— The chief of Britain’s intelligence service said that Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine was likely to “run out of steam” in the coming weeks, amid shortages of material and manpower, as Moscow’s invasion is about to enter its sixth month.

“They will have to pause in some way,” Richard Moore, the chief of MI6, said in an interview with CNN’s Jim Sciutto at the Aspen Security Forum — rare public remarks by the serving head of British intelligence. Russian forces had likely lost around 15,000 troops, he said, calling the number a “conservative estimate.” That’s roughly the number of casualties Russia’s military suffered over the course of 10 years during its war in Afghanistan, Moore noted.

A pause by Russian forces would “give the Ukrainians the opportunity to strike back,” Moore said Thursday. He said that the morale of Ukrainian forces remains high and the military is receiving powerful weapons from the West. Moore urged the flow of weapons to continue so that Ukraine could either prevail in the war or be in a stronger position to negotiate with Russia.

He also praised the level of Western solidarity since the Russian invasion. “NATO has been proved extraordinarily united in the face of this,” said Moore, noting that Sweden had abandoned 200 years of military nonalignment to seek membership of the alliance, along with Finland.

More than half a million acres of Gulf of Mexico waters some 24 miles off the coast of Galveston could be dotted by wind turbines after federal officials on Wednesday said they are considering leasing the area for energy projects.

The proposed “wind energy area” covers 546,645 acres — larger than the city of Houston — and could produce enough electricity to power about 2.3 million homes, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said.

A second proposal about 64 miles off the coast of Lake Charles, La., would cover 188,023 acres and could produce power for 799,000 homes, officials said......

The bureau said state officials and wind developers would determine if electricity generated in the areas’ boundaries would flow to the Texas power grid or the neighboring East Coast grid system. The Coast Guard would determine if commercial or recreational boats — including commercial fishing and shrimping operations — could enter the waters near the wind turbines, bureau officials said, adding that they have held several meetings with fishing groups and associations this year.

The Republican from Fort Bend County asked whether Buttigieg had asked other Cabinet members about invoking the 25th Amendment, through which a president can be removed by his or her Cabinet if unfit for office.

“First of all, I’m glad to have a president who can ride a bicycle,” Buttigieg began, an apparent reference to former President Donald Trump’s obesity. In 2015, Trump stated that he had not ridden a bicycle since he was 7 or 8 years old, and that, “I promise I will never be in a bicycle race. That I can tell you.”

Nehls interrupted Buttigieg several times, pressing for a direct answer.

“Of course not,” Buttigieg said.

Despite Buttigieg’s response, Nehls tweeted that Buttigieg had “refused to answer whether he has discussed the 25th Amendment,” and Nehls’ office sent out a news release promoting the exchange.

There is a long history of prominent politicians getting in bicycle accidents: George W. Bush fell in 2004 and again in 2005; John Kerry broke his leg in 2015; Woodrow Wilson struck a bicyclist with his car in 1913; and fictional U.S. President Jed Bartlett crashed his bike in the pilot of the show “West Wing.”

We’ve seen mountains of evidence — with more likely to come — that Trump simply refused to accept the reality of his election loss and took drastic steps to alter it. That, as the committee has laid out, included weaponizing a violent mob to stop the vice president from certifying the electoral college votes. I firmly believe all of this may be grounds for criminal charges, but the evidence could shore up civil cases against Trump, as well.

Various groups have already sued Trump over his role in the Jan. 6 attack. Those include lawsuits from several Capitol and D.C. police officers who claim he’s responsible for injuries they suffered fending off the Jan. 6 mob, and multiple members of Congress who say Trump conspired to incite violence at the Capitol that day.

Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine is investigating the Jan. 6 attack and has filed a civil suit seeking damages from members of extremist groups — such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers — accused of participating in the riot. Multiple members of both groups have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their roles in the attack. If the committee continues to provide evidence Trump was responsible for the attack, it seems increasingly likely he’ll be added as a defendant in the D.C. lawsuit.

On top of that, Trump is also facing a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which claims his campaign’s effort to discard 2020 votes in cities with large Black populations was illegal.

And yet-to-be-named civil suits could be on the horizon if people targeted by Trump’s election lies look to sue in light of the committee’s findings. That could include anyone from the Fulton County, Georgia, election workers who faced death threats after Trump spread lies about criminality in their office, to Dominion Voting Systems, the company that’s faced baseless allegations of election fraud from Trump and his campaign officials.

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relies on history to rescind the constitutional right to a legal abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973. There’s just one problem: the history it relies on is not correct.

Writing for the majority in Dobbs, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argues that Roe disrupted “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment” that had “persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.” But the real picture is far blurrier — and even once states began passing stricter abortion laws between the 1820s and 1880s, public sentiment did not follow. Few abortion providers were convicted under the new laws, indicating that most Americans didn’t see abortion as a crime.

Anglo-American common law initially guided the U.S. on abortion. Under common law, abortion was only punishable after “quickening,” defined as the moment the mother first felt fetal movement — typically between 16 to 22 weeks of gestation.

Alito contends, however, that pre-quickened abortions were always strongly condemned, as shown by the wave of statutes that states passed in the 19th century criminalizing abortion for the entire pregnancy. Yet, over a third of the states actually retained the imprint of quickening in these laws, assigning a distinctly lesser penalty for abortions that took place before quickening.

Even more importantly, there is scant evidence of public concern about fetal “personhood” or moral opprobrium prompting those new state laws in the 19th century, as Alito claims in Dobbs. In fact, there appears to have been no public pressure at all for tougher laws before 1845. All the statutes passed before 1845 were added during routine revisions of state criminal codes, probably meaning that most were enacted without actual debate.