• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди272
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы300
      • Показать ещё
      Компании216
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации63
      • Показать ещё
      Разное226
      • Показать ещё
      Издания68
      • Показать ещё
      Формат10
      Показатели4
      Сферы3
Джеймс Клеппер
17 ноября, 13:14

Why Putin Keeps Outsmarting Trump

The Kremlin leader is trained to lie. Trust me, I ran the CIA: Believing anything he says is folly.

14 ноября, 15:23

Feds fight BuzzFeed demand for Trump dossier probe details

In February, BuzzFeed was hit with a libel suit from Russian internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev.

13 ноября, 13:02

Сегодня в Сети: Пушков о Трампе, новый донос Родченкова, «кровавая Мэри» с ВИЧ

Сегодня в Сети: Трампа критикуют за хороший отзыв о Путине. Реакция Пушкова. «Информатор» WADA Родченков пытается лишить Россию Олимпиады. В Петербурге активисты выпили «коктейль» из водки и крови с ВИЧ.

13 ноября, 12:42

Песков прокомментировал заявление экс-главы ЦРУ о «влиянии» Путина на Трампа

  • 0

Пресс-секретарь президента Дмитрий Песков назвал «неверным» предположение бывшего главы ЦРУ Джона Бреннана о том, что Дональд Трамп якобы может бояться Владимира Путина. «Это неверное предположение», - сказал Песков, комментируя слова Бреннана, передает РИА «Новости». Ранее бывший директор национальной разведки США Джеймс Клеппер и экс-директор ЦРУ Джон Бреннан выразили мнение, что заявления главы Белого дома на саммите АТЭС во Вьетнаме об «очень хороших отношениях с Россией» свидетельствуют о том, что Трамп оказался под влиянием Владимира Путина. Также в ответ на заявление Трампа сенатор США Джон Маккейн раскритиковал его за «веру» в искренность российского лидера. Трамп, в свою очередь, посетовал на то, что «ненавистники и дураки» никак не могут понять необходимость установить хорошие отношения с Россией.

13 ноября, 11:02

Это просто смешно: в Совфеде отреагировали на заявление о «запугивании» Трампа Путиным

Сенатор Франц Клинцевич объяснил, что, несмотря на всю нелепость заявлений, что Владимир Путин якобы «запугал» Дональда Трампа, президент США находится в безвыходной ситуации.

13 ноября, 10:04

«Лесть или запугивание»: экс-глава ЦРУ уверен, что Трамп попал под влияние Путина

Заявления президента США Дональда Трампа о доверии к российскому лидеру Владимиру Путину свидетельствуют о том, что Кремль имеет особое влияние на главу Соединённых Штатов. Такое мнение высказали экс-директор ЦРУ Джон Бреннан и бывший директор Национальной разведки США Джеймс Клеппер. Они считают, что Путин мог воспользоваться «слабостью Трампа к лести или же запугать его». Бывший член палаты представителей США, адвокат Майкл Флэнаган уверен, что Клеппер и Бреннан действуют в интересах демократов, которые стремятся запятнать репутацию американского лидера.

13 ноября, 09:51

«Лесть или запугивание»: экс-глава ЦРУ уверен, что Трамп попал под влияние Путина

Заявления президента США Дональда Трампа о доверии к российскому лидеру Владимиру Путину свидетельствуют о том, что Кремль имеет особое влияние на главу Соединённых Штатов. Такое мнение высказали экс-директор ЦРУ Джон Бреннан и бывший директор Национальной разведки США Джеймс Клэппер. Они считают, что Путин мог воспользоваться «слабостью Трампа к лести или же запугать его». Бывший член палаты представителей США, адвокат Майкл Флэнаган уверен, что Клэппер и Бреннан действуют в интересах демократов, которые стремятся запятнать репутацию американского лидера. Как в Америке отреагировали на слова президента о встрече с Путиным на полях саммита АТЭС — в материале RT. Читать далее

13 ноября, 08:57

Бывшие руководители разведки США заявили о запугивании Трампа Путиным

  • 0

Бывший директор национальной разведки США Джеймс Клеппер и экс-директор ЦРУ Джон Бреннан заявили, что президент США Дональд Трамп оказался под влиянием Владимира Путина. Такое заявление они сделали в воскресенье в эфире

13 ноября, 06:34

Экс-глава ЦРУ заявил о «влиянии» Путина на Трампа

  • 0

Бывший директор национальной разведки США Джеймс Клеппер и экс-директор ЦРУ Джон Бреннан выразили мнение, что заявления главы Белого дома на саммите АТЭС во Вьетнаме об «очень хороших отношениях с Россией» свидетельствуют о том, что Дональд Трамп оказался под влиянием Владимира Путина. Бреннан предположил, что российский президент использовал слабость Трампа к лести, или же что американский лидер «по какой бы то ни было причине» оказался запуган Путиным, передает «Интерфакс». «Поведение Трампа по отношению к русским – это либо наивность, либо невежество, либо страх», – заявил он в эфире телеканала CNN. Он также считает, что Трамп, отрицая вмешательство России в американские выборы, дал другим странам понять, что на него можно оказать давление. Ранее Трамп охарактеризовал отношения с Путиным как очень хорошие. В ответ сенатор США Джон Маккейн раскритиковал Трампа за «веру» в искренность российского лидера. Глава Белого дома, в свою очередь, посетовал на то, что «ненавистники и дураки» никак не могут понять необходимость установить хорошие отношения с Россией.

13 ноября, 00:22

Бывшие руководители разведки США заявили о личном влиянии Путина на Трампа

Оптимистичные заявления об "очень хороших отношениях с Россией", которые президент США сделал после беседы с лидером РФ на саммите АТЭС во Вьетнаме, свидетельствуют о том, что Дональд Трамп оказался под влиянием Владимира Путина, заявили в воскресенье в эфире телеканала CNN бывший директор национальной разведки США Джеймс Клеппер и экс-директор ЦРУ Джон Бреннан.

12 ноября, 21:55

Taking Putin's Word For It

Trump wants to believe both the Russian president’s denial of election meddling, and the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies. But he can’t have it both ways.

12 ноября, 18:00

Trump Reverses, Sides With Intel Agencies Over Russia Election Meddling; Offers To Mediate South China Sea Dispute

One day after Trump caused the latest round of broad media outrage when he reportedly sided with Putin over Russia's alleged "election interference", while slamming US intel agencies, and repeating his allegation that the investigation is a ‘hoax’, and the FBI a “bunch of hacks,” Trump reversed himself and "cleared up confusion" over whether he accepts Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denials of meddling in the U.S. election last year. Speaking at a news conference in Vietnam with President Tran Dai Quang on Sunday morning local time, Trump distanced himself from remarks he made one day earlier in which he suggested he believed Putin when he said there had been no Russian meddling in the election that took him to the White House. The comments drew a backlash of criticism at home because US intelligence agencies have long since "concluded" there was Russian meddling. Trump clarifies his comments on Putin + election hacking: "I believe that he feels that he and Russia did not meddle in the election. As to whether or not I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies" pic.twitter.com/nDqJqeytkk — BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) November 12, 2017 As a result, Trump was careful to make clear he sided with the intelligence agencies under his own leadership: "What I said is, I believe Putin believes that," Trump told reporters in Hanoi, Vietnam. "I believe that he feels that he and Russia did not meddle in the election. What he believes is what he believes." Trump then added that "as to whether I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies, especially as currently constituted, with their leadership. I believe in our intel agencies. I've worked with them very strongly." The comment was made shortly after Trump tweeted that "When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help!" When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2017 Still, despite the backlash driven clarification, Trump has repeatedly called allegations of campaign collusion with Moscow a hoax, angering US intel chiefs. U.S. intelligence agencies have also concluded Russians interfered to tip the election in Trump’s favour through hacking and releasing emails to embarrass Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and spreading social media propaganda, in a year-long attempt to deflect attention from Hillary Clinton's shocking loss, and scapegoat it on outside actors. On Saturday, former U.S. intelligence director James Clapper told Reuters: “the fact the president of the United States would take Putin at his word over that of the intelligence community is quite simply unconscionable.” As noted above, Trump's comments siding with intel agencies bizarrely also come after he hit former U.S. intelligence officials by name, including former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI Director James Comey.  "I mean, give me a break, they are political hacks," Trump said on Air Force One, according to White House pool reports. He was discussing the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey," he continued. "Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker.” Separately,  also during his meeting with the Vietnam president, Trump offered to mediate and arbitrate in the dispute over the South China Sea, where four Southeast Asian countries and Taiwan contest China’s sweeping claims to the busy waterway. “I am a very good mediator and a very good arbitrator,” President Trump said during his meeting with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang in Hanoi.  “If I can be of help in any way let me know.” Trump also said that U.S. and Vietnam “will be great trade partners" and added that "we’re going to do a tremendous amount of trade...billions and billions."

08 ноября, 04:56

HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria – So Here It Is

  • 0

Award winning journalist and UN correspondent of 25 years, Joe Lauria, penned an outstanding article on the origins of “Russiagate” which he published to the liberal Huffington Post this week. 24 hours later, HuffPo yanked the article – leaving a dead link and a sad message in its place. Perhaps the insights offered in the article didn’t quite conform to HuffPo’s approved narratives, or maybe it has something to do with Lauria’s new book “How I Lost By Hillary Clinton,” with a forward written by Julian Assange. Considering Joe Lauria’s tenure as the Wall St. Journal’s UN correspondent of nearly seven years, as well as the Boston Globe’s for six – covering just about every major world crisis over the past quarter century, his unique perspective on the matter merits a read. Reproduced below for your edification: The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the “scandal” started with Democrats funding the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria. By Joe Lauria The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election — without providing convincing evidence — were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its computer server for clues about who may have hacked it – or even if it was hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on dubious evidence. And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for opposition research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele using hearsay accusations from anonymous Russian sources to claim that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a scheme that presupposed that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw Trump’s presidency years ago when no one else did. Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate Steele’s allegations, but those suspicions still colored the thinking of President Obama’s intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “hand-picked” the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 “assessment” claiming that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama’s intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst of a bitter general election campaign, a manufactured “scandal” that also has fueled a dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case of a dirty political “oppo” serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over Russia that they enjoyed in the 1990s, as well as feeding the voracious budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex. Though lacking independent evidence of the core Russia-gate allegations, the “scandal” continues to expand into wild exaggerations about the impact of a tiny number of social media pages suspected of having links to Russia but that apparently carried very few specific campaign messages. (Some pages reportedly were devoted to photos of puppies.) ‘Cash for Trash’ Based on what is now known, Wall Street buccaneer Paul Singer paid for GPS Fusion, a Washington-based research firm, to do opposition research on Trump during the Republican primaries, but dropped the effort in May 2016 when it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. GPS Fusion has strongly denied that it hired Steele for this work or that the research had anything to do with Russia. Couple walking along the Kremlin, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry) Then, in April 2016 the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid its Washington lawyer Marc Elias to hire Fusion GPS to unearth dirt connecting Trump to Russia. This was three months before the DNC blamed Russia for hacking its computers and supposedly giving its stolen emails to WikiLeaks to help Trump win the election. “The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week,” The New York Times reported on Friday night. So, linking Trump to Moscow as a way to bring Russia into the election story was the Democrats’ aim from the start. Fusion GPS then hired ex-MI6 intelligence agent Steele, it says for the first time, to dig up that dirt in Russia for the Democrats. Steele produced classic opposition research, not an intelligence assessment or conclusion, although it was written in a style and formatted to look like one. It’s important to realize that Steele was no longer working for an official intelligence agency, which would have imposed strict standards on his work and possibly disciplined him for injecting false information into the government’s decision-making. Instead, he was working for a political party and a presidential candidate looking for dirt that would hurt their opponent, what the Clintons used to call “cash for trash” when they were the targets. Had Steele been doing legitimate intelligence work for his government, he would have taken a far different approach. Intelligence professionals are not supposed to just give their bosses what their bosses want to hear. So, Steele would have verified his information. And it would have gone through a process of further verification by other intelligence analysts in his and perhaps other intelligence agencies. For instance, in the U.S., a National Intelligence Estimate requires vetting by all 17 intelligence agencies and incorporates dissenting opinions. Instead Steele was producing a piece of purely political research and had different motivations. The first might well have been money, as he was being paid specifically for this project, not as part of his work on a government salary presumably serving all of society. Secondly, to continue being paid for each subsequent memo that he produced he would have been incentivized to please his clients or at least give them enough so they would come back for more. Dubious Stuff Opposition research is about getting dirt to be used in a mud-slinging political campaign, in which wild charges against candidates are the norm. This “oppo” is full of unvetted rumor and innuendo with enough facts mixed in to make it seem credible. There was so much dubious stuff in Steele’s memos that the FBI was unable to confirm its most salacious allegations and apparently refuted several key points. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) Perhaps more significantly, the corporate news media, which was largely partial to Clinton, did not report the fantastic allegations after people close to the Clinton campaign began circulating the lurid stories before the election with the hope that the material would pop up in the news. To their credit, established media outlets recognized this as ammunition against a political opponent, not a serious document. Despite this circumspection, the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump’s campaign. More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence “assessment” by those “hand-picked” analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama’s intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a correction saying so.) If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all. It could be that because the three agencies knew the dossier was dodgy that there was no substantive proof in the Jan. 6 “assessment.” Even so, a summary of the Steele allegations were included in a secret appendix that then-FBI Director James Comey described to then-President-elect Trump just two weeks before his inauguration. Five days later, after the fact of Comey’s briefing was leaked to the press, the Steele dossier was published in fullby the sensationalist website BuzzFeed behind the excuse that the allegations’ inclusion in the classified annex of a U.S. intelligence report justified the dossier’s publication regardless of doubts about its accuracy. Russian Fingerprints The other source of blame about Russian meddling came from the private company CrowdStrike because the DNC blocked the FBI from examining its server after a suspected hack. Within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian “fingerprints” in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by an Internet site called DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia. Dmitri Alperovitch, the Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of CrowdStrike Inc., leading its Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams. CrowdStrike also claimed that the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike’s conclusion about Russian “fingerprints” resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely sloppy hackers or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians. CrowdStrike’s credibility was further undermined when Voice of America reported on March 23, 2017, that the same software the company says it used to blame Russia for the hack wrongly concluded that Moscow also had hacked Ukrainian government howitzers on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine. “An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cyber-security firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election,” VOA reported. Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. More speculation about the alleged election hack was raised with WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 release, which revealed that the CIA is not beyond covering up its own hacks by leaving clues implicating others. Plus, there’s the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has declared again and again that WikiLeaks did not get the Democratic emails from the Russians. Buttressing Assange’s denials of a Russian role, WikiLeaks associate Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he met a person connected to the leak during a trip to Washington last year. And, William Binney, maybe the best mathematician to ever work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern have published a technical analysis of one set of Democratic email metadata showing that a transatlantic “hack” would have been impossible and that the evidence points to a likely leak by a disgruntled Democratic insider. Binney has further stated that if it were a “hack,” the NSA would have been able to detect it and make the evidence known. Fueling Neo-McCarthyism Despite these doubts, which the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored, Russia-gate has grown into something much more than an election story. It has unleashed a neo-McCarthyite attack on Americans who are accused of being dupes of Russia if they dare question the evidence of the Kremlin’s guilt. The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post) Just weeks after last November’s election, The Washington Post published a front-page story touting a blacklist from an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that alleged that 200 news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other leading independent news sources, were either willful Russian propagandists or “useful idiots.” Last week, a new list emerged with the names of over 2,000 people, mostly Westerners, who have appeared on RT, the Russian government-financed English-language news channel. The list was part of a report entitled, “The Kremlin’s Platform for ‘Useful Idiots’ in the West,” put out by an outfit called European Values, with a long list of European funders. Included on the list of “useful idiots” absurdly are CIA-friendly Washington Post columnist David Ignatius; David Brock, Hillary Clinton’s opposition research chief; and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. The report stated: “Many people in Europe and the US, including politicians and other persons of influence, continue to exhibit troubling naïveté about RT’s political agenda, buying into the network’s marketing ploy that it is simply an outlet for independent voices marginalised by the mainstream Western press. These ‘useful idiots’ remain oblivious to RT’s intentions and boost its legitimacy by granting interviews on its shows and newscasts.” The intent of these lists is clear: to shut down dissenting voices who question Western foreign policy and who are usually excluded from Western corporate media. RT is often willing to provide a platform for a wider range of viewpoints, both from the left and right. American ruling interests fend off critical viewpoints by first suppressing them in corporate media and now condemning them as propaganda when they emerge on RT. Geopolitical Risks More ominously, the anti-Russia mania has increased chances of direct conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. The Russia-bashing rhetoric not only served the Clinton campaign, though ultimately to ill effect, but it has pushed a longstanding U.S.-led geopolitical agenda to regain control over Russia, an advantage that the U.S. enjoyed during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s. Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin’s reelection as Russian president in 1996. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year’s Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics. That inflamed Hillary Clinton and other American hawks whose desire was to install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S. exploitation of Russia’s vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000 troops on Russia’s border. In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate a coup that toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate offensive was intended not only to explain away Clinton’s defeat but to stop Trump — possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage — because he had talked, insincerely it is turning out, about detente with Russia. That did not fit in well with the plan at all. Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @unjoe.

03 ноября, 00:00

How 470,000 Bin Laden Docs Got Out in the Open

Stephen Hayes, The Weekly StandardOn the penultimate day of the Obama administration, less than 24 hours before the president would vacate the White House, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a press release meant to put to rest what had been a pesky issue for his office. Closing the Book on Bin Laden: Intelligence Community Releases Final Abbottabad Documents, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) announced. Today marks the end of a two-and-a-half-year effort to declassify several hundred documents recovered in the raid on Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound in May 2011....

30 октября, 12:02

‘The Russians Have Succeeded Beyond Their Wildest Expectations’

Former intelligence chief James Clapper says President Trump is dead wrong about Russian interference in America’s elections. And they’re going to get away with it again, he warns.

Выбор редакции
30 октября, 00:00

James Clapper: 'The Russians Have Succeeded'

Susan Glasser, PoliticoFormer intelligence chief James Clapper says President Trump is dead wrong about Russian interference in America's elections. And they're going to get away with it again, he warns.

27 октября, 23:44

Wyden implores Trump administration to secure personal devices

Sen. Ron Wyden is urging national security leaders to better secure White House officials' personal devices and email accounts.

26 октября, 20:26

Clapper On Hillary Funding 'Trump Dossier': What Difference Does It Make?

While Democrats, old and new, are abandoning the sinking Hillary Clinton ship, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is still "with her." As Daily Caller reports, Clapper is shrugging off news that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the research behind the dossier on Donald Trump (and lied about it non-stop for almost a year). Clapper said the only thing that matters is whether the information is “corroborated.” “With respect to the dossier itself, the key thing is it doesn’t matter who paid for it,” Clapper told Erin Burnett on “OutFront” Wednesday night.   “It’s what the dossier said and the extent to which it’s corroborated or not.” In other words: What Difference Does It Make? Despite saying he doesn’t care who put up the money for the dossier, Clapper was suggesting that an “audit trail” could substantiate who actually did pay for it - although that seems to have been already demonstrated. “When we did our intelligence committee assessment, we were aware that there had been research done and that some Republican candidates, as a matter of fact, had contracted through Fusion GPS to obtain what it later became known as the dossier,” Clapper noted, adding that the project was then transferred to the DNC and Hillary for America.   “This is something that bears an audit trail by experts in finances that can track the auditing for this,” he suggested to CNN, because that would enable investigators “to see who was responsible for it.” Clapper then told CNN that he believes the U.S. intelligence community was able to validate portions of the dossier that suggest Trump exercised little political acumen while in Russia.

28 сентября, 00:30

BuzzFeed steps up legal fight for feds’ info on Trump dossier

Comey and Clapper have both commented publicly on the dossier, at least in general terms.

26 сентября, 19:37

Priebus in talks to join lucrative speaking circuit

Another former White House official is seeking to cash out.President Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has been interviewing with speakers bureaus around Washington, D.C., as he seeks a place on the lucrative paid speaking circuit, according to multiple sources familiar with his life-after-Trump plans.Priebus, who was pulling down an annual White House salary of $179,700, has yet to close on a deal. But he has met with Keppler Speakers Bureau, which represents Fox News host Chris Wallace and former astronaut Mark Kelly, and Leading Authorities, which counts former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper among its top-tier clients, according to a source familiar with his plans. Keppler declined to comment. Leading Authorities did not reply to multiple requests for comment about its meetings with potential clients.Since leaving the White House in July, Priebus, a Kenosha, Wisconsin, native widely regarded as a weak chief of staff, has kept a lower profile than more colorful ex-Trump aides. Former press secretary Sean Spicer, who is also giving paid speeches, earlier this month made an appearance at the Emmys, where he tried to poke fun at his old role as Trump’s misleading mouthpiece. Former communications director Anthony Scaramucci has appeared on “The View” and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” as he seeks to turn his profanity-laced 10-day stint into a celebrity vehicle. Former chief strategist Steve Bannon, meanwhile, has traded in the shadowy puppet-master persona for that of a front-liner at political rallies, campaigning in Alabama on Monday night for Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore.Priebus, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who was known in his previous life as a quietly ambitious party leader and muscular fundraiser, has been less visible since departing from what is considered the second-hardest job in Washington. He has made no public appearances. But he has been strategizing about how to reenter the private sector after years in political life.Priebus, a lawyer, is also said to be interviewing to join a white-shoe law firm based in Washington, D.C. He declined to comment.

01 октября 2014, 00:30

«Исламское государство» — проект американского происхождения

Подняв флаг борьбы с «Исламским государством» (ИГ), США наносят теперь авиаудары по позициям ИГ не только в Ираке, но и в Сирии. Делается это без согласия правительства Сирии и без принятия соответствующего решения Советом Безопасности ООН. Начинают оправдываться опасения Москвы и Тегерана на тот счёт, что целью ракетно-бомбовых ударов является окончательное уничтожение сирийской инфраструктуры. По заявлению представителя Пентагона Джона Кирби, США нанесли авиаудары по 12 нефтеперерабатывающим заводам в Сирии. Якобы их контролировали боевики-экстремисты. Таких атак по позициям ИГ, говорит Джон Кирби, «будет больше». Здесь следует напомнить, что мятеж в Сирии, продолжающийся четвёртый год, стал разрастаться практически синхронно с подписанием 25 июня 2011 г. в Бушере меморандума о строительстве нового газопровода Иран – Ирак – Сирия. Борьбу американцев с правительством Башара Асада справедливо называют войной за нефть и газ. Дамаск попал в число врагов Америки в 2009 году, когда Асад отказался принять американский план строительства газопровода из Катара в Европу. Вместо этого Сирия предпочла сделку с Ираном, дав согласие на участие в строительстве газопровода через Ирак к своим портам на Средиземном море. Именно тогда всемирную известность приобрели слова бывшего госсекретаря США Генри Киссинджера: «Нефть слишком важна, чтобы оставлять ее арабам». Создание халифата на обширной территории Ирака и Сирии ведет к потере Соединенными Штатами (ExxonMobil Corporation) и Великобританией (BP и Royal Dutch Shell) позиций в нефтегазовом секторе Ирака и возможности доступа (после приближаемой американцами смены режима в Дамаске) к сирийским запасам углеводородов. Пока террористы ИГ воевали с сирийскими правительственными войсками, они американцев устраивали, но как только они вторглись в Ирак и объявили о создании собственного государства, Америка объявила им войну. Никаких двойных стандартов у США здесь нет. Налицо неизменное стремление американской элиты к мировому господству, и война с «Исламским государством» – всего лишь локальная операция. В позиции США много нестыковок и противоречий, а объясняются они тем, что Вашингтону всё труднее диктовать свои условия остальному миру. Нет сомнения в том, что Сирия остается для США главной мишенью на Ближнем Востоке, в том числе с точки зрения реализации планов по ослаблению России. «Исламское государство» — это проект американского происхождения, его цель — создание мощной дестабилизирующей волны, которая распространится вглубь Евразии. На первом этапе, переключая внимание международного сообщества на борьбу с ИГ, американцы подготавливают под шумок свержение президента Башара Асада. Именно так оценивают односторонние действия Вашингтона против «Исламского государства» многие страны мира. Поэтому не получилось у Обамы и формирование «широкой» коалиции. Американцам удалось добиться возмещения своих расходов монархиями Персидского залива (Бахрейн, Катар, Саудовская Аравия и ОАЭ), удалось склонить Иорданию предоставить свою инфраструктуру, привлечь к нанесению авиаударов некоторых союзников по НАТО - Великобританию, Францию, Бельгию и Данию. По данным Госдепартамента, 54 страны и три международные организации - ЕС, НАТО и Лига арабских государств – тоже обещали внести в эту кампанию свой вклад. Однако анонсированное Джоном Керри «всемирное» участие в коалиции не состоялось. Доверие к Америке осталось лишь у немногих. Мир еще не забыл, как в 2003 году США вторглись в Ирак без санкции ООН. Вашингтон тогда заявлял, что Ирак ведёт разработки оружия массового поражения и разоружить его нужно силой. Голосование в СБ ООН по этому вопросу так и не состоялось, поскольку Россия, Китай и Франция дали понять, что наложат вето на любой проект резолюции, подразумевающий применение военной силы против Ирака. Тогда, как и сейчас, США вызывающе пренебрегли международным общественным мнением, агрессия против Ирака началась, страна была разрушена, и последствия этого мы наблюдаем по сей день. Сегодня история повторяется. Джеймс Клеппер, глава Национальной разведки США, во время своего ежегодного выступления перед сенатской комиссией по разведке (29 января 2014) отчитался в угрозах, нависших над Америкой. Коснулся он и Сирии, сообщив ничему не соответствующие данные о составе «повстанцев». Его главный тезис состоял в том, что на 80% это «умеренные» противники режима, которые вполне могут принимать финансовую помощь США, за предоставление которой американский сенат в свое время тайно проголосовал. Теперь эти «умеренные» в одночасье превратились в непримиримых террористов, и против одной из их организаций американцы начали войну. Заметим: не против террористов вообще, а лишь против «Исламского государства». Интересно, а что думают руководители американской разведки об «умеренности» группировки «Джебхат ан-Нусра», этого сирийского отделения «Аль-Каиды»? В ответ на авиаудары по территории Сирии лидеры «Джебхат ан-Нусра» уже заявили о готовности противостоять Америке совместно с ИГ. Своими действиями американцы консолидируют терроризм. В эфире телеканала CBS Обама заявил, что в свое время американским военным удалось нанести поражение «Аль-Каиде» в Ираке, после чего организация «ушла в подполье», но «за последние два года, воспользовавшись хаосом во время гражданской войны в Сирии, боевики смогли восстановить свои силы». О том, что хаос и гражданская война в Сирии - прямое следствие действий США на Ближнем Востоке, американский президент не сказал. Председатель Объединенного комитета начальников штабов США генерал Мартин Демпси считает, что для успешной борьбы с группировкой «Исламское государство» в Ираке и Сирии необходимо провести наземную операцию. По мнению Демпси, нужно принять политическое решение и ввести войска в эти страны. Если это произойдёт, дестабилизирующая волна начнёт распространяться за пределы Сирии и Ирака, ряды террористов пополнятся новыми непримиримыми бойцами, а перед военно-промышленным комплексом США откроются захватывающие дух перспективы.