Regarding June 9 Notable in #10394 I did some more digging and came across an "Anonymous" Opinion article in the New York Times June 9, 1995…
It contains the phrases "symbolism was important" "shot heard round the world" and "engage in sterile combat in the months to come." HOLY SHIT!
June 9, 2016 - Trump Tower Meeting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting
June 9, 2017 - Trump accuses Comey of lying under oath.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/politics/trump-comey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
June 9, 2018 - Saturday, but June 8, 2018 2. Mueller issues new charges against Paul Manafort and aide Konstantin Kilimnik
https://theweek.com/10things/776686/10-things-need-know-today-june-9-2018
June 9, 2019 - Sunday New York Times, People Are Trying to Figure Out William Barr. He’s Busy Stockpiling Power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/09/us/politics/who-is-william-barr.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
June 9, 2020 - Natalie Mayflower Edwards
A former U.S. Treasury official pleaded guilty Monday to illegally leaking highly confidential documents about suspicious financial transactions by ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and others to reporters at BuzzFeed News.
Section A, Page 28
Mr. Clinton's First Veto
June 9, 1995
If not the shot heard round the world, President Clinton's veto of a Republican-sponsored $16.4 billion budget cut was a welcome and overdue display of White House resolve.
The money involved was minimal but the symbolism was important. The veto suggests a willingness by Mr. Clinton to take some risks in battling the Republican assault on his programs. He will need to do so again if he is to salvage his Presidency and define what it stands for.
The main risk was that Mr. Clinton would be seen as an opponent of fiscal responsibility and, specifically, as an enemy of humanitarian relief. The bill provided funds for victims of the disasters in California and Oklahoma.
The veto might also have been interpreted as a signal that he had given up hope of negotiating his differences with Congress. Since taking office, the President has tried hard not to be seen as confrontational. This was, in fact, his first veto. No President has waited so long to wield the veto power since the 1850's.
But the issues defined by Mr. Clinton were the right ones, giving him credibility for the next time he confronts a hostile Congress. He objected to cuts for education and training, environmental protection, nutrition programs and other important areas. It is unthinkable, as he said, that these programs should be trimmed to make room for pork-barrel projects.
Although he did not make much of the environmental issue, a provision sought by logging interests to allow indiscriminate timber cutting on Federal lands would have been sufficient reason to say no.
Mr. Clinton signaled a readiness to compromise. Both he and the Republicans, who also made accommodating noises, sense that Americans want the two sides to work together rather than engage in sterile combat in the months to come.
Future veto battles will be more difficult than this one, and Mr. Clinton must stick to principle. The veto is his only power to influence legislation, but it cannot by itself force Congress to approve legislation to the Administration's liking. In such areas as welfare reform, environmental changes and foreign aid – where the Administration has hinted that a veto might be necessary – the President needs to accompany his threats with a clear outline of the alternatives he seeks.
A version of this article appears in print on June 9, 1995, Section A, Page 28 of the National edition with the headline: Mr. Clinton's First Veto
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/09/opinion/mr-clinton-s-first-veto.html?searchResultPosition=1