Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHE
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
Sun. Oct.22, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America
Trump is a softee at heart...Widow strikes...
My pinups...
Elegance has no age limit…
Melania Trump cuts bloated first lady payroll from Michelle Obama days
-
Email
Melania Trump has significantly reduced the number of aides on government payroll in the first lady’s office compared to former first lady Michelle Obama. (Reuters)
Which one would you follow into battle???
Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision
BY JOHN SOLOMON AND ALISON SPANN
FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow.
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.
Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.
“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.
The email went to two of Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisers, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.
The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision.
“Dear Jake, we urgently need feedback on this. Thanks, Ami,” the former president’s aide wrote in early June.
Sullivan finally responded on June 7, 2010, asking a fellow State official “What’s the deal w this?”
The documents don’t indicate what decision the State Department finally made. But current and former aides to both Clintons told The Hill on Thursday the request to meet the various Russians came from other people, and the ex-president’s aides and State decided in the end not to hold any of the meetings with the Russians on the list.
Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.
“Requests of this type were run by the State Department as a matter of course. This was yet another one of those instances. Ultimately, President Clinton did not meet with these people,” Angel Urena, the official spokesperson for the former president, told The Hill.
Aides to the ex-president, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation said Bill Clinton did not have any conversations about Rosatom or the Uranium One deal while in Russia, and that no one connected to the deal was involved in the trip.
A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.
“At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits. Its roots are with a project shepherded by Steve Bannon, which should tell you all you need to know,” said Nick Merrill. “This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump’s bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security.”
Current and former Clinton aides told The Hill that the list of proposed business executives the former president planned to meet raised some sensitivities after Bill Clinton’s speaker bureau got the invite for the lucrative speech.
Hillary Clinton had just returned from Moscow and there were concerns about the appearance of her husband meeting with officials so soon after.
In addition, two of the Russians on the former president’s list had pending business that would be intersecting with State.
The first was Dvorkovich, who was a chief deputy to Medvedev and one of the Russian nuclear power industry’s cheerleaders. He also sat on the supervisory board of Rosatom, the state owned atomic energy company that was in the midst of buying a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One
The deal required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an intergovernmental panel represented by 14 departments and offices that approve transactions and investments by foreign companies for national security purposes. Approval meant that control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium production would be shifting to the Russian-owned Rosatom’s control.
CFIUS approved the transaction in October 2010, saying there was no national security concerns. Hillary Clinton has said she did not intervene in the matter and instead delegated the decision to a lower official, who said he got no pressure from the secretary on any CFIUS matters. Any one of the participating offices and departments could have sought to block the deal by requesting intervention by the president.
The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approved the deal, raising new questions in Congress and drawing attention from President Trump. Uranium “is the real Russia story,” he told reporters, accusing news media of ignoring the new developments reported in The Hill.
The second person on the list that caught attention was Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg.
Two days after Hillary Clinton’s visit to Russia, Vekselberg was named by Medvedev to oversee a new technology investment project called Skolkovo, designed to be Russia’s new Silicon Valley, according to media reports.
Hillary Clinton had directly discussed the Skolkovo project with Medvedev, and her State Department was whipping up support for it among U.S. companies, creating the potential appearance for a conflict. She even attended a major event with the Russians in 2010 to promote the project.
“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” she was quoted as saying at the time.
A third issue that emerged was Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank that actually paid the $500,000 speaking fee to the former president for his 90-minute June 29, 2010, speech, one of the largest one-day fees Bill Clinton ever earned.
Renaissance Capital had ties with the Kremlin and was talking up the Uranium One purchase in 2010, giving it an encouraging investment rating in Russia right at the time the U.S. was considering approval of the uranium sale, according to reports in The New York Times in 2015.
The Hill was alerted to Bill Clinton’s attempted meeting with Dvorkovich from a nonpolitical source involved in the FBI investigation into Russian nuclear corruption. The Hill then scoured through thousands of pages of documents released under Freedom of Information Act requests over the past four years and located the Bill Clinton emails in a batch delivered to the conservative group Citizens United.
The head of that group, David Bossie, said Thursday the documents forced into the public by federal lawsuits continue to shed light on new questions arising from Hillary Clinton’s time at State, and that Citizens United still gets documents released almost every month.
“Citizens United continues to unearth important information about the relationship between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation through our ongoing investigations and litigation,” he said.
A source familiar with that FBI investigation says an undercover informant that Congress is currently trying to interview possesses new information about what Russian nuclear officials were doing to try to win approval of the Uranium One deal.
The importance of CFIUS’s approval was highlighted in Rosatom’s annual 2010 report that listed Dvorkovich as one of its supervisory board directors. The report crowed the U.S. approval was one of its most “striking events” of the year and allowed Russia to begin “uranium mining in the United States.”
The head of Rosatom boasted in the report that the Uranium One deal was part of a larger Putin strategy to strengthen “Russia’s prestige as a leader of the world nuclear industry.”
Inside the Clintons' inner circle, there also was a debate in 2010.
A close associate of Bill Clinton who was directly involved in the Moscow trip and spoke on condition of anonymity, described to The Hill the circumstances surrounding how Bill Clinton landed a $500,000 speaking gig in Russia and then came up with the list of Russians he wanted to meet.
The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president’s speaker’s bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.
Documents show Bill Clinton’s personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later.
The Clinton friend said the former president’s office then began assembling a list of requests to meet with Russian business and government executives whom he could meet on the trip. One of the goals of the trip was to try to help a Clinton family relative “grow investments in their business with Russian oligarchs and other businesses,” the friend told The Hill.
“It was one of the untold stories of the Russia trip. People have focused on Uranium One and the speaking fees, but opening up a business spigot for the family business was one only us insiders knew about,” the friend said.
Conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose 2015 collaboration with The New York Times first raised questions about the Uranium One deal and Clinton donations, said Thursday the new emails were “stunning they add a level of granularity we didn’t have before."
“We knew of some sort of transactions in which the Clintons received funds and Russia received approvals, and the question has always been how and if those two events are connected,” he said. “I think this provides further evidence the two may be connected.”
“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.
The email went to two of Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisers, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.
The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision.
“Dear Jake, we urgently need feedback on this. Thanks, Ami,” the former president’s aide wrote in early June.
Sullivan finally responded on June 7, 2010, asking a fellow State official “What’s the deal w this?”
The documents don’t indicate what decision the State Department finally made. But current and former aides to both Clintons told The Hill on Thursday the request to meet the various Russians came from other people, and the ex-president’s aides and State decided in the end not to hold any of the meetings with the Russians on the list.
Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.
“Requests of this type were run by the State Department as a matter of course. This was yet another one of those instances. Ultimately, President Clinton did not meet with these people,” Angel Urena, the official spokesperson for the former president, told The Hill.
Aides to the ex-president, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation said Bill Clinton did not have any conversations about Rosatom or the Uranium One deal while in Russia, and that no one connected to the deal was involved in the trip.
A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.
“At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits. Its roots are with a project shepherded by Steve Bannon, which should tell you all you need to know,” said Nick Merrill. “This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump’s bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security.”
Current and former Clinton aides told The Hill that the list of proposed business executives the former president planned to meet raised some sensitivities after Bill Clinton’s speaker bureau got the invite for the lucrative speech.
Hillary Clinton had just returned from Moscow and there were concerns about the appearance of her husband meeting with officials so soon after.
In addition, two of the Russians on the former president’s list had pending business that would be intersecting with State.
The first was Dvorkovich, who was a chief deputy to Medvedev and one of the Russian nuclear power industry’s cheerleaders. He also sat on the supervisory board of Rosatom, the state owned atomic energy company that was in the midst of buying a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One
The deal required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an intergovernmental panel represented by 14 departments and offices that approve transactions and investments by foreign companies for national security purposes. Approval meant that control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium production would be shifting to the Russian-owned Rosatom’s control.
CFIUS approved the transaction in October 2010, saying there was no national security concerns. Hillary Clinton has said she did not intervene in the matter and instead delegated the decision to a lower official, who said he got no pressure from the secretary on any CFIUS matters. Any one of the participating offices and departments could have sought to block the deal by requesting intervention by the president.
The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approved the deal, raising new questions in Congress and drawing attention from President Trump. Uranium “is the real Russia story,” he told reporters, accusing news media of ignoring the new developments reported in The Hill.
The second person on the list that caught attention was Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg.
Two days after Hillary Clinton’s visit to Russia, Vekselberg was named by Medvedev to oversee a new technology investment project called Skolkovo, designed to be Russia’s new Silicon Valley, according to media reports.
Hillary Clinton had directly discussed the Skolkovo project with Medvedev, and her State Department was whipping up support for it among U.S. companies, creating the potential appearance for a conflict. She even attended a major event with the Russians in 2010 to promote the project.
“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” she was quoted as saying at the time.
A third issue that emerged was Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank that actually paid the $500,000 speaking fee to the former president for his 90-minute June 29, 2010, speech, one of the largest one-day fees Bill Clinton ever earned.
Renaissance Capital had ties with the Kremlin and was talking up the Uranium One purchase in 2010, giving it an encouraging investment rating in Russia right at the time the U.S. was considering approval of the uranium sale, according to reports in The New York Times in 2015.
The Hill was alerted to Bill Clinton’s attempted meeting with Dvorkovich from a nonpolitical source involved in the FBI investigation into Russian nuclear corruption. The Hill then scoured through thousands of pages of documents released under Freedom of Information Act requests over the past four years and located the Bill Clinton emails in a batch delivered to the conservative group Citizens United.
The head of that group, David Bossie, said Thursday the documents forced into the public by federal lawsuits continue to shed light on new questions arising from Hillary Clinton’s time at State, and that Citizens United still gets documents released almost every month.
“Citizens United continues to unearth important information about the relationship between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation through our ongoing investigations and litigation,” he said.
A source familiar with that FBI investigation says an undercover informant that Congress is currently trying to interview possesses new information about what Russian nuclear officials were doing to try to win approval of the Uranium One deal.
The importance of CFIUS’s approval was highlighted in Rosatom’s annual 2010 report that listed Dvorkovich as one of its supervisory board directors. The report crowed the U.S. approval was one of its most “striking events” of the year and allowed Russia to begin “uranium mining in the United States.”
The head of Rosatom boasted in the report that the Uranium One deal was part of a larger Putin strategy to strengthen “Russia’s prestige as a leader of the world nuclear industry.”
Inside the Clintons' inner circle, there also was a debate in 2010.
A close associate of Bill Clinton who was directly involved in the Moscow trip and spoke on condition of anonymity, described to The Hill the circumstances surrounding how Bill Clinton landed a $500,000 speaking gig in Russia and then came up with the list of Russians he wanted to meet.
The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president’s speaker’s bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.
Documents show Bill Clinton’s personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later.
The Clinton friend said the former president’s office then began assembling a list of requests to meet with Russian business and government executives whom he could meet on the trip. One of the goals of the trip was to try to help a Clinton family relative “grow investments in their business with Russian oligarchs and other businesses,” the friend told The Hill.
“It was one of the untold stories of the Russia trip. People have focused on Uranium One and the speaking fees, but opening up a business spigot for the family business was one only us insiders knew about,” the friend said.
Conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose 2015 collaboration with The New York Times first raised questions about the Uranium One deal and Clinton donations, said Thursday the new emails were “stunning they add a level of granularity we didn’t have before."
“We knew of some sort of transactions in which the Clintons received funds and Russia received approvals, and the question has always been how and if those two events are connected,” he said. “I think this provides further evidence the two may be connected.”
REPORT: Russia Investigation Takes Shocking Turn, Media Stunned
Adam Selene
Is anyone trustworthy of holding our elected officials accountable? That answer isn’t always clear.
Cheryl Chumley, writer for The Washington Times, says that Special Counsel Robert Mueller should shift his attention towards former-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former-President Obama instead of investigating President Trump for allegedly colluding with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Accordingly to Chumley, recent reports by The Hill–which are corroborated by a 2015 piece for The New York Times–provide enough evidence to justify an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s State Department, in addition to the Obama administration, for their role in promoting the sale of 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves to the Russian government-backed energy company Rosatom.
Donald Trump has been dogged by accusations of Russian collusion since the day he was elected President of the United States. Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2017, a series of events lead to Obama-era Justice Department insider Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing former-FBI Director Robert Mueller to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Almost one year later, and the investigation has failed to publicly provide evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of President Trump.
However, while Mueller was investigating Russian interference in 2016, journalists for The Hill were investigating Russian interference between 2009 and 2013 while Hillary Clinton was leading the State Department. These journalists also detail the Justice Department’s attempt to hide this information from lawmakers.
In 2010, the Obama administration reached a controversial agreement with Moscow where 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves would be controlled by the Russian energy company Rosatom. Yet, even before lawmakers voted on turning over a strategic resource to a historical enemy, the Justice Department had reason to believe Putin had engaged in corruption involving bribery, extortion, kickbacks, and money laundering. This information was not shared with lawmakers.
According to the Justice Department, Putin was planning to extend Russian domination of the energy sector, and they were hoping to increase the amount of uranium they sold to the United States by controlling a major portion of America’s domestic supply.
Over the course of four years, the Justice Department investigated Russian interference in the American energy market. Despite uncovering strong evidence of just such interference, nothing ever came of the investigation, and lawmakers were not informed of the investigation before deciding on the Rosatom deal.
The recent report by The Hill has been corroborated by earlier reporting of The New York Times. The Times’ article from 2015 sketched the details of a pay-to-play agreement without any of the evidence recently uncovered.
Between 2009 and 2013, as Russia was slowly gaining control of the Canadian mining firm Uranium One, which would eventually merge into Rosatom, Hillary Clinton was receiving major donations to her foundation from executives with multimillion dollar stakes in the uranium deal.
There is new information suggesting the Russia investigation should begin looking at Obama and Hillary Clinton. Did you expect the investigation to end up this way?
On four separate occasions, The Clinton Foundation received donations totaling $2.35 million from businessmen connected to the Uranium One deal. The former Secretary of State never disclosed these donations.
Essentially, the Obama-era Justice Department knew the Russian government was interfering in the American energy market. The FBI–under both former Directors Mueller and later James Comey–knew that the Russian government was engaging in corrupt wheeling and dealing to gain a foothold in the American market.
Despite evidence of Russian interference, the Obama administration did nothing to stop Rosatom from gaining control of 20 percent of US uranium supply. This warrants investigation — one without biased investigators.
Monica Lewinsky Just Wrecked Bill Clinton’s Life With One Tweet
Bill Clinton can’t escape the ghosts of his ugly past.One scandal continues to haunt him.
And Monica Lewinsky just made sure Bill Clinton had the worst day of his life with this tweet.
Bill Clinton traveled to England to meet with British Prime Minister Theresa May.
But that wasn’t the big news of the day.
While Clinton was engaged in his pow-wow with May, Monica Lewinsky fired off a mysterious tweet that everyone guessed was aimed at the former President.
The Mirror reports:
“Monica Lewinsky posted a cryptic message on Twitter at the same time as ex-President Bill Clinton was meeting Theresa May in Downing Street.
Clinton visited Number 10 this morning to discuss the deadlock in Northern Ireland.
As he left after almost an hour in No 10, he told reporters: “We had a wonderful talk.”
But at almost the same moment as his departure from the meeting, his former intern tweeted: “If i had a dollar for every time i find myself thinking: hypocrisy knows no bounds.”
if i had a dollar for every time i find myself thinking: hypocrisy knows no bounds.
5:47 AM - Oct 19, 2017
Lewinsky never clarified her tweet, but it came during Clinton’s meeting in the aftermath of his involvement with disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein coming to light.
Weinstein is accused by dozens of women of using his position of power to sexually harass them.
At least three women have alleged Weinstein raped them.
For years, Weinstein was a Democratic fundraising powerhouse.
And he had especially close ties to the Clintons.
In 2000, he threw Hillary a birthday bash.
And when Bill Clinton needed money for his legal defense fund during the impeachment proceedings – which began after he lied under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky – Weinstein ponied up $10,000.
Is this what Lewinsky was referring to in her cryptic tweet?
Even if she was not, the timing of the tweet kicked off a firestorm that made Clinton’s trip uncomfortable and forced everyone to recall how the President used his position of authority to have an affair with a younger woman.
While Clinton was not accused of the same level of violence with Lewinsky that women have alleged against Weinstein, other women such as Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Wiley and Paula Jones stepped forward to accuse Clinton of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.
Do you think Lewinsky was tweeting about Clinton?
Appeals court in SF allows challenge to state law banning prostitution
By Bob Egelko
-
Photo: LOREN ELLIOTT, Special To The Chronicle
Top: Rachel West of U.S. PROStitutes Collective (left) and Jerald Mosley, counsel for Children of the Night, talk outside the federal courthouse in S.F., where one of the plaintiffs stands, above.
Advocates of legalized prostitution took their challenge to California’s 145-year-old ban on commercial sex before a federal appeals court Thursday and appeared to get a hint that they’ll have another chance to show why the law should be cast aside.
The case was brought by three former prostitutes, a would-be client and the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project. They contend the law violates the right to engage in consensual sex, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2003 ruling overturning criminal laws against gay sexual activity.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oakland rejected their argument last year, saying the high court ruling protected only intimate personal relationships, not commercial sex. He said the state had adequately justified the current law as a deterrent to violence against women, sexually transmitted diseases and human trafficking.
But at Thursday’s hearing, members of a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco suggested that the law might need closer scrutiny, given today’s less restrictive standards, as recognized by the high court, on sex between consenting adults.
“Why should it be illegal to sell something that it’s legal to give away?” asked Carlos Bea, one of the court’s most conservative judges.
Another conservative, Judge Consuelo Callahan, pointed out that prostitution, like gay sex, had historically been “subject to moral disapproval.” Just as in 2003, the current case, she said, “deals with individuals’ rights,” so why wouldn’t a ruling for the right to engage in prostitution be “a natural extension of Supreme Court precedent?”
Deputy Attorney General Sharon O’Grady, the state’s lawyer, responded that the difference is in “the commercial aspect ... the commodification of sex.”
“The state is not telling anyone who they can sleep with,” O’Grady said. It is prohibiting only a harmful category of business transactions, not intimate or enduring relationships, she said.
But Bea said the 2003 Supreme Court ruling might require the court to send the case back to White for another review, and perhaps even a full-scale trial, in which the state would have to show a compelling need for the law.
California made prostitution a crime in 1872, defining “every common prostitute” as a “vagrant” subject to a $500 fine and six months in jail. The law was updated in 1961 to reclassify prostitution or soliciting prostitution as disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.
The Ninth Circuit left the state law intact in a 1988 ruling that said the relationship between a paid escort and a client “possesses few, if any, of the aspects of an intimate association.” H. Louis Sirkin, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the current case, argued that the ruling is no longer binding.
The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision established “the right of individuals to make their own individual choices as to how they want to behave” in consensual sexual relationships, Sirkin told the court. “If people put a dollar amount on it, that should not alter the intimate relationship.”
But Bea questioned whether the high court’s ruling applied to “totally anonymous sex” for hire. And the third panel member, Jane Restani, a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade temporarily assigned to the appeals court, noted that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the 2003 Supreme Court ruling, had specified that the case before the court did not involve prostitution.
On the other hand, Bea quoted from another portion of the 2003 case in which the late Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent, declared that the ruling “called into question” state laws against prostitution.
True, said O’Grady, the state’s lawyer — but Scalia, in the same opinion, also predicted the ruling would be used to strike down laws against incest and bestiality.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com
Alabama Senate Poll: Roy Moore Has 11-Point Lead Over Dem Challenger Doug Jones
by JEFF POOR
335
Just days after a Fox News poll showed the U.S. Senate race between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones tied, a new Raycom News Network poll released Thursday tells a different story.
The poll, conducted by Strategy Research, give Moore an 11-point advantage over Jones, his biggest lead yet.
According to Birmingham WBRC6’s Rick Journey, the poll shows a 51-40 percent split.
“The survey of 3,000 likely Alabama voters finds Moore receiving 51% support to 40% for Jones,” Journey wrote. “Nine percent remain undecided in the exclusive poll conducted on Monday.”
Early polls conducted days after Moore defeated Luther Strange in a GOP primary runoff had the contest at six and eight points. Strategy Research’s Jon Gray said Jones might have an even more substantial hurdle to overcome than this poll indicates.
“I think the challenge for the Jones campaign is bigger than what these numbers show,” Gray said to WBRC’s Journey. “Even if he were able to close the gap, how do you turn out Democrats in a state that hasn’t had a viable Democratic Party in almost a dozen years?”
The election to fill the seat formerly held by Jeff Sessions will be held on December 12.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
|
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/10/www.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment