He printed drapery fabrics on long tables, where he pulled out those fabrics and he went down with a silkscreen and dumped the paint in and took the squeegee and kept going. Trump, if you can. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labor overseas? How, specifically, are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back?
So we have to do that. We have to renegotiate our trade deals. Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. When they sell in — automatic, 16 percent, approximately. Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton — yes, is that OK? I want you to be very happy. But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently. Just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the fact HOLT: Let me interrupt just a moment, but They should have been doing this for years. We cannot do it any longer, Lester. HOLT: Back to the question, though.
How do you bring back — specifically bring back jobs, American manufacturers? How do you make them bring the jobs back? The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of them.
And what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. We have to stop them from leaving. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm. In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. Five million people lost their homes.
Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I did not. I do not say that. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels.
We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one. Our energy policies are a disaster. Our country is losing so much in terms of energy, in terms of paying off our debt. So I will tell you this. We have to do a much better job at keeping our jobs.
Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? I will bring back jobs. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again When I was in the Senate, I had a number of trade deals that came before me, and I held them all to the same test. Will they create jobs in America? Will they raise incomes in America? And are they good for our national security? Some of them I voted for. And because I hold the same standards as I look at all of these trade deals. When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent.
We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs. That is your opinion. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country. And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in The facts are — I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated I wrote about that in my book We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business.
So we have a very robust set of plans. And people have looked at both of our plans, have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us 3. You are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history. You are going to drive business out. And by the way, my tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.
You have regulations on top of regulations, and new companies cannot form and old companies are going out of business. And you want to increase the regulations and make them even worse. So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look. Because what I have proposed What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses.
What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. HOLT: Well, you just opened the next segment. HOLT: Mr. You know what? Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website.
And I want to talk about taxes. The fundamental difference between the two of you concerns the wealthy. And, Mr. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. But we have no leadership. And honestly, that starts with Secretary Clinton. HOLT: All right. You have two minutes of the same question to defend tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, Secretary Clinton. Yeah, why not? You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things.
Now, let me say this, it is absolutely the case I happen to support that. But when I look at what you have proposed, you have what is called now the Trump loophole, because it would so advantage you and the business you do. And when you look at what you are proposing How much for my family?
Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in and And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their — their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy.
Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top. All talk, no action. Never going to happen. Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political — by keeping the interest rates at this level. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.
And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to — who he owes it to and any business conflicts. But you will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised.
You know what that is? I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, do you get audited? I get audited almost every year. And in a way, I should be complaining. I get audited by the IRS. I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. As soon as she releases them, I will release.
I will release my tax returns. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails. Let her release the e-mails. Why did she delete 33, But let me just admonish the audience one more time. There was an agreement. We did ask you to be silent, so it would be helpful for us. Secretary Clinton? For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. You can go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years of our tax returns, but everyone has done it. And I think there may be a couple of reasons. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see.
But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them. HOLT: He also — he also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that? You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that. That was done purposely. That was not a mistake. That I can tell you. You learn a lot from financial disclosure. And you should go down and take a look at that.
But I could give you a list of banks, I would — if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly. I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. Our airports are like from a third world country.
So the worst of all things has happened. Our country has tremendous problems. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. You know, your campaign manager said that you built a lot of businesses on the backs of little guys. And, indeed, I have met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald.
We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It immediately was put to use. CLINTON: Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology from someone who has taken their labor, taken the goods that they produced, and then refused to pay them? He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides.
There are a lot of great businesspeople that have never taken bankruptcy once. You call yourself the King of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States. I built an unbelievable company. Some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, real estate assets anywhere in the world, beyond the United States, in Europe, lots of different places.
But on occasion, four times, we used certain laws that are there. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. Under budget, ahead of schedule, saved tremendous money. When we look at the budget, the budget is bad to a large extent because we have people that have no idea as to what to do and how to buy.
The Trump International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap. So how do you heal the divide? Secretary Clinton, you get two minutes on this. Race remains a significant challenge in our country. We have to restore trust between communities and the police. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law. So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform.
But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform. So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that as a mutual goal. The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust.
We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. Trump, you have two minutes. How do you heal the divide? And we need law and order. I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just — just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very — I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.
You walk down the street, you get shot. Thousands of shootings. Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4, have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over — almost 4, people in Chicago have been killed.
Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. Appellant's expectation that his communications with Graffagnino were confidential because they were "friends" and because he believed Graffagnino was a lawyer is not relevant. Appellant's first issue is overruled.
According to our latest records, Lester B Branham is 88 years old but including property records, possible liens, judgments, court records and much more, click. lester b pearson airport departures.,. lester drew lester b pierson college in pictures.,. lester augusta ga .. lester in wa.,. criminal records for clinton b lester.
In his third issue, appellant contends that during the punishment phase of the trial, the trial court erred by limiting the cross-examination of Atlas Gordon, Joyce's nephew. Appellant claims his trial counsel was attempting to elicit additional information concerning the "relationships of the parties" and was attempting to ask Gordon questions pertaining to the "nature of the faith and belief of Joyce Volrie [victim]. A trial court's evidentiary rulings are subject to review for an abuse of discretion. The nature of the excluded evidence must be considered in order to determine what steps must be taken to preserve review of a complaint regarding exclusion of evidence.
In the former situation, dealing with exclusion of cross-examination intended to elicit specific evidence, the defendant has two options for preserving error for appellate review: 1 have the witness testify and answer the specific questions the defendant desires to ask, but has been precluded from asking, in the presence of the jury; or 2 make an offer of proof of the questions the defendant would have asked and the answers expected had such questioning in the presence of the jury been permitted. However, when a trial court excludes evidence designed to call into question the witness's "bias, interest, prejudice, inconsistent statements, traits of character affecting credibility, or evidence that might go to any impairment or disability affecting the witness's credibility," the defendant has less rigid requirements to preserve error for appeal.
With regard to the limitation of the cross-examination of Breaux, the State concedes that "the offered evidence was general in nature rather than specific," and does not contend that appellant failed to preserve any error. During the cross-examination of Breaux, the following exchange occurred:. She's testified about a certain relationship, and I'm trying to elicit information about the relationship. Move forward. Appellant argues he was attempting to respond to Breaux's testimony that Joyce did not want to have any contact with appellant and was "frightened to death" of him. According to appellant, he was attempting "to establish the congenial relationship between appellant and the deceased and her family.
We agree with the trial court's ruling. Appellant's counsel's response, that he was "trying to elicit information about the relationship," did not establish the relevance of appellant's past relationship with Joyce's family. Moreover, appellant's counsel had already elicited testimony regarding a congenial past relationship between appellant and Joyce and some members of Joyce's family. We overrule appellant's second issue.
In his third issue, appellant complains that during the punishment phase of the trial, the trial court limited his cross-examination of Gordon regarding Joyce's religious beliefs. Specifically, appellant argues he was "attempting to show that Christian forgiveness must be a part of [Joyce's] character. The record reflects that the trial court sustained the State's objection as to the relevance of appellant's question to Gordon regarding whether Christians are held to a "higher standard" in "the way they conduct themselves.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection. We overrule appellant's third issue. In his fourth issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to engage in improper jury argument during the punishment phase of trial. Specifically, appellant complains that "[t]he prosecutor told the jury that appellant had been to the penitentiary numerous times.
We review an improper jury argument by examining the record in its entirety to determine whether any erroneous statements were made, and if so, whether they were so prejudicial as to deprive the appellant of a fair and impartial trial. In examining challenges to jury argument, we consider a remark in the context in which it appears. The State argues that although "poorly stated," the prosecutor's comment was an attempt to summarize the evidence. The State further argues that even if the prosecutor erred in stating appellant had been to the penitentiary "numerous" times, any such error was harmless.
We agree with the State that the prosecutor's comments were "nothing more than an unintentional mischaracterization of the manner in which Appellant served sentences in multiple cases. We overrule appellant's fourth issue. Henderson v. State, S. Administrator U. Martinez, S. DeAngelis, S.
Henderson, S. Tanox, Inc. See Jackson v. Sutton v. Estate of McCormick, 47 S. Sutton, 47 S. December 11, Testimony Transcript. Hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. House Committee on the Judiciary. May 3, ; retrieved May 18, Congressional Quarterly transcripts, via the Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, February 28, Retrieved June 21, Retrieved May 30, July 29, Archived from the original on July 15, Retrieved July 14, September 4, The Hoya. Retrieved April 20, February 12, Washington, D. Vice News. Retrieved September 2, Retrieved July 6, October 23, April 16, News Website April 19, BBC News.
April 19, Daily Mail. April 21, Reuters Editorial. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 5, Calls Email Use 'Extremely Careless ' ". Retrieved October 30, Of course, we don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.
At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don't want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it. February 24, Fox Business. October 31, Director Abuse His Power? Schmidt ; Adam Goldman November 7, Chicago Tribune. The Washington Times.
Retrieved November 8, Retrieved November 21, Director for Election Loss". Retrieved November 13, Retrieved January 19, And while it isn't proof of anything, the pattern is at least consistent with a "shock" caused by a burst of negative news for a candidate, as opposed to a more gradual decline.
Chief Jolted Race". Retrieved July 28, Retrieved February 2, June 14, — via www. Schmidt May 12, Comey Demurred". Schmidt May 17, Retrieved May 18, The Independent. Retrieved July 26, Schmidt ; Michael D. Shear March 5, Retrieved April 12, Director Also Dismisses a Wiretapping Claim".
March 20, May 4, The Hindu. May 11, Retrieved May 26, Retrieved July 7, — via YouTube. The Guardian. June 7, July 9, ; retrieved July 10, February 21, January 29, NBC News. Retrieved March 19, Fox News Channel. May 12, Retrieved May 14, Retrieved November 25, Business Insider. May 19, Retrieved October 5, Retrieved November 6, New York Times. Retrieved October 6, The Daily Beast. The Silicon Times. Archived from the original on July 30, Proving It Isn't So Easy".
Associated Press. Retrieved July 19, I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't I reminded him I had previously told him that. Comey's prepared remarks bolster Trump's claim. He says he assured Trump three different times, the first instance coming in a January 6 meeting a Trump Tower.
CBS News. Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation. Retrieved May 13, May 16, Retrieved May 16, Retrieved June 10, June 8, Retrieved April 21, Fox News. Director, to Publish a Book Next Spring". August 2, July 15, Retrieved November 2, ET February 7, May 16, Retrieved February 8, Huffington Post. Retrieved June 27, Retrieved June 14, United Methodist News Service. Archived from the original on June 19, CBC News. April 12, Retrieved April 13, Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Retrieved April 19, Archived from the original on June 23, Retrieved June 23, Here's what we know about her". Retrieved August 13, Directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Biography portal United States portal Politics portal. Namespaces Article Talk.