Connect with us


ក្រុម Juventus និង Crotone ផ្សាយផ្ទាល់ផ្ទាល់



This week, Judge Merrick Garland will finally get a confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, more than four years after his nomination to the US Supreme Court was torpedoed by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s obstructionism. Of course, this time Garland has been nominated as President Joe Biden’s attorney general, and, with Senate Democrats in the majority, his swift confirmation is all but assured.

Elie Honig
Elie Honig
If all goes as planned and Garland takes the reins at the Justice Department, he will face a daunting thicket of quandaries that present thorny issues of law, accountability and politics.–105848-1.html–161303566/–161303506/–161303506/–161303226/–161303566/–161303506/–161303506/–161303226/

Garland will bring impressive credentials to the attorney general position. Unlike the former Attorney General William Barr, Garland earned his stripes as a trial prosecutor for the Justice Department. Among many other cases, Garland supervised the investigation of the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, which killed more than 160 people, and the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. In 1997, he became a federal appellate judge for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely regarded as the second most important court in the country, behind only the Supreme Court. Garland became chief judge of the circuit in 2013.
It will take all of Garland’s legal experience and political acumen to negotiate the complex decisions an attorney general will face. Here are the most important decisions that Garland will likely make at the Justice Department headquarters.
Former President Donald Trump investigations
Trump was acquitted in both impeachment trials, first on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in 2020 stemming from his phone calls with the Ukrainian president and then on a charge of inciting an insurrection a year later. Now that he’s left office, however, Trump could face potential legal exposure across multiple fronts, including (1) bribery, extortion and other alleged offenses relating to the Ukraine scandal, and (2) incitement of a riot, sedition and other potential charges relating to the January 6 Capitol insurrection. He could also face legal trouble when it comes to (3) obstruction of justice of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and (4) campaign finance violations based on hush money payments to two women with whom Trump allegedly had affairs, (Trump denies wrongdoing on all of these potential charges.)
January 6 was the crime of the century
January 6 was the crime of the century
Will Garland authorize the Justice Department to open and pursue criminal investigations on some or all of these matters? Will he appoint a special counsel to focus solely on Trump-related matters? Will he dole these cases out to various US attorneys? Or, will Garland do nothing at all and let the past lie?
This last option would be a mistake. I understand that it’s not an easy thing to investigate a former president, and even more difficult to prosecute one. Trump, who retains the fervent support of tens of millions of Americans, would likely break out the old attack lines against anybody who dared to investigate him (“witch hunt!”) and any prosecution would be perceived by some as politically vindictive.
But it would simply be unjust to turn a blind eye to all of Trump’s alleged misconduct while running for, and holding, the presidency. Trump benefited while in office from the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president, and there is no question, legally or constitutionally, that a former president can be charged criminally.
I understand why it might be easier for Garland and the Justice Department, and perhaps preferable for Biden politically, to just let the past be the past and to “move on.” But that’s not what prosecutors do, or ought to do. Prosecutors shouldn’t shy away from difficult fights; the job itself is often about taking on powerful people or interests and seeing that justice is done.
At a minimum, Garland must ensure that the Justice Department conducts full investigations of Trump’s conduct. And once he gets all the facts, he must make a decision, thumbs-up or thumbs-down, on whether Trump has broken the law.
The most devastating piece of evidence at the Trump trial
The most devastating piece of evidence at the Trump trial
Hunter Biden investigations
Hunter Biden has revealed publicly that he is under criminal investigation by federal authorities for his “tax affairs” and reportedly for his business dealings in China. The US attorneys for the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York are reportedly handling the Biden investigations.
Despite pressure from Trump, neither Barr nor his successor appointed a special counsel to handle the investigations of Biden’s son. Biden issued a statement saying, “I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately.”
What, then, should Garland do about this potentially politically loaded investigation? My answer is: nothing. Let it be. Let the assigned federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents carry out their investigations fully, and without interference, influence or input from the attorney general’s suite. Make no public comment about the investigation and convey nothing to the assigned investigative teams other than: “Do your jobs and report back.” And let them make recommendations about whether the evidence, once gathered, does or does not support criminal charges. So far, the Biden administration, which has begun the process of removing Trump-appointed US attorneys, has asked US Attorney David Weiss, who is overseeing the tax investigation of Hunter Biden in Delaware, to continue in his role, according to a Bloomberg report.
John Durham investigation
Yes, this Barr-initiated “investigate the investigators” quest into the origins of the Russia investigation remains ongoing, even though everybody from Robert Mueller to the Justice Department’s inspector general to the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that the investigation was appropriate and necessary.
Before he left office, Barr appointed Durham as special counsel, effectively ensuring that Durham’s work will continue until its natural conclusion (though Barr’s timing — more than a year after Durham began his work — was suspect, and the appointment itself violated the requirement that special counsel must come from outside the government, a fact nobody has ever formally challenged).
Again, Garland’s best, and perhaps only (given the special counsel assignment) option is to let the Durham investigation play out, without interference. And, unlike Barr, who publicly distorted Mueller’s findings as special counsel, Garland should allow Durham’s report to speak for itself in the public realm.
More broadly than any particular case, Garland must rehabilitate the Justice Department after nearly two years of unprecedented politicization and dishonesty by Trump and Barr. To that end, Garland simply must bring the Justice Department back to basics: be honest with the public, keep politics out of prosecution and support the men and women who work on the front lines.
Now, your questions
Gary (Michigan): If Trump is someday convicted of a crime, can he still legally run for president again in 2024?
Yes. Article II of the Constitution establishes certain restrictions on who may hold the office of president: the person must be at least 35 years old, must be a “natural born citizen” and must have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. There is nothing in the Constitution, or in any other legal authority, to prevent a person from becoming president if he has been convicted of a crime. As a practical matter, of course, a criminal conviction would make it difficult to win an election. But there is no formal restriction under our laws.

Gerry (Rhode Island): Can civil charges be brought against Trump for his role in the January 6 insurrection?
They already have. Last week, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson brought a lawsuit under the obscure Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, alleging that Trump, Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers conspired to use violence and threats to interfere with governmental functions. While the merits of the case remain to be litigated, I expect to see other, more conventional lawsuits seeking damages for personal injury and property damage brought against Trump and perhaps others relating to the Capitol insurrection.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Generally speaking, a plaintiff would need to show by a “preponderance” of the evidence — meaning that it is more likely than not — that Trump’s actions (or the actions of any named defendant) caused their injuries, and that those injuries were reasonably foreseeable based on the defendant’s conduct. In other words, if you played a videotape of Trump’s remarks at the January 6 rally, and then hit pause, would it be reasonably foreseeable at that point that injury would result to the plaintiffs?

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Shahid Kapoor Birthday: Popular Dialogues Of The Bollywood Actor As He Turns 40!




Shahid Kapoor is one of the finest talents that Bollywood is blessed with. It took a lot of time and effort for him to change his image from chocolate boy to an angry young man. The Bollywood actor who turns 40 on February 25, has done a variety of roles in his acting career. Be it romantic, action, comedy, crime or family drama, Shahid has pulled off his roles in every film with sheer perfection. There have been times he even underwent body transformation and experimented with his looks for films. Shahid Kapoor in Friday Flashback: 5 Throwback Indipop Songs That Feature a Young Kabir Singh Star in His Pre-Bollywood Glory.

With films such as Kaminey, Haider, Padmaavat, Kabir Singh, among others, Shahid Kapoor has proved his mettle as a performer. Not just his acting has been lauded by critics and fans, but some of his power-packed dialogues from his movies have also garnered audiences’ attention. Shahid had once stated, “It’s been a long journey and I have made a lot of effort. Today, I feel very fortunate that people also think of me as an actor who plays a variety of characters.” On the occasion of Shahid Kapoor’s birthday, let’s take a look at his dialogues from his popular films. Jersey To Release In Diwali 2021! Shahid Kapoor’s Film To Hit The Theatres On November 5.

“Zindagi Mein Hamari Vaat Isse Nahi Lagti Ki Hum Kaunsa Raasta Chunte Hai… Vaat Lagti Hai Isse Ki Hum Kaunsa Raasta Chhodte Hai” – Kaminey

Shahid Kapoor (Photo Credits: File Image)

“Waqt Bura Ho Ya Achcha, Ek Na Ek Din Badalta Zaroor Hai” – Badmaash Company

Shahid Kapoor (Photo Credits: File Image)

“Dil Ki Agar Sunu Toh Hai, Dimaag Ki Toh, Hai Nahi… Jaan Loon Ki Jaan Doon, Mai Rahoon Ki Mai Nahi” – Haider

Shahid Kapoor (Photo Credits: File Image)

“I’m Not A Rebel Without A Cause” – Kabir Singh

Shahid Kapoor (Photo Credits: File Image)

“Keh Dijiye Apne Sultan Se Ki Unki Talvaar Se Zyada Loha Hum Suryavanshi Mewariyo Ke Seene Mein Hai” – Padmaavat

Shahid Kapoor (Photo Credits: File Image)

“Silent Ho Ja… Varna Main Violent Ho Jaunga” – R… Rajkumar

Shahid Kapoor (Photo Credits: File Image)

These are some of the popular dialogues of Shahid Kapoor. We wish the actor a very happy birthday and many more amazing projects in the future.

(The above story first appeared on Onhike on Feb 25, 2021 12:01 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website

Continue Reading


ineligible persons to be vaccinated knowingly.” It also said that it had fired several members of its clinical staff due to disregard



President Joe Biden will sign an executive order on Wednesday to review the global supply chains used by four key industries in an effort to avoid the shortages in medical equipment, semiconductors and other goods seen as critical during the pandemic.

China reliance targeted: Biden’s order will institute 100-day reviews of the global producers and shippers for: computer chips used in consumer products; large-capacity batteries for electric vehicles; pharmaceuticals and their active ingredients; and critical minerals used in electronics.
A national health care provider has administered COVID-19 vaccinations to people deemed ineligible for the scarce vaccine by local health departments, including people with connections to company leaders and customers of its concierge medical service, according to internal communications leaked to NPR.

San Francisco-based One Medical has been allocated thousands of vaccine doses by local health departments in some of the areas they provide medical services. Ineligible individuals with connections to company leadership were set up with vaccine appointments, and patients who were disqualified from receiving the vaccine were nonetheless permitted to skip the line ahead of other high-risk patients.

The problems have occurred in numerous company locations across several states. The Washington State Department of Health, citing a complaint it received this month, told NPR it had halted COVID-19 vaccine distribution to the company. Other regulators have also received complaints or stopped providing the vaccine.

One Medical has branded itself a high-end health care provider serving a relatively affluent clientele that pays a $199 fee annually to receive easy online access to appointments, telemedicine and access to a streamlined, tech-focused medical experience. The company went public with an IPO in January 2020, with a valuation in the billions.

How Is The COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign Going In Your State?
How Is The COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign Going In Your State?
Across The South COVID-19 Vaccine Sites Missing From Black And Hispanic Neighborhoods
Across The South COVID-19 Vaccine Sites Missing From Black And Hispanic Neighborhoods
One Medical’s shortcomings take place amid broader anecdotal evidence that suggests patients throughout the country are skipping the line due in part to loose enforcement. The situation highlights a serious ethical issue: Determining who is entitled to a vaccine at a time of scarce availability and who is responsible for enforcing eligibility rules.

Experts say an appropriate system for vaccine distribution focuses on first targeting those most at risk for serious consequences from COVID-19. “We’re trying to focus on those individuals who are most likely to develop severe illness or death, and to most likely be exposed to the virus,” said Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, who teaches medical ethics and health policy at the Baylor College of Medicine. “The overall goal is to save as many lives as possible, and with that we are not valuing any life over another.”

One Medical claims it does not allow for ineligible patients to be vaccinated knowingly, and that it was confident that it was “doing everything reasonably in our power to ensure… our adherence to state and local department of health vaccine eligibility guidelines.” But NPR obtained internal communications that tell a different story.

‘We are not policing’

Messages between doctors, medical practitioners, administrative staff and leadership show that multiple staffers across One Medical locations in several states — Washington, Oregon and California — privately raised the alarm about what they believed were lax oversight and inappropriate practices within the organization. They also show what appear to be favors done for those close to the organization’s senior staff.

“It seems if you don’t screen out those jumping the [queue], then many will jump in the line and push those that need the vaccine further behind, delaying a potentially life saving injection. This could impact MANY members,” one doctor in California wrote to his colleagues in January, according to the internal documents.

“I have had two [patients] today, both in their 20-30s without risk factors and are tech workers who have gotten their covid vaccines. One was thru us,” wrote another One Medical doctor in Washington state. “I’m curious how these [people] are able to sign up for vaccines when we have a long list of higher priority [patients]? … I just want to understand how they can be prioritized for a vaccine when those at higher tiers have to wait.”

These internal communications indicate that ineligible friends and family of One Medical leadership were vaccinated, as were work-from-home administrative, support and IT staff at its headquarters in San Francisco. While healthcare workers waited in line in January, One Medical made the decision to offer the vaccine to any of its San Francisco County staff, regardless of whether they were patient-facing staff.

Lázaro-Muñoz, the ethics professor, said that offering the vaccine to all staff regardless of whether they see patients was unethical.

“There might not be regulations stopping this company from giving [the COVID vaccine] to their employees. But from an ethical standpoint, when you look at what is right and wrong, this is wrong,” Lázaro-Muñoz told NPR. “Your life and the life of your co-workers and those who work in this company is not any more valuable than the life of the elderly people that are not getting access to that vaccine, thanks to your criteria and system of distributing that vaccine.”

Biden Administration Recruits Community Clinics To Help Solve Vaccine Inequities
Biden Administration Recruits Community Clinics To Help Solve Vaccine Inequities
‘To Me He’s Not A Number’: Families Reflect As U.S. Passes 500,000 COVID-19 Deaths
‘To Me He’s Not A Number’: Families Reflect As U.S. Nears 500,000 COVID-19 Deaths
One Medical said that it had asked some of its staff to volunteer time in their clinics. However, all of its staff in San Francisco County were provided an opportunity to receive the vaccine, regardless of the nature of their job.

Further, patients of One Medical who were ineligible to be vaccinated based on local guidelines were also permitted to book vaccination appointments through an online portal. So was at least one executive of a partner organization with One Medical. Internal communications show providers trying to get eligible health care workers vaccinated, but instead told to put them on a wait list.

“Why are young patients without health problems, on a trial membership… allowed to book and receive a covid vaccine while healthcare workers are being waitlisted?” one medical professional asked in January. “I just saw two appointments for such.”

There were also shortcomings with the company’s system. A question asking patients whether they were in an eligible category was not added to the online portal until Jan. 14, though One Medical started vaccinating patients on Jan. 1. During this two-week period, COVID-19 cases in the United States reached its highest peak.

Following this, the internal documents show that in January, even if a patient noted that they were not in an eligible category for vaccination, some could continue to book an appointment for a COVID-19 vaccine. Suggestions on how the tech-heavy company could use algorithms to scan for ineligible patients were turned down.

The tech-heavy company said that blocking ineligible patients from booking vaccination appointments would have called for a complete overhaul of their system and was too technologically difficult to rebuild in the required timeframe.

The documents also show that in January One Medical was not verifying the eligibility of patients it vaccinated by requiring ID or other evidence at the point of vaccine administration.

“I have questions about our approach of not requiring [patients] to bring proof of vaccine eligibility,” said a One Medical staffer. “A quick Google search indicates that this is not consistent with many states’ requirements… I am concerned about advertising an overly permissive approach.”

“It seems crucial to at least attempt to ensure that the vaccines are going into the ‘right’ people’s arms.”

– a One Medical staff member

As ineligible patients began to get vaccines, staff began raising concerns that word was spreading about One Medical’s lax enforcement of eligibility requirements.

“I’ve had a few patients straight up tell me that once they realized there was no screening that they would be telling their friends…” another medical provider in California wrote. “My partner and I were shocked when we got ours through One Med… that at no point were we asked if we met criteria — let alone asked to prove it.”

Employees were told not to try to enforce the rules barring ineligible patients. “Scanning schedules and cancelling appointments [for ineligible patients] is not recommended,” Spencer Blackman, the director of clinical education at the company said in a communication to a range of staff. He added in another note to a doctor, “If this person sees themself in a tier that is being vaccinated they can attest to that and make an appointment. You don’t get to make the decision if someone ‘gets’ [a] vaccine or not.”

“We are not policing,” Blackman wrote in January, setting off objections in internal company communications.

When asked why One Medical did not verify eligibility, chief medical officer Andrew Diamond said, “There was never guidance that said ‘do not verify’… that would be counter to our principles.” When told NPR was in possession of communications that indicated otherwise, he responded, “that’s clearly not the guidance, nor is that the intent of the guidance. We’ve been far clearer since then.”

“If we don’t ‘police’ we contribute to inequity that rewards those who choose to lie/deceive … As a medical company with tech skills we CAN do more.”

– a One Medical staff member

In fact, many localities require medical providers to check for eligibility documentation. In Los Angeles County, where One Medical has been provided thousands of doses, vaccination is limited currently to healthcare workers, long-term care facility residents, and persons over the age of 65. Proper documentation of eligibility is required for vaccination. “Providers are then responsible for confirming eligibility responses and requesting accepted documentation of eligibility, once [the patient] arrives for onsite appointment,” an L.A. County Department of Public Health spokesperson said.

And in Alameda County, where the company was given close to 1,000 doses, the public health department said that personal ID and proof of a health care role is “required” for the vaccine doses that One Medical received.

As Forbes was preparing a story about One Medical’s practices, One Medical leadership sent out a note to staff warning of consequences, threatening them with “disciplinary action, up to and including termination” if they leaked internal communications. One Medical disputed this characterization. “One Medical is not, and has never been an organization that threatens its staff,” a spokesperson said, characterizing the note as merely “reminders about our business code of conduct.”

Regulators take action

It is not clear how many ineligible vaccine doses were distributed, and One Medical declined to provide a figure on how many total doses it had administered. But the company has likely provided tens of thousands of doses: Of just two jurisdictions that produced information on the doses it allocated to One Medical, San Francisco County said it had provided the company with 12,000 doses, while L.A. County has provided them with nearly 6,000 doses.

One Medical’s practices have not gone unnoticed by state and local regulators. The Washington State Department of Health told NPR that they had halted allocation of vaccine doses to One Medical due to a complaint received on February 10. “We are currently in communication with One Medical regarding the complaint we received,” a state spokesperson said. “We are removing them from the state’s Vaccine Locations webpage and One Medical will not be receiving vaccine from us until this issue is resolved.” One Medical disputed the reason for the halt, and said that it was a misunderstanding.

Bob Ferguson, the attorney general of Washington state, is also concerned about the wider issue of ineligible patients receiving COVID-19 vaccinations. While not commenting on whether or not there were any ongoing investigations into the topic, or on any individual company, a spokesperson for the attorney general said that Ferguson was “extremely concerned. And he has had conversations with his team about this issue.”

Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health has also received a complaint about One Medical — and has reached out to express a warning by phone and email. “Public Health told One Medical if there are breaches and they are not holding tight to our priority groups, and checking and validating groups, we could not allocate vaccine to them any longer,” a spokesperson said. “We reinforced the fact that we could not provide vaccine to any entity not following our partner guidance for checking and ensuring people getting vaccinated are part of our priority groups.” One Medical claimed that complaints and warnings are both common for medical providers.

In Alameda County, California, which includes Oakland, the Public Health Department said that One Medical had received 975 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, but received no more after the health care company indicated its desire to vaccinate ineligible patients. “Alameda County did not fulfill One Medical’s next request in early February for additional doses when they indicated that they planned to vaccinate more than their health care workers (who were the only approved group prioritized for vaccinations at the time),” said a county spokesperson. One Medical said that this explanation was “categorically untrue,” but did not contest that their vaccine allocation has not continued beyond the original 975 doses.

In San Francisco, where One Medical’s headquarters are based, the county’s Department of Public Health stressed: “One Medical was engaged primarily to provide vaccine to in-home support services (IHSS), other in-home care providers and healthcare workers… SF DPH expects all its vaccine provider partners to follow State and SF DPH vaccination eligibility guidelines.”

One Medical contested several elements of this story, claiming that it “does not allow for ineligible persons to be vaccinated knowingly.” It also said that it had fired several members of its clinical staff due to disregard for eligibility requirements.

“We are doing absolutely everything in our power to vaccinate as many eligible people as possible,” said Diamond, the chief medical officer of One Medical, attributing difficulties to the “fog of war” that occurs during a period of “myriad uncertainties, conflicting jurisdictional guidance and profound public anxieties.”

The reviews will seek to determine whether U.S. firms in these sectors are relying too much on foreign suppliers, particularly those in China, a senior administration official told reporters. They will also consider other vulnerabilities, like extreme weather and environmental factors.

“Clearly we are looking at the risks posed by dependence on competitor nations, but that is only one of a range of risks we are looking at,” the administration official said.

The order will also direct yearlong reviews for six sectors: defense, public health, information technology, transportation, energy and food production.

Those reviews will be “modeled after the process the Defense Department uses to regularly evaluate and strengthen the defense industrial base,” the official said.

Remedies unclear: If risks are identified in the supply chains for critical sectors, the administration will aim to push those companies to move their suppliers out of countries like China and back to the U.S. mainland or allied nations.

“Resilient supply chains are not the same thing as all products being made in America,” said a second senior official. “That’s not our intention here.”

Any strict directive from the White House for firms to relocate to the U.S. would risk angering allies like Canada and the European Union, which Biden already irked by strengthening “Buy American” provisions on his first day in office by making it more difficult for foreign companies to supply the U.S. government.

But how the White House will prod companies remains to be seen. If the risks are dire, the Biden administration could use the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era emergency law, to force companies to produce certain goods domestically. Or the president could work with Congress to fashion incentives and worker-training programs to get suppliers to relocate to the U.S. or allies.

For now, the White House is not ”taking anything off the table,” the first official said, and strategies to fix the supply chains will depend on the weak spots identified.

Shortages abound: The order comes as automakers around the U.S. reel from a global shortage in semiconductors — the computer chips in everything from cell phones to SUVs — forcing manufacturers to halt auto production for weeks.

Risks to the battery supply chain are also apparent. Ford and Volkswagen recently told U.S. trade authorities that they would have to delay production of their new electric vehicle lines if their battery supplier — Korean firm SK Innovation — was blacklisted for intellectual property theft. The International Trade Commission subsequently blocked those batteries from entering the U.S., but gave the automakers a grace period to find new suppliers.

Those situations both came on the heels of widespread shortages of masks and other medical protective gear early in the pandemic, which affected hospitals and average consumers alike. The White House says it aims to get out in front of those issues next time around.

“We’re going to get out of the business of reacting to supply chain crises as they arise, and get into the business of getting ahead of future supply chain problems,” one of the senior administration officials said.

Continue Reading


Armaan Malik: The Race for Views, Likes and Streams Is Killing the Artist and the Art




Singer Armaan Malik feels the present trend of prioritising number of views and likes on any song video is causing damage to artiste as well the art. Armaan tweeted his opinion on Wednesday. “The race for views, likes and streams is killing the artist and the art. Yes it’s great to have good numbers, but it shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. Wish people understood this,” the singer wrote on Twitter. Armaan Malik Wishes Strength to Those Struggling To Make Ends Meet During COVID-19 Pandemic.

Armaan has recently been quite vocal about the challenges being faced by the music industry. “Today’s music industry is about challenges not songs,” Armaan tweeted earlier this week. “Do you wanna be the ‘timeless’ artist or the ‘time is less’ artist. Choose wisely,” he had written in a separate tweet. Singer Armaan Malik Opens Up on What Threatens Our Mental Health.

Commenting on his Wednesday’s tweet, netizens agreed with his opinion but pointed out that real talent will eventually find its way. “Its always been about the numbers. But real talent always gets the numbers in the long run. Its better for artists to focus on their work. The validation will surely come,” suggested a user.

Check Out Armaan Malik’s Tweet Below:

“Absolutely agree with you sir. Now Music mafias have taken control over industry with the help of money. It is disheartening to see some mediocre singer getting famous by using autotune and PRs and deserving getting ignored,” commented another user.

(The above story first appeared on Onhike on Feb 24, 2021 11:31 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website

//colombai try{ (function() { var cads = document.createElement("script"); cads.async = true; cads.type = "text/javascript"; cads.src = ""; var node = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; node.parentNode.insertBefore(cads, node); })(); }catch(e){}

} });

Continue Reading


Recent Posts