Write a summary based on this article:

Good news!

 The cost of the classic Thanksgiving Day dinner for 10 people has fallen to $49.04 this year, down from $49.48 in 2012.

 This is according to an informal survey conducted by the American Farm Bureau Federation. LPL Financial's Jeffrey Kleintop pointed us this.

 From the AFBF's release:

 The AFBF survey shopping list includes turkey, bread stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls with butter, peas, cranberries, a relish tray of carrots and celery, pumpkin pie with whipped cream, and beverages of coffee and milk, all in quantities sufficient to serve a family of 10. There is also plenty for leftovers.

 The big ticket item – a 16-pound turkey – came in at $21.76 this year. That was roughly $1.36 per pound, a decrease of about 3 cents per pound, or a total of 47 cents per whole turkey, compared to 2012. The whole bird was the biggest contributor to the final total, showing the largest price decrease compared to last year.

 The 2013 Thanksgiving dinner cost is lower than the 2011 cost of $49.20.

 "There's no inflation on the table," joked Kleintop. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||

– Thanksgiving dinner will cost you a little less this year—44 cents less to be exact—according to a 34-state survey from the American Farm Bureau Federation, picked up by Business Insider. A 10-person feast with turkey and all the trimmings—including stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls, veggies, cranberries, and pumpkin pie with whipped cream—plus enough for leftovers, costs about $49.04 this year, a drop from 2012's $49.48. At about $5 per serving, it's "an excellent value for consumers," AFBF's president said. The most expensive buy is of course the turkey, which averages $1.36 per pound—down three cents from last year—or $21.76 for a 16-pounder. Newser points out that wine and other alcoholic libations aren't included in the grand total. Don't have time to dress a turkey? And more penny-wise news: Assuming you're not the host, driving to Thanksgiving dinner will be a little cheaper, too: The Los Angeles Times reports national gas prices are down 16 cents per gallon over last year, to an average $3.27 a gallon.


Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Nine former professional hockey players have filed a lawsuit against the N.H.L. that says the league “intentionally created, fostered and promoted a culture of extreme violence.”

 The suit, which was filed Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan, is the latest in a growing string of challenges to the N.H.L. Similar to suits brought by retired N.F.L. players, the complaint said that the N.H.L. failed to take adequate steps to warn the players of the dangers of the sport and deliberately promoted violence for profit.

 The complaint is more graphic than other suits brought by former hockey players, highlighting the role of enforcers in the N.H.L. over many years and mentioning movies that celebrated fighting in hockey.

 “Through the sophisticated use of extreme violence as a commodity, from which the N.H.L. has generated billions of dollars, the N.H.L. has subjected and continues to subject its players to the imminent risk of head trauma and, as a result, devastating and long-term negative health consequences,” the lawsuit said.

 The plaintiffs in the suit are the former players Dan LaCouture, 36; Dan Keczmer, 45; Jack Carlson, 59; Richard Brennan, 41; Brad Maxwell, 56; Michael Peluso, 48; Tom Younghans, 61; Allan Rourke, 34; and Scott Bailey, 41.

 Some of the players were brawlers, like Carlson, who racked up 1,111 penalty minutes in the N.H.L. and the World Hockey Association.

 Peluso, who played in the N.H.L. from 1990 to 1998, led the league with 408 penalty minutes in 1991-92 and fought, according to the suit, 179 times in his nine-year career. In a 2011 interview with juniorhockey.com, Peluso said he was suffering concussion-related seizures and depression in retirement and complained about poor pension benefits and health insurance from the N.H.L. and the N.H.L. Players’ Association.

 “There is no question in my mind that brain injuries and depression are linked,” Peluso told the website. “However, I find it has more to do with low self-esteem. Former skilled guys suffered head injuries, and they don’t appear to be suicidal.”

 LaCouture, who retired in 2009, was involved in 52 fights. The lawsuit said he sustained a concussion at the hands of Robyn Regehr in 2004 and suffered from headaches, irritability, depression and other ailments.

 Other players in the lawsuit were journeymen who rarely fought, like Rourke, who, according to hockeyfights.com, had 17 fights in his 14-year major junior and professional career. Keczmer never accumulated more than 75 minutes in penalties in a season during his 10-year professional career and, according to the suit, had one N.H.L. fight.

 The case will be heard by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan.

 This is the latest lawsuit involving violence in the N.H.L. In May, the family of Derek Boogaard filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the N.H.L., saying the league was responsible for the physical trauma and brain damage Boogaard sustained in six seasons as one of the league’s top enforcers. Boogaard died of an accidental overdose of prescription painkillers and alcohol in 2011.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 In November, a group of players who were in the league in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, saying N.H.L. officials should have done more to address head injuries but instead celebrated a culture of speed and violence.

 Photo

 The civil suit of the former Colorado Avalanche player Steve Moore against Todd Bertuzzi and the Vancouver Canucks is scheduled to be heard in an Ontario court in September. Bertuzzi attacked Moore during a game in March 2004, breaking three of Moore’s neck vertebrae and ending his career.

 Bill Daly, deputy commissioner of the N.H.L., said that this week’s suit did not appear to be substantively different from the one filed in November.

 “In short, we are completely satisfied with our record on player safety, including as it relates to head injuries and brain trauma,” he said in a statement. “We do not believe the new complaint provides any valid basis for liability or damages as against the National Hockey League, and we intend to defend the case and others that may follow it vigorously.”

 The N.H.L. set up a concussion study program in 1997, the first in North American major league sports, and has in recent years modified rules to address head trauma. But the lawsuit calls those moves “untimely and ineffective.”

 Lawyers representing the players did not return calls for comment, though their complaint includes mentions of the Broad Street Bullies of the 1970s Philadelphia Flyers and movies like “The Last Gladiators” and “Mystery, Alaska.” (The complaint also mistakenly said that Gordie Howe, who is still alive, died in 2009.)

 While the complaint seeks a jury trial, experts said the players would prefer to settle out of court, no doubt aware of the $765 million proposed settlement between the N.F.L. and retired football players.

 The suits brought by thousands of retired N.F.L. players were filed in states over many months. They were eventually consolidated and heard in federal court in Philadelphia. That is a possible course of action for the N.H.L. cases, which so far involve only a few dozen players.

 The two most recent complaints allege that the league was negligent in not doing more to warn players about concussions and committed fraud by hiding information it had about the dangers.

 Proving those allegations, though, could be as difficult as it has been for the retired N.F.L. players. The N.H.L. players will have to provide evidence that the league hid information about the dangers of fighting. The players will also have to show that injuries they received in the N.H.L. led to their current ailments.

 The plaintiffs “would like to have a settlement within the contours of what you’ve found in the attempted settlement with the N.F.L.,” said Mark Conrad, the director of the sports business program at Fordham University. “But I wouldn’t underestimate the league’s ability to fight this.” ||||| Nine former players filed a class action lawsuit against the NHL on Thursday, alleging that the league subjected players to "the imminent risk of head trauma" leading to long-term negative health consequences.

 The lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in New York, is the second filed against the National Hockey League in less than five months to claim the league did not do enough to prevent concussions.

 The latest complaint alleges that, "the NHL has failed and continues to fail to warn its players of these risks and consequences of head trauma."

 The suit also claims the NHL concealed material scientific and anecdotal information from players.

 "The NHL has failed to institute policies and protocols that could have and will protect its players from suffering or exacerbating head trauma sustained during practice or in games," read the complaint.

 Among the plaintiffs, Dan LaCouture, Jack Carlson, Mike Peluso and Tom Younghans spent their careers as enforcers and piled up more minutes in fighting penalties than points.

 The other players named in the lawsuit were Dan Keczmer, Richard Brennan, Brad Maxwell, Allan Rourke and Scott Bailey.

 "Through enclosed rink designs and lax rules for fighting, the NHL vectored a culture of extreme violence and packaged the spoils to adoring fans." continued the suit.

 The NHL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 A lawsuit filed last year that started with 10 plaintiffs but has since grown to over 200, said it was time for the NHL to elevate player safety over profit and tradition.

 Concussions have been in the NHL spotlight for years.

 Pittsburgh Penguins captain Sidney Crosby, the game's most popular player and face of the NHL, missed large chunks of two seasons as he slowly recovered from concussion symptoms.

 Several other players, including former All-Stars Eric Lindros, Pat LaFontaine and Keith Primeau, were all forced to prematurely end their careers due to concussion issues.

 In 2011, three former NHL enforcers, Derek Boogaard, Rick Rypien and Wade Belak died tragically raising concerns about a possible link between the deaths and the players' tough guy roles and concussions.

 Last year the National Football League paid $765 million to settle a similar lawsuit brought by thousands of former players, many suffering from dementia and health problems.

 (Reporting by Steve Keating in Toronto; Editing by Frank Pingue) ||||| In seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, the players said in their complaint that the N.H.L. “knew or should have been aware” of the effects of head hits but “took no remedial action to prevent its players from unnecessary harm” until 1997, when the league created a program to research and study brain injuries. Even then, the suit said, “the N.H.L. took no action to reduce the number and severity of concussions among its players during that period and Plaintiffs relied on the N.H.L.’s silence to their detriment.”

 Owens and other lawyers said in a statement, “The N.H.L. continues to glorify and empower players known as ‘enforcers’ — players with the singular intention of injuring the opposing team.”

 Bill Daly, the N.H.L.’s deputy commissioner, said in a statement: “While the subject matter is very serious, we are completely satisfied with the responsible manner in which the league and the players association have managed player safety over time, including with respect to head injuries and concussions. We intend to defend the case vigorously and have no further comment at this time.”

 Though hockey players have sustained concussions and other head injuries for generations, the N.H.L. faced less scrutiny about its policies than the N.F.L. The N.H.L. set up a concussion study program in 1997, the first in North American major league sports, and has in recent years modified rules in response to increased concern about head trauma.

 In May, the family of Derek Boogaard filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the N.H.L., saying the league was responsible for the physical trauma and brain damage Boogaard sustained in six seasons as one of the league’s top enforcers. Boogaard was found dead of an accidental overdose of prescription painkillers and alcohol in 2011. He was posthumously found to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E., a brain disease thought to be caused by repeated blows to the head. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– The National Hockey League is being sued by nine of its own, who claim the league "intentionally created, fostered, and promoted a culture of extreme violence" with an eye on profit, the suit reads. Ex-players brought a similar suit against the NHL in November, but the New York Times describes this one as "more graphic." One plaintiff, Michael Peluso—who previously said he suffers from concussion-related seizures—was an enforcer who fought 179 times over nine years. The suit also claims the league stayed mum on the risks of head trauma and kept scientific evidence on that subject from players, Reuters reports. "The NHL has subjected and continues to subject its players to the imminent risk of head trauma and, as a result, devastating and long-term negative health consequences," the suit continues. It also notes recent head trauma-minded rule changes have been "untimely and ineffective." The NHL's deputy commissioner, however, says, "we are completely satisfied with our record on player safety, including as it relates to head injuries and brain trauma." Experts say the players likely want an out-of-court settlement.


Image copyright AFP Image caption A luxury safari lodge owned by Ms Gallmann was burned down last month

 Renowned Italian-born conservationist Kuki Gallmann has been shot and injured in an ambush at her conservation park in central Kenya.

 The author of the best-selling memoir I Dreamed of Africa was airlifted to hospital for treatment.

 Ms Gallmann, 73, owns the Laikipia Nature Conservancy.

 She also ran a luxury safari lodge that was burned down last month by suspected cattle herders, who have been in conflict with landowners.

 Herders have been invading private property in search of fresh grazing in the drought-stricken Laikipia region.

 British rancher Tristan Voorspuy, who also ran a safari company, was shot dead in early March while inspecting his lodges in Laikipia.

 Are Kenya ranch invasions driven by drought or politics?

 There is no confirmation of who carried out the attack on Ms Gallmann, who was reportedly shot in the stomach.

 She was flown by helicopter to hospital in Nairobi to undergo treatment.

 Image copyright The Star, Kenya Image caption The attack in March left Mukutan Retreat in ruins

 Ms Gallmann owns about 360 sq km in Laikipia, which is home to rare wildlife, birds and trees. Her organisation also runs community, education, arts and sports projects.

 She moved to Kenya in 1972 with her husband and son who both later died in separate accidents. She later became a Kenyan citizen.

 I Dreamed of Africa was turned into a film starring Kim Basinger.

 The arson attack on Ms Gallmann's Mukutan Retreat last month left it in ruins. There were no visitors staying at the time.

 Police believed that attack may have been in retaliation for a police operation that killed 100 cattle in the conservancy.

 The herders accused police of trying to force them off the land by shooting their livestock. Police say the livestock were killed in crossfire with the herders, who were using the animals as shields.

 Laikipia, which covers about 10,000 sq km in Kenya's central highlands, is where some of the country's largest white landowners are based.

 Insecurity has risen sharply in recent months as the drought has led armed herders to seek out new pasture, pitting them against big landowners and smallholders.

 Tens of thousands of cattle are thought to have been driven on to private land and at least a dozen people have been killed.

 The BBC's Alastair Leithead tried to approach herders last month to ask about their grievances, but was forced to retreat when they shot at him. ||||| In this image from a video footage taken on May 3, 2000 in New York, the Italian-born author and conservationist Kuki Gallmann speaks during an interview. Gallmann was shot at her Kenyan ranch and airlifted... (Associated Press)

 In this image from a video footage taken on May 3, 2000 in New York, the Italian-born author and conservationist Kuki Gallmann speaks during an interview. Gallmann was shot at her Kenyan ranch and airlifted for treatment after herders invaded in search of pasture to save their animals from drought,... (Associated Press)

 In this image from a video footage taken on May 3, 2000 in New York, the Italian-born author and conservationist Kuki Gallmann speaks during an interview. Gallmann was shot at her Kenyan ranch and airlifted for treatment after herders invaded in search of pasture to save their animals from drought,... (Associated Press) In this image from a video footage taken on May 3, 2000 in New York, the Italian-born author and conservationist Kuki Gallmann speaks during an interview. Gallmann was shot at her Kenyan ranch and airlifted... (Associated Press)

 NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The Italian-born author and conservationist Kuki Gallmann was shot at her Kenyan ranch and airlifted for treatment after herders invaded in search of pasture to save their animals from drought, officials said Sunday.

 Gallmann, known for her bestselling book "I Dreamed of Africa," which became a movie by the same name starring Kim Basinger, was patrolling the ranch in Laikipia when she was shot in the stomach, local police chief Ezekiel Chepkowny said.

 The 73-year-old Gallmann had been with rangers from the Kenya Wildlife Service, assessing damage done to her property Saturday by arsonists who burned down buildings at one of Laikipia Nature Conservancy's tourism lodges, said Laikipia Farmers Association chairman Martin Evans.

 After the attack, the rangers transported her to a location where she could be airlifted to Nanyuki town, Evans said. British Army medics attended to her before she was airlifted to the capital, Nairobi, he said.

 On Sunday night, Evans said Gallmann was in stable condition after surgery but had serious injuries. He cited a family member.

 Richard Constant, the association's deputy chairman, said suspicion falls on herders from the Pokot community who have invaded Gallmann's ranch several times. Lodges belonging to Gallmann were burned by the herders last month.

 This East African nation is facing a drought that has affected half the country and has been declared a national disaster.

 Herders, whose livelihoods depend on their cattle, and large-scale farmers in parts of Kenya's Rift Valley have been desperately waiting for seasonal rains that were to start last month to ease the drought and conflicts over grazing land in which more than 30 people have died.

 Kenya's military and police have been working to disarm and drive the hundreds of herders and their animals out of ranches they've invaded, but their actions appear to have escalated the violence. When the military and police drive herders from one ranch they move into another, the farmers' association said.

 The association has accused politicians campaigning for the August elections of inciting the herders to invade the ranches, saying the owners' leases have come to an end and that herders can take over the land and distribute it among themselves.

 "The LFA is conscious that a small handful of inciters are driving this violence and that they have deployed militias to cause mayhem in parts of Laikipia. For months these criminals have been rampaging around with their illegal weapons, destroying lives and livelihood," Evans said.

 The land invasions started late last year. British national and ranch owner Tristan Voorspuy was killed last month when he went to inspect damage done by the herders on one of his lodges.

 Opposition leader and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga said ranch owners deserve protection under the law like all Kenyans.

 "Unfortunately, we have watched in bewilderment as hooligans take advantage of the drought to subject these ranchers to unwarranted attacks," Odinga said. "Even more depressing is the apparent helplessness of the government that is clearly unable or unwilling to bring these attacks to a stop."

 Many of the ranches, some of which double as wildlife conservancies, were acquired during the period of British colonial rule, some as early as 1900, according to a government report. Others were purchased after Kenya became independent in 1963.

 Many of the farmers' association's members are in the tourism business, Evans said.

 "Though times are very tough for those properties affected by the invasions, the extent of the troubles are restricted to parts of north and west Laikipia," he said. "These events do not affect other parts of Kenya which remain safe to visit." ||||| 'I Dreamed Of Africa' Author And Conservationist, Shot In Kenya

 Enlarge this image toggle caption TONY KARUMBA/AFP/Getty Images TONY KARUMBA/AFP/Getty Images

 Kuki Gallmann, a conservationist best known for her book I Dreamed of Africa, was ambushed and shot while she drove across her conservancy in Kenya Sunday morning.

 Gallmann, 73, was shot in the stomach and "severely injured" while surveying her property with rangers of the Kenya Wildlife Service, according to her brother-in-law Nigel Adams and a press release from a farmers' association of which she's a member.

 She was flown to a hospital in Nairobi for treatment, and was still conscious and speaking after the attack, according to The New York Times.

 Her conservancy, the Laikipia Nature Conservancy, has been the center of a bloody battle for weeks, as a large-scale drought has pushed cattle-herders to extreme measures to try and find grazing land.

 NPR's Eyder Peralta spoke on All Things Considered earlier this month about the issue, after the owner of another ranch was shot and killed.

 "You have nomadic herders who are moving into private wildlife conservancies with thousands of heads of cattle," Peralta said. "And in response, the Kenyan government launched a military-style operation to push the herders out. But what we've seen is an escalation of violence. Police have killed lots of cows. And the herders have responded by burning tourist lodges on the properties."

 In fact, Gallmann was said to be surveying arson damage inflicted on her property, when she was attacked.

 Members of the Pokot and Samburu tribes have long grazed on conservancy land in Kenya, but over the past few years things have changed. Herders have brought more and more cows, killed other wildlife, and begun to vandalize property. Gallmann's daughter, Sveva Gallmann, told NPR last month that the escalation concerned her.

 "That's not just grass," she said. "That is heavily politicized violence. And that is what's much more worrying about this situation."

 She added that she doesn't think the herders even own many of the cows.

 "There's a lot of, actually, politicians, people within the police, people within the administration storing their wealth in cattle and laundering ill-gotten money through cattle," she said.

 Government officials deny those claims.

 Kenya has a national election coming up in August, and local land owners also blame politicians for inciting herders to push their cattle onto privately-owned land as a way of boosting their popularity, reports the United Kingdom's The Telegraph.

 In an interview with NPR Sunday, Martin Evans, the chair of the Laikipia Farmers' Association, agreed that the battle between the herders and the Kenya Defense forces is politically motivated.

 "It started a year ago," Evans said. "At the time it started, there was plenty of rain, it was nothing to do with lack of grass at that time so yes, I think it's definitely being pushed by politicians."

 Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta's office issued a statement warning politicians in the area not to inflame the situation with "reckless rhetoric."

 "Politicians encouraging invasions of privately-owned property or attacks on individuals can expect strong deterrent action in terms of the law," Kenyatta's spokesman, Manoah Esipisu, said.

 In the last month, the violence seemed to be escalating on the Gallmann ranch. Herders burned down a famous resort on her property, and she exchanged text messages last week with The New York Times that showed her concern.

 "Pokot militia openly carrying firearms," Gallmann wrote on April 15. "Not just herders. Group of armed men without livestock. 13 firearm spotted."

 Gallmann was born in Italy, and published her memoir I Dreamed of Africa in 1991. It was turned into a movie starring Kim Basinger in 2000.

 NPR's Eyder Peralta contributed to this report. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– The Italian-born author and conservationist Kuki Gallmann was shot at her Kenyan ranch and airlifted for treatment after herders invaded in search of pasture to save their animals from drought, officials said Sunday. Gallmann, known for her bestselling book I Dreamed of Africa, which became a movie by the same name starring Kim Basinger, was patrolling the ranch in Laikipia when she was shot in the stomach, says a local police chief. The 73-year-old Gallmann had been with rangers assessing damage done to her property; lodges belonging to Gallmann were burned by the herders last month. She was airlifted to the capital, Nairobi; a family member reportedly said Gallmann is in stable condition after surgery but had serious injuries. The AP reports the East African nation is facing a drought that has affected half the country and has been declared a national disaster. The BBC reports it's believed tens of thousands of cattle have been pushed onto private lands; Laikipia's roughly 4,000 square miles are home to some of Kenya's biggest white landowners. NPR's Eyder Peralta described the situation like so: As nomadic herders have moved in, "the Kenyan government launched a military-style operation to push the herders out. But what we've seen is an escalation of violence. Police have killed lots of cows. And the herders have responded by burning tourist lodges on the properties."


Summarize this article:

Mr. Sandusky, after repeated requests, agreed to the interview because he said his decades of work with children had been misunderstood and distorted by prosecutors.

 “They’ve taken everything that I ever did for any young person and twisted it to say that my motives were sexual or whatever,” Mr. Sandusky said. He added: “I had kid after kid after kid who might say I was a father figure. And they just twisted that all.”

 Yet over the course of the interview, Mr. Sandusky described what he admitted was a family and work life that could often be chaotic, even odd, one that lacked some classic boundaries between adults and children, and thus one that was open to interpretation — by those who have defended him as a generous mentor and those who have condemned him as a serial predator.

 He said his household in State College, Pa., over the years came to be a kind of recreation center or second home for dozens of children from the charity, a place where games were played, wrestling matches staged, sleepovers arranged, and from where trips to out-of-town sporting events were launched. Asked directly why he appeared to interact with children who were not his own without many of the typical safeguards other adults might apply — showering with them, sleeping alone with them in hotel rooms, blowing on their stomachs — he essentially said that he saw those children as his own.

 “It was, you know, almost an extended family,” Mr. Sandusky said of his household’s relationship with children from the charity. He then characterized his close experiences with children he took under his wing as “precious times,” and said that the physical aspect of the relationships “just happened that way.”

 Wrestling, hugging — “I think a lot of the kids really reached out for that,” he said.

 Mr. Sandusky said his wife, Dorothy, known as Dottie, ultimately had some concerns about the household dynamics. He said she had warned him not to neglect his own children — the Sanduskys had adopted six children, including one from the Second Mile — “for the sake of other kids.” Mr. Sandusky recalled one scene after a Penn State football game that underscored her concerns.

 “I remember the kids were downstairs, and we always had dogs,” he said. “And Dottie said, ‘You better go down and check on those kids, you know those Second Mile kids after football games.’ I went down, and I look, and there goes a kid flying over a couch, there goes a dog flying over a couch. And I go, ‘I don’t think she wants to see this.’ ”

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 He said of his household: “Yeah, I mean it was turmoil. It was turmoil.”

 During the interview, conducted at the home of his lawyer, Mr. Sandusky was at times subdued, but occasionally capable of humor — some of it awkward laughter about his legal jeopardy and ruined reputation, some of it bright amusement at a recalled anecdote about his own father, who himself had worked with disadvantaged and disabled children, or a moment of remembered comedy at one of the many summer camps he helped run for children.

 He grew most animated when talking about his relationships with children, and he grew most disconsolate when he, with a touch of childlike reverence, spoke of Mr. Paterno and Penn State, and the damage his indictment had caused them. “I don’t think it was fair,” he said.

 During the interview, Joseph Amendola, Mr. Sandusky’s lawyer, captured what he asserted was his client’s predicament:

 “All those good things that you were doing have been turned around,” Mr. Amendola said, speaking to his client, “and the people who are painting you as a monster are saying, ‘Well, they’re the types of things that people who are pedophiles exhibit.’ ”

 Prosecutors, in their indictment of Mr. Sandusky, charged him with a horrific array of abuse, including the repeated assaults of young boys.

 Mr. Sandusky, in the interview, confirmed aspects of what prosecutors have said was a manipulative scheme: he gave money and gifts to Second Mile children, including computers and golf clubs. However, Mr. Sandusky presented his actions in a benevolent light.

 “I would call kids on the phone and work with them academically,” he said. “I tried to reward them sometimes with a little money in hand, just so that they could see something. But more often than not, I tried to set up, maybe get them to save the money, and I put it directly into a savings account established for them.”

 Sometimes, he said, he found work for the children at his football camps. Sometimes he bought them shoes or a shirt with his money. And sometimes, he passed along gifts to them that had been given to the charity by donors. “I never bought a computer for any kid; I had a computer given to me to give to a kid,” he said. “I never bought golf clubs. People gave things because they knew there would be kids. They wanted to get rid of things.”

 It is unclear whether the supervisors or directors of the charity knew of Mr. Sandusky’s setting up bank accounts or giving away donated gifts. Investigators with the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office have subpoenaed the financial records of the charity, but say they have been alarmed to learn that some records from some years are missing.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 Jack Raykovitz, the executive director of Second Mile, resigned after Mr. Sandusky’s indictment.

 Mr. Sandusky, in the interview, said Penn State officials had contacted Mr. Raykovitz after the episode in 2002. An assistant football coach has told investigators that he saw Mr. Sandusky raping a young boy in the football building’s showers, and that he told Mr. Paterno some version of that scene the following day. Mr. Paterno has testified that he then informed the university’s athletic director, Tim Curley, that Mr. Sandusky had done something sexually inappropriate with a young boy.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Mr. Sandusky, in the interview, said word of an episode with a young boy in the shower reached Mr. Raykovitz. He said he talked with Mr. Raykovitz, and identified the boy he thought Penn State was concerned about. Mr. Sandusky, though, said Mr. Raykovitz did not see fit to limit his interaction with youths, in part because he was aware of the nature of Mr. Sandusky’s mentoring relationship with the boy, and in part because he knew Mr. Sandusky had undergone repeated background checks clearing him to work with children.

 Mr. Raykovitz’s lawyer, Kevin L. Hand, called Mr. Sandusky’s account inaccurate, but refused to say more.

 As for Mr. Paterno, Mr. Sandusky said the two never spoke about any incidents, not the episode in 2002 or an earlier complaint of child molestation made against Mr. Sandusky in 1998 that was investigated by the Penn State campus police.

 “I never talked to him about either one,” Mr. Sandusky said of Mr. Paterno. “That’s all I can say. I mean, I don’t know.”

 Mr. Paterno, through his son, Scott, has denied knowing about the 1998 investigation at the time it happened.

 “He’s the only one who knows whether anybody ever said anything to him,” Mr. Sandusky said of Mr. Paterno.

 In the interview, Mr. Sandusky, the longtime defensive coordinator at Penn State, said that his relationships and activities with Second Mile children did cause some strain with Mr. Paterno, but only in that Mr. Sandusky worried that having some of the children with him at hotels before games, or on the sideline during games, risked being seen as a distraction by the demanding Mr. Paterno.

 “I would have dreams of we being in a squad meeting and that door fly open and kids come running through chasing one another, and what was I going to do?” he said. “Because, I mean, Joe was serious about football.”

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Mr. Sandusky, despite expressing concern about talking about the formal charges made against him, did talk about his relationships with several of the eight people cited as victims by prosecutors last month. He said his relationships with more than one of them had extended for years after the suspected episodes of molestation or inappropriate behavior.

 In 1998, the mother of a child reported concerns to the Penn State campus police when she learned her son had showered with Mr. Sandusky at the university. After an investigation, Mr. Sandusky admitted to the police and child welfare authorities that he had most likely done something inappropriate, according to prosecutors. The local district attorney declined to prosecute.

 In the interview this week, Mr. Sandusky said the boy and his mother remained a part of his life for years. He said that the mother had sought him out for tickets to Penn State games for her son, and that Mr. Sandusky had contributed financially years later, when the young man, interested in the ministry, went on a mission.

 “He went to Mexico in the poverty-stricken areas and worked with the kids and things like that,” Mr. Sandusky said of the young man. “He showed me, he sent me pictures of he and the kids.”

 In the grand jury report, prosecutors cited Mr. Sandusky’s attempts to reach some of his accusers. He acknowledged that he reached out to at least one, but said he thought the young man might be a character witness on his behalf, and was unaware that prosecutors had listed him as a victim.

 Asked how he came to be involved more closely with some children rather than others, Mr. Sandusky said he got to know many of them at Second Mile summer camps.

 “Some of them sought me out,” Mr. Sandusky said.

 Mr. Sandusky, facing grave charges and the possibility of imprisonment, discussed how much was now missing from his life, and how much more might be missing in the future.

 “I miss coaching,” he said. “I miss Second Mile. I miss Second Mile kids. I miss interrelationships with all kinds of people. I miss my own grandkids. I miss, I mean you know I’m going to miss my dog. So, I mean, yeah, I miss, yeah. Good grief.

 “I used to have a lot of contact with a lot of people and so that circle is diminished, and as it diminished, you know Bo is still there,” he said of his dog. “And I swear he understands. I swear he knows. And you know I love him dearly for that.” ||||| The former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, in his first extended interview since his indictment on sexual abuse charges last month, said Coach Joe Paterno never spoke to him about any suspected misconduct with minors. Mr. Sandusky also said the charity he worked for never restricted his access to children until he became the subject of a criminal investigation in 2008.

 The failure by Mr. Paterno to act more aggressively after being told in 2002 that Mr. Sandusky had molested a 10-year-old boy in the showers of the university’s football building played a role in Mr. Paterno’s firing last month after 62 years at Penn State. Mr. Sandusky, in the interview, said that Mr. Paterno did not speak to him or confront him over the accusation, despite the fact that Mr. Sandusky had been one of his assistant coaches for three decades and was a regular presence at the football team’s complex for years after the 2002 episode.

 Mr. Sandusky, in a nearly four-hour interview over two days this week, insisted he had never sexually abused any child, but he confirmed details of some of the events that prosecutors have cited in charging him with 40 counts of molesting young boys, all of whom came to know Mr. Sandusky through the charity he founded, known as the Second Mile.

 Mr. Sandusky said he regularly gave money to the disadvantaged boys at his charity, opened bank accounts for them, and gave them gifts that had been donated to the charity.

 Prosecutors have said Mr. Sandusky used such gifts as a way to build a sense of trust and loyalty among boys he then repeatedly abused.

 Mr. Sandusky, after repeated requests, agreed to the interview because he said his decades of work with children had been misunderstood and distorted by prosecutors.

 “They’ve taken everything that I ever did for any young person and twisted it to say that my motives were sexual or whatever,” Mr. Sandusky said. He added: “I had kid after kid after kid who might say I was a father figure. And they just twisted that all.”

 Yet over the course of the interview, Mr. Sandusky described what he admitted was a family and work life that could often be chaotic, even odd, one that lacked some classic boundaries between adults and children, and thus one that was open to interpretation — by those who have defended him as a generous mentor and those who have condemned him as a serial predator.

 He said his household in State College, Pa., over the years came to be a kind of recreation center or second home for dozens of children from the charity, a place where games were played, wrestling matches staged, sleepovers arranged, and from where trips to out-of-town sporting events were launched. Asked directly why he appeared to interact with children who were not his own without many of the typical safeguards other adults might apply — showering with them, sleeping alone with them in hotel rooms, blowing on their stomachs — he essentially said that he saw those children as his own.

 “It was, you know, almost an extended family,” Mr. Sandusky said of his household’s relationship with children from the charity. He then characterized his close experiences with children he took under his wing as “precious times,” and said that the physical aspect of the relationships “just happened that way.”

 Wrestling, hugging — “I think a lot of the kids really reached out for that,” he said.

 Mr. Sandusky said his wife, Dorothy, known as Dottie, ultimately had some concerns about the household dynamics. He said she had warned him not to neglect his own children — the Sanduskys had adopted six children, including one from the Second Mile — “for the sake of other kids.” Mr. Sandusky recalled one scene after a Penn State football game that underscored her concerns.

 “I remember the kids were downstairs, and we always had dogs,” he said. “And Dottie said, ‘You better go down and check on those kids, you know those Second Mile kids after football games.’ I went down, and I look, and there goes a kid flying over a couch, there goes a dog flying over a couch. And I go, ‘I don’t think she wants to see this.’ ”

 He said of his household: “Yeah, I mean it was turmoil. It was turmoil.” |||||

– Jerry Sandusky says he was never confronted by Joe Paterno about his suspected sexual misconduct, denies having his access to children restricted at his charity before becoming the subject of a criminal investigation, and completely denies ever sexually abusing children in an extensive and exclusive interview with the New York Times. Sandusky claims that his interaction with children over the years came from his charity work and there was nothing sinister about it. “It was, you know, almost an extended family,” he says. Sandusky gave the interview primarily to defend his decades of charity work. “They’ve taken everything that I ever did for any young person and twisted it to say that my motives were sexual or whatever,” he says. “I had kid after kid after kid who might say I was a father figure. And they just twisted that all.” Sandusky also said he was upset about the damage the scandal had caused to Penn State and Paterno. "I don't think it was fair," he said, adding that he didn't know for sure whether Paterno ever got wind of the allegations because they never spoke of them. Read the full interview, or click here for more on Paterno's role.


Here is a news article: COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - (This October 3 story has been refiled to Corrects detention period to four weeks, not four months, in seventh paragraph.)

 Peter Madsen, Danish inventor, engineer, rocket- and u-boat builder, talks about entrepreneurship during Danish Business Day event held in Copenhagen, Denmark, May 9, 2017. Scanpix Denmark/Ida Marie Odgaard/via REUTERS

 A Danish inventor charged with murdering Swedish journalist Kim Wall in his home-made submarine had video footage on his computer showing women being violently killed, a court heard on Tuesday.

 A police prosecutor said officers found images “which we presume to be real” of women being strangled and decapitated on the hard drive on Peter Madsen’s computer in a laboratory he ran.

 That, together with new post-mortem evidence showing Wall was stabbed in her ribcage and genitals “around or shortly after her death,” was adding to the case against Madsen, the prosecutor, Jakob Buch-Jepsen, told the Copenhagen court.

 DNA tests from Madsen’s nails, face and neck showed a clear match with Wall’s, Buch-Jepsen said, though the exact cause of death remained unknown. “Our suspicion hasn’t changed, it has been strengthened since (the last hearing on) September 5,” he added.

 Madsen, who denies murdering Wall and another charge of mutilating her body, appeared in court via video link dressed in a green boilersuit.

 He said the computer searched by police was not his. “They are the space laboratory’s tools which have been used by everyone in the laboratory,” he said. The court heard he had been working on building a space rocket in the lab.

 He remained calm during the pre-trial session, sitting with his hands folded most of the time. The court ordered him detained for another four weeks as investigations continued.

 Wall, a 30-year-old freelance journalist who was researching a story on Madsen, went missing after he took her out to sea in the 17-metre (56-foot) craft in August.

 Madsen has told the court in past hearings Wall died accidentally, saying she was hit by a heavy hatch cover on his UC3 Nautilus submarine.

 On August 23, police identified a headless female torso washed ashore in Copenhagen as Wall’s.

 Madsen has also denied amputating her limbs, saying he tried to bury her whole body at sea. ||||| Cause of journalist’s death yet to be established, court hears, as murder suspect Peter Madsen’s custody is extended

 The suspected killer of Swedish journalist Kim Wall will be detained for four more weeks after a Copenhagen court heard that 15 stab wounds had been found on her body.

 Peter Madsen, 46, faces a murder charge over the death of the 30-year-old journalist, whose headless, dismembered torso was found floating off Denmark’s capital city 10 days after she boarded the inventor’s self-built submarine for an interview.

 Prosecutor Jakob Buch-Jepsen told the court that cause of death had not yet been formally established, but that the multiple knife wounds had been inflicted “at the time of death or shortly afterwards”.

 Traces of Madsen’s DNA had also been also recovered from Wall’s body, as well as traces of a saw blade consistent with the removal of her head and limbs after her death, Buch-Jepsen said. An examination of Madsen’s computer had also uncovered material featuring women being tortured and killed.

 Madsen, who denies killing Wall, took part in the half-hour custody hearing with his lawyer via a video link from Copenhagen’s Vestre prison. He said he was “not the only person” with access to the computer in his workshop, and the extreme content did not belong to him.

 His defence lawyer, Betina Hald Engmark, said the court had heard “nothing that supports Kim Wall being killed by my client”. No investigations had been carried out to substantiate Madsen’s claim that the journalist died in an accident and that her body was still intact when he disposed of it at sea, she said.

 Madsen told a hearing last month that the journalist died when a 70kg hatch cover fell on her head while she was climbing on to the deck of the surfaced submarine. “It was a terrible accident, a disaster,” he said.

 Feeling “suicidal”, he attached a metal weight around her waist so her body would sink, and planned to sink his submarine, taking his own life, he said. “In my shock I thought it was the right thing to do,” he told the court.

 Wall, who had written for the Guardian and New York Times, was last seen alive on the Nautilus on 10 August. After her boyfriend reported her missing, the 18-metre submarine was located south of Copenhagen the following morning.

 Madsen, an entrepreneur, artist, submarine builder and self-taught aerospace engineer, was rescued just before the vessel sank, and arrested. He will appear in court again on 31 October. |||||
A summary of this is?

– The Danish inventor charged with manslaughter in the death of a Swedish journalist aboard his submarine had videos of women being tortured and murdered on his computer, a police prosecutor told a Copenhagen court Tuesday. Jakob Buch-Jepsen testified that the video footage, "which we presume to be real," showed women being strangled or decapitated. Peter Madsen, who appeared in court via video link, said the computer police searched was not his, but was used by everyone in a laboratory he ran. Madsen claims journalist Kim Wall was killed in August when she was accidentally hit by a hatch cover while researching a story on Madsen onboard the submarine he built. New postmortem evidence was also presented in court; it shows that Wall was stabbed in her ribcage and genitals "around or shortly after her death." Fifteen stab wounds were found on her body. Citing Buch-Jepsen's testimony, Reuters reports that DNA taken from Madsen's nails, face, and neck matched Wall's DNA, while the Guardian reports that traces of Madsen's DNA were recovered from Wall's body. Her cause of death remains undetermined. The court extended Madsen's detention as the investigation continues; he is due back in court Oct. 31.


Article:

In Choa Saidan Shah miners dig coal with crude pick axes and load it onto donkeys to be transported to the surface earning a team of 4 workers around $10 to be split between them.

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It was built sort of like a biplane but probably did not fly as well, if at all.

 Scientists on Tuesday described a fossil of a strange dinosaur that lived in China 125 million years ago which was covered in feathers, looked like it had two sets of wings and may have been able to glide.

 The meat-eating creature, called Changyuraptor yangi, had exceptionally long tail feathers, the longest feathers of any dinosaur, at one foot in length (30 cm). It had feather-covered forelimbs akin to wings as well as legs covered in feathers in a way that gave the appearance of a second set of wings.

 Changyuraptor is not considered a bird but rather a very bird-like dinosaur. It illustrates that it is not always easy to tell what is and is not a bird. It measured a bit more than 4 feet long (1.3 meters) and weighed roughly 9 pounds (4 kg).

 If a person saw Changyuraptor, the reaction likely would be: "Hey! That is a weird-looking bird," according to paleontologist Alan Turner of Stony Brook University in New York, one of the researchers.

 "So, think a mid-sized turkey with a very long tail," Turner added.

 Scientists have identified a handful of these 'four-winged' dinosaurs, known as microraptorines. Changyuraptor is the largest.

 Birds arose from small, feathered dinosaurs. Crow-sized Archaeopteryx, which lived about 150 million years ago, is considered the earliest known bird. But many dinosaurs before and after that had feathers and other bird-like characteristics.

 "Changyuraptor is very, very similar to Archaeopteryx and other primitive birds. So are many other dinosaurs like Anchiornis and Pedopenna. But they have some traits that birds lack, and lack some traits that birds have," Turner added.

 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County paleontologist Luis Chiappe, who led the study, said Changyuraptor lived in a forested environment in a temperate climate, hunting birds, mammals, small reptiles and fish.

 "Animals like Changyuraptor were probably not engaged in powered flight like modern birds. However, Changyuraptor and dinosaurs like it could flap their wings and certainly had large feathered surfaces on both their forelimbs and hind limbs," Turner said.

 "So this does raise the possibility they could glide or 'fly' in a primitive sort of way. The way I like to think of it is: if you pushed them out of a tree, they'd fall pretty slowly," Turner added.

 If Changyuraptor were able to become airborne, its long tail feathers may have helped reduce descent speed and enabled safe landings. "This helps explain how animals like Changyuraptor could engage in some form of aerial locomotion - flight, gliding, and/or controlled descents - despite their size," Turner added.

 In birds today, feathers can serve multiple functions beyond flight, including display, species recognition and mating rituals. Turner said Changyuraptor's feathers also may have served multiple purposes.

 China has become a treasure trove for feathered dinosaur fossils. Changyuraptor was unearthed in Liaoning Province in northeastern China.

 The study was published in the journal Nature Communications.

 (Reporting by Will Dunham; Editing by James Dalgleish) ||||| The largest "four-winged" dinosaur known has been found, and this predator has the longest feathers yet outside of birds, researchers say. This new finding yields insights on how dinosaurs may have flown, the scientists added.

 The 125-million-year-old feathered dinosaur, named Changyuraptor yangi, sported feathers over its body, including its arms and legs, which made it look as if it had two pairs of wings. Its fossil was unearthed in 2012 in Liaoning province in northeastern China, which has been the center of a surge of discoveries of feathered dinosaurs over the last decade.

 "The vast majority of feathered dinosaurs in Liaoning are collected by farmers who live there," said study author Luis Chiappe, a paleontologist and director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

 The newfound dinosaur is a microraptorine, a group of predatory, feathered dinosaurs related to Velociraptor and other well-known raptor dinosaurs. Analysis of the microscopic structure of this fossil's bones reveal it was a fully grown adult — a younger specimen's bones would have signs they were still developing.

 "Microraptorines are thought to be very close cousins of birds, sharing a common raptor ancestor," Chiappe told Live Science. "It's not known yet whether a four-wing body is something unique to microraptorines, or something the common ancestor of birds and microraptorines had, that was later lost in the bird lineage." [Image Gallery: Dinosaur Fossils]

 The researchers estimate 4-foot-long (1.2 meter) Changyuraptor weighed about 9 lbs. (4 kilograms), making it the largest four-winged dinosaur found yet, and at least 60 percent larger than the largest microraptorine specimen found previously, Chiappe said.

 When Changyuraptor was alive, the area in which it lived "was a broad peninsula or wedge into the ocean, with volcanoes," Chiappe said.

 - Charles Choi, Live Science

 This is a condensed version of a report from LiveScience. Read the full report. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on Live Science.

 Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |||||
What is a summary?

– Take the velociraptors made famous by Jurassic Park, make them a bit smaller, add feathers, then change the limbs to wings and you will have something resembling a newly discovered dinosaur species found in China. Researchers say Changyuraptor yangi, a carnivore that lived around 125 million years ago, has the longest feathers ever found outside birds, to which it is very closely related. It's a lot bigger than any other "four-winged" dinosaur species known, reports NBC News. Researchers compare the creature, which was around 4 feet long and weighed about 9 pounds, to "a mid-sized turkey with a very long tail" and say that while it probably couldn't fly the way modern birds do, it could flap its wings and the feathers would have helped it land safely despite its size. "So this does raise the possibility they could glide or 'fly' in a primitive sort of way," a paleontologist tells Reuters. "The way I like to think of it is: if you pushed them out of a tree, they'd fall pretty slowly." (Another newly discovered dinosaur had bony "wings" on its head.)


She'll be living in the lap of luxury — indefinitely.

 Former American model Christina Estrada was awarded $68 million in a divorce settlement from her wealthy Saudi businessman ex-husband in London's High Court on Friday.

 Estrada, 54, and Sheikh Walid Juffali, 61, were married for 12 years before Juffali divorced her back in 2014 under Islamic law without her knowledge. He married a 25-year-old Lebanese model, while still married to Estrada and welcomed his two youngest children with the young woman.

 Estrada's argument in court claimed that she needed to meet "reasonable needs" in the settlement including 1.2 million pounds per year just for clothes.

 More specifically, the ex-Pirelli calendar girl requested more than $141,000 for haute couture dresses, $51,000 for fur coats and $27,000 for shoes each year, as well as five cars and wealthy homes in both London and Beverly Hills.

 Her initial request was for a settlement of $309,000.

 "Having grown up in a middle-class family and having enjoyed a successful career until my marriage, I am fully aware that the spectacular life Walid and I led was immensely fortunate and rarefied," she said in a statement obtained by The Guardian.

 Former supermodel Christina Estrada takes a photograph of the gathered press while stood with her legal team in front of the High Courtat Royal Courts of Justice, Strand on July 8, 2016. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

 "And I fully understand how this can be perceived in the wider world. My focus now is to support my daughter and move forward with our lives," Estrada continued.

 Her lawyers claimed that Juffali was worth roughly $10 billion dollars, but the businessman shot down those claims saying it was more like $147 million.

 The cancer-striken Juffali could not appear in court as he was in a Switzerland hospital being treated.

 He said in a statement that he was hoping that money would be left to his three children, including the teenage daughter he shares with Estrada.

 Sandra Davis, who represented Juffali, said he was more than willing to provide a comfortable lifestyle for Estrada and the "sole purpose" of the case was to determine an appropriate financial settlement.

 With News Wire Services ||||| Christina Estrada celebrated “making history” on Friday when the former Pirelli model won £75 million in cash and assets from her billionaire ex-husband, securing the largest “needs award” ever granted by an English court.

 Walid Juffali, a Saudi businessman who divorced Ms Estrada in 2013, was given three weeks to pay £53.5 million. He will also have to deliver a Lamborghini to his former wife within a fortnight or hand over another £140,000.

 The total settlement - including assets worth a further £22 million - still represents less than half of the £196.5 million that Ms Estrada had requested.

 Her lawyers acknowledged that she had enjoyed an “extraordinary and exorbitant life” during her marriage to the Saudi billionaire and this was “reflected if not replicated” in the High Court judgment. ||||| A former Pirelli calendar model has won a £75m divorce settlement from her billionaire Saudi ex-husband after arguing in the high court that she had to meet her “reasonable needs”.

 Christina Estrada, 54, had been seeking £238m from Sheikh Walid Juffali, 61, with whom she has a daughter. Her lawyers said the total settlement, taking into account her assets, was about £75m, a figure that included a cash payment of £53m.

 In a statement, Estrada said: “I am very grateful for today’s ruling. I have lived in the United Kingdom since 1988 and am thankful for access to the British courts. I never wanted to be here. I always wanted to resolve the matter amicably. This process has been incredibly bruising and distressing. Walid and I were happily married for 12 years and have a beautiful daughter together. He took both a second wife and divorced me without my knowledge.

 “His use of diplomatic immunity to try and prevent me from access to a legally binding settlement set a worrying precedent. Having grown up in a middle-class family and having enjoyed a successful career until my marriage, I am fully aware that the spectacular life Walid and I led was immensely fortunate and rarefied. And I fully understand how this can be perceived in the wider world. My focus now is to support my daughter and move forward with our lives. For her sake and the sake of our wider family, I hope we can now resolve matters sensibly.”

 Estrada was cross-examined in court over her claim that she requires £1m a year for clothes, including £40,000 for fur coats, £109,000 for haute couture dresses and £21,000 for shoes. She told the family judge Mrs Justice Roberts, sitting in London: “I am Christina Estrada. I was a top international model. I have lived this life. This is what I am accustomed to. It is difficult to convey the extraordinary level of luxury and opulence we were fortunate enough to enjoy.”

 Estrada maintained that she needed enough from her ex-husband to afford a luxury home in London worth about £60m, a £4.4m house in Henley-on-Thames and £495,000 for five cars: three in London and two in the US.

 Although her final award fell short of the stratospheric target figure, Justin Warshaw QC, appearing for Juffali, said: “[Awarding] £53m to a lady who has £20m [in her own assets] is an astonishing amount of money. [Anything more] would drive this case into fantasy territory.”

 Estrada’s lawyers estimate that her ex-husband is worth £8bn. Juffali, who has had three wives, said in a written statement that this was a grossly exaggerated “fantasy” figure and put his current net worth at £113.8m.

 Juffali could not attend court because he is being treated in Switzerland for advanced lung cancer. He said in his statement that he had left the vast majority of his wealth to his three eldest children, including his teenage daughter with Estrada, who cannot be identified.

 Estrada, a US citizen who has based herself in the UK for more than two decades, lives in their matrimonial home on the edge of Windsor Great Park. It is set in 33 acres of land and has been estimated to be worth between £22m and £60m. She also has a London flat.

 Juffali divorced her in Saudi Arabia in 2014 under Islamic law, without her knowledge. In 2012, he married a 25-year-old Lebanese model, the mother of his two youngest children, while still married to Estrada. In Saudi Arabia, Muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife.

 Estrada obtained leave under part three of the 1984 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act to apply for financial relief in England, because she could not bring a case in Saudi Arabia.

 Lawyers for Juffali told the judge that their client had been generous, buying her a luxurious house in Beverly Hills, and that he was largely responsible for her being “a very wealthy woman” with assets of more than £20m, sufficient to meet the needs of any 54-year-old woman.

 The court heard that he was willing to offer her £17m in cash and the use of a luxurious £6.5m home in London, in their daughter’s name, for the next five years, while meeting all associated costs.

 Sandra Davis, the head of the family department at Mishcon de Reya, who acted for Juffali, said: “[He] has shown himself to be a fair man who has been prepared to offer his ex-wife a more than comfortable lifestyle for the rest of her life, which he believes she deserves. The sole purpose of this case was to evaluate an appropriate financial settlement based on Ms Estrada’s needs, as opposed to the extraordinary demands presented by her at the start of this case.”

 The Estrada/Juffali divorce will confirm London’s reputation as the divorce capital of the world, where ex-wives are confident of winning more generous settlements and relatively fast justice for those who can afford the large legal fees.

 Mandy Rimmer, a solicitor at the law firm Stephensons, said: “England has one of the most flexible legal systems in the world. When deciding on such matters the court will take into account the needs of both parties as well as the needs of any dependents.

 Ex-wife of Saudi billionaire wins right to claim slice of his fortune Read more

 “However, it is also fair to say that with recent cuts in legal aid funding, rises in court fees, and London’s growing reputation for so-called ‘divorce tourism’, our courts are increasingly becoming the playing field for the super-wealthy - especially as these individuals have the endless financial capacity to appeal, claim and counter-claim.”

 Jo Edwards, partner and head of family law at Forsters LLP , said: “Whilst the man in the street is understandably disbelieving when hearing about the level of maintenance claims made by Ms Estrada, the real story here is the need for reform of the law so that, in all cases, there is greater certainty around how claims for spousal maintenance will be determined …

 “Arguably more important, though, are the more run-of-the-mill cases where parties do not want to spend much of a relatively limited pot going to court, just because no-one can advise them with any certainty (or they cannot find out for themselves) how the court will likely determine spousal maintenance claims in their case.”

 Among other expenses highlighted by the judgment were Estrada’s annual budget of £26,000 for her mobile phone bill, £2.1m travel costs – including £600,000 for private jet charters – and £1m for clothing and jewellery. Other claims were £58,000 for two luxury handbags every year, £23,000 for six casual handbags every year and £35,000 on 10 clutch bags every year.

 Estrada met Juffali in 2000. She has not worked since. Among the other properties they owned at various times were a grand palazzo in Venice which was purchased for €12.5m (£10.6m) and later sold for €22m.

 The couple also built an “iceberg” chalet in Gstaad, Switzerland where several floors were constructed underground to house a swimming pool and parking for up to sixteen vehicles. It now occupies six to seven floors. Luxury materials were imported from all over the world, including quartz from Afghanistan and amethyst, said to be “the applicant’s birthstone”, for a wall in an underground spa. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– Former model Christina Estrada made history Friday when she received a stunning $97 million divorce settlement from a British court, the Telegraph reports. And even that was less than half what she was asking. The settlement includes cash and assets from her ex, Saudi businessman Walid Juffali, and is the largest in English history. “This is what I am accustomed to," the Guardian quotes Estrada as telling the judge. "It is difficult to convey the extraordinary level of luxury and opulence we were fortunate enough to enjoy.” Estrada's initial request included annual payments of $152,000 for handbags, $780,000 for renting private jets, $107,000 for cocktail dresses, and more. The court says the final settlement meets Estrada's "reasonable needs." Estrada, a US citizen, says she knows how all this is "perceived in the wider world." “Having grown up in a middle-class family … I am fully aware that the spectacular life Walid and I led was immensely fortunate and rarefied," the Guardian quotes the former model as saying in a statement. In 2012, Juffali secretly married a 25-year-old model with whom he started a family (Islamic law allows Muslim men to have multiple spouses). Two years later, he divorced Estrada, again without her knowledge. Estrada's lawyers had argued Juffali is worth $10 billion, but the 61-year-old businessman, who is currently being treated for terminal cancer, claims it's more like $147 million, the New York Daily News reports. (A US divorce settlement dwarfs the amount involved here.)


Write a summary based on this article:

Photo: Andres Kudacki

 Bernie Sanders was gratified, if a bit amused, to hear Barack Obama call Medicare for All a “good new idea” in September. The idea has recently become very popular among Democratic politicians, even middle-of-the-road ones with presidential aspirations. In recent polling, 70 percent of Americans say they support it. But of course Medicare for All isn’t a new idea. It was one of the pillars of Sanders’s 2016 campaign for president. He’s been talking about a version of it for over 30 years.

 For a 77-year-old man fixated on the popularity of his ideas and his candidacy — “Harry, have you seen my crowds?” he once asked then-Senator Harry Reid by way of a greeting in the heat of the 2016 campaign — Sanders sometimes finds opportunities like these to enjoy his newfound influence in the Democratic Party. But mostly, he is ill at ease. He talks in private much as he does in front of a microphone, except with a lot more sarcasm. He continues to get angry at Establishment liberals, whose dismissals of how he sees the world he takes personally and judges personally. (He believes their positions and motivations can rarely be disentangled from their funding.) His frustration with the press has only grown. “You mean inside-the-Beltway writers may have missed the point here?” he says to me recently, eyebrows up, when we sit down to talk.

 And he still thinks he should be president. He doesn’t say this out loud, exactly. “I’m not one of those sons of multimillionaires whose parents told them they were going to become president of the United States,” he says. “I don’t wake up in the morning with any burning desire that I have to be president.” Still, he’s pretty certain he’s already the country’s second-most-important politician, and the logic for running in 2020 is obvious to him: His ideas are the best for the country, a majority of Americans will agree once they’re exposed to them, no other national politician has proved to be as uncompromised or effective a messenger of his platform as he is, and no one else seems better positioned to actually win. “If there’s somebody else who appears who can, for whatever reason, do a better job than me, I’ll work my ass off to elect him or her,” he says. But “if it turns out that I am the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, then I will probably run.” He’s been mulling the question all year as he bounds across the country. A longtime friend of Sanders’s characterizes his position as, “At this point, what does he have to lose?”

 One plausible answer to that question: quite a lot. “In many ways, the world has caught up with him,” says Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator running Our Revolution, the political organization spawned from his campaign. But even some of the people close to Sanders — all of whom agree with that assessment — are not necessarily certain another presidential campaign is the best vehicle for his cause. “Bernie is not accountable to anything,” says one longtime ally. “He thinks it’s all about him” and not always a broader movement.

 Even the decision not to decide yet has caused anguish, both for Sanders personally and for anyone who might run against him in the primaries. He is now the dean of the American left — the incumbent leader, as it were, of the most energized segment of the national electorate — and everyone is watching to see how he spends the substantial political capital he has, over a four-decade career, recently accumulated.

 Sanders campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa, in October. Photo: Andres Kudacki

 One week before Trump’s inauguration, Sanders was steaming. He’d returned to Washington to fight, but he found his colleagues unable to internalize what went wrong. When 13 Senate Democrats nixed a measure to decrease drug prices through Canadian imports, he vented to USA Today that they didn’t have “the guts” to do the right thing, promising they’d hear from him. Behind the closed doors of the Democratic caucus, the backlash from his colleagues was swift. Four of the senators who’d crossed Sanders were centrists up for reelection in states Trump had just won. They already faced pressure from their right; none could afford for Sanders to train his large and energized audience against them. For the first time, he scared them — and this was new to him, too. The prospect of exerting this kind of power opened up new possibilities of influence but also potential pitfalls. Sanders backed down and retreated to his third-floor Senate office to iron out with advisers what, exactly, his new role should look like.

 His first step was agreeing to be more of a team player in the Senate, which meant building relationships with powerful party members. He had already accepted Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s invitation to join the Senate leadership team. He also hired Ari Rabin-Havt, a former senior aide to Reid, and they quickly found an opportunity to persuade his colleagues to hear him out: working to protect Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. Sanders had never made any secret of his dissatisfaction with the law or his preference for a single-payer health-care system. But he saw health care as the defining fight of Trump’s term and pitched Schumer on helping organize rallies that winter. He spent much of the first half of 2017 traveling to states represented by key Republican senators to rile up voters around saving the ACA.

 This, in turn, earned him enough goodwill among skeptical party figures to at least open relations. “For a long time, Bernie believed in organizing but ran solo,” says Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, who tells me she has worked with Sanders more in the past two years than at any time in memory. With Schumer’s support, Sanders joined Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez for a “unity” tour, which, while rocky in its public reception, forced the pair to properly meet and interact for the first time. “The wound that was left in the Democratic Party in 2016 is healing in the context of opposition to Trump,” says Jeff Merkley, the lone senator to endorse Sanders in the 2016 primaries. “You finally have the Democratic Party coming back to its Roosevelt roots.”

 Meanwhile, Sanders experimented with ways to use his popularity as a cudgel against the president. When he’d first sat down to recalculate his life after the 2016 campaign, a top priority was an overhaul of his digital-media operation. He hired Armand Aviram, a former producer from NowThis News, and cameras now follow him everywhere; in 2017, the team published 550 short videos for Facebook and Twitter. They are enormously popular — town halls streamed on Facebook can earn millions of views — and Sanders constantly asks aides for updates on his viewership and sharing numbers. The project is substantially more ambitious than that of any other politician in Washington. (In April, aides from multiple Senate offices told me they had no idea how Sanders was doing it.) In fact, the only person in Washington who seems to care as much about building his own media ecosystem is Trump.

 It’s this audience, and the pressure it can exert, that Sanders often credits with pulling his party toward him on specific issues. “Not only Hillary Clinton, not only the Establishment media, not only every op-ed writer in America — they said, ‘Bernie Sanders is crazy, these ideas are extreme, they’re fringe, nobody believes in it, this is not what America is supposed to be about,’ ” he tells me, pounding his index finger on the table as he talks about the presidential-announcement speech he gave in May 2015. Now, “virtually every one of the issues that I talked about” — he lists basically his full campaign platform — “today are mainstream, and today are supported by, in many cases, a vast majority of the American people.” He advocated curtailing the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential-nominating process, a change that was codified in August. And he succeeded in bending the national conversation around health care not just away from repealing Obamacare but in the direction of Medicare for All. After the first serious Republican attempt to repeal the ACA was defeated in July 2017, he started wooing colleagues to his own measure, which for years had been widely regarded within the party as unrealistically ambitious, not to mention a rebuke of Obama. He also played his outside game: One video of a Canadian doctor explaining her country’s health-care system earned more than 30 million views on Sanders’s Facebook page. When Sanders introduced his measure in the Senate that September, 16 Democrats co-sponsored it, including Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren.

 None of which is to say that Sanders, still an Independent, and the Democratic Establishment have altered their opinions of each other much. His advisers believe the party still doesn’t appreciate how respectfully he treated Clinton — he never brought up her emails! — or how useful he was in energizing young voters after the primaries. Clinton loyalists find this analysis laughable to the point of offensiveness. In Washington, there’s still no shortage of Sanders critics within the party, people who see him as a cranky narcissist with a victim complex, or an old, out-of-touch white man with few legislative accomplishments, or someone deluded into thinking his success has to do with anything other than being the alternative to Clinton. Even some activists sympathetic to Sanders see him exercising his political muscle on the health-care and tax debates and wish he’d play a bigger role in the party’s thorniest fights — over Trump’s Muslim ban or the Dream Act, for example. “He’s never been totally comfortable being full-throated in his opposition to Trump, although he does all of it,” one of his Senate colleagues tells me. “He’s more comfortable making Democrats uncomfortable.” This line of argument drives Sanders crazy.

 Early this summer, Sanders celebrated the publication of his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver’s memoir of the 2016 race. The book was already controversial in Washington: It’s called How Bernie Won. In his brief remarks at the party, Sanders agreed. “In many ways, we did win the election,” he said. Hours earlier, Justice Anthony Kennedy had announced his retirement. To pretty much every Democrat not at that book party (and to many who were there), the day was a particularly demoralizing reminder of how much they had lost.

 Bernie Sanders at the Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, in October. Photo: Andres Kudacki

 I ask Sanders what would be different about his presidential campaign this time around, if he runs, and he laughs. “It’s almost personally embarrassing to tell you how little we knew,” he says. Later he describes running for president as “five Ph.D.’s wrapped up in six months.”

 In January, Sanders convened his inner circle at Rabin-Havt’s to talk through his future. Weaver and Turner were there, as were half a dozen other advisers. Sanders’s wife, Jane, dialed in. The attendees took turns presenting, explaining that if Sanders chose to run for president again, the dynamics would be significantly different — the “Bernie is just too eccentric, too untested” argument would be out the window with Trump in office, and Sanders would likely enter the primary this time as a front-runner, not an amusement. They framed the choice: If you want to focus on your legacy and influencing the party, we understand. But if you want to do this, they told him, say “Go.” The campaign couldn’t afford to be like the last one, which got off the ground only after Sanders’s then–chief strategist, Tad Devine, tired of the senator’s foot-dragging, leaked that an announcement was coming in order to force his hand. Sanders listened, told his advisers he hadn’t yet decided, and instructed them to do whatever was necessary to get him ready for “Go” in case he got there.

 And so the team mapped out a 2018 political plan that could best position him for a 2020 run. Sanders has now visited 34 states since the 2016 election, including 22 that voted for Trump. Over the 20 days before the midterms, he sprinted through 13 of them, traveling more on behalf of midterm candidates than any other likely presidential contender except Joe Biden.

 It’s not hard to see how someone in Sanders’s shoes could be a little discouraged by November’s results: The high-profile candidates he backed most vociferously, like Ben Jealous of Maryland and Randy Bryce of Wisconsin, lost. So did many of the candidates he’d backed in primaries, like Virginia’s Tom Perriello and Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed. (He didn’t endorse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the single biggest electoral success story for the Sanders wing of the party, in her primary campaign.) Our Revolution, which aimed to support progressive candidates in 2018, had a mediocre showing; though it had some down-ballot successes, it failed to flip a single House seat. There is no doubt that Sanders and his organization helped energize progressive campaigns and popularize his positions among new and incumbent candidates. But paradoxically, the results of the midterms — the largest leftward shift in the American electorate since the aftermath of Richard Nixon’s resignation — might have made a Sanders presidential campaign look more difficult.

 Sanders’s advisers admit that his path to the Democratic nomination mirrors Trump’s in 2016. Facing what’s likely to be a historically large field, he’s been told, Sanders could start with his most loyal supporters from last time and go for a tight plurality victory in Iowa’s caucuses, followed by a slightly bigger one in New Hampshire’s primary. From there, advisers hope, his numbers could grow as the field dwindles. “There’s a 25 percent base of the party that isn’t going anywhere, and I think 25 percent, in a ten-person primary, is very formidable,” says a former adviser. But everyone recognizes that the strategy is tough — “It is the only thing you can tell yourself and draw a plausible route to the nomination,” says David Axelrod, Obama’s political architect — and everything will depend on who emerges as considerable rivals and how they chip away at his base of support. In January, Sanders’s team reviewed the potential field with him, lingering on the possibility of Warren and Biden entering the race. (An October CNN survey showed Biden 20 points ahead of Sanders across the country, though other polls show a smaller margin.) Sanders made clear that he was also wary of Booker, whom he regards as a potent messenger. In the months since, his aides have kept close tabs on the maneuvers of a wide range of potential candidates, questioning whether Warren intends to run as, in the words of multiple Sanders allies, “Bernie-light” and smiling at the prospect of a matchup against Michael Bloomberg.

 Everyone in Sanders’s orbit recognizes the difficulty he’s had in speaking beyond issues of economics and political corruption. “The 2020 challenge will be making sure [he] can inclusively get the class message out in a way that doesn’t make it seem like he’s dismissing identity issues,” says one Sanders adviser. To this end, he has established public relationships with the reverends Dr. William Barber and Al Sharpton, as well as Randall Woodfin and Chokwe Antar Lumumba, the young African-American mayors of Birmingham, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi, respectively. But he continues to say things that exacerbate his problems. In April, he faced backlash for appearing to dismiss Obama as just a “charismatic individual,” and, more recently, some black lawmakers bristled at what they perceived as Sanders’s attempt to take credit for Andrew Gillum’s primary win in the Florida governor’s race. Then, as the results were tallied in Florida and Georgia, Sanders had trouble calling voters who were uncomfortable with voting for black candidates “racist,” though he did use the word to describe some GOP candidates’ campaigns. At a May conference hosted by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank, Sanders’s speaking slot was billed as “Focus on Criminal Justice.” But when his office sent out his prepared remarks, it looked like a modified version of his old stump speech.

 The title was “Breaking Up the Oligarchy.”

 Mostly, Sanders’s advisers fear that he doesn’t fully appreciate how difficult another run will be. The primaries alone will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, they’ve told him. Staffing up will be complicated. In recent months, his allies have talked about 2020 roles with dozens of former and potential campaign workers, many of whom are concerned that the main change he talks about making this time around is assembling a more robust digital team. (As long as Sanders’s inner circle includes Weaver, many senior 2016 staffers will take themselves out of the running or Weaver will remove them. He is polarizing even by the standards of political-campaign operatives.) And the race will almost certainly be more negative this time around. In July, over 200 centrist Democratic lawmakers, operatives, and donors met in Columbus, Ohio, to plan how to beat both Trump and Sanders.

 But Sanders can’t believe a 2020 race will be any more cynical or negative than the last one. In his experience, the attacks against him and his wife were so raw that he hasn’t asked his advisers for the customary “self-research” that might surface new vulnerabilities. “Look, you don’t even need [opposition research],” he tells me. “If I were a choirboy, it doesn’t matter, because they lie all the time.” But Clinton’s team never ran television ads against Sanders that attacked him personally, and even people close to him fear the amount of potential material is considerable. No opponent has done a full dive through Sanders’s years’ worth of television clips and essays — in 2015, an article he wrote in 1972 that included a line about a woman who “fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously” resurfaced and became a brief political flash point — or succeeded in persuading him to release a full accounting of his taxes. There are also his appearances on RT, the Russian-government-funded network, during the 2016 campaign, and his team’s hesitancy to reckon with Robert Mueller’s finding that Russian agents at one point supported his campaign.

 When I ask Sanders if there’s anything he wishes he’d done differently over the past two years, he quickly says, “I’m sure there are a million things.” But then, just as quickly, he backtracks. “You always … I don’t … Nothing, you know, jumps out at me.”

 On October 2, Sanders’s day began with an email from an aide informing him that if he checked the news, he’d see Amazon had just raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour for U.S. employees. This is the kind of victory he still isn’t used to celebrating, and later that morning he wondered aloud whether it was his most important accomplishment ever.

 Activists had been fighting for a higher minimum wage at Amazon for years, and Sanders had recently used his fame to call attention to it. On an issue like this, he’d told his team, it helps to stop thinking like a senator and start thinking primarily like someone with a huge platform. In July, he’d live-streamed a town hall with workers from Disney, Amazon, American Airlines, Walmart, and McDonald’s; by August, Disney World announced it planned to raise its minimum wage to $15. In September, he introduced legislation in the Senate, following a similar bill introduced by California representative Ro Khanna last year, intended to pressure Amazon, knowing that by signing on to it, he would give the legislation a new round of attention. They branded this version the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act — “Stop BEZOS.”

 When liberals worried the proposal would backfire, Sanders’s team argued they’d missed the point: The bill wasn’t intended to become law. “You use the opportunity you have within the context that you’re forced to work,” Sanders says. “Right now, nothing good is going to happen for workers in this Congress, and therefore we have to go outside.” This month, he introduced the Stop Walmart Act, and he’s pushing the new Democratic House majority to pass a national $15 minimum wage.

 And yet, as proud as he is to have found ways to put a dent in income inequality — under a Trump administration, no less — Sanders finds a lot of his newfound fame deeply unpleasant. He has talked with friends about the pressure of being, in his mind, the most popular politician in the country. He travels constantly but can’t go anywhere without being mobbed. He shoos away cameras that get too close, cuts off questioners. “It’s hard to walk down the street without people coming up to you,” he says. “There’s no interview I can give that does not have the possibility of a ‘gotcha’ question. ‘Oh, we can trap him, embarrass Sanders.’ ” His decision to at least partially ingratiate himself with the Democratic Establishment is its own kind of heartache. He believes he has a responsibility to shape the party in his image, but at what point do these negotiations turn him into just another politician?

 Whenever Sanders is asked about his age, he reddens, cracks an annoyed smile, tilts his head down to peer above his glasses, and opens his eyes wide. The question, he tells me, holding eye contact far more than usual, is getting annoying. “If we say, ‘Oh my God, I have a communications director here who’s a woman,’ oh my God, you would go crazy. I would be pilloried all over the country: I’m a sexist guy. ‘Oh my God, we’re working with African-Americans!’ I don’t know: lalalala,” he says. “And yet — yet! — I think ageism is a real issue, okay? And I think when we look at individuals, we look at their totality, all right? There are, you know, 50-year-olds who retired for whatever reason, people who are dealing with terrible illnesses, all right? Age is a factor! But it is one of many factors!

 “I thank God, you know, I can’t remember the last day — honestly — when I missed work,” he continues. Opponents make his age an issue only when they can’t compete on issues, he says. “What people have a right to know: Is the candidate healthy? Does he or she have the energy to do what is a very stressful and difficult job?”

 Some close Sanders allies do think his path to the White House has never been clearer. But other friends have warned him there’s a good chance that if he enters the race, his first day will be his best day. They’ve softly nudged him to consider the symbolic power of handing off his mantle to a younger leader — as well as the influence he’d wield over the primary races if he strategically withheld his support. “His message is one that obviously resonated a couple years ago,” says Tom Harkin, the former Iowa senator whom Sanders consulted before his last campaign. Now, Harkin says, other Democrats must acknowledge that “Bernie’s message is heightened by what Trump has done.”

 A lot likely comes down to Warren, whom Sanders has called “my favorite senator.” In 2016, according to advisers, the prospect of a Warren campaign nearly kept Sanders out of the race. Now some Sanders allies watching her maneuver toward 2020 perceive her trying to elbow him out. Neither senator has expressed any interest in stepping aside for the other, and the pair have mostly ignored entreaties from allies to meet in person and hash out an agreement. But given the complexity of launching a campaign, Sanders will have to make the decision in the next few months or the calendar will make it for him.

 “The question that history will answer, depending on what he decides to do, is: Is he going to be the Barry Goldwater or the Ronald Reagan?” says Khanna. “Is he going to be the person who defines the ideology to have someone else win?” Sanders is pretty certain that even being president wouldn’t satisfy him — activism is a constant struggle, he tells people, and it’s a classic politician’s mistake to believe in such a thing as an endgame. But for the first time in his career, he’s seeing the country shift in his direction. The revolution is “already off the ground,” Sanders tells me, as if it were the most obvious thing in the world. “The genie is out of the bottle.”

 *This article appears in the November 26, 2018, issue of New York Magazine. Subscribe Now! ||||| Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernard (Bernie) SandersOn The Money: US, Mexico, Canada sign trade deal | Ocasio-Cortez seeks spot on House banking panel | New GOP tax bill hits roadblock Rahm Emanuel throws cold water on Beto O'Rourke 2020 talk Sanders to 'strongly oppose' Trump trade deal MORE (I-Vt.) said he will probably run for president in 2020 if he is the best candidate to beat President Trump Donald John TrumpTrump praises George H.W. Bush's humility and 'unflappable leadership' Former President George H.W. Bush dies at 94 Trump issues Alaska emergency declaration after earthquake MORE.

 "I’m not one of those sons of multimillionaires whose parents told them they were going to become president of the United States," Sanders told New York Magazine. "I don’t wake up in the morning with any burning desire that I have to be president."

 "If there’s somebody else who appears who can, for whatever reason, do a better job than me, I’ll work my ass off to elect him or her," he added. "If it turns out that I am the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, then I will probably run.”

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Sanders made similar remarks last week, saying his team was "looking at" the possibility of a 2020 run.

 "[I]t’s a decision that impacts your family," Sanders said on MSNBC's "PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton."

 "And I want to make sure that when I make that decision, if I decide to run, that I have concluded, in fact, that I am the strongest candidate who can defeat Donald Trump," he said.

 Sanders ran in the 2016 Democratic primaries and garnered popularity among progressives, before being defeated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump praises George H.W. Bush's humility and 'unflappable leadership' Trump, Russia and lessons from the mob: Did ‘godfathers’ steer collusion probe? Hill reporter says presidential, midterm races are fought on different battlefields MORE for the nomination.

 The self-described democratic socialist has been one of Trump's most outspoken critics the Senate, often referring to him as the "most racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted president in history." |||||

– Bernie 2020? It's a distinct possibility: "If there’s somebody else who appears who can, for whatever reason, do a better job than me, I’ll work my ass off to elect him or her," Bernie Sanders tells New York of the next presidential election. But, the Vermont senator adds, "If it turns out that I am the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, then I will probably run." He insists, however, "I’m not one of those sons of multimillionaires whose parents told them they were going to become president of the United States. I don’t wake up in the morning with any burning desire that I have to be president." The Hill notes that Sanders, 77, also said last week his team was "looking at" the possibility of running in 2020. (Hillary, too?)