Connect with us

Washington

Incoming Post editor tied to self-described ‘thief’ who claimed role in his reporting

Published

on

Incoming Post editor tied to self-described ‘thief’ who claimed role in his reporting


LONDON — The alleged offense was trying to steal a soon-to-be-released copy of former prime minister Tony Blair’s memoir.

The suspect arrested by London police in 2010 was John Ford, a once-aspiring actor who has since admitted to an extensive career using deception and illegal means to obtain confidential information for Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper. Facing potential prosecution, Ford called a journalist he said he had collaborated with repeatedly — and trusted to come to his rescue.

That journalist, according to draft book chapters Ford later wrote recounting his ordeal, was Robert Winnett, a Sunday Times veteran who is set to become editor of The Washington Post later this year.

Winnett moved quickly to connect Ford with a lawyer, discussed obtaining an untraceable phone for future communications and reassured Ford that the “remarkable omerta” of British journalism would ensure his clandestine efforts would never come to light, according to draft chapters Ford wrote in 2017 and 2018 that were shared with The Post.

Advertisement

Winnett, currently a deputy editor of the Telegraph, did not respond to a detailed list of questions. Ford, who previously declined to be interviewed, did not respond to questions about the draft book chapters.

Winnett is now poised to take over the top editorial position in The Post’s core newsroom, scheduled to start after the November U.S. presidential election. He was appointed by Post CEO and Publisher William Lewis, who has mentored Winnett and worked with him at two British papers. Lewis is also mentioned in Ford’s draft chapters.

The drafts are part of a collection of previously unreported materials representing Ford’s recollections of his activities and associations with Winnett, some of which The Post was able to match with published stories and other public documents. The prospective book project never came to fruition.

The claims raise questions about Winnett’s journalistic record months before he is to assume a top position at The Post. His appointment has increased focus on the different ways journalism is practiced in the United States and Britain.

In one passage, Ford describes working with Winnett on an array of stories about consumer and business affairs. The collaboration, in his account, was part of a broader arrangement with the Sunday Times in which Ford delivered confidential details about Britain’s rich and powerful by using dishonest means, including changing their bank passwords and adopting false personas in calls to government agencies. A Sunday Times editor later acknowledged some of these practices but said they were deployed to serve the public interest.

Advertisement

Winnett, who went on to become a respected business reporter and editor with a record of scoops, has not publicly spoken about relying on or interacting with Ford, a trained actor with a talent for accents.

But a review by The Post of Winnett’s reporting at the Sunday Times, as well as Ford’s unpublished book chapters and other documents that have since been made public, reveals apparent overlap between Winnett’s stories and individuals or entities that Ford said he was commissioned to target. They include pieces on the fate of the Leeds United Football Club, the finances of former prime minister Blair and the efforts by some of Britain’s wealthiest elites to buy a new vehicle from Mercedes-Benz that cost 250,000 pounds.

At The Post and other major American news organizations, the use of deceptive tactics in pursuit of news stories violates core ethics policies. In Britain, “blagging” — using misrepresentation to dupe others into revealing confidential information — has been a known feature of a certain brand of tabloid journalism, especially before a public reckoning over press ethics began in 2011. Blagging has been less frequently documented in the broadsheet titles where Winnett and Lewis built their careers.

Blagging is illegal under the United Kingdom’s 1998 Data Protection Act, but a defense is available if the acts can be shown to serve the public interest, legal experts said.

Winnett was tapped to lead The Post’s newsroom as part of a Lewis shake-up that led to the abrupt departure this month of Sally Buzbee, the first woman to serve as The Post’s executive editor.

Advertisement

Addressing the Post newsroom this month, Lewis touted Winnett as a “world class” journalist. “He’s a brilliant investigative journalist,” Lewis said. “And he will restore an even greater degree of investigative rigor to our organization.”

Lewis’s own journalistic record also has come under scrutiny.

The New York Times on Saturday reported that Lewis, as an editor at the Sunday Times in 2004, had assigned a reporter to write a story about a prominent businessman that the reporter believed was based on hacked phone records. The Post has reviewed unpublished writing by Ford in which he claims to have changed the password on the bank account of that businessman, Stuart Rose, so as to gain unauthorized access to Rose’s records.

Lewis co-wrote a story for the Sunday Times in February 2004 about internal legal wrangling at the Manchester United Football Club, the same month that an invoice — published by an online news site in 2018 — shows Ford was paid for a story about “MANCHESTER.” A former Sunday Times journalist, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, said Lewis’s co-author was a junior sports reporter at the time and did not obtain the revelations at the heart of the story.

Lewis declined to comment through a Post spokesperson in response to a list of detailed questions, including about the origins of the information for the 2004 stories.

Advertisement

In recent weeks, Lewis has faced accusations of seeking to suppress stories about a long-running civil court battle in London concerning his time as a top executive in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.

In January 2011, London police asked Murdoch’s company to turn over evidence of phone hacking by one of its papers, and last month, a judge cleared the way for plaintiffs to air claims that Lewis and others were involved in plans to subsequently delete millions of emails allegedly related to the hacking. Lewis has denied wrongdoing and is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. He has also denied trying to quash stories on the topic.

Ford’s draft chapters from 2017 and 2018, shared at the time with a cohort of journalists and others, reflect his efforts to blow the whistle on hacking and other illicit newsgathering methods.

Those efforts prompted a 2018 Guardian profile, in which Ford said, “I was nothing more than a common thief.” He counted private investigators among his clients and said he performed most of his work for the Sunday Times, never taking on a formal role or even entering its office, but estimating that he was paid 40,000 pounds a year for his exploits. He said in that profile that he pursued leading politicians, including Blair and another former prime minister, Gordon Brown; celebrities such as Paul McCartney; and a former head of MI6, the secretive foreign intelligence service.

Ford wrote in his draft chapters that he came to know Winnett as a young reporter at the Sunday Times, where Winnett began writing as a student in 1995.

Advertisement

Lewis became business editor of the Sunday Times in 2002. He remained there until 2005, when he became city editor of the Telegraph, a center-right paper identified with Britain’s Conservative Party. He quickly climbed the ranks of that outlet.

Winnett joined Lewis at the Telegraph in 2007, and two years later they worked closely together on an investigation into phony expenses by members of Parliament that rocked the political establishment and forced a wave of resignations.

The stories that the Telegraph published in 2009 arose from data that the paper had acquired as part of a transaction in which they paid about 150,000 pounds to a private investigator seeking to sell the material on behalf of another source, according to an account Lewis later provided as part of a public inquiry into media practices. Lewis has described the Telegraph’s work as a high-water mark for the British press, “one of the most important bits of journalism, if not the most important bit of journalism, in the postwar period.”

Within a year, the British industry’s practices were engulfed in an expanding scandal, fueled by revelations that News of the World, a best-selling tabloid in Murdoch’s media empire, had engaged in widespread hacking of the phones of politicians, celebrities and even victims of violent crimes in the pursuit of salacious stories.

Lewis left the Telegraph in 2010 to join the Murdoch-controlled News International as a senior executive. Within months, he would be charged with helping to manage the fallout from the phone-hacking scandal, a position that involved overseeing the provision of evidence to a Metropolitan Police investigation that swelled to include hundreds of officers.

Advertisement

It was during this period that Ford made his desperate call to Winnett — a decision Ford briefly recounted in a 2018 piece he published in Byline Investigates, a journalism website edited by Graham Johnson, a former tabloid reporter turned whistleblower on journalism ethics. The same year, Byline Investigates published invoices, on its website and in a YouTube video, showing numerous payments to Ford from the Sunday Times parent company, News International.

A line item on one of the invoices includes only the description “LEEDS” for a payment related to a story published in September 2004. That month, Winnett and another reporter broke the news that an Iraqi businessman worth 1.3 billion pounds was preparing a bid to take over Leeds United.

The story quoted what it described as an unnamed friend of the businessman and divulged plans to move the club and redevelop the area surrounding its stadium. Other Sunday Times stories published that month that make reference to Leeds are all straightforward sports or politics write-ups and human-interest pieces about property or interior design.

In 2002, Winnett and two co-authors wrote about a blind trust in which Blair, the prime minister at the time, had parked profits from the sale of his family’s home. It followed a line of reporting about blind trusts connected to officials in Blair’s Labour Party that, in one of his unpublished drafts, Ford claims credit for having helped launch for the Sunday Times five years earlier. Ford did so, he wrote, by altering his voice as part of a ruse to obtain information from the bank Barclays.

The 2002 article co-written by Winnett laid out the political connections of one of the fund’s two trustees, describing a set of real estate transactions for which the fund nearly failed to gain financing until a third party informed the bank that the loan was for Blair’s trust. The article did not reveal how the paper had learned about the private exchanges, saying only that the Sunday Times “has established” the information.

Advertisement

To Ford, one story in particular stood out. He told the Guardian in the 2018 profile that he had used a fake German accent in June 2002 to dupe a Mercedes-Benz employee into disclosing a list of buyers for the new Maybach supercar on a secret assignment for the Sunday Times newsroom. He said he regretted the move because the employee later lost his job.

Winnett reported in June 2002 that 60 British-based millionaires had placed orders for the new Maybach model. “Sources say,” Winnett wrote, that buyers had put down deposits of 50,000 pounds for a modern version of what had once been “the Nazis’ favourite limousine.” The New York Times first linked Ford’s public comments to the Winnett story.

Co-authors of these stories either declined to comment or did not respond to inquiries.

Mark Lewis, a media lawyer who has brought high-profile phone-hacking claims, said revealing who had ordered high-end cars was plainly unjustified by public interest, the exemption carved out for blagging under U.K. law. “It seems like the perfect example of something that interests the public but has no public interest,” he said.

A Sunday Times spokesperson declined to address specific stories but pointed to a past statement saying the paper “has employed many contributors and researchers to work on stories, or parts of stories” but “strongly rejects the accusation that it has in the past retained or commissioned any individual to act illegally.”

Advertisement

Ford divulged in his 2018 piece for Byline Investigates that he had sought Blair’s manuscript at the behest of the Sunday Times. After his arrest, however, he contacted Winnett, by then at the Telegraph, because Winnett “remained in close contact with his friend Will Lewis, one of the leaders of News International’s Management and Standards Committee (the unit Murdoch set up to clean house after phone hacking).”

After Ford’s arrest, on allegations of fraud by false representation, Winnett recommended a lawyer, Ford recalled in the draft book chapters. Winnett urged calm, telling him, “they’ll sort you out.”

They met for Chinese food, according to the draft chapters. Among others who attended the meal, according to Ford’s drafts, was a longtime Winnett colleague: Claire Newell, the Sunday Times journalist who, in Ford’s telling, had asked him to obtain the Blair manuscript.

Newell had been arrested in 2004 under suspicion that she had passed government papers to the Sunday Times while working as a temporary secretary in the Cabinet Office, the Guardian reported at the time. Winnett had helped arrange for Newell to pass confidential leaks to the paper, according to an account in a book by journalist Nick Davies, Flat Earth News.

Newell was questioned in 2004 but not charged. She then returned to the Sunday Times, where she had written several stories in 2003, and subsequently joined Winnett at the Telegraph, where she serves as investigations editor. She did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

When Ford shared concerns about the reverberations of his own arrest, he recalled in one draft chapter, Winnett described the code of silence prevailing inside the Telegraph, where many reporters and editors had previously worked at the Sunday Times. That shared experience, according to Ford’s drafts, meant no one would blow the whistle on the tactics that had landed him in jail.

“It was clear that most had no idea of the specifics of my incident but people knew something had happened,” he wrote in the drafts. “It is pretty incredible that a group of journalists could collectively cover up this story.”

Ford did not remain invisible for long, becoming a flash point in a vexed public debate over press ethics in Britain.

John Witherow, a former longtime editor of the Sunday Times, acknowledged in public testimony and statements in 2011 and 2012 that the paper had repeatedly employed Ford and two private investigators to impersonate public officials, sports regulators and others to obtain stories it deemed in the public interest. Witherow’s admissions came in response to a year-long government investigation known as the Leveson Inquiry that sprung from revelations of phone hacking by the Murdoch-controlled News of the World tabloid.

In the fallout from those revelations, Witherow sought to crack down on the use of subterfuge in reporting, prohibiting pseudonyms and alter egos, according to the Guardian.

Advertisement

Still, he made a public-interest case for blagging under questioning by members of Parliament in 2012. He gave an example of a reporter posing as a businessman to see if a lawmaker would take money to ask questions in a government hearing. The reporting led to the suspension of two lawmakers, he noted.

Witherow said Ford was one of the paper’s regular blaggers and had worked on “various investigations,” including into the soccer authority FIFA. Witherow did not respond to a request for comment.

Former Sunday Times journalists who overlapped with Winnett and Lewis at the newspaper, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity, characterized the methods as infrequent and often justified in the public interest.

“British journalism is naughtier and scrappier,” said one journalist who worked with both Winnett and Lewis. “There’s a feeling of being embattled because access to public information is so much more restricted here.”

But Steven Barnett, a professor of communications at the University of Westminster who has consulted parliamentary committees on press standards, said reporters who rely on blagging are using “illegal means” but letting others bear the brunt of the risk.

Advertisement

“People like Ford are exploited and very useful, and then, when it all went wrong and the whole system was exposed, the senior editorial people like Winnett all shrug and say, ‘I had no idea what was going on, look over at that bloke there,’ who is by then cowering in the corner alone,” Barnett said.

Sometimes, the techniques fall flat, as in the case of Ford’s alleged attempt to obtain Blair’s yet-to-be-released memoir.

Random House told authorities that suspicious calls had been made to obtain the manuscript in the summer of 2010, according to police records. Authorities traced the phone number back to Ford, who was soon arrested. At his home, police found jottings with the words Random House, as well as a Dell computer used to access an email address identified with the maneuver, according to police records.

Ford turned to the law firm that he would later say was recommended by Winnett, according to the draft chapters and the police records. And in early 2012, he was given a caution, an official police warning in lieu of a prosecution.

Cate Brown and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Washington

Burst in covid spending helped students recover, researchers find

Published

on

Burst in covid spending helped students recover, researchers find


When Congress sent tens of billions of dollars to schools — an unprecedented sum — to battle the pandemic, it seemed like reopening campuses was going to be the toughest thing. Or maybe keeping teachers and students covid-free. But it turns out the hardest thing was helping students recover from severe academic losses sustained during the depths of the pandemic.

Schools reopened. Students and teachers were, for the most part, kept safe from covid. But what about academic recovery? Did the money help kids get back on track?

Two new reports offer the same answer: Yes.

“There were many reasons to think the money wouldn’t have a very big effect on kids learning because it wasn’t targeted and there were lots of other needs,” said Sean Reardon, an education researcher at Stanford University and co-author of the first paper. “But in fact it did have a significant effect on learning.”

Advertisement

Yet it didn’t finish the job. Between 2019 and 2022, the average U.S. student lost about a half grade level in math and a third of a grade level in reading, according to test data from 30 states analyzed by researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities in the Education Recovery Scorecard project. Students made up about 30 percent of the loss in math and 20 percent of the loss in reading between spring 2022 and spring 2023. Some — though not all — of that can be traced to the federal funding, the researchers conclude. (Results of spring 2024 testing are not yet available.)

“Despite what is an unprecedented amount of money, kids are still far behind,” said Dan Goldhaber, an education researcher at the American Institutes for Research and the University of Washington, who co-authored the second research paper.

Why wasn’t $190 billion — the largest one-time education investment in U.S. history — enough? Among the reasons: Some of the money was spent on covid mitigation and testing, the main focus of the legislation, not academics. Not all of the money for academics was invested in the most effective strategies, because they had other priorities or perhaps were unaware of the research. Not every district got robust funding. And the losses were deep.

Fully catching kids up would require additional spending, the researchers find. The opposite is actually unfolding, with districts running out of the money already allocated. Schools are required to spend the last of the covid relief funding in the coming months, and across the country, districts are cutting staff and programs that were aimed at accelerating academic recovery.

“If the goal is having all students made whole from the pandemic, I do think that states will need to step up,” said Tom Kane, a professor of education and economics at Harvard University and co-author of the first paper, which was produced by a team of researchers from Harvard, Stanford and Dartmouth universities.

Advertisement

Still, the gains already recorded were big enough to pay for themselves, based on how increases in academic achievement translate into higher wages in adulthood, Kane said.

Both papers take advantage of a quirk in how the nearly $190 billion in federal covid relief funds, which came over three allotments in 2020 and 2021, were allocated to K-12 school districts. The government relied on a formula that gave more money to districts with higher portions of students living in poverty. Due to oddities in that formula, districts with similar poverty levels got different amounts. Among the districts where at least 90 percent of students are from families poor enough to qualify for free or subsidized school lunches, federal allocations ranged from less than $4,000 to more than $13,000 per student — in some cases, much more.

The differences among district allocations allowed researchers to estimate the relationship between more funding and test scores. One study examined funding from only the third allocation, by far the largest, approved in 2021; the other looked at the second and third tranches. Both studies examined the impact of the money on all districts, rich and poor.

The two teams came to the same conclusion: An additional $1,000 per student in federal funding translated into a gain of about 3 percent of a grade level of learning in math. For reading, the gains were similar in one study and a bit smaller in the other. These results are in line with what pre-pandemic studies found of earlier, more modest increases in education spending.

This implies that giving a school district an extra $8,000 per student would have been enough to make up nearly half of the average math losses. That compares to average per-pupil spending of $13,187 in 2019, before the pandemic and the surge of federal dollars.

Advertisement

Looking at it another way, the Harvard-Stanford team compared achievement levels between high-poverty districts with similar levels of past achievement that received larger grants and smaller grants. Students in the high-grant districts gained about a fifth of a year more in math than the low-grant districts did and almost as much in reading.

The money appears to have made a difference in the School District of Philadelphia, which received more than $1.6 billion in federal funding — more than $14,000 per student. Between spring 2022 and spring 2023, students made up on average a half grade in math — more than 80 percent of the average losses sustained in Philadelphia between 2019 and 2022.

A large share of money in Philadelphia was spent on extra learning time for students — before and after school and over the summer, and to add social services and counselors. The district also spent $325 million on facilities improvements, something meant to make old buildings safer but that did not directly impact student learning.

Superintendent Tony B. Watlington, Sr., in a statement, credited the federal funding with playing a key role in Philadelphia becoming “the fastest improving large, urban district” in the country.

Now the district is hoping that a statewide lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s school funding formula will result in more funding for Philadelphia to replace the lost federal dollars. For now, the schools are using reserve funds to maintain the supports put in place, said Christina Clark, a spokeswoman for the district.

Advertisement

“We’re working on preserving those because we’ve seen the impact it’s had on students,” she said.

The Cleveland Metropolitan School District also saw significant federal spending — nearly $427 million in the second and third allotments, or about $12,000 per student. As in Philadelphia, students also gained about a half year of learning in math between spring 2022 and spring 2023, but the losses in Cleveland were deeper, so this erased only about half of the slide since 2019. Early data from spring 2024 testing shows progress continued, though details were not available, officials said.

One of Cleveland’s key investments was a robust summer learning program, which combined engaging and fun activities with academic review. The district also upped funding to each school, and some used the extra for tutoring or other academic supports.

“We would not have been able to do some of this work at scale if we did not have this funding,” said Selena Florence, the district’s chief academic officer.

With the federal money running out, Cleveland this year cut back its summer program, which had served more than 5,000 students in the last few years, by about half. The district cut back other programs too, and eliminated the extra school-based funding.

Advertisement

But Florence said she is optimistic that Cleveland can continue making progress. “Having additional money is always going to help us doing the work we have to do,” she said. “The work can certainly be done without it.”

Researchers did not credit all the academic gains recorded to more federal spending. Many districts that received no money, or very little, saw large gains. These were typically wealthy districts that consistently have other advantages.

And low-income districts saw improvements beyond what the federal funding alone would have predicted, the Harvard-Stanford group found. Among districts with at least 70 percent of low-income students, between one-third and one-half of the improvement in test scores could be attributed to the federal funding. It was not clear what accounted for the rest; possibilities include deeper parental involvement, extra efforts by teachers or extra local funding.

Kane bemoaned that there is scant data to explain how districts spent their money, seeing a missed opportunity to assess which interventions were most effective. Past research has found certain initiatives — such as intense tutoring or small class sizes in the early years — produce greater academic gains than others. The federal rules required that districts spend at least 20 percent of their money addressing learning losses, but there was little guidance beyond that.

“In the absence of being able to say which interventions work, we can ask the next best thing,” he said. “Did the districts that got and received more money go faster in catching up?” The answer, they found, is yes.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Analysis | No, Biden won’t be on performance-enhancing drugs for the debate

Published

on

Analysis | No, Biden won’t be on performance-enhancing drugs for the debate


Allies of Donald Trump have painted themselves into a cognitive corner. President Biden is unfit for office, they argue, because he is so old, and his mental abilities have deteriorated markedly. But then Biden will, say, deliver a State of the Union address in which he is energetic and pointed for more than an hour.

So they modify their claim: Biden is addled and wandering, except when he is given some sort of medication, perhaps a stimulant, that reverses that effect. And here we are, with Trump and those seeking his reelection to the White House demanding that Biden submit to some sort of drug test before this week’s first presidential debate, purportedly in effort to sniff out this theoretical drug.

Experts who spoke with The Washington Post, though, confirm that no such medicine exists.

At the outset, we should recognize that this claim is generally not offered seriously. It is, instead, an effort to escape the aforementioned contradiction, a way to hold both that Biden is incapable of serving as president and yet, unquestionably at times, not demonstrating any such impairment. What’s more, the demand that Biden undergo a drug test is itself not serious. It is, instead, meant to create a condition that allows Trump and his allies to continue to claim that any strong performance from Biden is a function of medication. The result is win-win for Trump, who can blame any loss on this wonder drug.

Advertisement

If you haven’t been paying close attention to the debate (such as it is) over this idea, consider a snippet of conversation that aired on Fox Business on Tuesday morning.

Host Maria Bartiromo — no stranger to conspiratorial argumentation — hosted Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) where she offered an observation made by Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.).

“Jackson says Biden will have been at Camp David for a full week before the debate,” Bartiromo said, “and that they’re probably experimenting with getting doses right. Giving him medicine ahead of the debate.”

Burlison agreed that this was possible, though he offered that it might be more innocuous than medication. Perhaps, he said, Biden’s team is “jack[ing] him up on Mountain Dew.”

Jackson, you will recall, was Trump’s personal doctor while Trump was in the White House. He is not an expert on cognition or cognition-related illnesses, though he is familiar with drug prescription.

Advertisement

“Nothing like that exists,” Thomas Wisniewski, director of the NYU Langone Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, told The Washington Post by phone. “There are no medications or stimulants that can reverse a dementing process transiently.”

“All of those sorts of things can perhaps make an individual more alert, but quite often that can just exacerbate their confusion, as well,” he added. “They can be more stimulated, but they are not going to be behaving in a more cogent or normal fashion as a result of being stimulated by anything. Very often it’s the reverse.”

Adam Brickman, associate professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, concurred with that assessment.

“I’m not aware of any medications that would reverse or mask cognitive decline,” Brickman said. What’s more, he noted that “the association between energy and cognition is a very weak one. In other words, someone could have low energy but totally intact cognition and vice versa.”

Both doctors noted that such a medication would be of enormous benefit. Reversing cognitive decline, after all, would mean turning back the damage done from diseases that impair cognition in the first place. It would be akin not just to treating the pain of a broken bone but, instead, to directly healing the break itself. Sadly, no such drug for cognition exists.

Advertisement

Again, the argument that Biden is or could be receiving targeted treatment to improve his mental state fails multiple logical tests. Why, for example, would he not simply take this medication all the time? Why would he need to retest his dosage for a debate after giving a lengthy State of the Union address? The answer is that there is no good answer, that the intent of the allegations is simply to maintain the political argument that Biden is mentally deficient even in the face of his performing above expectations in a debate.

Not that that argument is itself well-grounded, as Brickman noted.

“It’s not possible to conclude or to determine whether someone has subtle cognitive change without doing a true clinical evaluation,” he said. “So to judge whether there’s an underlying disease or neurodegenerative condition based on public speeches or interactions that are captured by the press is irresponsible.”

Wisniewski offered a more succinct dismissal of the claims being made by Trumpworld.

“It’s spurious,” he said. “It’s nonsensical.”

Advertisement

In other words, if Biden fares better in the debate this week, it’s not because of a secret Camp David drug-dosing regimen that enabled the administration to mask Biden’s physical degeneration. It’s because Biden out-debated the guy who won’t accept that that’s possible.



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Elderly couple dies in Washington Heights apartment building fire

Published

on

Elderly couple dies in Washington Heights apartment building fire


An elderly couple died when a massive fire tore through their Washington Heights apartment building early Tuesday, FDNY and NYPD officials said.

The blaze broke out inside a top-floor apartment in the six-story building on W. 178th St. near Broadway, a block from the entrance to the George Washington Bridge, about 1:45 a.m.

“Upon arrival in four-and-a-half minutes we saw heavy fire venting from three windows on the top floor,” FDNY Deputy Chief of Special Operations Malcolm Moore said at the scene. “We did an aggressive interior attack and found a couple, an older male and female, inside the apartment.”

The woman was found suffering from burns and smoke inhalation in the front room, Moore said.

Advertisement

“Once the units battled past the heavy fire condition we found the second victim, believed to be a male, in a back bedroom,” the chief said.

The couple were taken to Harlem Hospital, where they both died, the NYPD confirmed. Their names were not immediately released.

It took more than 130 firefighters about two hours to put out the massive blaze.

Three other building residents, a firefighter, and two FDNY emergency medical technicians suffered minor injuries, FDNY officials said. The civilians were treated at the scene while the FDNY workers were treated at local hospitals.

FDNY fire marshals are investigating the cause of the fire.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending