2016 that Comey “did the right thing” by reaching out to taint a presidential candidate on the eve of an election. After taking office as attorney general, Barr has made his contempt for the longstanding DOJ policy against using ongoing investigations to engage in political theater even clearer.Trump’s own effort to replay his success of 2016 by ginning up a public announcement that his current opponent, Joe Biden, was the subject of an investigation by Ukraine for a non-existent crime not only failed, but ultimately resulted in his own impeachment. But Barr has since stepped into the breach, repeatedly peppering his public statements with hints that his own personally designated investigator, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Dunham, may soon be releasing a report, and possibly indictments, calling into question the bona fides of the FBI’s (as well as Robert Mueller’s) investigation of Russian criminal interference in the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign’s welcoming thereof.Asked how he reconciles his repeated promos for potential dirt on the DOJ’s investigation of Russian crimes committed during the last election in the midst of the 2020 campaign with his department’s policies, Barr disingenuously asserts that it’s OK, because Biden himself is not the target of the investigation. But the policy (which Barr recently adopted himself) provides that the department “may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” Furthermore, as Joshua A. Geltzer and Ryan Goodman, recently observed, based on Barr’s record, we can count on Barr to “distort [Durham’s] conclusions in a way favorable to President Trump’s political ambitions,” While Hillary Clinton may have lost her bid for the White House because of an investigation that fully cleared her of claims of criminality, the public is now so inured to Trump’s parade of misconduct that Vance’s court filing was not even front-page news. Yet the fact that Trump has now been publicly identified as the focus of a law enforcement investigation of potentially systematic criminality will make it all the more difficult for the president and his DOJ consigliere Barr to effectively employ innuendo to taint Biden. After all, as Vance just told a court, the president himself is now fully embroiled in an investigation of “possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.” Read more at The Daily Beast.Get 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.
- PoliticsThe Daily Beast
Before the first votes were even cast in the primaries, the dream ticket for many Democrats was Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The fiery senator from California would diversify and energize Biden’s last hurrah, carrying the torch for a new generation. Then came her ill-fated broadside against Biden over busing and a campaign rife with in-fighting before she exited the field with mixed reviews. Yet here she is, atop the field of contenders, the most likely choice for vice president—but with some static.“A lot of people are looking to shove that knife in her back,” says a Democrat affiliated with the Biden campaign but not directly involved in the vice-presidential pick. “Some of it is among people who don’t want to see her as Biden’s successor. It’s coming from a lot of different angles.” If Kamala Harris Is ‘Too Ambitious,’ Then So Is Every Woman With AmbitionThe knock against Harris has been that she’s too ambitious, a charge that would never be levied against a man and that’s being brought now by emissaries of those with personal ambitions of their own. Biden’s promise to name a woman as vice president took on added importance after the protests following George Floyd’s death, when Biden said several Black women were on his list. With his announcement just days away, there are two questions: Why did he take so long? And will he choose a Black woman?First, it’s not unusual to wait this long. Until Bill Clinton and Al Gore in ’92, the veep choice was saved until the convention. It was the only news left in what had become a scripted television show. The abbreviated public scrutiny produced some unwanted bombshells, notably baby boomer Dan Quayle’s deer-in-the headlights look when reporters asked him about his draft avoidance, and Geraldine Ferraro’s husband’s tax records, which blew up into a major scandal after she’d been unveiled in 1984 as the first woman named to a national political ticket. “You know how Italian men are,” Ferraro said, explaining why her husband was refusing to release his tax returns. Critics pounced, saying if she can’t stand up to her husband, how could she stand up to foreign leaders?Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, too, might have benefited from some media exposure before John McCain anointed her as his running mate after meeting her only once. She was a huge success at the GOP convention, wowing the crowd with her one-liners (“What’s the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Lipstick”), but the glow faded quickly after an interview with reporter Katie Couric revealed how little Palin knew. Asked how she got her information, what newspapers she read, Palin said, “uh, all of them.” Her expertise on Russia, she said, was based on the country’s proximity to Alaska, which became a Saturday Night Live spoof: “I can see Russia from my window.” Now, Biden — who’s leading in the polls and thus doesn’t need a surprise pick to shake up the race — is taking his time because he can, and because none of his apparent finalists is without drawbacks. Better to see how the attacks surfacing now on his top choices play out, than risk damaging revelations later. That’s especially true of Karen Bass, a member of the House from California and a late entry into the vice-presidential sweepstakes, pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The case for Bass, who chairs the Black Caucus, is that she would be the governing partner and legislative mechanic Biden needs to make the most of what could be the most productive Congress since the Great Society. Stylistically, it would be different. There wouldn’t be two smiling couples (Bass is divorced) and politically it might be more broadly acceptable to some voters to have a Black woman as vice president that the party isn’t necessarily committed to as its standard bearer in four or eight years. Polls suggest Biden is a sure winner, so he’s focused on who will be the best governing partner—a female version of himself with Obama. And when Obama picked him, the expectation was that his presidential ambitions would be burned out in eight years—or non-existent, like Karen Bass. Bass’ stock rose, boosted in part by a bench of ambitious Democrats happy to see a placeholder. But then comments she made about the death of Fidel Castro in 2016, lamenting the loss of “Comandante en jefe,” gave Democrats pause, along with new coverage of her trips to Cuba in the 1970s as an organizer for the Venceremos Brigade. “The Cuban thing is not so minor,” says Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Biden is better positioned to win Florida than any recent Democratic nominee. There is no path to 270 for Trump without Florida. Has the Cuban vote in Florida evolved enough that Bass’ favorable comments about Castro won’t impact Biden’s vote in the state? “They should be rigorously investigating that,” says Galston.Bass this week was also fending off criticism about remarks she made, first reported by The Daily Caller, at a groundbreaking ceremony in Hollywood for a church of Scientology when she was speaker of the California assembly. Bass was preceded at the podium by the then-sheriff of Los Angeles county, and she viewed her remarks as part of her job to commemorate the occasion. Others may not be so forgiving. One Democratic consultant told The Daily Beast he found her appearance at the event “skin-crawlingly creepy.” South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, whose endorsement gave Biden the boost he needed to win the nomination, says naming a Black woman to the ticket is “a plus—not a must.” Some analysts read that as giving Biden permission to do otherwise, but Roy Neel, a longtime Washington insider who served as Al Gore’s chief of staff, believes Biden is “totally boxed in” on naming a Black woman. “Clyburn is a smart politician and an ally, that was a gentlemanly way not to openly further box Biden in,” says Neel. “If Biden calls him, he’s probably going to say the same thing: You will get a whole lot of credit from Black folks” if he picks a Black woman. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to get the message. Former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, another of Biden’s finalists, took a big hit from Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. He focused on her well-known penchant for dropping f-bombs and warned that choosing her would be one long and miserable trip down Benghazi lane. “Should Biden win, he would be wise to make good use of Rice’s great brain in his administration. But not as vice president. Biden’s greatest appeal is the hope of relief he offers from government-by-insult and rule-by-rage. He shouldn’t squander it.” Finally, there’s the case for Elizabeth Warren as the most broadly acceptable choice within the party and among progressives. In the year of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter, an all-white Democratic ticket doesn’t seem likely. If he does choose Warren, Biden could couple the announcement with a reminder that his first Supreme Court appointment will be a Black woman—and he could present Kamala Harris as his choice for Attorney General, a job she’s well suited for, and Susan Rice as his choice for Secretary of State. When George W. Bush ran in 2000, he regularly touted Colin Powell as someone who would be in his Cabinet, seeing that as a plus to win over Democrats and Independents. In the politics of 2020, Democrats fear that filling out a Cabinet prematurely would just offer Republicans more lines of attack. With the caveat that only Biden knows who he is about to name as his running mate, the consensus seems to be it’s Harris. It’s always been Harris. If Chris Dodd’s account is correct that she laughed and said, “That’s politics” when he asked her about that ill-fated attack on Biden, that is not disqualifying. That’s truth-telling. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get 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.
- NewsEvening Standard
West Midlands Police release shocking footage of dog walker being hit by car and left for dead near Birmingham
Shocking footage shows the moment a dog walker was mowed down and left for dead in the West Midlands.Police released the video in an urgent bid to trace three people thought to have been in the car at the time of the crash.
- EntertainmentThe Independent
Seven words, delivered with a straight face by Dakota Johnson last November on The Ellen DeGeneres Show could be identified as the start of the demise of Ellen DeGeneres.“Actually, no, that’s not the truth, Ellen.”