Trump -psykoosi

[tulikomento]

Kuinkahan suuri merkitys Reaganin avustajilla oli harjoitettuun politiikkaan? Kunnioitettu Venäjän vallankumouksen historioitsija, viime vuoden toukokuussa menehtynyt Richard Pipes taisi olla aika suuresti vastuussa harjoitetusta politiikasta, jolla pyrittiin iskemään suoraan 'pahuuden valtakuntaan'. Tarina kertoo Reaganin aina komu-Venäjään liittyvissä asioissa kysyneen Pipesilta, että 'what does Dick think?'.

Eli kuinka paljon näillä 'hyvillä' demokraattisilla valtiomiehillä oli tai on omia villoja?

Reaganilla ei ollut myöskään pikaviestimiä käytössään kuten Trumpilla, joten jokainen aivopieru ei päätynyt eetteriin sekunnin kymmenyksen harkitsemisajalla.

Reaganin lähipiiriä taisivat olla puolustusministeri Weinberger ja ulkoministeri Schultz. Turvallisuuspoliittinen neuvonantaja Robert McFarlane oli myös mies jota Reagan kuunteli.

 

[totuuskomissio]

Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook caught Russia and Iran trying to interfere in 2020

"They are highly sophisticated. They signal that these nation-states intend to be active in the upcoming elections," Zuckerberg told NBC News' Lester Holt.

Oct. 21, 2019, 7:53 PM EEST / Updated Oct. 21, 2019, 8:00 PM EEST
By Jason Abbruzzese

Facebook unveiled new plans Monday to fight 2020 election interference. It will clearly label news that comes from state-owned media, and will give greater transparency for the origins of Facebook pages. And it has already found interference coming from authoritarian regimes overseas.
In an interview with NBC News, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company has thwarted new interference campaigns from Russia and Iran that it regards as the groundwork for future manipulation efforts.

"We continue to see their tactics are evolving," Zuckerberg said in the interview with Lester Holt, which will air Monday evening on "NBC Nightly News." "Today, what we're basically announcing is that we found a set of campaigns. They are highly sophisticated. They signal that these nation-states intend to be active in the upcoming elections."

Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook caught Russia and Iran trying to interfere in 2020

"They are highly sophisticated. They signal that these nation-states intend to be active in the upcoming elections," Zuckerberg told NBC News' Lester Holt.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Vakaa Nero]

Tuohon asuinpaikan valintaan koulun saamien pisteiden perusteella olen itsekin törmännyt. Wichitan suunnalla se ainoa oikea asuinpaikka kuuluu olevan Andover ja haku alkoi heti lapsen synnyttyä. Ihan perskohtaisen havainnoinnin perusteella näyttäisi löytyvän myös korrelaatio alueen asukkaiden varallisuuden ja laadukkaan koulutuksen välille. Mielenkiintoista kuitenkin että ilmeisen varakkaatkin ihmiset hakeutuvat nimenomaan laadukkaaseen julkiseen kouluun yksityisen sijasta. Ehkä rahalle ei saa vastinetta jos on varaa asua parempien ihmisten alueella?

Parhaat julkiset oppilaitokset ovat tosiaan hyvinkin yksityisten veroisia. Jos on varaa asua hyvällä alueella, niin se tuo muutenkin mukanaan paljon hyviä asioita, kuten verkostoja ja turvallisuutta. Sen päälle ei kannata enää maksaa yksityiskoulusta. Monella ei peffa kestä kallista asumista, jolloin maksullinen yksityiskoulu tuo edes lapselle samat edut.

 

[Kent Uranium]

Voihan siinä vielä käydä niin että demokraattien ehdokasmassasta nousee Clintonin tai Obaman tavoin joku esiin ja vie koko potin. Sitä odotellessa...

Ja lehmätkin lentävät..

 

[taantumu]

Trump vertasi viraltapanoprosessia lynkkaukseen. Vertaus on hivenen ontuva sillä toinen on perustuslakiin kirjattu toimenpide ja toinen taas mihinkään lakiin perustumaton.

President Trump on Tuesday called the impeachment inquiry into him a “lynching,” using a term associated with the murders of blacks to describe a process set up by the Constitution for Congress.
In an early morning tweet, he added that the impeachment inquiry is “without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” and he encouraged Republicans to remember this in the future.

So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2019

The term lynching invokes the decades-long racist history of white mob murders of African Americans beginning in the late 1800s through 1968, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

It was a remarkable term for the president to use to describe a legal process laid out in the Constitution.

Mr. Trump’s Twitter outburst comes as pressure builds with the stream of testimony from current and former administration officials about his efforts to use the power of the White House for personal gain.

The president regularly uses his Twitter feed to make hyperbolic declarations, but he has not used the term “lynching” in a tweet since 2015, during the Republican primary campaign. The president’s word choice drew immediate criticism.

“You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING? What the hell is wrong with you,” Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois and a former Black Panther leader, said in a Twitter post.
“I know the history of that word,” Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina and the House majority whip, said on CNN Tuesday. “That is a word that we ought to be very, very careful about.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[TT]

Tässä olisi kova pari 2020:

Trump on ihan hauska mutta haluaisitko oikeasti Penceä vaikuttajaksi? Se on oikeasti pelottavan maaninen tyyppi. Täällä ollaan melko sentristejä kuitenkin, kaiken kaikkiaan.

 

[TT]

Ja lehmätkin lentävät..

Ei tule. Bennet oli hyvä, Klobuchar ihan kohtalainen, Biden ja muut kelvottomia. Voi mennä tämäkin erä Republikaaneille. Ah ja voi. Itsekin saattaisit sanoa kassalla että mieluummin jotain muuta kuin tuota Trumppendaalia mutta minkäs teet.

 

[TT]

Ja lehmätkin lentävät..

Hillary sai äänienemmistön. Kyl kaikki ihmeellinen lentää. Mieluummin lentämistä pitäis rajoittaa

 

[Sardaukar]

Trump on ihan hauska mutta haluaisitko oikeasti Penceä vaikuttajaksi? Se on oikeasti pelottavan maaninen tyyppi. Täällä ollaan melko sentristejä kuitenkin, kaiken kaikkiaan.

Ehken GOP voisi tietysti löytää jonkin järkevämmänkin...en tosin pidätä hengitystäni....

 

[Quixote]

Jos siellä on taas Hillary vs Trump vuonna 2020, mikä muuttuu? Demokraatit ovat valmiita ottamaan turpiin uudestaan?

 

[taantumu]

Jos siellä on taas Hillary vs Trump vuonna 2020, mikä muuttuu? Demokraatit ovat valmiita ottamaan turpiin uudestaan?

Clintonhan on jo aiemmin ilmoittanut ettei lähde enää presidenttikilpaan.

 

[ILoveEU]

Trump vertasi viraltapanoprosessia lynkkaukseen. Vertaus on hivenen ontuva sillä toinen on perustuslakiin kirjattu toimenpide ja toinen taas mihinkään lakiin perustumaton.

Lindsey Graham on samaa mieltä Trumpin kanssa. Perusteluna se, että demarit toimivat lainpykälien suhteen harmaalla alueella. Trumpin puoli ei voi kuulustella todistajia (tarkoittaen pilliinpuhaltajaa plus mitälie), eikä kutsua todistajiksi haluamiaan henkilöitä.


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said President Trump is absolutely right to call the House impeachment process a “lynching.”

“This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American,” Graham said to reporters.

“I’ve never seen a situation in my lifetime as a lawyer where somebody is accused of a major misconduct who cannot confront the accuser, call witnesses on their behalf and have the discussion in the light of day so the public can judge,” he said.

Graham backs Trump: ‘This is a lynching in every sense’

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said President Trump is absolutely right to call the House impeachment process a “lynching.”“This is a lynching in every sense…

thehill.com

 

[Panssari Salama]

Ei vastaaja ja hänen lakimiehensä koskaan pääse kuulustelemaan todistajia syytevaiheessa, vaan itse oikeudenkäynnissä. Kunhan yrittävätvinkua muotoseikoista, kun muita puolustuksia ei ole.

 

[taantumu]

Virkaatekevä Ukrainan suurlähettiläs William Taylor kävi kongressin kuultavana ja kertoi sotilasavun antamisen riippuneen suoraan Bidenin pojan tutkimisesta.

The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain.

Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. testified behind closed doors in the House impeachment probe of Trump that he stands by his characterization that it was “crazy” to make the assistance contingent on investigations he found troubling.

Upon arriving in Kyiv last spring he became alarmed by secondary diplomatic channels involving U.S. officials that he called “weird,” Taylor said, according to a copy of his lengthy opening statement obtained by The Washington Post.

Taylor walked lawmakers through a series of conversations he had with other U.S. diplomats who were trying to obtain what one called the “deliverable” of Ukrainian help investigating Trump’s political rivals.

Taylor said he spoke to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the U.S. envoy to the European Union.

“During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President [Volodymyr] Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor said in the statement.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter had been a board member of Burisma, a large Ukrainian gas company. Joe Biden is a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

“Amb. Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Amb. Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,’” Taylor told House investigators.

“He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.’

Taylor was called to testify before committees considering whether to impeach Trump because he had raised alarms about Trump administration interactions with Zelensky.

“It was just the most damning testimony I’ve heard,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in an interview partway into Taylor’s testimony.

Taylor’s testimony had been expected to fill in some blanks about the activities of U.S. officials who appear to have sought Ukrainian help at the behest of Trump and his personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
At issue is whether the White House conditioned military aid and a meeting between the two presidents on Zelensky’s cooperation.

“He drew a very specific direct line from President Trump to the withholding of foreign aid and the refusal of a meeting,” between Trump and the new Ukrainian leader, Wasserman Schultz said, “directly related to both insisting on Zelensky publicly say that he’ll have an investigation, that they will investigate.”

Taylor did not comment as he arrived on Capitol Hill for what was expected to be several hours of closed-door testimony.

An official working on the impeachment inquiry said Tuesday that Taylor is testifying under subpoena after the State Department attempted to block his appearance.

“The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to compel his testimony this morning,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the arrangements. “As is required of him, Ambassador Taylor is now complying with the subpoena and answering questions from both Democratic and Republican Members and staff.”

Taylor took the job on temporary assignment earlier this year after the sitting ambassador was removed, in what she told the committees was political retaliation by the Trump administration.

Taylor, a retired former ambassador to Ukraine and a foreign policy elder statesman, had exchanged text messages with two other diplomats in which he called it “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” and a “nightmare scenario.”

“It’s like if you have a 1,000 piece puzzle, which is what this is,” Wasserman Schultz said. “This filled in a ton of that puzzle.”

She and other Democratic lawmakers said Taylor’s morning testimony stood in contrast to the appearance last week of Sondland, a Trump donor and a key player in efforts to secure a statement from Zelensky committing to investigations.

“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Hours before Taylor arrived, Trump called the impeachment inquiry a “lynching,” drawing swift condemnation from Democrats. Some accused the president of using race to attempt to distract from what Taylor may say.

Taylor agreed to go to Kyiv as a placeholder ambassador because he thought the U.S.-Ukraine relationship was at a critical moment following Zelensky’s election last spring, other diplomats said.

Taylor wanted to reinforce U.S. support for Zelensky’s anti-corruption agenda and his independence from Russia, people who know Taylor said.

He also told friends he worried that the relationship would drift after the forced recall of former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, and he made it clear within the State Department that he objected to her treatment, current and former administration officials said.

On July 21, four days before Trump and Zelensky had a phone call in which Trump asked Zelensky to conduct those investigations, Taylor exchanged text messages with Sondland.

Zelensky wants Ukraine to be “taken seriously” and not just serve as “an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics,” Taylor told Sondland, a key player in the effort to draw Ukraine into the election-related investigations.

And on Sept. 1, the day Vice President Pence was set to meet with Zelensky, Taylor again texted Sondland.

“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Taylor asked.
“Call me,” Sondland replied, in what Democrats have said is probably an effort to prevent a paper trail.

On Sept. 8, Taylor and Sondland tried to get on the phone with Kurt Volker, then the special U.S. envoy for Ukraine, but Volker couldn’t hear the conversation.

“Gordon and I just spoke,” Taylor texted Volker. “I can brief you if you and Gordon don’t connect.” Taylor continued: “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”

Taylor probably was referring to a potential statement to the press from the Zelensky government committing to the investigations. He was apparently worried that Zelensky would give in, but still not receive his promised aid, and that Russia would then use that opening to portray the new Ukrainian leader as a patsy.

Volker turned over copies of the text messages when he testified voluntarily earlier this month.

“The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key,” Taylor texted the next day. “With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.”

Sondland replied, saying that “we have identified the best pathway forward.”

“As I said on the phone,” Taylor replied, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Five hours went by before Sondland replied. Sondland later testified that he was relaying only what Trump had told him in an intervening phone call.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” he wrote. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

Democrats have pointed to that message, which differs in tone and detail from the chatty earlier exchanges, as an effort to establish a cover story.

Taylor is a former Army officer and Vietnam War veteran who has served in government posts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He is expected to return to his senior position at the U.S. Institute for Peace sometime next year.

His is the first of two planned closed-door depositions this week.

Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense whose portfolio includes Russia and Ukraine, will testify in a closed session Wednesday, according to an official working on the process.

Several other closed-door depositions will be rescheduled this week due to events honoring the late congressman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the official said.

House investigators were expected to hear from Ambassador Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, and Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget — but those depositions will no longer take place Wednesday, according to the official.

Neither party wins positive marks from Americans for their handling of the impeachment inquiry, according to a new poll, though Republicans fare worse.

Forty-three percent approve of how Democrats are handling the inquiry, while 49 percent disapprove, according to the poll released Tuesday by CNN that was conducted by SSRS.
By contrast, 30 percent of Americans approve of the way Republicans are handling the impeachment inquiry, while 57 percent disapprove.

In a Monday tweet, however, Office of Management and Budget acting director Russ Vought said he and Duffey would not comply with deposition requests. Reports indicating otherwise, he wrote, were “Fake News.” His tweet included the hashtag “#shamprocess.”

Trump urged his party on Monday to “get tougher and fight” against his impeachment as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) distributed a “fact sheet” outlining what her office called a gross abuse of presidential power, including a “shakedown,” “pressure campaign” and “cover up.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

 

[ILoveEU]

Ei vastaaja ja hänen lakimiehensä koskaan pääse kuulustelemaan todistajia syytevaiheessa, vaan itse oikeudenkäynnissä. Kunhan yrittävätvinkua muotoseikoista, kun muita puolustuksia ei ole.

Ei ole syytteessä. Ja vaikka olisi, niin saako puolustukselta salata esitutkintamateriaalia? Ei tietenkään, mutta demarit tekevät niin, koska puhaltajan pöytäkirjat on salattu, ja demarit ovat vuotaneet vain heille sopivat kohdat medialle. Republikaanit eivät tiedä puhaltajan henkilöllisyyttä, eivätkä ole päässeet puhuttelemaan ainakaan ko. henkilöä, ja taisi olla vielä muitakin todistajia, jotka salattiin.

Ja vaikka kongressin oikeudenkäynti tulisi, niin Trump ei pääse edes silloin kohtaamaan todistajaa. Demarit kun ajavat puhaltajan henkilöllisyyden salaamista kongressilta, jolloin republikaanit/Trump eivät saa ikinä tietää puhaltajan henkilöllisyyttä.

Democrats may keep whistleblower identity from Republicans in Congress: report

House Democrats are reportedly considering steps to keep the whistleblower's identity from their Republican colleagues in order to prevent a loyalist to President Trump from leaking the whistleblower's identity to the public.

www.foxnews.com

Where’s the whistleblower? Key GOP questions about Schiff’s contact may never be answered - Washington Examiner

House Republicans are eager to ask the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry a variety of questions about the scope and frequency of his contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.They also want to know about the California Democrat's role in orchestrating...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Sardaukar]

Ei ole syytteessä. Ja vaikka olisi, niin saako puolustukselta salata esitutkintamateriaalia? Ei tietenkään, mutta demarit tekevät niin, koska puhaltajan pöytäkirjat on salattu, ja demarit ovat vuotaneet vain heille sopivat kohdat medialle. Republikaanit eivät tiedä puhaltajan henkilöllisyyttä, eivätkä ole päässeet puhuttelemaan ainakaan ko. henkilöä, ja taisi olla vielä muitakin todistajia, jotka salattiin.

Ja vaikka kongressin oikeudenkäynti tulisi, niin Trump ei pääse edes silloin kohtaamaan todistajaa. Demarit kun ajavat puhaltajan henkilöllisyyden salaamista kongressilta, jolloin republikaanit/Trump eivät saa ikinä tietää puhaltajan henkilöllisyyttä.

Democrats may keep whistleblower identity from Republicans in Congress: report

House Democrats are reportedly considering steps to keep the whistleblower's identity from their Republican colleagues in order to prevent a loyalist to President Trump from leaking the whistleblower's identity to the public.

www.foxnews.com

Where’s the whistleblower? Key GOP questions about Schiff’s contact may never be answered - Washington Examiner

House Republicans are eager to ask the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry a variety of questions about the scope and frequency of his contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.They also want to know about the California Democrat's role in orchestrating...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Alkaa olla Trumpin kannattajilta aika epätoivoista. Tottakai haluaisivat henkilöllisyyden esille että pääsisivät pelottelemaan.

Todistajan henkilöllisyyden salaaminen kun on monissa tapauksissa arkipäivää. Se on Suomenkin laissa:

Anonyymi todistaminen - Minilex

www.minilex.fi

Vuoden 2016 alusta alkaen tuomioistuin on voinut eräissä vakavimmissa rikosasioissa päättää, että henkilö kuullaan rikosasiassa anonyymina todistajana, eli siten, että tämän henkilöllisyys salataan, syyttäjän, epäillyn tai vastaajan kirjallisesta hakemuksesta.
.............................
Anonyymi todistaminen tarkoittaa käytännössä siis sitä, että todistajan henkilöllisyyttä eikä yhteystietoja paljasteta. Anonyymi todistaja saa kieltäytyä todistamasta siltä osin kuin todistaminen saattaisi paljastaa hänen henkilöllisyytensä tai yhteystietonsa.

 

[M-1]

Nyt tiietää missä menee raja. Republikaanit ja trumpin kannattajathan hyväksyis saman toiminnan hillary clintonillekkin... eiks ni?

Yhdysvaltain Ukrainan-lähettiläs vahvistaa: Trump vaati Ukrainaa tutkimaan Bideneita vastineeksi sotilasavusta

Tänään klo 4:11
Yhdysvaltain Ukrainan-lähettiläs todisti kymmenisen tuntia kongressin komitealle, joka selvittää Donald Trumpin asettamista virkarikossyytteeseen.

Yhdysvaltain Ukrainan-lähettiläs vahvistaa: Trump vaati Ukrainaa tutkimaan Bideneita vastineeksi sotilasavusta

Yhdysvaltain Ukrainan-lähettiläs todisti kymmenisen tuntia kongressin komitealle, joka selvittää Donald Trumpin asettamista virkarikossyytteeseen.

www.iltalehti.fi

 

[ILoveEU]

Alkaa olla Trumpin kannattajilta aika epätoivoista. Tottakai haluaisivat henkilöllisyyden esille että pääsisivät pelottelemaan.

Kannattaa muistaa, että demarien täytyy saada republikaanit puolelleen. Tällä tavoin se ei onnistu.

Puhaltaja asiallisesti teki ilmoituksen, eli viranomaisille. Eli pelottelu on siltä osin turhaa. Ainut mikä on epäselvää on se, että puhaltaja oli yhteydessä ennen ilmoitusta demokraatteihin ja oliko vielä muihinkin Trumpin vastustajiin. Siinä voi olla rikoksen paikka, koska se jo lähentyy toiminnaltaan vakoiluun.

Lisäksi oma juttunsa on se, että puhaltaja oli omien sanojen kuullut toisilta henkilöiltä. Eli nämä toiset henkilöt saattoivat tehdä rikoksen. Edit: Tai varmasti tekivätkin, koska presidentin puhelun kuuntelu ja sen vuotaminen ulkopuolisille on pakko kuulua vakoiluun.

Haisee poliittiselta korruptiolta, niin kuin ryssägate.

No siinäpä häsläävät, kun republikaanit eivät Trumpia pois potki.

 

[Hanski]

Kannattaa muistaa, että demarien täytyy saada republikaanit puolelleen. Tällä tavoin se ei onnistu.

Puhaltaja asiallisesti teki ilmoituksen, eli viranomaisille. Eli pelottelu on siltä osin turhaa. Ainut mikä on epäselvää on se, että puhaltaja oli yhteydessä ennen ilmoitusta demokraatteihin ja oliko vielä muihinkin Trumpin vastustajiin. Siinä voi olla rikoksen paikka, koska se jo lähentyy toiminnaltaan vakoiluun.

Lisäksi oma juttunsa on se, että puhaltaja oli omien sanojen kuullut toisilta henkilöiltä. Eli nämä toiset henkilöt saattoivat tehdä rikoksen. Edit: Tai varmasti tekivätkin, koska presidentin puhelun kuuntelu ja sen vuotaminen ulkopuolisille on pakko kuulua vakoiluun.

Haisee poliittiselta korruptiolta, niin kuin ryssägate.

No siinäpä häsläävät, kun republikaanit eivät Trumpia pois potki.

Eli ilmeisesti on ihan OK kiristää toista valtiota sotilasavulla, jotta tämä valtio aloittaisi korruptiotutkinnan poliittisesta vastustajasta? Jos Hillarystä olisi tullut presidentti, olisiko hänkin voinut toimia näin? Tai Barack aikaisemmin?

 

[ILoveEU]

Eli ilmeisesti on ihan OK kiristää toista valtiota sotilasavulla, jotta tämä valtio aloittaisi korruptiotutkinnan poliittisesta vastustajasta? Jos Hillarystä olisi tullut presidentti, olisiko hänkin voinut toimia näin? Tai Barack aikaisemmin?

Niinhän ne tekivätkin, samasta paikasta, eli Ukrainasta. Trump teki täsmälleen saman, minkä demokraatit/Hillary. Minä siis luotan Lawfareblogin ylläpitäjän Benjamin Wittesin arvioon, eli teossa ei ole mitään väärää, koska se tehtiin virallisia kanavia pitkin.


Politico headlined "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story details the work of a Ukrainian-American consultant to the Democratic National Committee who looked for compromising information about former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

So, according to American intelligence agencies, the Kremlin shaped and directed the email hacking of Democrats and subsequent distribution. In contrast, a variety of actors on the Ukrainian side responded to American queries and provided public documents.

Which leads to the other big distinction: The Russians got their materials through cyber-attacks, while the only telling document revealed by a Ukrainian lawmaker was the product of an official investigation.

"There’s a difference between dealing with the embassy and dealing with a covert intelligence operation," Wittes said. "Are you dealing with government records, or are you dealing in stolen dirt?"

To be clear, we do not know if the hacked emails had any ties to contacts the Trump campaign did or didn’t have with Russians. But hacked emails are different from the results of a public investigation.

Taking that difference one step further, there was nothing inherently illegal in the quest for information on Manafort and how that might link Donald Trump to Russia. Wittes noted that from a research perspective, since Manafort’s work took place in Ukraine, "you pretty much have to go to the Ukrainians to get that."

Other details also separate the two narratives.

Ukraine is seen as an ally to the United States, while Russia is at best a competitor and often called an enemy.

---

Se sitten on oma juttunsa, että kiristikö Trump Ukrainaa. Ukraina sanoo että ei kiristänyt, ja nyt sitten amerikkalainen virkamies sanoo että kiristi.

Eihän se kivaa ole, jos kiristetään, mutta onko se nyt sellaista, mistä presidenttejä potkitaan pois - ei, eikä varsinkaan demarien käyttäytymisellä. Valtiothan tekee sitä koko ajan. EU kiristää Puolaa jne jne.

Trump and Russia, Clinton and Ukraine: How do they compare?

Donald Trump Jr.’s 2016 meeting with a lawyer tied to the Russian government prompted a resolute response from Fox News

www.politifact.com