Kari Lake's embarrassing flub on softball question on the language of Armenia
Watch as Kari Lake fails to answer a question on the language spoken in Armenia, in an awkward exchange on Wednesday (26 June) with a House Democrat.
The Senior Advisor for the US Agency for Global Media was being questioned on the future of her agency at Capitol Hill when Rep. Jim Costa decided to ask her about the European country.
Mr Costa asked her: 'I assume you know what language the people of Armenia speak?', to which Ms Lake replied: 'I've actually heard it. It's a beautiful language. I can't name it. Can you please tell me?'
The democrat shot back 'yeah, it's Armenian', with Ms Lake laughing off the fumble, calling it a 'trick question'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
THE HAGUE, June 26 (Reuters) - For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Taxpayers will be left counting the cost for years to come if Labour rebels block welfare cuts
Taking the PIP FOR those Labour MPs excitedly plotting against the PM while virtue-signalling about the cruelty of cutting benefits, we have a reality check. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the welfare Bill would actually RISE by a further £8billion even if the changes were fully implemented. Spending on health-related benefits would reach a whopping £61billion by the end of the decade. That's up by £25billion on the figure in 2019-20, before Covid. If Labour rebels block the changes, this figure balloons to £66billion. It now looks inevitable Starmer will be forced to retreat, having abandoned his pledge to stand firm and instead offering 'conversations' with the rebels. Labour MPs might well feel better and pat themselves on the back on Twitter for being 'progressive' — once again the buzzword of the Left. But taxpayers will be left counting the cost for years to come. The PM, meanwhile, stands seriously weakened less than a year after winning a landslide. What a self-inflicted disaster. Angela Rayner says lifting 2-child benefit cap not 'silver bullet' for ending poverty after demanding cuts for millions Red-handed DO as I say, not as I do. They should carve that mantra in stone above the entrance to the Department of Energy. Ed Miliband loves telling ordinary folk to make expensive sacrifices to save the planet. Yet it's somehow no surprise that His Greenness flew at least one Net Zero official on a 10,000-mile round-trip to Brazil on a pointless mission to check whether hotels they considered booking for him and his team were suitable. Apparently we must all ditch the gas boilers that keep us warm. But pumping out tonnes of CO2 is completely fine if it's in pursuit of a perfect hotel suite for the minister. Miliband's hypocrisy will probably go down badly with the Climate Change Committee quango. It says his failure to lift expensive green levies from electricity bills means punters aren't buying enough electric cars or heat pumps. It seems even his eco warrior mates don't think he's up to the job. No to Nanny BRITS generally hate being told what to do — especially when it makes no sense. So why don't the busybodies presiding over our increasingly nanny state just leave us alone? Since when was having a pint or a flutter such a danger to society? Why must we constantly be told to watch where we're going, hold the handrail, mind our heads and our words — even our thoughts? No one asked for any of this. Nanny doesn't know best. We do.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Waiting game for Shell and BP: If there must be a merger, it must be an all-British one, says ALEX BRUMMER
The concept of an enormous British oil and gas takeover takes us way back to the turn of the century. BP, then led by Lord Browne, swallowed American giants Amoco for $48.2billion in 1998 and Arco (Atlantic Richfield) for $26.8billion in 2000. A quarter of a century later and all the speculation centres on a Shell merger with BP to create a genuine great British energy champion – not the fake Great British Energy of Ed Miliband. Shell is doing its best to kibosh the notion of absorbing its long-time rival. Since Wael Sawan took the helm as chief executive of Shell in 2023 there has been an intense focus on oil and gas production, cash flows and returning funds to shareholders. Irrespective of the oil price, which has been on a roller-coaster ride, the group has managed $3billion of share buybacks for 14 quarters in a row. The group's market value has zipped up to £152billion and now dwarfs its old rival BP, which is worth a footling £58billion. It is the vulnerability of BP which has caused takeover talk to swirl around the historic explorer. In the last two decades, BP has had to navigate a series of crises dating back to the Texas City refinery fire in 2005 and the debilitating Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010. Subsequently, it had to rapidly pull out of its investment in Russia gusher Rosneft after Vladimir Putin turned the might of the Kremlin on Ukraine. A torrid series of events left the group overloaded with debt. Further value was lost when the last chief executive Bernard Looney doubled down on a carbon neutral BP before being forced out when he misled the board over a priapic personal life. The transformation of BP from predator to preyed upon has taken a quarter of a century. The business has a rich history during which the Government has at times been an investor and BP has been a factor in the country's foreign policy. That engendered a special status in Whitehall and the City. Some 38pc of BP's share register is in the hands of UK long investors, which is a point of difference for most of the FTSE 100 where UK pension funds have been doing a disappearing act. It is BP's status and its dominant global presence in markets such as Indonesia, India and parts of Africa which makes it part of Britain's DNA. No British government, of any political colour, would want to see the prize disappear into the hands of American giants Exxon Mobil or Chevron – both are perceived as potential buyers. So it should come as no surprise that there have been sotto voce contacts with ministers and Whitehall as to what their response might be to an unwanted bid. Unsurprisingly, the answer is that the Government would rather see an all-British merger. Shell remains in London despite speculation it might leave for New York. The Government may be seen as hostile to fossil fuels, but the importance of both companies to UK jobs, exports, output, engineering, oil trading and growth is indisputable. They have also become big investors in green transformation, developing electric vehicle (EV) charging forecourts on the highways of Britain. Current BP chief executive Murray Auchincloss has set a course to restoring his company's status through disposals to reduce debt, cost reductions (which don't compromise safety) to improve cash flows and ambitious capital spending – too ambitious for key activist shareholder Elliott, which has built a 5pc holding. Auchincloss is in a race against the clock to restore value. It won't help if oil and gas prices, which stormed ahead in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, remain subdued. Shell is out of the picture for six months under the terms of the takeover code, which gives Auchincloss some temporary breathing space. But the Anglo-Dutch group also has the option of coming back into the picture should BP request it do so. The experience of both companies with mega-billion takeovers is that they take years, if not decades, to fully integrate. Neither Shell chief executive Sawan nor BP boss Auchincloss particularly wants that distraction. Shell is the most likely safety net should BP tumble off the high wire.
