An Attorney General works closely with the governor
I think the answer is a, I’m not sure.
Answer: He was Secretary of State at the time. He was in favor of making the purchase, but I do not think he had any part in the negotiations.
Explanation:
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The recent event I choose is the present political campaigns and the 2020 presidential election.
The past historical event for reference is the US presidential election of 2016. In that elections, so much was said and done about the problems in US politics and how both candidates attack each other, instead of proposing clear arguments and strategies to improve the citizen's conditions in many important areas such as health services, the creation of jobs, internal debt, environment conservation, immigration, crime, among many others.
Unfortunately, four years later, we are witnessing exactly the same behaviors, public conducts, lack of high-level debates, and probably accusations and critiques ar worse this time than four years ago.
My strategy to use modern values to present past events is to invite the American audience to take a serious evaluation of how politics is at its worse level of all times. There are no proposals, just accusations. There is no respect, just aggression. There is no sense of unity, just division. And the extreme visions are polarizing even more. My invitation would be to acknowledge the present situation, knowing that in the past, people have only been a passive witness when their participation is much needed. Not only in the election but closely following the political and economic life of America and the decisions of the representatives.
Answer: Refusing to hand over the White House tapes
Explanation: What were the three reasons that Nixon gave for refusing to turn over the White House tapes? Nixon stated that the dispute was between the president and special prosecutor, making it an executive branch conflict and not for judicial resolution. He also stated that it was up to the president, and not the court, to confirm the scope of the executive privilege. The need for for executive confidentiality justified his privilege in this case
took test -100%
