Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Q: Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller broke his own record this week for guilty pleas. On Tuesday  Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan appeared in federal court and admitted he had lied to investigators about his contacts with  Donald Trump's former campaign vice chairman  Rick Gates .
On Friday   Gates himself  appeared before a federal judge and confirmed that  he  is changing  his  plea to guilty.  He  had been fighting the case brought against  him  and the former Trump campaign chairman  Paul Manafort  which alleged they laundered millions of dollars and broke other laws related to their work for clients in Ukraine.
 Gates  and Manafort have not been charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by "impairing  obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes." That was the charge Mueller leveled at 13 Russians and three Russian companies he says did interfere with the election.
Or the special counsel's office could be laying down one brick in a larger structure. At the very least   Gates'  future testimony against  his  longtime business partner raises the likelihood that Manafort could be convicted of some or all of the charges  he  continues fighting.
Manafort and his lawyers know this. So one of Mueller's strategies in getting  Gates  to turn state's evidence might be to persuade Manafort to do the same and tell what he knows about other people in the Trump campaign orbit.
Or evidence from  Gates  might be what the special counsel's office needs to build a case against Manafort for conspiring in the 2016 Russian interference effort. Or  after years of working with Manafort   Gates  might have other evidence that would permit Mueller to bring new charges against Manafort.
Mueller announced a new indictment in Manafort's case on Friday evening. After  Gates  appeared in federal court Friday to enter his plea  Manafort continued to maintain his innocence and said he remained committed "to defend myself against the untrue piled up charges contained in the indictments against me."

A: Gates
****
Q: In a recent New York Times article  Dr. Willie Parker says he believes “that as an abortion provider  [he is] doing God’s work.” It’s his Christian faith  the author contends  that drives him to abort babies. His “Life’s Work” (as his new book is ironically titled) is to end life for every preborn child that comes before him.
The Jewish people  some of whom later became the first Christians  were to avoid partaking in the practices of the surrounding peoples  who sacrificed their children to appease their gods. Christians have long held that to abort one’s child as an act of worship to the gods of convenience is not permitted by the God of the Bible. But abortion advocates will attempt to play the “he’s a Christian” card by spinning opposition from Christians to imply  Parker  is persecuted within  his  own faith tradition.
The second thing abortion elites love about  Parker  is  his  skin color. Any opposition he faces from white pro-lifers not associated with Christianity can be easily dismissed as bigotry. Sweep under the rug for a minute that even black celebrities are accusing abortion providers in black communities of genocide. While Planned Parenthood’s media arm proclaims support of black lives  its other arm is reaching for a pair of forceps to end life for hundreds of black babies each day.
In the tradition of the black slave owners in the Confederate South  Parker makes his money by breaking the backs (or spines and what-have-you) of others  many of whom share his skin color. He can’t admit that his work (some have called it his “ministry”) hurts his own people or it’d affect his bottom line. Abortion advocates want us all to simply accept that black lives only matter once they’ve had the privilege of being born. This brings us to the final contradiction of  Parker ’s platform.
 Parker  considers  himself  a feminist.  He  believes  he  is bettering the future for females. Don’t think too long about the number of female lives  he ’s ended before they’ve begun. This is nothing new to the insane logic of abortion advocacy. If they can successfully shift our attention off the rights of the life inside the womb to the perceived “rights” the pregnant woman has over her inhabited womb  they’ve succeeded.
 Parker ’s public persona is a farce.  He  parades the myth that  he  has a moral responsibility to “help women” while  he  strips them of their own responsibility to the children they’ve conceived. Christianity places value upon the lives of black women  so much so that it envisions a world in which their lives aren’t ended in the womb. But maybe we’re the ones who are deceiving pregnant women? Perhaps we’re the ones getting rich by volunteering with crisis pregnancy centers and giving away free pregnancy tests  ultrasounds  and diapers.

A: Willie Parker
****
Q: Devin Nunes' announcement came one week after The Hill published  a report on a "racketeering scheme ... designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow ."
 The Hill's report  largely echoed those claims  alleging that Russian officials tried to "ingratiate themselves with the Clintons" by transferring "millions of dollars from Russia's nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton's foundation."
The Iowa Republican sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last Wednesday asking whether the Department of Justice was investigating the fact that  former President Bill Clinton  was paid for a speech around the time that the US government approved the Uranium One deal  and that Russians donated millions to the Clinton Foundation years before the uranium deal.
Trump used the uranium deal to try to undercut  Clinton  during the campaign and draw scrutiny away from  his  own potential Russia ties. He claimed in October 2016 that  Clinton  gave uranium to Russia "for a big payment " which The Washington Post later said was inaccurate.
Fact checkers more broadly have been quick to push back on characterizations of the uranium deal as a quid pro quo between  Clinton  and Russia  and PolitiFact found that the US produces such little uranium that the "concerns were out of proportion."
The Post's fact checker reported last year that although the State Department was one of several agencies that would have been able to approve the 2010 deal  "there is no evidence  Clinton  herself got involved in the deal personally  and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state."
"Theoretically  as Schweizer says   Clinton  could have intervened " The Post reported. "But even then  it ultimately would have been Obamaâs decision whether to suspend or block the deal."

A:
Bill Clinton
****