(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF NPR NEWS)
If you have been paying any attention at all lately to the U.S. news then you have heard a lot about ‘race’ or racism in the conversations within the news programs. First I would like to talk with you about Senator Kamala Harris who is now considered to be one of the front runners (top 5) in the Democratic Presidential debates. Ms. Harris up until the first debate was nothing much more than a ‘also ran’ but it was this debate that has propelled her upward on the ladder. Mainly there was just one question, one moment that did this for her. She was able to slam the front runner Joe Biden on his record about bussing fifty years ago. I am not a fan of Mr. Biden but when a person has been in politics for the past 50 years there are going to be plenty of areas to be critical of a person’s record, it’s just reality, in 50 years a person is going to change their opinions on different issues sometimes. Ms. Harris is a first term Senator from the state of California, her political record is much shorter.
This one question was a trap for Mr. Biden for someone to use as being a race issue whether race had anything to do do with his vote back then or not. Ms. Harris was able to use this as a race issue and the media, correct or not, jumped onto the side of Ms. Harris. I had heard of Ms. Harris ever since she became a member of the U.S Senate, but, basically everything that I had heard from or about her has had to do with race. It seems to me via the things that I had heard from Ms. Harris is that she is like a one trick pony and that the pony she is riding is race. I consider myself a moderate, sort of like an old southern conservative Democrat mixed with a liberal Republican. In other words I don’t like either political party at all, this is why I have been a registered independent for decades now. I had always taken Ms. Harris to be a Black person, just a lightly skinned person but evidently I was wrong on this issue. I can’t stand the Trump family but Don Jr. posted a tweet about her race so I started to check out her linage a little bit. Turns out her Mom is from India and her Dad is from Jamaica, so, if this is the truth, she isn’t Back at all. Yet she does seem to cater to the base of the Black voters. Yes she is a ‘person of color’ as is every human on the planet, even White is a color you know. But I do understand where that term came from as racists Whites used to call Black folks ‘colored’. Stupid of them then and now as is reversing the term. Personally I do not care what paint job a person has on their bones, I only care about what is between their ears and if any racism is there, I do not want them to hold any political position, especially not the Presidency. To me, I believe that Ms. Harris is a blatant racists so I would never vote for her.
Now I am going to gripe abit about the Bronx’s new Congresswoman Ms. Cortez or ‘AOC’ for short. She and a few of her Freshmen Congress ladies ‘of color’ have been playing the race issue to the hilt it seems, especially Ms. Cortez. She is in a running feud with the Democratic head of the Congress Ms. Pelosi who happens to be a White lady. I very much do not like Ms. Pelosi either but by all accounts I have ever heard including from other Congressmen and women of color, Ms. Pelosi is not a racist person. Yet as soon as AOC started getting shut down on some of her ideas she then went straight to calling Ms. Pelosi a racists because she wasn’t jumping on AOC’s ‘progressive’ bandwagon. To me, this is like the folks who talk about how much they hate haters, in other words, if you don’t agree with me, then you are a hater. Or, if you don’t follow me and my ideas, then you are a racists. Ms. AOC to me seems to be one of these people. To me, it appears that Ms. Harris and Ms. AOC have no other ideas or agenda accept race which to me is the bottom of the basement of human ignorance. Have you noticed during your life that the people who scream the loudest about racism are almost always extremely racist themselves?
Now, concerning our “racists, cowardly President”, Mr. Trump. First, I do believe that he is nothing more than a piece of trash as a person. I do believe that he is blatantly racists as well as a cereal rapists and a habitual liar and about as wise as a dead dog in the street. He always plays to the very lowest IQs he can find, it seems that they flock to this cowardly habitual liar. That the so called ‘Christian’ right support him or ‘Tea Party’ support him I find quite disgusting as he is anything but Christian. I call him a coward because of his Daddy getting him six deferrals from military service during the Vietnam war. He could have gone into a reserve unit like George W. Bush did, at least George W. didn’t seem to be ashamed to put on our Nations Uniform. Mr. Trump appears to not only have used his daddy’s money and influence to keep out of combat he didn’t even have enough guts to join the Reserve and with his College credits he could have gone in as an Officer like George W. did. Or is it possible that he simply loathed the U.S. military, or maybe it was just that the Uniform wasn’t “his color”?
Now in case you are wondering why I used the title that I did here are the reasons. One I guess was to get your attention, whether for or against my thoughts. Two, I do believe that all three of these people are blatant racists that everyone should totally discard as being credible. Three, from a Christian moral standpoint I believe that anyone who is racist has lowered themselves to the level of dead rabid dog. Also you may be wondering why I used the term ‘bitches’ for these three people is simple, in our U.S. slang it is common to call a hate filled woman a bitch, not meaning that they are actually a dog. Then why did I call Mr. Trump a bitch? That is simple also, in our U.S. slang it is also common to call a man who is considered to be a total coward a Pus-y, and that is exactly what I believe Mr. Trump is, a loud mouthed, racist, coward. Like it or hate it, this is my comment letter to you today. I know that some will hate what I wrote, some because they think I am to critical and some because they think I am not being critical enough. Either way, when I write these letters to you what I am mainly trying to get you to do is to think about the issues listed within the letter.
I just finished reading a CNN article on the Democratic candidates for President and I would like to share some ideas with you. Being there are at least 23 people vying for this job within the Democratic Party I have chosen the top five candidates (what the polls say) to discuss with you today.
As I am sure that you have garnered from the title I am going to talk with you about the ages of these candidates. Simply put, in your opinion does age matter? Via the U.S. Constitution you must be at least 35 years of age to hold the Office yet there is no maximum age set.
The ages I am going to give you are the age these people would be on the day they would be sworn into Office on January 20th of 2021. It is just my personal opinion that if a person will reach their 72nd birthday during an term for any Office, they should be barred from being able to seek the Office. As I said earlier, these five folks are leading in the Democratic Presidential polls. I have added one person to the list as he just announced his candidacy yesterday. He is the California Billionaire who has been paying out of his own pocket for the commercials saying that President Trump needs to be impeached. His name is Tom Steyer.
Name: Day Born: Age as of January 21st of 2021:
Tom Steyer June 27, 1957 63
Bernie Sanders September 8, 1941 79
Joe Biden November 20, 1942 78
Kamala Harris October 20, 1964 56
Elizabeth Warren June 22, 1949 71
Pete Buttigieg January 19, 1982 39
I am only going to mention two other people who are on the Republican side.
Donald Trump June 14, 1946 74
Mike Pence June 7, 1959 61
I am a registered independent voter who personally does not like the Democratic nor the Republican Parties. I don’t believe that either Party cares at all about the American people as a whole. But today’s Republican Party of Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell totally discuss me. So, in the next Presidential election cycle I would vote for a dead dog before I would vote for any Republican. Personally, of the candidates that I mentioned my top two choices would be Tom Steyer or Elizabeth Warren. If my 72 guideline were the law Mrs. Warren could not be on the ballot. But then neither could Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
This article is just the thoughts and ideas of an old man. But personally I am sick and tired of these old fart career politicians with there way out of date ideas running/ruining our Country. The old folks whom many of them have been in office for 40-50 years need to be made to retire. Do you/we really want people running our Country who are in their 80’s? I just don’t, I am sick and tired of their partisan B.S..
These two people are not running for the office of President but they are the two leaders of the House and the Senate who pretty much tell all the members of their political party how to vote on every issue, every bill. First, Nancy Pelosi who was born on March 6th of 1940. She will be 80 when the next President takes Office. Then there is Mitch McConnell who is the top Republican in the Senate, he was born on February 20th of 1942. So, he will be 78 when the next President is sworn in and he has already stated just like Nancy Pelosi has that he is running for reelection. So, one more term for each of them and Mrs. Pelosi will be 82 and Mr. McConnell will be 84.
What is your thoughts on this issue? Do you even care about this issue, or maybe is it not even an issue at all to you? If you would, please leave me a comment, I thank you for your time, I appreciate you taking of your time to read this.
The top tier of the Democratic presidential primary is now reshaped around five candidates. The latest fundraising numbers prove it.
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have raised about $100 million in the past three months combined. Together, they share a large majority of public support.
They were already spending millions of dollars more than many lower-polling contenders have even raised. Now, in a powerful compounding effect for their campaigns, these top tier candidates are poised to plow that new money back into their field and digital operations — further reinforcing their fundraising and organizing advantages in the 23-candidate field.
It’s too early to be an inflection point, but late enough that the rest of the field needs to start worrying.
“The front-runners are pulling away, absent a blunder,” said Bob Mulholland, a Democratic National Committee member from California. “It’s like any season as you get closer, some teams are headed to the World Series or the Super Bowl. … The difference between winning and losing is pretty severe.”
The consolidation of Democratic money in the primary — and the now-flattened top tier — became evident this week, after Warren, a Massachusetts senator, announced Monday that she had raised $19.1 million in the second quarter of the year. Buttigieg raised $25 million, Biden raised $21.5 million, Sanders raised $18 million and Harris raised $12 million in the same time period.
That money is not just a benchmark. Buttigieg, while raising his staggering sum, began hiring dozens of organizers in Iowa and New Hampshire and plans to have 300 people on staff by Labor Day. Warren added more than 100 staffers in the past three months and already has more than 300 in total.
Harris in recent weeks has dramatically expanded her operation in the four early-nominating states, with more than 65 staffers in Iowa, 49 in South Carolina, 35 in Nevada and 30 in New Hampshire.
While lower-polling candidates are still struggling just to qualify for upcoming presidential debates, candidates with money can now return to their expanding donor lists for repeat contributions. By late summer, they are expected to begin reserving time for TV advertisements in select early-primary states.
“From this point forward, it gets harder for” every candidate outside the top tier, said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist. “Because if you’re at the bottom of the pile and you’re punching up for donors, trying to move polling numbers or obtaining traction with a viral moment and you haven’t been able to do it so far, what makes somebody think they can do it when people are starting to consolidate around the top five?”
Democratic voters, Herman said, are “starting to rule people out.”
“They’re not consolidating, but they’re narrowing it to five or six,” he said. “They’re starting to figure out who they’re not for.”
The same five front-runners are pulling more than 80 percent of the Democratic electorate’s support nationally, according to the most recent Morning Consult poll. And while many voters have yet to settle on a single candidate, voters’ second-choice candidates tend to be from the same group of contenders.
In part, the focus on those candidates reflects not only name recognition, but an electorate yearning for a more manageable number of candidates to assess. In a finding reflective of other polls, a CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll last month found an overwhelming majority of Iowa caucus goers felt the candidate field was too large. The media is starting to assist them by turning public attention increasingly to skirmishes among the top-performing candidates.
The school busing spat between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris simmered for more than a week after the first primary debates last month. Warren’s rise has been significant in large part because of its implications for Sanders, a fellow progressive — and fellow top-tier contender.
When Rep. Eric Swalwell abandoned his long-shot campaign Monday — the first major candidate to end his campaign — he said one of the plainest challenges to his candidacy was “a lot of heavyweights in that field.”
“You have people who, you know, have had high name recognition,” he said. “Two of the candidates have run for president before that I stood on a stage with. We have a senator in California who’s running who is … quite talented and quite popular.”
Asked if he had any advice for Tom Steyer, the billionaire Democratic mega donor who announced the next day that he is running, Swalwell joked, “It’s rough out there.”
Advisers to the front-running candidates caution that the primary remains volatile. So do major donors and unaffiliated strategists. Karen Hicks, a Democratic strategist in New Hampshire, said a financial crisis, an international incident or some other unplanned event could propel a candidate who rises to “meet the moment somehow in a way that sticks.”
The primary, she said, is “still super fluid.”
The newest entrant into the race, Steyer, could make a mark with his immense wealth — he is expected to spend at least $100 million on his bid.
“When you have one guy who’s coming with $100 million, you can’t discount that,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive consultant who advised Cynthia Nixon in her primary campaign against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last year.
However, she said candidates who aren’t already gaining traction, who cannot afford to self-fund, and “who have dedicated their lives to public service, they’re SOL.”
Julián Castro is a telling example. The former Obama Cabinet secretary and former mayor of San Antonio had a breakout debate performance last month challenging his fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke on immigration.
On Monday, he sent supporters an email celebrating that his campaign now has 130,000 different donors, meeting a difficult threshold for the September presidential debates.
But Castro is still polling at 1 percent, according to Morning Consult. O’Rourke stands at 3 percent.
“I think there is still time for the second tier candidate to resonate, but they need to get with it because time is slipping away,” said Gilda Cobb-Hunter, an influential state lawmaker in early-voting South Carolina. “Once the media zeroes in on who they perceive to be the front-runners, it’s really hard for other candidates to get any air space or ink.”
A Visit To This Time 3 Years Ago
September 4, 2016
Democratic And Republican Parties Are Both Anti-Christ Parties
When I was a young child back in the 1950’s-60’s I was raised in a family that believed in the Democratic Party. My parents were folks who believed in the reality that working people if they wanted to be able to financially survive needed Union protections. They also believed that the Republican Party was solely for the wealthiest people and was clearly anti working people. They also believed that the Democratic Party, because they cared about the poor was the party that the Churches backed. I never remember going to a Church that had a Republican Minister simply because the Republicans agenda’s were in direct contrast to the love, kindness and sharing teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court with their ruling on ‘Roe v Wade’ abortion ruling seemed to change the political map within the Churches. The teachings regarding abortion within the Scriptures are definitely anti-abortion yet almost all of the Churches and their Ministers remained as Democrats because they could not transcend over to a Party (Republicans) who were against basically all of the teachings of Jesus about how we should all treat each other. Yet, my question is how can a Church, a Minister, or their congregation openly or even behind closed doors back abortion? How can you say that you or a Minister (that word means, Servant) are a Christian (follower of Christ) and at the same time back abortion?
What I do not understand is why the people who say they are Christians have not created a third National Party! The Democratic Party strongly backs a woman’s “right” to have an abortion at any time during a pregnancy. The Republican Party wants to end all abortions seeing them as the murdering of over a million children here in the U.S. each year. So, Republicans have garnered the “conservative Christians” into their camp because of the abortion issue. This is even though the Republican Party Platform is still strongly anti-working people, and anti the people having the right to work under Union protections.
I am a registered voting Independent because I see both Parties as crooked and pure evil. When the people go to the polls this November we just like every other election know that either a Republican or a Democrat is going to win at every level of Government. To vote for anyone else is nothing more than a protest vote that has no effect on who actually wins the elections, it will be a Democrat or a Republican. So, just like this November we Voters are having to consider which one of the two Evils win. Especially concerning the Presidency this year, which Evil is less Evil, that is what we have to look forward to. For either of these political parties to claim to be close or closer to God is total BS. Evil is still Evil, neither of these Political Parties have the endorsement of the Scriptures of God, so how can anyone who calls themselves a Christian or Jewish endorse or support either of these Demonic structures? I used the title of them being anti-Christ, I am not saying that either Parties leadership is ‘the anti-Christ’. What I am saying is that both Parties policies are in direct indifference and defiance to the teachings of God’s Holy Scriptures, thus both Parties are Anti-Christ based organizations!
When anyone writes an article or a letter all they are really doing is giving their opinion on the subject matter they are writing about. I believe that this is so, unless the writer is purposely lying in trying to get you to believe what is not the truth, as they believe it to be. Truth, what if the writer is simply telling the Truth you may say? Whose version of the truth though? To me, there is only one version of ‘The Truth’ and that is when it is by the lips of G-d Himself. You see, that is 100% Truth. Human versions of truth are flawed when we lack 100% knowledge of the issue, or when a person tries to ‘slant the truth’ to fit their own agendas. A good example would be a politician who says they are telling the truth when in deed only 1% is truth and 99% is BS. They can then say that they told the truth, the exception to this rule would have to be someone like our President who doesn’t have a clue about reality at all. When you have an habitual liar as your country’s Leader, you have a dictator for a president. Here in the U.S. we have a ‘wanna-be’ Dictator right now, unlike Russia, they have the real thing.
Here in the U.S. we have a lot of the responsibility of having helped bring Mr. Putin to power in Russia! Think about it, Hollywood, Nation Media and many of our Politicians started in on Russia bashing almost as soon as the Wall fell in late 1989. We portrayed Russia and her people as ignorant, inept and lazy. We (Hollywood, Media, Politicians) stepped all over the personal and National Pride of this Nation and Her people. Folks it is we who helped bring this mass murdering Dictator onto the Russian National scene. He did what a Dictator does if they want to stay in power, they get the military and the security agencies on their side, then they take control of all the Media outlets and then they use them against their own people. Now the people of Russia are the only ones who should remove their Monster. Ultra Nationalists are by my belief ‘far-right.’ Far-Right just like far-Left refuse to compromise and if you are a Dictator you don’t have to compromise. Also, I believe that ‘extremists’ are by their nature, hate filled. Hate filled people tend to refuse any compromise on anything. Personally I do believe that Mr. Putin is one of these type of persons. Yet I ask you a question, which is better, a rather intelligent Dictator or a wanna-be Dictator who is a total imbecile?
Now, I would like to bring up the second subject in this letter to you tonight, Rush Limbaugh. I first started hearing of Mr. Limbaugh back when Bush Senior was our President so that would have been 1989-93. In my opinion he was so far to ‘the-right’ that he was almost comical but when he picked up a following of far-right ‘Haters’ he was no longer humorous. Mr. Limbaugh is a very smart person, he found a niche then he worked it to his financial independence. Trouble is (in my opinion) the agenda he often spouts should be considered as hate speech. In a Democracy there must be compromise for without that, you have a Dictatorship. Mr. Limbaugh has for decades preached from his Bully Pulpit against ever compromise. Back when Senator John McCain was the Republican Candidate for President Mr. Limbaugh railed against him because he was a moderate, meaning that Mr. McCain would compromise with the Democrats in order to pass legislation. Do you remember during the 2016 Republican Presidential Debates that Texas Senator Ted Cruz looked straight into the camera and strongly insisted that if he were to be elected President that he would not ‘negotiate with the Democrats.’ Folks in my opinion, this builds the foundation of Dictatorships. Folks, hate is hate and Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Putin have been preaching hate for decades now. These two just like with many others are simply Brothers (of hate) born of different Mothers but their Daddy (the Father of Hate and Lies) is pure evil.
This title is for two purposes, to get your attention and to try to get people to actually think a little bit. I had just finished my supper and had sat down to write a poem for this blog but I got distracted by the news of a mass shooting in southern California so I decided to write this first. I am also writing this letter to you today so as to make sure to everyone exactly how I feel on the issue of firearms. I am a person that when I do go out of the house I very often carry a 45 Ruger (concealed) everywhere I go. When I go into a store around here I know that plenty of folks are carrying a sidearm also. If I go into a store or business of any kind I know that if I chose to act the part of a fool and pull my sidearm that most likely several people around me would shoot me dead, as they should. The management of businesses also know that the people like me who carry are actually extra security for their business and for their employees and they don’t even have to pay for the protection. It is the same for when people go to a House of Worship, if there are let’s say, 200 people in the building probably at least 20 are carrying a firearm. Because of the Constitutional right that we all have to protect ourselves we then become not such a ‘soft’ target.
Cowards love soft targets and the reason is simple, they want to cause as much death as possible without getting shot themselves. If a person goes into a ‘soft target’ like a synagogue they are not expecting to be shot at, they want to be the only one with a gun so that they can continue to kill people until they run out of bullets. Today at the Chabad Synagogue in Poway California a 19-year-old man walked into the Passover Service and started shooting, he shot four people killing only one even though he was using (reportedly) a semi auto AR-15 assault rifle. There is only one reason there are not many more dead people this evening and that was because there was a member of the Congregation, a Border Patrol Agent there WITH HIS FIREARM. This agent shot at the murderer (missing him) and the coward fled. Having a gun in the building saved many lives today.
Here in the U.S. the Democratic Party Platform has for years been trying to make every law-abiding citizen an easy kill for every lunatic, A-hole, hate filled soul as well as for all the terrorist. Also remember that not all police officers or all military personal are honest decent people either, this is why the framers of the Constitution insisted that the people have a way to defend themselves from a tyranny filled government. Have you ever noticed that the people who scream the loudest about ‘gun control’ like Hillary Clinton have multiple guns protecting her and Bill at all times. That is called hypocrites folks. These same people who do not want the U.S. building walls have themselves built high walls around themselves and their homes. Terrorists in this country have always chosen soft targets to do their evil, places like Churches, synagogues, and schools. The day will come where terrorists, domestic and foreign will start mass bombings and shootings here on our soil against police agencies and government agencies as well as against the politicians. If people like Hillary had any sense they would advocate for good background checks and for the citizens to be able to protect themselves. That is what honest politicians would do, ones who trusted their own citizens, but then again, that statement does say it all. You notice I did say ‘honest politicians’ whom actually trust their own citizens!
DO NOT GET ME WRONG, I HAVE NO USE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EITHER. IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD WON (AND SHE DID WIN THE POPULAR VOTE BY SEVERAL MILLION VOTERS.) (THERE SHOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS THE ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’.) IT IS MY TOTAL BELIEF THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WOULD BE BACKING HER JUST AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE BACKING MAFIA DON AND FAMILY. IT IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF THAT MR. TRUMP IS GUILTY AS CAN POSSIBLY BE OF TREASON, FRAUD, TAX FRAUD AND EVASION AND THEFT.
I wrote the above message in all caps and in red hoping that it would get a few more people’s attention. I have no intention or wish to ‘yell’ at folks. In the 2016 Presidential Election ‘we the people’ really only had two choices of who would become our next President, Hillary Clinton or Vladimir Putin. Whichever one won, we the people lost. In my opinion as a fellow Kentuckian the second biggest traitor (outside of the Trump household) to the people and our Nation is the Republican head of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell.
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that President Donald Trump escaped obstruction of justice charges only because of a Justice Department rule barring the indictment of a sitting president.
“I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted,” Clinton said at a TIME magazine event in New York. “But because of the rule in the Justice Department that you can’t indict a sitting president, the whole matter of obstruction was very directly sent to the Congress.”
Clinton’s 2016 electoral defeat was once again thrust in the spotlight on Thursday after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report, which detailed the 22-month probe into Russian interference in the presidential election.
The report said the special counsel found evidence of Russian meddling in the election but said there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Mueller also did not take a stance on whether the president obstructed justice, citing a Watergate-era policy in the Justice Department not to indict a sitting president. Such action would leave the president with no legal recourse to clear his name or protections normally afforded to criminal defendants, according to the report.
“Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought,” the report says.
In his report, however, Mueller detailed 10 episodes where Trump tried to interfere with the Russia investigation. He also wrote that Congress has authority to conduct its own investigation of the president’s behavior.
Clinton on Tuesday called for the release of an unredacted version of Mueller’s report to allow lawmakers the information necessary to move forward with a thorough investigation.
In the days since the publication of the report, the question of whether to initiate impeachment proceedings has hung over Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday rejected calls to immediately take the politically risky move of launching efforts to oust Trump.
Pelosi’s strategy earned the approval of Clinton, who said impeachment — a drastic move that Democratic leaders worry could cost their party the House in 2020 — should not be fueled by “partisan political purposes.”
“I think her argument was we want to show the American people we take our constitutional responsibilities seriously,” Clinton said.
Like Pelosi, she advocated for a “careful” approach, describing impeachment as something that should be undertaken “in a really serious, diligent way, based on evidence.”
That means giving Congress access to key information. Clinton said she thinks it’s “fully appropriate” for Congress to call upon former White House counsel Don McGahn, who emerged as a central figure in investigations after telling special counsel investigators Trump ordered him to fire Mueller. The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to McGahn on Monday demanding that he testify in public on May 21.
Clinton compared buzz about impeaching Trump to the two most recent congressional pushes to eject sitting U.S. presidents. Clinton had an inside look at both proceedings as the wife of Bill Clinton and as a young staff attorney on Richard Nixon’s impeachment proceedings in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
The failed efforts to oust her husband, initiated in 1998, were nothing but a partisan ploy, Clinton said — a stark contrast with the lengthy and in-depth investigation she described that led to Nixon’s resignation.
The comments from the TIME event marked Clinton’s first public remarks on the Mueller report since its release. The former candidate and secretary of state said she thinks Russian interference “certainly had an impact” on the 2016 election results, but said her priority now is to make sure similar foreign interference does not affect future elections.
As I navigate through this life ...
it's a smalti smalti world!
many products that you thought of buying but never had the chance
what ever will be, will be "lah"
Christian, Religious, Life, Steps
This is the story of building a cottage , the people and the place. Its a reminder of hope and love.
Because food is better shared.