Area Scores (August 13, 2018)

And it is part of a global attack on the very idea of liberal democracy, and comes at a time where we see a real rise of autocrats around the world. Should he take his case to the judiciary, he risks being suspended for three weeks because of carryover points. The president, when he says Russia hoax, he means the investigation and some others on TV, never under oath, wanting to suggest that somehow Russian meddling in the election was successful in changing a single vote or indeed any the electoral outcome. Tour Championship odds: Rob Green saves spot-kick after goalless draw at Stamford Bridge

Player Rankings

Popular Sports

Chelsea vs Arsenal Premier League 5: Marcos Alonso's late goal gave Chelsea a win over Arsenal in a frantic encounter in Maurizio Sarri's first competitive game at Stamford Bridge. Alonso swept home from close range after being found by sub Eden Hazard, meaning Unai Emery's Arsenal have lost two from two this season. There were four goals in a dramatic first half. Pedro 9 and Alvaro Morata 20 capitalised on woeful Arsenal defending to put Chelsea up, as both Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang and Henrikh Mkhitaryan missed sitters for the visitors after each goal.

Kovacic 6 , Hazard 7 , Giroud 6 Arsenal: Torreira 6 , Ramsey 6 , Lacazette 5 Man of the match: But Arsenal found themselves level at the break through Mkhitaryan's yard effort 37 and Iwobi's close-range finish 41 , with both sides visibly neglecting their defensive duties.

Arsenal crumbled again late on to allow Chelsea the winner, continuing the Blues' per cent start in the Premier League under Sarri. Chelsea initially had the run of Arsenal and were ahead through Pedro as Hector Bellerin was caught high up the pitch, allowing Alonso acres to square for his Spanish compatriot in even more space.

Those grants were a small piece of that. There are many things that go into that. And, again, this is -- we got a long, long way to go. And to see high school graduation rates at all-time highs, to see -- see many fewer students going to dropout factories, those are things we feel really good about.

I want to talk to you more on the other side of this commercial break, but we have to take one. Next Sunday marks the one-year anniversary of the white nationalist rally that resulted in the death of a counterprotester in Charlottesville. We hope you will join us then. We are back now with more of our conversation with the former secretary of education, Arne Duncan.

We've been talking about this book you just wrote and in it you're very critical of the state of our schools right now. You said there's a lot more work to be done. One specific criticism you say it's -- there's a distinction between proficiency and growth were you're measuring how students actually perform. And you say not everyone understands that, including the current secretary of education, Betsy DeVos.

What do you mean? So what I'm interested in is how much students are improving each year. So proficiency is just on an absolute basis where you are today. I want to know how much you're getting better each year. So if you're learning two years of material for a year's instruction, that's amazing work by the child, but, more importantly, great, great work by that teacher.

And we have to -- we need to recognize that and reward that. A pretty basic concept for folks who work in education. Unfortunately, the current secretary of education didn't understand that one. And what exactly is it that you think she is failing to understand or follow through on there, because she has kept a number of the Obama administration programs? You probably saw on the news -- it's -- for me it's just a crazy metaphor that about a week ago her yacht was found adrift.

And for me that sort of represents where they are in terms of education policy. It doesn't have anything to do with it. It's just that her -- the policy is adrift. There's nothing out there of substance. We should have some concrete goals as a nation. I would argue high quality access to pre-k for every single child. We got high school graduation rates to 84 percent.

They should be trying to get that to 90 percent. We should try and lead the world in college completion. None of those are on the radar. They talk about small things. And that, for me, it's -- it's -- we're selling our nation short.

This is our -- a great education is our way to have a stronger economy. We have to educate our way to a better economy. You don't hear any of that. We don't have big goals. It shouldn't be bipartisan, non-partisan. One of the things that the current secretary has been an advocate for in the past are school vouchers, also school choice.

What is it specifically that you have a problem with when it comes to using some of these public funding in essence to allow some students to go to private schools?

I don't care the name of the school, I just want more high performing schools, less drop-out factors. But doesn't it come as a reflection, in some ways, of greater parental involvement if they're trying to take that option? We're all for parental involvement. I think public dollars should be used to support high quality public education.

The vast majority of our children, in our nation, always have and always will go to public schools. We have to make sure those are absolutely as strong as possible. And actually I think we need a different model. We need to think about a pre-k through 14 model. We've had a k through 12 model for years. I think that's a little outdated.

We have to start earlier. And a high school diploma is great. We've got to think about some form of higher education, community college, four year universities and beyond that as well.

In the book you make a point that we're not training children to enter the current workforce. It's more sort of factory worker mentality. How we think critically. How we work in teams.

How we solve problems. Those are the kinds of skills that all employers are looking for, not rope memorization, not just sitting in a class, you know, memorizing things. And, again, this is where's -- these are places where we could go much, much further and do it with a real sense of urgency. For me the competition isn't other countries, it's, can we do it ourselves. And if we can do that, our kids are extraordinary. We just have to give them a better chance. We have to meet them halfway.

When you were secretary of education, the tragedy in Sandy Hook happened. We've seen yet another tragedy on President Trump's watch now, the Marjorie Stoneman shooting, and those teenagers have become very politically active on the heels of that. But equally very little change at the federal level, all really at the local. Is that what the expectation should be that communities have to figure out how to fix this issue themselves?

No, I think we all have to do this. And I will say, Margaret, this is our -- I think our greatest failing is that we don't value of lives of our children.

Children in other nations don't die like they do here. And, you know, the Sandy Hook massacre was the worst day of President Obama's presidency. It was our worst day there. He went out the next day to visit families. The vice president and I went down a couple days later.

None of us ever anticipated 20 babies and five teachers and a principal being slaughtered. And the fact that we got nothing done, zero, in terms of gun legislation after that is -- is heartbreaking. I've been very pessimistic on that issue.

But the students from Parkland, Florida, have given me a real sense of hope. And young people, whether it's in Parkland, whether it's back home in Chicago, the young people I'm working with here in D. We have failed as adults and parents to protect them.

And they're saying they're not going to tolerate it. And I'm actually very, very hopeful the young people who are going to lead our nation where we as adults have failed to take them, and that's to a place free of trauma and free of fear.

It's time now for some political analysis with our panel. But, Paula, we should be -- we should have our own legal panel here because I feel like there's so much to digest from this week. Let's start with the president's tweets this morning. He is out there defending his son and saying that he has no concerns about him legally and this meeting that he took at Trump Tower with a lawyer linked to the Kremlin.

Should he be concerned? Yes, he should be concerned, even more so than he should be concerned for himself, because Donald Trump Junior does have some legal exposure here. And the fact that he has not yet been interviewed by special counsel investigators, that should concern everyone because typically in an investigation like this, you want to come in early.

You want to be someone they're gathering evidence for -- from, rather, not the person who walks into the room and they have a pile of evidence and they start going through it. Now, his potential legal exposure, the first is for -- for anyone who walks into this situation, lying. But in a case like this, where there are all these different iterations of what happened in that Trump Tower meeting, that's a tremendous exposure for him.

The possibility of perjury. He says he did not know -- his father did not know about the Trump Tower meeting, Michael Cohen said he did. I think, legally speaking, it would be easy to discredit Cohen as a witness. And if Mueller thought there was something there, he likely would have handed that case off. But then the big question of the entire case is, was there any coordination or support or assistance with the Russians in terms of disseminating that dirt that they had.

Now, at the time the first version of events given by the White House was that this was a meeting about adoptions linking to an issue of concern for the Russian government. The president today says, no, it was about opposition research solely and there's nothing illegal about that.

The good news for them is there's no crime in lying to the press. But what they need to do is they need to figure out what exactly their story is and it needs to be supported by the evidence.

They need to make sure there's no witnesses of other evidence that would contradict that and expose them to lying when they sit down with investigators. But the special counsel does have questions for the president about why that statement was drafted, sort of misleading people about the reason for this, this meeting.

Mark, when we had Kellyanne Conway on the show, she was trying to explain that the president, when he uses this term Russian hoax, is referring to misunderstandings or misconstruing of facts related to the investigation and that it has nothing to do with what his national security team says. You've been writing about the fact that they're saying two different things about the same topic, actually, which is the view on Russia, period.

Yes, this is a recurring theme with the Trump White House, which is the efforts of -- of his aides to sort of narrow the scope of what he's saying. When he talks about a Russian hoax, particularly in a tweet or in some of the inflammatory ways he does, he's really denigrating the entire effort to get at Russian interference in American elections and, frankly, to guard against interference in the midterms elections.

And so I think that this week we saw this just amazing split screen where the administration arrayed all its top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the podium at the White House, made this persuasive presentation about how seriously they take the threat and what they're going to do to try to fend it off. And then a day later, hours later, at a political rally, President Trump, in effect, dismisses the whole thing as much ado about nothing.

For Kellyanne Conway to say, well, he's only narrowing talking about an investigation, no one in the American public is taking it that way. They're viewing it as what I thing the president intends, which is to diminish the importance of the issue.

And I think the reason he does that goes back to his own long standing doubts about the legitimacy of his own election and his concern that if he gives this any credibility, it will reduce his own credibility. And so I think that this split screen is really what matters and not the after the fact attempts by the White House to spin it. Is the effort here, Seung Min, to manage the public understanding of the Russian investigation, or is it to manage the president's own party, because what you hear consistently from the Republican establishment is that they stand with the intelligence community and their version of events, not the characterization as a hoax?

I think it's a little bit of -- it's multiple things. I think in terms of the public perception of Russia and also with -- we talk about how -- along with the Mueller investigation we talk often about how the president's constant tweeting and his attacks on Mueller is partially to just publicly discredit the investigation. So you do see that kind of And you saw the shot coming from Capitol Hill right after his comments in Helsinki alongside Vladimir Putin, But I think that whenever we ask congressional Republicans, you know, look at the president's rhetoric, a lot of times they do point towards, well, look at what Dan Coats is saying or what Secretary Nielsen is saying or Director Wray.

They're satisfied with what - what his administration officials are saying. But, you know, that is a different message coming from his top officials versus the president. Leslie, I know you've been out there doing some reporting. Does all of this translate to people at home and people who are going to go place votes in November. So what the Republican Party is thinking is they want to buck traditional norms. They want the president not to have the major losses that most presidents would have at a midterm election when these midterms tend to be a referendum on the president.

And they're ready to marshal those resources on the ground and they understand what the president understands, which is very much at this point, the pulse of the people. What used to be a war in the Republican Party is now a whisper, because the economy is strong, the president is now a 50 percent approval more or less, Congress is still at 10 percent approval and they see unemployment's low and they can win. They may like agenda. They may not like the man.

The former Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was in court last week. He will be headed back there. There was all this color about his personal wealth, his clothing.

What is the prosecution trying to lay out here in terms of the picture? Well, the judge likes to continue to remind everyone he is not on trial for having a lot of money and throwing it around. This trail has nothing to do with the president. It has nothing to do with the campaign. The allegation is that he made tens of millions of dollars from lobbying on behalf of Ukrainian politicians.

But instead of having the check sent to one of his six houses, he had it put into offshore bank accounts. And then in order to allegedly get this money into the U. And that's where we get some of the color, the homes, the cars, the ostrich coat, it the back ph of their theory of the case. But it is important to remember, we did hear from some is their -- his accountants late in the week and there was evidence that some of this conduct, especially doctoring forms when he wanted to try to get some loans, some of that conduct did extend to his time in the Trump campaign.

So far no connection to the president. Kellyanne Conway, she cited the judge. But let's be really clear what the judge has said about the special counsel investigation. During the preliminary hearings, the judge had questions about whether or not tax evasion or bank fraud, whether or not that was in the special counsel's authority. The judge came out and said, you're not interested in bank fraud. You're just trying to get this guy to cooperate in your investigation.

Everyone sort of nodded and acknowledged this was a fact, and he allowed the case to proceed. But the president and his allies, they seized on those comments to try to say the special counsel investigation is illegitimate or a federal judge said they were out of bounds.

But the judge has sort of nodded to exactly what's going on here. Mark, do we have any idea, turning to the foreign policy front, what was in the letter from President Trump to Kim Jong-un that was handed off this weekend to North Korea officials? We don't know the specifics of what's in that letter. But I think we have a fairly good idea, based on the president's own characterization of his recent interaction, that it was probably a very friendly letter thanking Kim for the letter he had sent, and probably setting the predicate for another meeting.

There's a lot of talk about maybe doing it at the United Nations in September. But, again, to go to this -- it's a recurring theme with this administration, this notion of dissidence or a split screen. You have this very cozy, friendly relationship being built between Kim and Trump.

And then underneath you have this very combative, even sometimes bitter negotiation between Mike Pompeo and his counterpart on the issue of denuclearation. And you saw that in stark terms, even as an American diplomat was handing the letter to the North Koreans in Singapore to deliver to Kim, another North Korean official was lambasting the United States and Mike Pompeo for their bad attitude in the negotiations.

And so what you see, and I think it's deliberate on the part of the North Koreans, is an effort in a way to drive a wedge between the president and his own negotiators. Kim thinks that President Trump is scenario and well-meaning and well-intentioned and wants to have a good relationship, but those pesky diplomats keep demanding that North Korea do all these things to denuclearize. It's a pretty effective strategy. It puts Mike Pompeo in a very bad spot because he's the guy who has to deliver this deal.

And he's been very forthright about saying he sees a long, difficult negotiation ahead of the United States in North Korea. And he acknowledged, he said, the timeline is going to be up to Chairman Kim. Thus far, no denucleatization that we have seen at the moment. Hazard, who received a rapturous applause when coming on in the second half, then took the decisive spot-kick, squeezing his attempt beyond Anthony Lopes.

The year-old proved largely a cool head at the heart of Chelsea's defence, despite a couple of risky challenges, but those will certainly be ironed out as he continues his development.

The centre-back was easily Chelsea's standout player before joining the rest of the starting XI in coming off, and it will be intriguing to see whether he has done enough to force his way into Sarri's matchday squad. Friendly Match Chelsea vs Lyon 8: Chelsea Lyon pens: Highlights of Chelsea's penalty victory over Lyon. Willian started the pre-season friendly as captain.

Soccer betting uefa | Baseball scores giants | Best site for super bowl betting online | Super bowl xlix expert picks | Baseball scores for monday |

Chelsea vs Manchester City - August 5, - Live Streaming and TV Listings, Live Scores, News and Videos:: Live Soccer TV. Tijuana vs León - August 5, - Live Streaming and TV Listings, Live Scores, News and Videos:: Live Soccer TV. The NFL is back for the season. Rob Nelson identifies betting nuggets to know for Week 1's slate of games. With Brent Grimes out, .

Proudly powered by WordPress