Israel (2), abandoned (1), the more detailed their knowledge was. Tribal leaders in Afghanistan and Palestinian police officers knew the names of American congressmen because they had blocked or approved aid bills that impacted their towns.”Seeing stories while in Pakistan that A (1), as powerful and strong as we are (1), from climate change to further economic turmoil to demographic explosions.“America (1), a palatable global chairman of the board who can help navigate the coming crises (1), especially to avoid anti-American sentiment from derailing the work of the UN or other groups.European countries often looked down on the US and were not upset when it had problems until they realized what would happen to their own economies if the US eco (1), it was often working behind the scene and letting others take the credit (1), the US worked to involve other countries in decisions and actions. While the US was accused of holding back (1), but does not state what the Palestinians have or have not done to bring a peaceful solution nor does she mention all the lies against Israel spread by Arab and Muslim states.Instead of going it alone (1), the Pakistani media was shameless.” Yet she doesn’t make the same distinction when discussing Israel and the Palestinians. She places a lot of blame on Israel and cites its deficiencies (1), but rarely before had I seen this level of unsubstantiated reporting. Even by Middle East Standards (1), the devising of conspiracy theories is an art form (1), ” Ghattas notes that “In the Middle East (1), spent; it didn’t matter how many US troops had died.” “They wanted more.” Hillary noted (1), “We don’t have any magic wands that we can wave.”The people in other countries were very familiar with the US and thought we knew all about them as well. “The more a country felt its fate was impacted by the United States (1), like Libya (1), fickle friend. It didn’t matter how much money the United States had invested (1), all at once. They saw America as an impatient (1), and betrayed (1), they had other problems to attend to. People on the ground felt invaded (1), Americans had moved one (1), before anything was really fixed...and sometimes before the real problems had even started (1), result-driven people who expected quick turnarounds and believe every problem had a solution.” “Eventually (1), not that the government brought it up. Their leaders would try to build political capital by looking tough and standing up to America.Americans are “upfront (1), not realizing it was because someone asked a question (1), he sought her advice before making decisions. She understood how to work with other cultures. It was necessary to establish a relationship before dealing with issues. People in other countries were very familiar with American office holders because their (1), getting more and more confident. After two years (1), cannot remake societies. We can help liberate them (1), but we cannot remake them. That must come from within and there needs to be a reformation in thinking amongst people in countries that have been downtrodden (1), he was surrounded by his trusted circle. A good soldier (1), and their restrictions. Some differences are the ability to use of grand juries (1), and question why it was not. Hopefully (1), why it wasn’t (1), this book. Reading the book is a way to learn what should have been done (1), they believed the public wanted an accounting of his actions. Therefore (1), Pomerantz and Carey Dunne resigned in disgust and frustration. All of Trump’s actions that could lead to criminal charges were dropped. Even if they weren’t able to convince a jury (1), neither Bragg nor anyone on his team had talked with those who had been working on the case. This lack of conferring lead to Bragg deciding to not authorize continuing the prosecution. In February (1), by the time he was selected in November and then sworn in in January 2022 (1), the long-time CEO of the Organization. By the time Vance was going to voluntarily leave his position at the end of the year. Pomerantz and many of the others working on the case were convinced that there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump personally. (1), and how they decided whether to pursue the case in court.The office had been focusing on The Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg (1), the types of sentences they could recommend (1), what information was permissible (1), how they had different goals based on the laws covering them (1), violence-ridden (1), city) working on the case: How they operated (often independently and sometimes at odds) (1), Pomerantz explains the various government legal departments (state (1), but there was no follow-up.In PEOPLE VS. DONALD TRUMP (1), the amount he listed was between $16 and $19 million. The yearly rental was more than $40 million and net operating income was above $20 million. The response from the city’s law department was that everybody does that to lower property taxes. It was co (1), Jr. Manhattan District Attorney for many years.Some of the evidence included Trump claiming the value his interest in his building at 40 Wall Street was $527. When it came to paying property taxes (1), John Gotti. Also working on the case was Cyrus Vance (1), on the investigation of Donald Trump’s financial actions. Pomerantz had a strong history of investigating white collar and organized crime cases. The investigation uncovered enough evidence that Trump should be indicted for several financial crimes. It (1), retired lawyer Mark Pomerantz was asked to join the New York Country District Attorney office as a special assistant to work (1), In February 2021 (1), but that is just reality.”The photographs and captions in the book provide an excellent synopsis.I received this book as an early reviewer from LibraryThing. (1), not dividers.”“There will be times when not all our interests align. We work to align them (1), and there needs to be higher expectations and demands placed on leaders who should be reconcilers (1), she gave her views and advice (1), and visiting Burma. Hillary’s relationship with President Obama evolved over the years. He had to work with someone who was as popular as he. At first (1), China (1), Turkey (1), so this is my abbreviated final draft.Ghattas does an excellent job not only explaining the situations Hillary encountered but also how the US is viewed by many other countries (1), A JOURNEY WITH HILLARY CLINTON FROM BEIRUT TO THE HEART OF AMERICAN POWER by Kim Ghattas was a difficult book to review. My first draft ran almost four pages. There was so much interesting material and so much that I wanted to say about it. But that revie (1), THE SECRETARY (1), some of whom seemed to be mentally challenged and portrayed both unrealistically and cruelly: They were the constant butt of jokes which I didn't find funny.I usually plow through a book even if I don't like it in hopes that it will improve. I gave up on (1), but instead I found too many eccentric characters (1), A friend of Shay O'Hanlon is known to be a petty thief. A plush snake he took from one home where he had worked leads to murder. Shay sets out to find the missing object and prevent futher murders in the process. Her search takes her from Minneapolis to N (1), Israeli/Palestinians relationships (1), all-powerful (1), wasted (1), Egypt (1), Photography (1), district (1), and what role Hillary has played in that change. The book will be out in March and I highly recommend it.Kim Ghattas was born in Lebanon in 1977 and grew up during its Civil War. At the time she wrote THE SECRETARY (1), Saudi Arabia (1), Syria (1), Lebanon (1), pro bono (1), federal (1), controlling (1), efficient (1), oppressed (1), light mystery (1), Libya (1), too (1), Pakistan (1), how our image and abilities are changing (1), she was a BBC reporter covering the US State Department. As such (1), the Arab Spring (1), talking to the public and answering their questions. This made for some extremely long days for her (1), the Palestinian territories (1), the book goes into a lot of detail about Japan (1), was ill-defined.”In explaining the role of the State Department and Hillary’s position (1), they started looking for the get out: missions were ill-prepared and ill-defined. Success (1), there was no back-up plan if things did not work out. “The minute US troops set foot in a country (1), and we could leave. Too often (1), cheaply (1), it could be accomplished quickly (1), we knew what it was (1), and the press corps. She also worked to establish connections with government leaders who were upset with the US as well as with those who had no dealings. She had met several as First Lady and used that connection to help reestablish good working relatio (1), her staff (1), not just the politicians was a break from her predecessors. She held town hall meetings wherever she went (1), she received the daily briefings and traveled with Hillary Clinton on all her overseas assignments. It is the story of how Hillary performed her duties as well as how Ghattas interpreted the events based on her personal experiences and how she came to und (1), “One of the reasons countries and people were so often disappointed in the US was an unrealistic expectation of what the US should and could do. Governments everywhere that instinctively and narrowly pursued their national interest somehow expected the (1), but resented having to do anything to justify the support income. Ghattas wrote (1), often padding the pockets of only a few well-connected people (1), yet at the same time complained that America was behind every action of their own government that they did not like. Many countries were glad to take the money (1), a miracle-worker and a supporter of despots. People thought that America was behind everything that happened in their country (especially bad things) and that their country was the most important country in the world and at the top of America’s agenda. (1), a financier (1), was seen in many ways: a bully (1), the only remaining superpower (1), only 29 percent” did. America (1), 75 percent of Indonesians had a positive view of America....By 2007 (1), primarily because of actions and inactions during the previous administration. “In 2000 (1), people in many countries of the world had a very low opinion of the US (1), the future will be different. (1)
Núvol d'etiquetes, Núvol d'autors, Mirall d'etiquetes
S'ha unit
Jun 5, 2012

Connexions del membre