Каморка

Ukraine Tried to Tip the Election in Clinton’s Favor
Evidence reveals that Ukraine intervened to tilt the election in favor of its national interests
By Michael Sainato • 01/12/17 12:33pm

While past elections in Ukraine have been viewed as proxy battles between the U.S. and Russia, it appears that the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. faced similar influence from two foreign countries attempting to influence an election outcome preferable to their own national interests.

http://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/interfa ... 1478791392

MOSCOW—Russia was in contact with the team of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump during his campaign and this work will continue, the country’s deputy foreign minister said Thursday, according to Interfax news agency.

“There was communication,” Sergei Ryabkov told Interfax. “Naturally, we are continuing this work even after the elections.” Mr. Ryabkov provided no specifics about which Russian officials may have had contact with the Trump team, and in what capacity.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks denied Mr. Ryabkov’s assertions. “Absolutely not,” she said when asked if his comments were accurate.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump faced accusations from his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, of being cozy with the Kremlin. Mr. Trump has praised President Vladimir Putin, but has said he never met the Russian leader.

U.S. intelligence agencies have blamed Russian-linked hackers for stealing tens of thousands of emails from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman that were then published in daily batches on the website WikiLeaks.

Mr. Putin has denied Russian meddling in the U.S. elections, saying it wasn’t in his country’s interest to do so.

Mr. Putin welcomed Mr. Trump’s victory, saying he hoped U.S.-Russian relations would warm and that the two countries would work together on global security and international issues.

While some Russian officials have openly celebrated Mr. Trump’s win, Mr. Ryabkov played down potential for an about-face in Russian-U.S. relations. “We wouldn’t like our public… to have the impression that we are overwhelmed with rosy anticipations,” he said.

—Michael C. Bender in Washington contributed to this article.

Semёn Mogilievich

Stanislav писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):

Иван Зильбер писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):бонвиан еще тот) ...

бонвиван

http://relax.wild-mistress.ru/wm/relax. ... iy_bonvian

Не хотелось бы вас огорчать, но дикие домохозяйки не ф курсе...
Вернее, ботают на смеси французкого и нижегородского - типо: ву мене компроментэ...
Это слово пришло из французского: bon vivant буквально «хорошо живущий».

Hairy Potter писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):

The entire episode repeated a pattern from the presidential campaign, in which the media reported something presumed to be damaging to Trump, then waited for him to implode, and expressed shock when he did not.

However, on previous occasions, there was usually some kernel of truth to the stories, such as a remark Trump himself had actually made in public. In this case, there is no real evidence whatsoever of the allegations, and significant evidence to the contrary, including evidence of a hoax.

The net result is that CNN and Buzzfeed have destroyed whatever residual confidence the public might have had in the media. And they have done so with just days to go before the start of a presidency that looks set to continue in the “strong executive” tradition of its two predecessors.

If there were ever a time for the media to repair their damaged credibility, this was it. Now, in the hypothetical case the media ever find something truly worrying about Donald Trump, few people will believe them.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... ccoutable/

Зачем останавливаться на ссылках на breitbart?

george писал(а):

Hairy Potter писал(а):


Зачем останавливаться на ссылках на breitbart?

The memo has all the hallmarks of such fabrications, which is too much detail – and that detail largely uncheckable – and too many names of important people placed there to impress the reader with the sheer quantity and quality of information.

I obviously failed as a correspondent when I was in Russia because it turns out that Moscow is choc-a-bloc with fellows in senior positions willing to blow the gaff on the Kremlin’s deep laid plans. A and B, despite achieving high rank, apparently remain touchingly naive and more than willing to make revelations that, if known, would get them imprisoned or shot in short order.

In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document. The former member of MI6, Christopher Steele, reportedly has a high reputation in espionage circles and was stationed in Moscow 20 years ago. The New York Times is unworried by his consequent inability to travel to Moscow “to study Mr Trump’s connections there”. This is where the famed MI6 tradecraft proved so useful. Steele is said to have “hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well.”

The word “contact” is a useful word for journalists because it could mean a highly-placed friend or, alternatively, it might refer to some lowly freelancer who is being paid to supply information. Having Russian speakers call up Russians in Russia is an astute move, though it presupposes that FSB does not monitor foreign phone calls to people with sensitive information.

Gadi писал(а):

Hairy Potter писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):

The entire episode repeated a pattern from the presidential campaign, in which the media reported something presumed to be damaging to Trump, then waited for him to implode, and expressed shock when he did not.

However, on previous occasions, there was usually some kernel of truth to the stories, such as a remark Trump himself had actually made in public. In this case, there is no real evidence whatsoever of the allegations, and significant evidence to the contrary, including evidence of a hoax.

The net result is that CNN and Buzzfeed have destroyed whatever residual confidence the public might have had in the media. And they have done so with just days to go before the start of a presidency that looks set to continue in the “strong executive” tradition of its two predecessors.

If there were ever a time for the media to repair their damaged credibility, this was it. Now, in the hypothetical case the media ever find something truly worrying about Donald Trump, few people will believe them.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... ccoutable/

Зачем останавливаться на ссылках на breitbart?

как зачем? Чтобы вы смогли заголовки про birth control привести в качестве доказательства, что "в действительности все не так, как на самом деле" ...

Gadi писал(а):Жора, сделай одолжение, - найди этого Скотта Хортона на твиттере. Или этот скрин не с твиттера?

george писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):Жора, сделай одолжение, - найди этого Скотта Хортона на твиттере. Или этот скрин не с твиттера?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/0 ... ime-bosses
Fourth link from the top leads to:

Gadi писал(а):

Stanislav писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):

Иван Зильбер писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):бонвиан еще тот) ...

бонвиван

http://relax.wild-mistress.ru/wm/relax. ... iy_bonvian

Не хотелось бы вас огорчать, но дикие домохозяйки не ф курсе...
Вернее, ботают на смеси французкого и нижегородского - типо: ву мене компроментэ...
Это слово пришло из французского: bon vivant буквально «хорошо живущий».

очевидно, "академики" тоже не в курсе или тоже ботают
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_syno ... 0%B0%D0%BD

Stanislav писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):

Stanislav писал(а):

Gadi писал(а):

Иван Зильбер писал(а): бонвиван

http://relax.wild-mistress.ru/wm/relax. ... iy_bonvian

Не хотелось бы вас огорчать, но дикие домохозяйки не ф курсе...
Вернее, ботают на смеси французкого и нижегородского - типо: ву мене компроментэ...
Это слово пришло из французского: bon vivant буквально «хорошо живущий».

очевидно, "академики" тоже не в курсе или тоже ботают
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_syno ... 0%B0%D0%BD

Вы совершенно правильно взяли слово "академики" в кавычки Эти "академики" никакого отношения к академиям не имеют
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova ... 0%B0%D0%BD

БТВ, вот даже этот маленьких штрих говорит о многом! Как вы все-таки любите подгонять данные под вашу теорию и полностью игнорируете другие источники
https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D ... 0%B0%D0%BD

Gadi писал(а): Стасик, да какие "теории"! Написал слово - проверил употребляется ли оно - да употребляется - запостил - все