Renault’s Nick Chester says the 2019 aero rules will move Formula 1 in the right direction, although the tech boss believes the changes will only make a “small difference” to overtaking.

Modifications to this year’s technical rules will see the implementation of a new aero package that will include a less sophisticated front-wing design, simplified front brake ducts with no winglets and a wider, deeper rear wing.

The changes are intended to reduce the potential for outwash, a phenomenon that disrupts the wake and greatly restricts the ability of a following car to overtake.

Racing Point: 2019 simulations showed ‘big hit’ to performance

“Well yeah, it is quite a big change for 2019,” Chester said.

“I think the concept that the FIA have put forward to try and improve the wake to the following car is the right thing.

“Obviously in one year you couldn’t do all of the changes that are planned eventually for 2021, but from what we’ve seen so far I think it’ll make a small difference.

“It’ll go in the right direction, so the following will be a little bit improved, but we’re probably going to have to wait until 2021 to see what the full package can deliver.”

Addressing the changes, Chester also echoed the comments of Racing Point’s Andy Green who admitted that the 2019 aero tweaks – based on simulation tests – had shaved off some performance.

“We’ve taken a bit of a hit back with the new rules and it’s going to be a question of how fast we can develop,” he said.

“I’m not going to give you the actual number but I think the key is going to be how teams come back and how they develop.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Gallery: The beautiful wives and girlfriends of F1 drivers

Keep up to date with all the F1 news via Facebook and Twitter

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick shook up the Democratic presidential field when he announced his candidacy Thursday. He spoke on Saturday to thousands of California Democrats gathered in Long Beach for the party’s convention. Afterward, Patrick, 63, sat down with The Times to talk about why he’s running for president. The interview was edited for clarity and length.

In late 2018, you said you weren’t running for president. What changed?

We were ready to go in 2018, and two weeks, maybe 2 ½ weeks from announcing — we had a plan, a team that was coming together — and my wife was diagnosed with uterine cancer. And that was and should have been my first priority, our first priority. She was diagnosed early, thank God, and is cancer free today.

The Democratic presidential field is huge, with candidates from across the spectrum, from moderate to progressive. What is the void you see that you believe your candidacy can fill?

First of all, I’m not sure that any of the labels, with all due respect, really work anymore. They certainly don’t work for me. I don’t fit in a box. I will say I don’t think that there’s another candidate that has the range of life and professional experiences I have had, and I bring those experiences to the way I make decisions by trying to understand other people’s perspective so I can get on to the goal we’re trying to achieve. And I think we’ve got a moment right now, when the public’s appetite is for ideas as big as the challenges we face. … It means we have to bring some humility alongside the brilliance and creativity in the field. A willingness to acknowledge that we don’t have to agree on everything to work together on anything, which is exactly the politics we’re dealing with today in Washington and the kind of politics that got us here.

Is your candidacy a rebuttal of former Vice President Joe Biden, whom some have described as a shaky front-runner?

My candidacy isn’t about the other candidates. I respect them. I know many of them. I’ve known Joe Biden since he was chair of the Judiciary Committee, and I was a nominee for the civil rights division. He’s always had my back, and I’ve tried wherever I could to have his. I think my focus hasn’t so much been on the other candidates as it has been on the electorate.

You were a major supporter of Elizabeth Warren’s when she first ran for Senate in Massachusetts. Why are you running against her?

She’s a friend. … This isn’t about anyone or any of the other candidates. It’s about a set of skills that is uniquely broad and about a moment that could be lost if we don’t bring a range of skills to it, and if we don’t bring some humility that says, ‘You know, somebody else actually might have a better idea about the means.’ … But I would ask you to remember, and I’d ask your readers to remember, we take just one example like healthcare: Every single Democrat in this field wants healthcare that is of high quality and affordable for every single American, and the other side doesn’t. And that’s the thing to remember.

Healthcare is one of the big debates in the Democratic primary. I know you just announced and haven’t rolled out policy yet, but where do you fall in the debate over “Medicare for all” or a public option?

We will get you more detail as we roll out policy positions; but healthcare is, I think, one area where I have an unusual amount of experience. You know that my predecessor [Gov. Mitt Romney] signed the bill. It took effect the day I took office. Ninety-nine percent of our citizens in Massachusetts have healthcare today. I don’t think there’s another state in America can who can claim that outcome.

Other candidates have effectively been running for years. How do you pull together a team and raise enough money so late?

They’ve been campaigning for years, and in some cases the public is tired. You know, it’s a strange thing: Those of us who follow politics, who cover politics, we think of it as late. Regular people don’t think so. I’ll give you one very encouraging factoid: Within a couple of hours of the website going up, we had volunteers from every one of the 50 states.

You’re obviously close with former President Obama and his team. Did you speak with Obama about running? Did he or his advisors urge you to run?

I won’t get into what he said. But I’ve talked to him at length, year and a half or more ago, when we were kind of gearing up and I was trying to sort it out. …He has seen up close how brutal it is to run, so I wouldn’t exactly say it was about encouraging. But he’s a patriot. And so am I. And I think, at any time but maybe especially at a time like this, patriots need to step up and offer to serve.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama and Democrats criticized GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s work for Bain Capital, painting him as a heartless corporate raider. I could see one of your rivals using Obama’s words about Bain in an ad against you. (Patrick said he left the private equity firm’s payroll on Wednesday.)

They should use my words because I was asked about it at the time, as you can imagine as co-chair of the [Obama] campaign. And I didn’t buy it then. I don’t buy it now. You know we villainize people and industries, sort of climbing over others to get what you want. It’s not [my] kind of politics.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

BETHESDA, Md. — 

President Trump spent more than two hours at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Saturday for what the White House said were medical tests as part of his annual physical.

The appointment wasn’t on Trump’s weekend public schedule, and his last physical was in February. Press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the 73-year-old president was “anticipating a very busy 2020” and wanted to take advantage of “a free weekend” in Washington to begin portions of his routine checkup.

She did not specify which tests he’d received or explain why the visit had not been disclosed in advance. Trump’s 2018 and 2019 physicals were both announced ahead of time and appeared on his public schedule.

Grisham said after the visit that the president had had “a quick exam and labs” and remains in good health.

“The president remains healthy and energetic without complaints, as demonstrated by his repeated vigorous rally performances in front of thousands of Americans several times a week,” she said.

Trump also spent time at the hospital meeting with the family of a special forces soldier injured in Afghanistan. And he visited with medical staff “to share his thanks for all the outstanding care they provide to our wounded warriors, and wish them an early happy Thanksgiving,” Grisham said.

It was the president’s ninth visit to the hospital since taking office.

Walter Reed spokeswoman Sandy Dean said the hospital does not comment on patients who receive care at the facility and referred questions to the White House.

Trump’s last checkup, in February, showed he had gained seven pounds while in office. At 243 pounds and 6 feet, 3 inches tall, he passed the official threshold for being considered obese, with a Body Mass Index of 30.4.

A Body Mass Index rating of 30 is the level at which doctors consider someone obese under the commonly used formula. About 40% of Americans are obese, raising the risk for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and some forms of cancer.

That checkup, which was supervised by Dr. Sean P. Conley, his physician, took more than four hours and involved a panel of 11 specialists.

“I am happy to announce the President of the United States is in very good health and I anticipate he will remain so for the duration of his Presidency, and beyond,” Conley wrote afterward.

Test results were released six days later.

Trump doesn’t drink alcohol or smoke, but is known to enjoy fast food, steaks and desserts. His primary form of exercise is golf.

Saturday’s test came as House investigators on Capitol Hill were interviewing a White House budget official as part of the impeachment inquiry. Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

WASHINGTON  — 

Democrats this week enter a do-or-die phase of their impeachment inquiry following a week of public testimony, as they summon a flurry of witnesses they hope will convince the public that President Trump should be impeached for pressing a foreign government to launch criminal investigations for his political benefit.

The hearings follow a rare weekend in which a key White House official was deposed and the transcripts were released from two additional closed-door depositions of administration officials.

Earlier in the week three veteran diplomats testified in public, soberly describing the ramifications of the president’s pressure campaign — undermining Ukraine, a stalwart U.S. ally at war with Russia, and eroding U.S. stature across the globe, they said.

Constitutional scholars say Democrats have succeeded in laying important groundwork. Now the hard part begins: proving that Trump abused his power and that his actions are serious enough to justify his impeachment.

“Democrats have done well so far,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, noting that the public hearings have produced some damaging moments for the White House. “The next week will prove key. They will have to show this is big enough to justify the impeachment and removal of a president.”

Turley and other constitutional scholars said Republicans struggled to find a coherent narrative in defending Trump, though they scored points by arguing that no witnesses have provided direct evidence linking the president to nefarious activity.

This week, Republican House members are likely to continue pounding a point that some GOP senators have raised: that even if true, the allegations don’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

“When we’re talking about impeachment, we are talking about impeachable offenses,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who has emerged as a leading GOP voice in the inquiry. “The Democrats want to continue making this a political food fight. They are going about this in a partisan way.”

Democrats hope to wrap up the inquiry by the end of the year. If Trump becomes the third president to be impeached, he will face trial in the Senate to determine whether he should be removed from office.

The accelerated schedule is responsible for the onslaught of witnesses expected to testify publicly this week. Eight current and former administration officials are scheduled to testify over three days.

On Saturday, Mark Sandy, a career official at the Office of Management and Budget, testified behind closed doors about his work on Ukraine matters. Sandy’s decision to testify was significant because the OMB froze funds headed to Ukraine’s military as allies of the president pushed Kyiv to launch investigations of Trump political opponents, and because appointees at the OMB have declined to comply with subpoenas for testimony and records. Other White House officials have also declined to cooperate.

Democrats have held weeks of similar closed-door depositions and only started making their case public on Wednesday, when two longtime diplomats testified before the House Intelligence Committee that they saw evidence Trump was hijacking U.S. foreign policy for domestic political gain.

They chronicled a scheme in which administration officials and Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, prodded Ukraine’s leaders to launch investigations of political opponents to help Trump win reelection in 2020.

In particular, Trump and his associates were pressuring Ukrainian officials to announce inquiries that they hoped would ensnare former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. From 2014 through April, Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a large energy company that had once been targeted by Ukrainian investigators.

As they pushed for such probes, Trump associates and administration officials dangled the possibility of an Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump. The White House also froze delivery of nearly $400 million in sorely needed aid to Ukraine’s military. A top U.S. diplomat testified to House investigators that he told a Ukranian official such aid would not be unlocked “until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing.”

William B. Taylor Jr., the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified publicly last week that he was astonished by the administration’s decision to delay the funds until Kyiv agreed to announce it was launching what he considered politically motivated investigations. In a contemporaneous text message to another diplomat, he called it “crazy.”

On Friday, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified publicly about being ousted from her post amid a “smear” campaign led by Giuliani and his associates after standing in their way. Yovanovitch was ordered to return to the U.S. in May amid a flurry of unfounded rumors that she was anti-Trump.

As Yovanovitch described her plight on Friday, Trump disparaged the diplomat on Twitter, claiming without evidence “that everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.” She called the tweet “intimidating.”

This week, Democrats are seeking to apply direct pressure on the White House when they summon Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the National Security Council and Fiona Hill, who recently left the NSC, to recount to lawmakers their concerns about Giuliani’s efforts. They, among others, will also be asked about what role Mick Mulvaney, the president’s acting chief of staff, played in halting the flow of funding to Ukraine. Vindman is scheduled to testify on Tuesday and Hill on Thursday.

Democrats are trying to draw “straight lines from the president to his agents,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), adding, “We’re just trying to establish the timeline, and then on the shakedown scheme who has a straight line to the president and who doesn’t.”

The most significant — yet unpredictable — witness will be Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who is scheduled to testify on Wednesday. A wealthy hotelier and Trump campaign donor, Sondland was a key intermediary between Trump and the shadow Ukraine effort.

Sondland originally told lawmakers that he couldn’t remember key conversations with the president about Ukraine. He later told lawmakers in a written follow-up that he did indeed remember telling the Ukrainians that the military aid would not be released without an announced investigation.

Sondland’s proximity to the president became more clear on Wednesday, when Taylor described a phone call between Trump and Sondland that he said took place in July.

Taylor testified that Sondland called Trump from a busy Ukrainian restaurant to provide him with an update on his work in the country, according to David Holmes, a State Department employee based in Kyiv who overheard the conversation.

Testifying Friday behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee, Holmes told lawmakers in his opening statement that he recognized Trump’s distinct voice on the phone — the president spoke so loudly that Sondland had to pull the receiver from his ear.

Sondland told Trump that Zelensky will do “anything you ask him to,” according to Holmes’ opening statement, first obtained by CNN and confirmed by The Times. The EU ambassador later told Holmes that Trump only cares about the “big stuff” with respect to Ukraine, meaning items that benefit the president, such as the “Biden investigation.”

The ambassador did not mention the July 26 phone call during his deposition, and Democrats are likely to zero in on that discrepancy among others.

“Sondland is important,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “As you can tell, he talked to the president very frequently — he could even call him up on a cellphone, apparently from a bar or restaurant in the middle of Kyiv.”

Sondland’s tight relationship with Trump was evident in testimony released Saturday of Tim Morrison, who was still a top White House national security official when he spoke to House investigators in October. He testified Sondland often claimed to be acting on Trump’s orders and was frequently in touch with the president, according to a transcript of his closed-door interview.

Morrison said he checked whether Sondland was really speaking to Trump, and “every time he told me he had a conversation … I was able to confirm a call happened,” according to a transcript released Saturday of a deposition he gave to House investigators last month.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Times staff writer Tracy Wilkinson contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — 

Democratic lawmakers on Sunday laid out their road map heading into the second week of public impeachment hearings against President Trump: continue to bolster an abuse-of-power case against him by tying Trump directly to demands that a vulnerable ally carry out criminal investigations for the president’s personal political benefit.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added a stern warning aimed specifically at Trump after weeks of furious presidential denunciation of the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the historic impeachment process.

“I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistleblower,” the San Francisco Democrat said in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Online and in remarks to reporters, the president has repeatedly urged that the confidential complainant be unmasked, coupling that with demands that he be allowed to “confront” his accuser.

In a seeming retort to that, Pelosi said Trump, who has ordered senior aides not to testify in the proceedings, “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants.”

Republicans, for their part, fanned out on the main Sunday news-talk shows with their own sometimes-mixed message, insisting that Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing, or at least had not engaged in impeachable behavior.

They also reprised the argument that Ukraine, while imperiled by Russia, suffered no real harm because it ultimately received nearly $400 million in military aid that the White House withheld for weeks while Ukrainian officials were under pressure to submit to Trump’s demands.

“The bottom line is he got the money,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House minority whip, said on “Fox News Sunday,” referring to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats say it was still wrong for the president to try to trade the aid for “a favor,” and that the effort was only foiled when Congress learned of the aid being blocked and launched a bipartisan effort to free it up.

Other GOP defenders of the president struck an upbeat tone about the proceedings so far, despite damaging testimony suggesting that military aid to Ukraine was used by the White House to try to force Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump’s potential 2020 rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“I don’t think the evidence is building at all,” Rep. Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week.” Prefacing his assertion with “I’m being sincere on this,” he declared: “I think the evidence is crumbling.”

But Democrats expressed confidence that they were methodically establishing a pattern of wrongdoing on the part of those close to Trump, one that is leading closer to the president himself.

“There is ample evidence that there was a corrupt deal being cooked up,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), also a member of the committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Trump, who has lashed out at several witnesses in the probe, did so again Sunday, this time targeting a foreign policy advisor to Vice President Mike Pence. The aide, Jennifer Williams, said earlier in a closed-door deposition that she had put a readout of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president in a briefing book for Pence, and also called the effort to pressure Ukraine “inappropriate.”

On Twitter, Trump said Williams, “whoever that is,” should meet with “other Never Trumpers” and sardonically advised her to read transcripts of calls between him and Ukraine’s leader. Williams was among those who listened in on the July 25 call taking notes; that conversation later became central to the whistleblower’s complaint.

Many Republicans have refrained from echoing Trump’s direct attacks on the whistleblower, mindful of federal legal protections accorded such individuals. But GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin employed a new approach Sunday, saying the complaint had “exposed things that didn’t need to be exposed.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Johnson blamed that individual, not the White House, for damaging ties with an ally. “If the whistleblower’s goal is to improve our relationship with Ukraine, he utterly – or she – utterly failed,” the senator said.

Senior GOP lawmakers also excoriated the Democratic-led impeachment process as partisan and unfair, as they have from the start of the proceedings. They also derided as secondhand the public testimony offered last week by a trio of career foreign-policy professionals who have described an irregular foreign policy back channel run by the president’s lawyer-fixer, Rudolph W. Giuliani.

But a crucial firsthand account could come – albeit reluctantly — from a key participant in that channel, Gordon Sondland, the hotelier who became Trump’s ambassador to the European Union. His high-profile public appearance before the committee, scheduled Wednesday, is likely to center on questions stemming from explosive closed-door testimony from another diplomat, David Holmes.

In a deposition leaked to the news media, Holmes said he overheard Sondland assure Trump, in a phone call from a Kyiv restaurant, that Ukraine would accede to the president’s wishes for an investigation. And according to another deposition transcript, released Saturday, a senior aide at the National Security Council, Tim Morrison, testified last month that Sondland had acted at Trump’s behest in pushing Ukraine to launch investigations meant to aid the president politically.

Morrison also told investigators that Sondland relayed word to the Ukrainian government that the release of military aid hinged on doing the president’s bidding. Sondland has already had to revise his closed-door testimony once, and Democrats suggested that if the ambassador is not truthful in his public appearance Wednesday, he could be flirting with perjury charges.

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said Sondland, who was given his ambassadorial post after making a $1-million contribution to Trump’s inaugural, “has to decide whether his primary loyalty is to America, or if his primary loyalty is to the president.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Giuliani, whose unconstrained utterances have helped drive the impeachment investigation forward, tweeted early Sunday that the hearings so far have been a “travesty” and insisted that no incriminating evidence had yet emerged.

Trump weighed in as well on Sunday, with a tweet praising Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the sole woman on the GOP side of the committee, who in televised hearings sought to defy procedural rules and repeatedly declared that Trump’s behavior did not meet the standard for impeachment. The president called her a “Republican Star.”

But even Stefanik offered reluctant criticism Friday of Trump’s tweet attacking Marie Yovanovitch, the veteran diplomat who was fired by the president as ambassador to Ukraine, saying it shouldn’t have been sent.

In the midst of Yovanovitch’s testimony on Friday, in which she said that she was the target of a “smear” campaign orchestrated by Trump’s allies, the president suggested on Twitter that she bore responsibility for turmoil in countries where she previously had diplomatic postings, including Somalia.

Click:filling outdoor lighter

In assessing the near-term future of the California economy and how it affects the state budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom has recently taken to comparing his role to that of an airline pilot.

And it even comes with an impersonation of that voice on the loudspeaker toward the end of a flight.

“We’re about to begin our descent,” Newsom joked with reporters last month after an event in Sacramento. “We’re still at 36,000 feet, but we’re about to begin our descent.”

The governor isn’t the only one who is preparing for a landing. But none of those watching the horizon know when or how fast it will happen. Nor do they know how it will affect myriad vital state services when the high-flying economy of most of the last decade runs out of gas.

SEAT BELTS, EVERYONE: BUDGET BUMPS LIKELY ON THE WAY

Last week’s report by state officials of (another) record low measurement of unemployment in California included a reminder that national economic data are nearing uncharted territory.

The longest U.S. economic expansion in data dating to 1854 lasted for 120 months — achieved during the decade of technology industry growth in the 1990s. State researchers noted in employment data released last week that the current streak stands at 116 months, which bears a moment of reflection: Even the strong economies in the years after World War II, as well as those of the 1960s and 1980s, were shorter than the current streak that began in July 2009.

California has been a major part of the national story. The state has added almost 3.4 million jobs since February 2010, reported the state Employment Development Department, accounting for more than 15% of all the new jobs created in the country during that time period. As of October, California’s jobless rate stood at a historically low 3.9%.

No one expects the streak to go on indefinitely, but there’s no exact science to figuring out when things will change. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reported this month that its “state fiscal health index” has declined for six consecutive months — a potential sign that the anticipated descent is at hand.

“Declines of this duration and magnitude have not been observed since the last recession,” the analysts wrote.

Researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California crunched their own numbers this year, estimating that even a mild recession could shrink state tax revenues by as much as $36 billion over three years. That could blow a pretty big hole in the historically large $19-billion cash reserves called for in the budget Newsom signed in June.

The governor is already hashing out the contours of his 2020 budget proposal behind closed doors, a plan he’s required to send to the Legislature no later than Jan. 10. And it feels as though we’re already getting a few previews. Newsom has said he expects to ask legislators to spend significant money on some kind of effort to mitigate either wildfire threats or the effects of preventive electricity shutoffs — or spending that helps address both issues.

State government assistance could also be needed on the local level in the coming year. Last month, State Auditor Elaine Howle released a new analysis of cities across the state at risk of a fiscal crisis. Some of those problems are at least partly due to local officials’ having to set aside more money than ever to cover pension promises made to government employees.

Newsom seems to be subtly reminding everyone, the public and interest groups alike, that the days of multibillion-dollar surpluses are over. A key estimate of the near-term horizon is due this week, when the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office releases its annual fiscal outlook. We’ll be watching for not only the analysts’ take on the relative temperature of the economy but also whether growth in state government expenditures — the analysts have already estimated general fund expenses in the current fiscal year will be $23 billion above what was spent in 2017-18 — is sustainable in the event of a mild recession.

One final footnote: Only a handful of incumbent legislators were serving in Sacramento during the last cycle of severe state budget deficits. As much as an economic slowdown would challenge Newsom, it would also challenge the skills of his legislative partners. And almost no one likes to be the one deciding which important program ends up on the chopping block.

THE DEMANDS OF DEMOCRATS: LONG BEACH WRAP-UP

California Democrats met over the weekend in Long Beach to weigh party endorsements in legislative and congressional races. But the main event was the race for the White House, as reporters gauged the reactions of the party faithful to the presidential candidates who showed up.

As Seema Mehta wrote, the 12 White House hopefuls participated in a Saturday forum held by Univision. But much of the action took place elsewhere at the sprawling Long Beach convention center or at nearby restaurants and bars.

The race’s newest entrant, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, wasted no time in soaking up the scene. Mehta caught up with Patrick for an extended interview.

And Sen. Kamala Harris, the state’s best-known hopeful, hoped to boost her fortunes with the endorsement of the high-profile United Farm Workers union.

NATIONAL POLITICS LIGHTNING ROUND

— President Trump spent more than two hours at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Saturday for what the White House said were medical tests as part of his annual physical. Unlike previous visits, this one wasn’t on his weekend public schedule.

— Democratic lawmakers on Sunday laid out their road map heading into the second week of public impeachment hearings against Trump. Some see it as a do-or-die phase of their impeachment inquiry after a week of detailed public testimony.

— Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards narrowly won a second term Saturday as the Deep South’s only Democratic governor, handing the president another gubernatorial loss this month.

— Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders held a rally in Los Angeles over the weekend as part of his presidential campaign’s outreach to young Latino voters.

— Former President Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.

Click Here: nrl league jerseys

NO STATEWIDE STINGS OF MINORS BUYING POT

California state agencies send minors into thousands of liquor stores and bars each year to attempt to buy alcohol or cigarettes. The stings catch hundreds of clerks and bartenders selling to underage customers.

But two years after the state began licensing marijuana shops, the agency tasked with enforcing cannabis laws in California has not conducted similar stings targeting the state’s multibillion-dollar pot industry, the largest in the country.

“Teen access, use and harms related to marijuana are skyrocketing,” said Scott Chipman, vice president of Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana, a leading opponent of 2016’s Proposition 64. “Minor decoy programs are one of many enforcement strategies that could be useful, especially if there is sufficient media regarding the outcomes.”

TODAY’S ESSENTIALS

— Add another big proposed ballot measure to the possible mix for California’s election next November: legalized betting on sports, an idea being pushed by a coalition of influential Native American tribes.

— A new poll shows that a broad majority of Los Angeles voters think that the city and county have been ineffective in spending money earmarked to combat homelessness and that new policies are needed to address a crisis they equate with a natural disaster.

— Newsom has called a March 3 special election to pick a successor to former Santa Clarita Rep. Katie Hill, the Democrat who stepped down amid accusations that she’d had affairs with congressional and campaign staff members.

— A proposal to divert high-speed rail money from the Central Valley to California’s big cities has split the state’s political leadership.

— California remains the top U.S. destination for international students, who primarily come from China and India to attend USC and UC campuses, but enrollment dipped slightly for the first time in at least a decade.

LOGISTICS

Essential Politics is written by Sacramento bureau chief John Myers on Mondays and Washington bureau chief David Lauter on Fridays.

You can keep up with breaking news on our politics page throughout the day. And are you following us on Twitter at @latimespolitics?

Miss Friday’s newsletter? Here you go.

Please send thoughts, concerns and news tips to [email protected].

Did someone forward you this? Sign up here to get Essential Politics in your inbox.