Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Hillary Clinton Reveals Why She Believes Vladimir Putin Wanted Donald Trump in the White House | APT

We have such a sense of ourselves as Americans, as freedom-loving people, and we would defend it to the last.

I don't see that that's a universal.

Well, I'm afraid you're right in terms of the acquiescence.

And, you know, I was in the Senate very proudly representing New York for eight years.

There are still people on the Republican side I served with there.

I don't talk to them, but my former Democratic colleagues report to me.

They go into the cloakroom.

They're in the hallway.

But aren't you sick about hearing about what they say in the cloakrooms?

I am really sick of it.

I'm very sick of it because they are betraying the kind of weakness that is, you know,

undermining of a great country and our institutions because they won't stand up to them unless they're on their way out.

Why not?

Are these jobs so great that you can't?

For some people, they are.

For some people, it's simply staying in power, being able to feel like they are important.

For some people, it's literal threats.

You know, the only person I know who spoke publicly about this was Lisa Murkowski.

And basically, if you are threatened the way some of these people are threatened and their families are threatened,

and you think you can, you may be rationalizing, but you think, well, I can try to rein in more if I stay on the inside.

So I can be against, but I can't be against too much.

That's one thing.

But the people who are in positions of great economic power, like the tech companies and other,

you know, large businesses, have been so disappointing in the way that they have,

you know, basically aligned themselves with Trump, Trump policies.

And in large measure, I guess, because they think, quote, it's good for their business.

And what I have said privately and publicly is you are making a grave mistake

because you may think it's good for your business today, but somebody who offers a bigger bribe,

because make no mistake, these transactional deals they're making are nothing but bribes.

You support me or you don't get this contract.

You do support me, you're going to get that contract.

These are bribes.

That is in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.

And so part of what I see happening is men, and they're all men, basically convincing themselves they have to do this for the business,

but what they're not appreciating is that this kind of unchecked,

unaccountable power can turn and bite them just as easily.

You saw it, you saw it in Russia.

You saw the transition from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And you saw the oligarchs being formed, the privatization.

But then when Putin came along, it was, I want 5%.

No, I now want 25%.

I want 50%.

And that's why people say he's the richest man in the world, because he's basically...

I must say, he loves you.

I have never seen somebody speak so harshly of anyone as to watch Putin speaking about Hillary Clinton.

Well, I wear it as a badge of honor, but it did help...

You know, contrary to what you hear from Donald Trump, he did help Donald Trump win,

and partly because he knew what kind of leader I would be compared to Donald, whom he knew would not.

You have a question from the audience.

Would you still defend the Democratic Party strategy of trying to capture the center

when it has failed to repel Donald Trump two separate times?

It feels as though the only thing Democrats agree on is being anti-Trump.

Well, I think this year anti-Trump may work.

So I'm not sure this year is the right time to try to answer that question.

But also, if you look at where we have to win,

the Electoral College is not our friend.

And it certainly is not the Democratic Party's friend.

And so when you are planning a national campaign, as opposed to a congressional or state-by-state Senate campaign,

You have to try to figure out how you're going to win those independent voters, or you're not going to win.

You're not going to win the electoral college.

You can run up your margins.

Remember, I beat them by nearly three million votes because I ran up my margins in New York and Illinois and California.

It was great.

So I won the popular vote and lost the election.

And so when people say to me, you don't need to try to appeal.

Well, go to Wisconsin, go to Michigan,

go to Pennsylvania, and try to look at how Josh Shapiro wins or Gretchen Whitmer wins.

They win by appealing broadly, not narrowly.

And so it's frustrating, and I know it's frustrating

because all of this is so self-evident to us about what kind of government we should have, what kind of leaders we should have,

what kind of candidates we should elect.

but it's a big country out there.

I want to ask you two quick questions about the law, and this is a beautifully crafted one.

On a scale of 1 to ten, how worried are you about being locked up?

Well, it's not for lack of trying that I'm not,

that they, you know, they continue to, you know, not only go after me, but go after all kinds of,

you know, people that Trump considers his, quote, enemies.

You know, I'm not worried about it if the law matters and if the facts matter.

I have nothing to worry about.

And what I've been slightly reassured about in the last couple

of months is the way the courts are actually enforcing their orders.

So the name is off the Kennedy Center.

The, you know, $1.776 billion fund is enjoined.

And so there is finally the pushback.

Our big problem has been the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court has enabled and approved so much of what he's done on the so-called shadow docket.

And that is what has given him the permission to go forward with a lot of the things

that he has pursued without there being yet any kind of final adjudication.

So when I think about the law, personally, you know, I'm not that worried for myself,

but I do see him continuing to unleash his private law firm, which used to be called the Justice Department,

against people and forcing them to be, you know, investigated, spend money,

everything to just put them, you know, at risk.

So, yeah, I do think that he is going to continue to do that, and we, unfortunately, are going to have to continue to fight back.

Has John Roberts, in particular, as chief justice, failed the law?

I voted against him as a senator.

I met with him.

I voted against Alito, and Alito was a much more obvious movement conservative, a results-oriented judge.

and so I had no doubt about what he would do and I gave a speech on the floor.

John Roberts though as I looked into his past

100

when he clerked for Justice Rehnquist he wrote a memo about reversing the Voting Rights Act back in the 1980s.

101

So he has been a known commodity to some of us who paid attention for some time,

102

but he comes across as more affable,

103

you know, a kind of country club person that you would have a nice dinner with.

104

But make no mistake about it, he led the charge against the Voting Rights Act.

105

He led the charge against campaign finance reform.

106

He has been on the side of the, you know, sort of federalist agenda since he was a young lawyer,

107

a young law clerk.

108

And this is his court.

109

And I think they have concluded, led by him, you know,

110

the majority certainly, that their job is to turn the clock back as much as possible on the 20th century.

111

You know, they believe in, you know, almost the height of corporate power.

112

They believe in, you know,

113

the role that corporations should play in our politics and basically undisclosed, unlimited money.

114

plus then things like the Voting Rights Act, which they view as, in the way they describe it,

115

unnecessary in a, quote, colorblind society that's gotten beyond race.

116

I don't know where they live.

117

I don't know who they talk to.

118

I don't understand it.

119

But that is their stated view.

120

But it's really, you know, I went to law school with Clarence Thomas. And so.

121

Did you know him?

122

What?

123

Did you know him?

124

Of course I did.

125

And what was he like then?

126

He was kind of a guy with a grudge.

127

He had a grudge.

128

Did you ever figure out what the grudge was?

129

I think he, again, I can't tell you all the reasons why I think that, because I don't know enough about him.

130

But I think he had a view that he was being treated unfairly in life.

131

And, you know, when he got out of law school, he couldn't really get a great job.

132

And I just feel like for some reason, you know, he began to think that life would have been better.

133

I don't know how he believes this without all of these laws and regulations.

134

And so he is what he is.

135

And he just gave a speech about, for the 250th commemoration, I think at Texas or somewhere, he gave a speech basically saying that,

136

you know, the progressive movement had destroyed America and it needed to be reined in.

137

Secretary Clinton, thank you so much.

138

Thank you, David.

139

Thank you.

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Hillary Clinton Reveals Why She Believes Vladimir Putin Wanted Donald Trump in the White House | APT

Ngữ Cảnh & Bối Cảnh

5 Câu Nói Hàng Ngày Hữu Ích

Hướng Dẫn Shadowing Từng Bước

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?