• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Издания447
      • Показать ещё
      Люди1018
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1436
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации255
      • Показать ещё
      Компании763
      • Показать ещё
      Разное693
      • Показать ещё
      Формат15
      Показатели44
      • Показать ещё
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs
«Foreign Affairs» (Фо́рин аффе́рс) — американский журнал по тематике международных отношений и внешней политики США, выходящий шесть раз в год. Издатель — Совет по международным отношениям. Журнал считается наиболее авторитетным в вопросах внешней политики США. Ж ...

«Foreign Affairs» (Фо́рин аффе́рс) — американский журнал по тематике международных отношений и внешней политики США, выходящий шесть раз в год. Издатель — Совет по международным отношениям. Журнал считается наиболее авторитетным в вопросах внешней политики США.

Журнал выходит с 1922 года; основателем и первым редактором (до 1927 года) был Арчибальд Кэри Кулидж.

Тираж журнала рос:

  • 1922 год — 5 тысяч экземпляров;
  • 1959 год — 27 тысяч;
  • 1963 год — 57 тысяч;
  • 1976 год — 72,5 тысячи;
  • 2014 год — 170 тысяч

Позиция по отношению к СССР

Уже первый номер содержал статью самого Кулиджа «Россия после Генуи и Гааги», которая после анализа новой экономической политики и дипломатических усилий большевистского государства высказывала сомнения в долговечности текущего курса большевиков и предлагала «четыре очевидных возможности» развития (контрреволюция, экономическая реставрация капитализма, раскол партии большевиков с возвратом к жёсткой коммунистической идеологии и рост экономических проблем, в результате которых страна «впадет в анархию, развалившись на куски»). За первые 50 лет существования в журнале были опубликованы 220 статей по советской тематике (почти по одной статье в каждом номере). По утверждению Р. С. Овинникова, «ни одна из них не была дружелюбной» Вики

 

Foreign Affairs — семнадцатый эпизод девятого сезона мультсериала «Гриффины».

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/issues/2015/94/6

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
30 июля, 18:43

PELOSI to CHRIS WALLACE: ‘I am a master legislator’ -- CAN KELLY ‘TAME’ the White House zoo? -- SENIOR ADVISERS’ ‘casual access’ to Trump will continue -- JARROD AGEN promoted -- NEW NYT podcast -- B’DAY: Jim Rutenberg

Happy Sunday. SPOTTED last night having dinner at one big table at BLT Prime at the Trump hotel: President Donald Trump, Gen. John Kelly, Dina Powell and David McCormick, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Louise Linton, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Hilary Geary Ross.FIRST IN PLAYBOOK – TRUMP’S WEEK -- Monday: President Trump is presenting the Medal of Honor. ... Tuesday: He holds a small business event at the White House. ... Friday: Trump visits FEMA headquarters to get a briefing on the hurricane season. This week’s theme is the “American dream.”GROUNDHOG DAY -- “As Trump steams, Senate Republicans consider new repeal effort,” by Burgess Everett, Josh Dawsey and Rachael Bade: “Senate Republicans’ party-line attempts to repeal Obamacare aren’t dead just yet — at least not if President Donald Trump has anything to say about it. Trump, increasingly impatient with the long-stalled repeal effort, met with three Senate Republicans about a new plan to roll back the health care law on Friday, signaling some lawmakers -- as well as the president -- are not ready to ditch their seven-year campaign promise.“The group is trying to write legislation that could get 50 Republican votes, according to multiple administration and Capitol Hill sources. The proposal from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) would block grant federal health care funding to the states and keep much of Obamacare’s tax regime. White House officials also met with House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) to brainstorm how to make the idea palatable to conservatives, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.” http://politi.co/2tNTxf7-- ONE CONSERVATIVE said to us the other day that Obamacare is a tax bill -- even the Supreme Court said so. So keeping the taxes would be akin to keeping the entire law, for many conservatives.ON THE PRESIDENT’S MIND -- yesterday at 12:19 p.m.: “After seven years of‘talking’ Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!” … at 12:27 p.m.: “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” … at 1:04 p.m.:“U.S. Stock Market up almost 20% since Election!” …… at 4:36 p.m.: “Unless the Republican Senators are total quitters, Repeal & Replace is not dead! Demand another vote before voting on any other bill!” … at 7:15 p.m.: “I love reading about all of the ‘geniuses’ who were so instrumental in my election success. Problem is, most don’t exist. #Fake News! MAGA” … at 7:29 p.m.: “I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet…” … at 7:35 p.m.: “...they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!” … at 7:37 a.m.: “Don’t give up Republican Senators, the World is watching: Repeal & Replace...and go to 51 votes (nuke option), get Cross State Lines & more.”KELLYANNE CONWAY on “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”: “He’s going to make that decision this week [whether to end cost sharing reduction payments], and that’s a decision that only he can make.” http://politi.co/2uOlPYq-- A FEW QUICK NOTES: Every permutation of repeal and replace got fewer than 50 votes, so ancillary issues -- like being able to buy insurance across state lines -- is besides the point at this moment. IF TRUMP follows through on his threat to end the employer contribution for members of Congress, that would be a big deal, and could strip lawmakers of one of the only appealing benefits of their job. ALSO: Congress has to fund the government at the end of September and lift the debt ceiling shortly after that. Not passing anything until Obamacare is repealed and replaced is not necessarily a realistic position.-- @burgessev: “Historically, conservatives use filibuster to block progressive legislation. Take this away and the next D Washington has few limits.”… AND THIS: “Lawsuits could force feds to pay Obamacare insurers,” by Paul Demko: “A pending court decision could force the Trump administration to pump billions of dollars into Obamacare insurers, even as the president threatens to let the health care law ‘implode.’ Health insurers have filed nearly two dozen lawsuits claiming the government owes them payments from a program meant to blunt their losses in the Obamacare marketplaces. That raises the prospect that the Trump administration will have to bankroll a program the GOP has pilloried as an insurer bailout.” http://politi.co/2vbn2LDNEW CBS NEWS NATION TRACKER POLL -- “Six months in, the latest CBS News Nation Tracker study shows President Donald Trump’s strongest backers like seeing him fight his chosen opponents: they want the President to call out those he believes disloyal, fight with the mainstream media, and they’re the only group among the segments in this study where a majority wants the President to do more tweeting. But what they applaud seems precisely what most others dislike, and that is costing the President potential support, even as many give him credit for an improving economy.”PETER BAKER: “Trump Tries to Regroup as the West Wing Battles Itself”: “President Trump enters a new phase of his presidency on Monday with a new chief of staff but an old set of challenges as he seeks to get back on course after enduring one of the worst weeks that any modern occupant of the Oval Office has experienced in his inaugural year in power. With his poll numbers at historic lows, his legislative agenda stalled and his advisers busy plotting against one another, Mr. Trump hoped to regain momentum by pushing out his top aide, Reince Priebus, and installing a retired four-star Marine general, John F. Kelly, to take command. But it is far from certain that the move will be enough to tame a dysfunctional White House.“The shake-up followed a week that saw the bombastic, with-me-or-against-me president defied as never before by Washington and its institutions, including Republicans in Congress, his own attorney general, the uniformed military leadership, police officers and even the Boy Scouts. No longer daunted by a president with a Twitter account that he uses like a Gatling gun, members of his own party made clear that they were increasingly willing to stand against him on issues like health care and Russia. The setbacks came against the backdrop of a West Wing at war with itself, egged on by a president who thrives on conflict and chaos. Mr. Kelly, who had been serving as secretary of homeland security, brings a career of decisive leadership to his new assignment as White House chief of staff. But he confronts multiple power centers among presidential aides, all with independent lines to the man in the Oval Office who resists the discipline and structure favored by generals.” http://nyti.ms/2wbgNogTHE KELLY LOOKAHEADS …WAPO’S PHIL RUCKER, BOB COSTA and DAN BALZ: “Trump enlists Kelly to enforce order, but can the ‘zoo’ be tamed?”: “When Kelly made the rounds on Capitol Hill before his nomination hearings in January, he did not know Trump very well and asked people there to share stories about the president-elect. He wanted to know how Trump made decisions. Told that Trump relished competing power centers around him, Kelly grimaced and said nothing. ...“Trump’s transition documents included a lengthy memo about White House structure, based on past administrations. ‘They didn’t follow the product at all,’ said a person with direct knowledge of what transpired as Trump was setting up his administration. ‘They did it instinctively … The president-elect didn’t want to say no to anybody.’ The result was the White House that now exists, populated by advisers with competing ideologies that reflect an administration that is an amalgam of populist nationalists, hard-line conservatives and establishment Republicans — and a few Democrats. …“The environment is poised to change in the Kelly era. The new chief of staff is expected to have full control over the Oval Office and schedule, officials said. Trusted aides such as Hope Hicks, Dan Scavino and Keith Schiller -- as well as senior advisers such as Kushner, Bannon and Conway -- will continue to have casual access to the president.” http://wapo.st/2tNL0cgANDREW RESTUCCIA, BRYAN BENDER and JOSH DAWSEY: “Kelly’s first task: Stabilize the West Wing: The no-nonsense retired Marine Corps general will soon be thrust into the center of the West Wing soap opera”: “When he officially becomes chief of staff on Monday, Kelly, a no-nonsense retired Marine Corps general, will be thrust into the center of the West Wing soap opera, where President Donald Trump’s policy agenda regularly gets preempted by feuding advisers and headline-grabbing scandals. ... ‘I think this is the best and last shot,’ said one person close to Kelly. ‘This is it.’ ...“Kelly wants to have more of a pecking order among the staff and a more ‘traditional’ approach, one White House official said. But others in the White House said it’s too early to make predictions. ‘Everything is up in the air. Anyone who tells you they know anything is lying,’ a White House official said. ... Kelly has built relationships with several top White House aides in recent months, including chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser Stephen Miller, who have played a central role in Trump’s immigration crackdown.“Kelly has nonetheless expressed frustration about the White House to friends and associates, complaining about the slow pace of hiring and bristling at having to answer to lower-level aides, according to one person who has spoken to him and another person familiar with the tension. ... Asked to name any similarities between the two men, the person said, ‘They’re both Catholic, but that’s probably about it.’ ... Kelly is expected to make his first staff change at the White House on Monday, when he’ll bring in Kirstjen Nielsen, his chief of staff at DHS.” http://politi.co/2tTD0KVTHE NEVER ENDING CAMPAIGN -- “How 2018 became the new 2020,” by Gabe Debenedetti: “The 2020 Democratic presidential road show is already underway. And 2018 is beginning to look like the dress rehearsal. Top contenders are making endorsements, picking sides in party primaries and aggressively working the fundraising circuit on behalf of 2018 candidates, all the while building their own name recognition. With many of presidential prospects on the ballot themselves next year, potential challengers to Donald Trump are also stockpiling cash to help run up their re-election margins to burnish their stature for the big election on the horizon.“The early focus on the midterms is a marked departure from previous practice, and a further acceleration of the presidential campaign cycle. Prior to the 2016 presidential primary season, for example, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders largely stayed off the campaign trail and out of elections until late 2014 — roughly six months before they officially announced their campaigns. But with a historically large presidential field taking shape, more than a dozen prominent Democrats — including governors like Terry McAuliffe and Steve Bullock, and senators like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris — have recognized the need to distinguish themselves from the crowd. And they are already working hard to advance their brand while helping to reinvigorate the dilapidated party infrastructure in advance of the midterm elections.” http://politi.co/2viPoo7TRUMP is at his Virginia golf resort this morning, per the pool.-- @markknoller: “By my count, it’s his 36th visit to one of his golf clubs, 15th time at the one in Sterling, VA - since taking office.”VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE is in Tallinn, Estonia. Pence chief of staff Nick Ayers alerted staff and reporters on the trip that Jarrod Agen, communications director, had been promoted to deputy chief of staff, according to pooler Ashley Parker of the Washington Post.IN MOSCOW … -- “The Kremlin is done betting on Trump and planning how to strike back against U.S. sanctions,” by WaPo’s Andrew Roth in Moscow: “Regardless of whether the Kremlin believes its own denials of interfering in the 2016 elections, there is one undeniable truth: Russia is now Washington’s greatest political foe. Understanding that President Trump is ‘tied hand and foot,’ as one foreign policy hawk here put it, Moscow is weighing options for retaliation.“After a dalliance on the Trump train, Russia is once again channeling the ruthless realism that drives its political id, and embracing its role as antihero. ‘Okay, you think we’re bad guys, we’re going to be bad guys, and we’ll see whether you like it or not,’ said Konstantin Eggert, a television political commentator, describing the Kremlin thinking.” http://wapo.st/2tUhg1kRUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEI RYABKOV on potential retaliation as because of new U.S. sanctions to ABC’S MARTHA RADDATZ: “If the U.S. side decides to move further towards further deterioration we will answer, we will respond in kind. We will mirror this. … “I can assure you that different options are on the table and consideration is being given to all sorts of things, both symmetrical or asymmetrical to use a very popular word in the world of diplomacy.”FOR YOUR RADAR -- AP: “U.S. bombers fly over South Korea after North’s 2nd ICBM test”: “The United States flew two supersonic bombers over the Korean Peninsula on Sunday in a show of force against North Korea following the country’s latest intercontinental ballistic missile test. The U.S. also said it conducted a successful test of a missile defense system located in Alaska. The B-1 bombers were escorted by South Korean fighter jets as they performed a low-pass over an air base near the South Korean capital of Seoul before returning to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, the U.S. Pacific Air Forces said in a statement. …“‘North Korea remains the most urgent threat to regional stability,’ said Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, Pacific Air Forces commander. “Diplomacy remains the lead. However, we have a responsibility to our allies and our nation to showcase our unwavering commitment while planning for the worst-case scenario.’ ‘If called upon, we are ready to respond with rapid, lethal, and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing,’ O’Shaughnessy said.” http://bit.ly/2hcLebcSUNDAY BEST …-- HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI defends her leadership to CHRIS WALLACE on “FOX NEWS SUNDAY” -- “I am a master legislator. I know the budget to the nth degree. I know the motivation of people I respect the people who are in Congress. I think this is a great moment for those of us who understand what is at stake with the Affordable Care Act – what our possibilities are in terms of working together with the Republicans as has been our experience in the past. So I feel very confident about the support I have in my caucus. I have never not been opposed within my caucus.” --PELOSI ON JOHN KELLY: “I look forward to working with General Kelly. I’ve worked with him as Secretary Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security. So I will be speaking with him today. We look forward to working together. It’s a very important position – the President’s chief of staff to the President of the United States. And it has to be recognized that he is the chief of staff.”-- HHS SECRETARY TOM PRICE talks with CHUCK TODD on NBC’S “MEET THE PRESS: TODD: “So if they come up with a fix that helps, essentially gives some certainty to the insurance companies to go into rural markets, are you then going to implement the Affordable Care Act as it was meant to be, including encouraging people to sign up, encouraging enrollment, encouraging Medicaid expansion?” PRICE: “Well, our, as I said, our responsibility is to follow the law and again we take that responsibility very seriously and we will continue to do so. But remember that the current law right now is failing the American people. As I mentioned, I think, we’ve got 40 counties across this – 40 counties that will no longer have any insurance company next year.“That’s not a choice for anybody. You’ve got a third of the counties right now that only have one insurance company providing coverage. That’s not a choice for anybody. You’ve got premiums that are up, deductibles that are up, people having that insurance card and no care, got insurers fleeing the market. 83 insurance companies fled the health insurance market last year. That’s before this administration came in. This system is imploding upon itself and that's what we’re trying to care of. That’s what the president has said. That’s why we need repeal and replace.”-- PRICE to ABC’S MARTHA RADDATZ on “THIS WEEK” -- TRUMP DOESN’T REALLY WANT TO LET OBAMACARE EXPLODE: RADDATZ: “But he says... -- let it -- let Obamacare implode, then deal. What does that mean?” PRICE: “Well, I -- again, I think what that does is punctuate the seriousness with which he understands the American people are having to deal with the current situation.”-- OMB DIRECTOR MICK MULVANEY talks with CNN’S JAKE TAPPER on “STATE OF THE UNION” -- TAPPER: “When General Kelly is sworn in on Monday as White House chief of staff, will all staff members immediately begin reporting to him?” MULVANEY: “I don’t know. I answer to the chief of staff. And I will continue to do that. The Office of Management and Budget actually reports directly to the chief of staff. Obviously, we answer to the president, as everybody does in the West Wing. But, as far as I know, my reporting doesn’t change, nor do I have any reason for it to change. So, we will continue to do our business at OMB the same way we did last week. I think we’re doing some good work, and look forward to continuing that under General Kelly’s leadership.”FUN -- NYT’s NEW PODCAST – Per The Times: “[W]e published the first episode of ‘The New Washington,’ a new limited-run politics podcast that takes you inside Trump’s Washington. Each episode of ‘The New Washington,’ which airs once a week and will run through the fall, features interviews with politicians and Washington insiders, along with insight, analysis and perspective from some of The Times’s most intrepid reporters. ... In the introductory episode, Michael Barbaro talks with Carl Hulse about the most interesting and important characters in Washington today and what he’s learned from his decades covering these figures -- and sharing a home, and in one case a barber, with them.” http://nyti.ms/2u8FbFR WAPO’S ROXANNE ROBERTS in REHOBOTH BEACH, DEL. -- “Joe Biden still wants to be president. Can his family endure one last campaign?” http://wapo.st/2u9e2CHHOMESTATE POLITICS -- “Lisa Murkowski walked a tightrope in Alaska when she voted ‘no’ on Obamacare repeal,” by the L.A. Times’ Kyle Hopkins in Anchorage: “The chairman of the Alaska Republican Party says phones at the state GOP office have been ringing off the hook with Republicans angry or confused by Murkowski’s votes. To some moderates, independents and Democrats, she is a folk hero. Supporters planned a ‘Stay Strong Lisa’ rally on Saturday in Anchorage.” http://lat.ms/2viM38AELECTION WATCH -- “Hackers descend on Las Vegas to expose voting machine flaws,” by Kevin Collier in Las Vegas: “Election officials and voting machine manufacturers insist that the rites of American democracy are safe from hackers. But people like Carten Schurman need just a few minutes to raise doubts about that claim. Schurman, a professor of computer science at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, used a laptop’s Wi-Fi connection Friday to gain access to the type of voting machine that Fairfax County, Virginia, used until just two years ago. Nearby, other would-be hackers took turns trying to poke into a simulated election computer network resembling the one used by Cook County, Illinois.“Elsewhere, a gaggle of hackers went to work on a model still used in parts of seven states, as well as all of the state of Nevada. Though the device was supposedly wiped before it was sold by the government at auction, the hackers were able to uncover the results the machine tallied in 2002. They were among the hundreds of cybersecurity experts who descended on ‘Voting Village,’ one of the most talked-about features of the annual DEF CON hacker conference. In a cramped conference room, they took turns over three days cracking into 10 examples of voting machines and voter registration systems — a reminder, they say, of the risks awaiting upcoming U.S. elections.” http://politi.co/2eYkwSMBONUS GREAT WEEKEND READS, curated by Daniel Lippman, filing from the Deutsche Bahn ICE train from Munich to Berlin, where he’s attending the American Council of Germany’s American-German Young Leaders Conference:--“Scott Pruitt’s Crimes Against Nature,” by Jeff Goodell in Rolling Stone: “Trump’s EPA chief is gutting the agency, defunding science and serving the fossil-fuel industry.” http://rol.st/2uCAUhf--“Patagonia’s Big Business of #Resist,” by Abe Streep in Outside Magazine: “The iconic brand has long been the conscience of the outdoor industry, forsaking hefty profits to do the right thing. Now the company is going to war against the Trump administration over protections for public land in a bid to become a serious political player—which happens to be very good for sales.” http://bit.ly/2h7eQGN (h/t Longreads.com)--“Strippers, Insane Asylums, Assassination, and Termites: Inside the Insane History of the World’s Greatest White House Replica,” by The Daily Beast’s Will O’Connor in Baton Rouge: “Governor Huey Long was so anxious to get to the White House that he built his own in Baton Rouge. An assassin’s bullet cut short Long’s ambitions, but his gaudy knock-off survives.” http://thebea.st/2uO1fHK--“Slaves of Isis: the long walk of the Yazidi women,” by Cathy Otten in The Guardian: “When Isis rounded up Yazidi women and girls in Iraq to use as slaves, the captives drew on their collective memory of past oppressions – and a powerful will to survive.” http://bit.ly/2v83KXp--“Kristin Beck: A Navy SEAL in Transition,” by Devin Friedman in the Nov. 2015 issue of GQ: “Back when she was a member of SEAL Team 6—Kristin Beck liked to grow her beard real long. But as disguises go, that was nothing compared with the life she lived as a man. What’s it take, and how does it feel, for a paragon of masculinity to travel so far to find her true self?” http://bit.ly/2v2g9fN (h/t Longform.org)--“Naked Truths: Who are we without our clothes?” by Jamie Lauren Keiles in Racked -- per Longreads’ description: “Keiles spends a week at a naturist camp to learn ‘why people get naked.’ As she exercises, sun tans, and square dances her way through a week garbed for the most part only in shoes, she gets stripped not only of inhibitions around her own body, but also of notions around naturist intent, learning that most enthusiasts take off their clothes not for sexual reasons, but simply to feel free.” http://bit.ly/2vbWRVU--“Instagram is Pushing Restaurants to be Kitschy, Colorful, and Irresistible to Photographers,” by The Verge’s Casey Newton: “[S]ome entrepreneurs are taking the idea a step further, designing their physical spaces in the hopes of inspiring the maximum number of photos. They’re commissioning neon signs bearing modestly sly double entendres, painting elaborate murals of tropical wildlife, and embedding floor tiles with branded greetings — all in the hopes that their guests will post them.” http://bit.ly/2v3C06j--“Afghanistan’s Young Liberal Elites Challenge the Taliban,” by Susanne Koelbl in Der Spiegel: “A young, liberal elite has emerged in Kabul, including many women. It is taking a stand against the Taliban’s atrocities in the form of political and artistic initiatives and wants to put an end to Afghanistan’s culture of violence.” http://bit.ly/2v1XjWn--“Tough Talk,” by Steve Kolowich in the Chronicle of Higher Ed: “A black philosopher at Texas A&M thought forcing a public discussion about race and violence was his job. Turns out people didn’t want to hear it.” http://bit.ly/2h6YCxB (h/t Longreads.com)SPOTTED: Ed Gillespie at gate 42 at Reagan airport Sunday morning. A “couple folks walked up to wish him well,” per our tipster.HAPPY 28th ANNIVERSARY to Diane and Paul Begala.WEEKEND WEDDINGS – “Deanna Howes, Peter Spiro” -- N.Y. Times: “Mrs. Spiro, 31, is the communications director at the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, which is in Washington. She graduated from Fordham and received a master’s degree in communication from Johns Hopkins. ... Mr. Spiro, 47, is the chief of staff to Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat. The groom graduated from Tulane and received an M.B.A. from Georgetown. ... The bride and groom first met at a political fund-raiser in 2013, and after an encounter at another fund-raiser, several emails and a much longer conversation at an awards dinner, they began dating in 2015.” With pic http://nyti.ms/2uN7Hyr … Wedding pic http://bit.ly/2uKnu2JSPOTTED: Rep. Ro Khanna, Archbishop of Vilnius Gintaras Grusas, Rev. Michael J. Sheeran S.J., former Amb. to Malta Gary Matthews, former Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), ret. Lt. Col. Jim Zumwalt, Heather Purcell, Geo Saba, Kevin Fox, Will McKelvey.--Conrad Lucas, West Virginia GOP chairman and likely 2018 congressional candidate, last night married LeFlore Barbour, an RNC alum now a strategic partner at Direct Edge. The couple met in 2014 at an RNC meeting, and the wedding was in New Orleans. Pic http://bit.ly/2eYC2WVSPOTTED: former Miss. Gov. Haley Barbour, Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, RAGA political director Seth Wimer, RNC members Sharon Day, Christine Toretti, Henry Barbour, John Ryder, Vicki Drummond, Jonelle Fulmer, Doyle Webb, Jonathan Barnett, Jeannie Luckey, and Melody Potter, and Austin Barbour, Greg Thomas, Rob Cornelius, Jordan Burgess, Kayla Kessinger, Roger Hanshaw, Riley Moore, Brent Robertson, Katie Hirkman, former WV state Justice John McCuskey, Lane Flynn, Katie Leslie, and Jeppie Barbour.--“Jamie Farnsworth, Andrew Finn”: “Mrs. Finn, 33, is a digital and operations manager for education initiatives at NBC News in New York. [She is also an alum of ‘Rock Center’ and CBS News.] She graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. ... Mr. Finn, 34, is a special counsel in the litigation group at Sullivan & Cromwell, a New York law firm. He also graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, though the couple didn’t meet until after both had moved to New York. He received a law degree from New York Law School. ... The couple met in Manhattan in 2015 at a Memorial Day weekend party. They talked about their common background in Wisconsin, and laughed when they exchanged cellphone numbers, as each had retained a 608 area code from their time in Madison.” With pic http://nyti.ms/2hczSE3OBAMA ALUMNI -- “Casey Pallenik, Bradford Simmons”: “The bride, 30 ... is a director of business development for Atlantic Media in Washington. She is also studying for an M.B.A. at Johns Hopkins. Previously, she was a political appointee of the Obama administration, where she served as a staff assistant in the East Wing visitors office, facilitating public tours and large events at the White House. She graduated cum laude from American University. ... The groom, 31, is a foreign affairs officer at the State Department, where he advises on energy security matters in the Asia Pacific. He graduated from Emory University in Atlanta and received a master’s degree in international affairs from George Washington University. ... The couple met in 2007 while studying abroad in Prague.” With pic http://nyti.ms/2vb33wt ... Wedding pics http://bit.ly/2tUquux ... http://bit.ly/2wbfgi5--SPOTTED: Graham Brookie, Samantha Tubman, Jonny Dach, Leslie Dach, Chelsea Bollinger, Emily Boyle, Mike DelMoro, Will Jennings and Adrienne Watson, Tess Hetzel, Dana Rosensweig, Elizabeth Pan, Julia Duncan, Micah Fergenson, Andrea Richter, Thayer Surette, Josh Volz, Alex Kahl, Rachel Alben, Kelly McCoy and Sid Mahanta.BIRTHDAYS: Jim Rutenberg ... WSJ’s Shane Harris ... Dave Kochel, Jeb and Mitt alum ... Chris Battle ... Carl Lavin ... Medicare is 52 ... Arnold Schwarzenegger is 7-0 … Anita Hill is 61 ... Trump WH alum Michael Short … Eleanor Smeal is 78 ... former Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.) is 77 ... Michelle Bernard ... Mario H. Lopez, president of Hispanic Leadership Fund (hat tip: Joseph Culotta) ... Rebecca Kutler, VP at CNN … former CFTC Chairman Tim Massad is 61 ... Chelsie Gosk, social media at Airbnb and a New Yorker alum … Freeman Klopott … Meredith Simpson … Megan Rodriguez ... Fran McCarthy (h/t Jon Haber) … Tony Maciulis is 41 ... Mark Beatty, 270 Strategies founding partner and 2012 Obama deputy battleground states director. “It’s his last bachelor birthday -- he marries the love of his life in less than a month!” (h/t Lynda Tran) ... Ben Marter, comms director for Sen. Durbin ... Candace Randle ... Robert Gottheim … Brad Jenkins of Funny or Die … Bill O’Leary, a partner at Heidrick & Struggles, celebrating by playing golf and having dinner with the kids (h/ts Ben Chang) ...... Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America ... Courtney Asbill ... former Rep. Quico Canseco (R-Tex.) is 68 ... former Rep. Wendell Bailey (R-Mo.) is 77 ... Furhawn Shah ... Kana Smith ... Ines de La Cuetara ... Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) is 51 ... Politico’s Tyler Weyant, Alexa Velickovich and Francesca Pigna ... MSNBC’s Isaac-Davy Aronson ... Garry Malphrus ... HuffPost’s Ashley Alman ... Maggie Easterlin Cutrell ... Kate Harris … Lindsay Butcher ... Colleen Murray … Glen Chambers … Salesforce’s Jim Green … Bonnie Eggers ... Nate Beeler ... Emily Sanders Elam ... Dave Koenig is 58 ... Robert Basmadjian ... Stephen Gallo is 33 ... Paul Dickson ... Wesley Boatwright is 53 ... George McDowell … Jonathan Spalter ... Asher Grady (h/ts Teresa Vilmain)

30 июля, 14:07

How Barbara Lee Became An Army of One

She was the only member of Congress to vote against the use of force after 9/11. Now, she’s finding unlikely allies in her campaign against America’s forever war: Republicans.

30 июля, 00:23

REPORT: IMRAN AWAN AND RELATIVES EMPLOYED AS HOUSE IT STAFFERS OWED MONEY TO HEZBOLLAH-CONNECTED FUG…

REPORT: IMRAN AWAN AND RELATIVES EMPLOYED AS HOUSE IT STAFFERS OWED MONEY TO HEZBOLLAH-CONNECTED FUGITIVE: Congressional aides suspected of criminally misusing their access to House computer systems owed $100,000 to an Iraqi politician who is wanted by U.S. authorities and has been linked to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Middle Eastern terrorist outfit. Imran Awan and four […]

29 июля, 15:31

ANDREW MCCARTHY ON THE DEMOCRATS’ PAKISTANI IT SCANDAL: Asking no more questions, the credit unio…

ANDREW MCCARTHY ON THE DEMOCRATS’ PAKISTANI IT SCANDAL: Asking no more questions, the credit union wired the money . . . to Pakistan. As you let all that sink in, consider this: Awan and his family cabal of fraudsters had access for years to the e-mails and other electronic files of members of the House’s […]

29 июля, 02:47

Qatar Gives The U.S. The Finger

A recent Congressional Subcommittee on foreign affairs tore into the terror hub ignored by previous administrations that is Qatar. But Qatar isn't backing down from its support of accelerating horror. As Qatar takes its case to the United Nations. The very organization behind the genocidal replacement migration policies allowing Qatar funded terrorists to enter Europe undetected. Reuters reports " "The entire campaign represents a series of violations of international law," Qatar Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani told reporters after meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. "The state of Qatar is not going to spare any effort in order to overcome those violations and try to solve it through the right channels. The United Nations is the right platform to start from," he said without giving further details. Even the soccer team is promoting their emir's proud stance on suicide bombers and random mass slaughter of civilians. Fox Sports reports " FIFA has fined Qatar’s soccer federation after national team players breached rules against political statements by displaying T-shirts of the country’s Emir at a World Cup qualifier." Regardless of Qatar's continuing scapegoat status. It is abundantly clear that the powers that be in the Gulf States are just buying time with one hand as they continue to give western civilization a big middle finger with the other. Jon Bowne reports. Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

29 июля, 01:42

THE NORTH KOREAN MISSILE TESTED TODAY PROBABLY HAS ICBM RANGE: North Korea tested a missile tod…

THE NORTH KOREAN MISSILE TESTED TODAY PROBABLY HAS ICBM RANGE: North Korea tested a missile today that “probably” demonstrated their capability to strike America’s Pacific Coast, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee warned. Defense Department spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said in a statement today that the Pentagon “tracked a single North Korea […]

28 июля, 14:07

Struggling with the facts: How terrible was Stalin’s Terror?

In the early 1990s I was dealing much with statistics related to the Soviet terror. According to my calculations, during the whole period of the Soviet regime the security services arrested 7.1 million people. However, Russian public opinion believed that in 1937-1939 alone about 12 million people had been arrested. So, I put all my calculations aside. For a long time. The above story was told by Memorial chairman, Arseny Roginsky. Memorial is a historical and civil rights organization that aims “to promote the revelation of the truth about the historical past and perpetuate the memory of the victims of political repression.” As one of Memorial’s founders, Roginsky undoubtedly has done much for the gathering and disseminating of information about victims of political persecution in the USSR. At the same time, as his account testifies, the popularly believed estimates of the number of Stalin’s victims in the late 1980s and early 1990s were suspect. The atmosphere in society was so emotional that even a respected historian did not want to publish controversial findings, even if they were well researched and based on fact. If one looks at the purported number of Stalin’s victims that were circulated at that time, it’s clear why Roginsky was not eager to go public with his data. Unrealistic numbers Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the famous dissident whose book, Gulag Archipelago, was popular during Gorbachev’s perestroika, was one of the most influential people on this issue. In that book he mentions 66.7 million victims of the Soviet regime from 1917 to 1959. Alexander Solzhenitsyn in a quilted camp jacket just after being discharged. Kok-Terek, Kazakhstan, March 1953. In 1945 Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to 8 years in a labor camp, followed by internal exile. / Unknown Author In 1991, the biggest Soviet newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda published Solzhenitsyn’s interview with Spanish TV where he added 44 million victims to this figure; these were Soviet citizens who perished during World War II. This brought the overall number of Stalin’s victims to around 110 million. But the total population of the Soviet Union before the War was 170 million, as the 1939 census showed. Needless to say, these numbers openly contradict each other. Such exaggerated figures were fed to the Soviet public not only by dissidents but also by the members of the Communist Party. Historian Roy Medvedev in 1990 got a spot in the Central Committee of the CPSU, and he claimed that the number of victims of political repression in the USSR from 1927 to 1953 was 40 million. Victims of Stalinist repression have been counted not only by dissidents and CPSU officials but also by professional historians in the West. Robert Conquest was the scholar who coined the term “Great Terror,” and he claims that about 9 million people were imprisoned in the USSR by the end of 1939. The last photo of the poet Osip Mandelstam, 1938. / Archive image Though smaller than previous estimates, this figure still is five times greater than reality. Historian Viktor Zemskov, considered to be one of the leading specialists on this topic, studied the statistical data of the Soviet penal system, (Roginsky says that the Soviet authorities carefully documented the cases of those arrested), and he calculated that in 1940 there were around 1.9 million people in Soviet jails and prison camps. Using past political repressions to score political points today In 1990, KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov said that from 1930 to 1953 nearly 3.8 million people were jailed, and 786,000 were sentenced to death. The accuracy of these numbers is not challenged by professional historians. A mug shot of Grigory Zinoviev. / Getty Images As Zemskov recalled, the public simply did not want to believe Kryuchkov, thinking the numbers were falsified, and referred instead to The Gulag Archipelago with its fantastic tens of millions of victims. Given the fact that Soviet authorities passed more than 600,000 death sentences in just two years (1937-1939), the numbers presented by the KGB chief looked plausible. However, it was not enough for the public, and so one cannot escape the question why it was like this? Why did people tend to believe exaggerated estimates and reject the facts? Sergei Korolev in prison, 1938. / Archive image Sergey Kara-Murza, a social scientist specializing in Soviet history, thinks he has the answer. He argues that although the purges of 1930s were a wrenching phenomenon in Russian history, “there cannot be an objective analysis.” “The pain caused by the lives loss is still too great, and any attempt to make an unbiased analysis looks amoral. Relatives and even sons of politicians murdered in the 1930s went on to play a prominent role in the political arena during perestroika,” Kara-Murza wrote. “The very image of repressions is such a powerful political tool that the means for its creation and use are guarded with strict but not always obvious censorship.” Kara-Murza’s thought about using the repressions as a political tool today is quite in line with what political scientist Maria Lipman wrote in Foreign Affairs about the impact of the de-Stalinization campaign during Perestroika, at the core of which was the issue of Stalin’s terror. Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn's widow Natalya reacts at the opening of the Gulag history museum in Moscow, Oct. 30, 2015. / AP De-Stalinization “radically delegitimized the Communist regime. By the end of 1991 the meltdown of Soviet Communism was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.”  Paradoxically enough, the de-Stalinization process that buried the USSR was not always founded on truth and reality. Read more: The Georgian on their mind: Why Russians still approve of Stalin

28 июля, 12:00

Fishermen's Brexit and the Next Moon Landing: The Week in Global-Affairs Writing

The highlights from seven days of reading about the world

28 июля, 00:54

Remarks by the Vice President at a Swearing-in Ceremony for the Ambassador to Japan

Indian Treaty Room 4:49 P.M. EDT THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, good afternoon. And on behalf of the First Family, welcome to the White House.  It's going to be my great honor today and, in fact, a privilege to administer the oath of office to the 42nd United States Ambassador to Japan, Bill Hagerty.  (Applause.)  We're joined today by some very distinguished guests.  Senator Alexander and Senator Corker are both from Bill Hagerty's home state of Tennessee.  Would you join me in welcoming both of them?  (Applause.)   I see distinguished members of the military and other honored guests.  I know the family is very grateful you're here, as is the President and myself. We're joined today also by the most distinguished guests who are here, and that is our incoming ambassador's wonderful family -- his mother, Ruth -- (applause) -- and most especially, his wonderful wife Chrissy and their four beautiful children.  (Applause.) Could you guys stand up?  The Hagerty family heads to Japan, and it's a big crew. We also have many other honored guests with us today, including the Commander of the United States Armed Forces Japan, General Jerry Martinez, and many distinguished members of Congress from his home state, as well as the senators I mentioned before.  In fact, it's important to note that Senator Corker is, in fact, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and we're truly honored to have you and Senator Alexander here. We're also joined by members of Congress from the House of Representatives in Tennessee -- Congressman John Duncan, Congresswoman Diane Black, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Congressman Scott DesJarlais, David Kustoff, and Congressman Phil Roe.  Would you give them all a round of applause.  (Applause.)  And I know it's a particular honor to have with us Bill's counterpart, Japan's ambassador to the United States of America, Ambassador Kenichiro Sasae and his wife, Mrs. Nobuko Sasae -- (applause) -- as well as the Special Advisor to the Prime Minister and member of the Diet, Katsuyuki Kawai. As I had the privilege of expressing during my trip to Japan on the President's behalf earlier this year, under President Donald Trump, the United States is firmly committed -- firmly committed to our treasured friend and ally, Japan.  One of the clearest signs of that commitment, I believe, today, is the President's choice of Bill Hagerty as America's Ambassador to Japan.  (Applause.)  Bill, throughout your life, you have helped to strengthen the ties between America and Japan.  It started early in your career, when you actually lived in Japan on a three-year assignment as a consultant. You then served as an economic advisor under President George Herbert Walker Bush, and in your time as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, you worked with Japanese firms to make investments in your home state that have created good-paying jobs for the people of Tennessee.  But your commitment to Japan reaches far beyond a professional level.  Your service on the Board of the Far East Council of the Boy Scouts of America has brought the people of our nations closer together and has deepened our friendship of our nations for generations to come. President Trump has now called on you to represent the United States as our ambassador to Japan.  This is a momentous time in the life of our alliance. In this time of challenge and widening threats in the region, the U.S.-Japan alliance remains the cornerstone of peace, prosperity, and freedom in the Asia-Pacific. The United States and Japan stand together resolutely to confront whatever threats are posed to us, especially those posed by the regime in North Korea -- and we always will.  (Applause.)   And the President is also committed to expanding our bonds of commerce. As President Trump said when he met with Prime Minister Abe earlier this year, in his words, the "vibrant exchange between us is truly a blessing" -- and so it is.  And through the U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue, which the President had me launch during my visit in April, our nations have been working tirelessly to deepen our bilateral economic ties even further, and we look forward to working with you to advance that effort. Bill, given your integrity, your record of leadership, and your distinguished history, the President and I are confident that you will excel in this new role.  You will help make the extraordinary friendship and alliance between the United States and Japan even stronger. And now it is my privilege to administer to you the oath of office.  (The oath of office is administered.) Ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce to you the United States Ambassador to Japan, William Frances Hagerty IV.  (Applause.)  END   4:57 P.M. EDT  

26 июля, 20:18

Tax negotiators to unveil broad-brush proposal

The "Big 6" tax reform group, composed of White House officials and congressional leaders, plans to release a broad-brush tax proposal on Friday before the House leaves for its August recess, according to six sources close to the administration, lobbyists and former Republican congressional staffers.More of a messaging document than a detailed policy blueprint, the plan is meant to present a unified front on tax reform after the Republicans’ mixed and often fractured messages on its health care bills. The plan is also intended to give outside conservative groups the push they need to spend millions of dollars during the August recess to build momentum for any tax overhaul and help the White House sell its message.House Speaker Paul Ryan told supporters at a fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club on Tuesday night to expect the plan by the end of the week, according to two lobbyists in attendance.The policy details of the brief document are being finalized at a Big Six meeting on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m., according to a source close to the administration. It’s unclear how that document will treat the border adjustment tax on imports — a Ryan pet project and a key way to pay for deep cuts to tax rates — that the White House has long viewed as a non-starter. Instead, the plan is expected to lay out broad principles the group hopes to see as part of tax reform, such as a lower corporate rate and a shift to a territorial tax system that would require U.S.-based multinationals to pay U.S. tax only on income they earn domestically. It will also lay out the next steps in the process by handing the detailed policy work over to the tax-writing committees.The question of how to pay for the lower rates that President Donald Trump has promised, including a 15 percent corporate tax rate, and which tax benefits to cut has plagued the administration's tax discussions with the Hill, especially on items like interest deductibility and full expensing of business capital investments.But not all Republican political strategists are convinced that this was the time to put out a tax proposal, even a vague one, as the health care debate rages on in the Senate.“It’s malpractice to release something like this before August recess when there are no senators here to defend it,” said one Republican strategist and former senior congressional staffer.The Big Six negotiators are Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch.

26 июля, 01:06

Bill Browder's Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee

“I hope that my story will help you understand the methods of Russian operatives in Washington and how they use U.S. enablers to achieve major foreign policy goals without disclosing those interests,” Browder writes.

26 июля, 00:23

House approves Russia sanctions that handcuff Trump

The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, with the GOP-controlled chamber advancing a significant new constraint on President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.The sanctions legislation, which allows lawmakers to block Trump from any attempt to roll back sanctions against Moscow, is expected to pass the Senate in similarly bipartisan fashion before next month’s recess.The White House has yet to say definitively whether Trump would sign the bill, which his administration had criticized for failing to give him necessary “flexibility” to work on warmer relations with Russia. But it appears the votes would be there for Congress to override any veto from Trump.The House’s 419-3 vote on the sanctions bill saw only three dissenters: GOP Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, John Duncan of Tennessee and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Even Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), Russia’s staunchest defender on the Hill, revealed hours before the vote that he would support the measure out of support for its penalties against Tehran and Pyongyang.Lawmakers in both parties hailed the vote and pressed the White House to publicly support the bill, after the administration had tried to secure more Trump-friendly changes after the Senate passed an earlier version on a 98-2 vote. “Senate Republican leaders should move this bill as soon as possible, so that it can be on the president's desk without delay,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “Passing the bill on a bipartisan basis will send a strong signal to the White House that the Kremlin needs to be held accountable for meddling in last year's election.”After the House and Senate reached a bipartisan deal to move forward on Saturday, the White House signaled it would back the bill after other alterations were made to ease its impact on industry. But new White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that the president had not yet committed to signing the sanctions package into law."While the President supports tough sanctions on North Korea, Iran and Russia, the White House is reviewing the House legislation and awaits a final legislative package for the President’s desk," Sanders said in a statement.In addition to giving lawmakers veto power over any relaxation of sanctions on Russia, the bill also converts some existing penalties into law, thus making them more difficult to remove. The legislation’s sanctions against Iran are designed to target its supporters of terrorism and its missile development capabilities.The North Korea sanctions were a late addition to the package, spearheaded by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and track with those included in a bill the House passed 419-1 in May. But the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, New York Rep. Eliot Engel, suggested in a floor speech ahead of the vote that the Senate may have lingering issues with the approach the House took on that bill.“[I]t seems we may be on the floor before we ironed out all the differences with the other body,” Engel said of the Senate. “I hope that’s not the case.”Andrew Hanna contributed to this report.

25 июля, 02:43

Russia Is Not Happy with Trump's 'Reset'

Dimitri Alexander Simes Politics, Europe Moscow was cautiously optimistic about the new administration’s policy towards Russia. It may soon become more confrontational. Several weeks after the Trump-Putin meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, U.S.-Russian relations show little signs of improvement. On the contrary, many in the Russian political establishment are increasingly exasperated with the American president’s inability to deliver on his campaign promise of better relations with Moscow. Should the lack progress continue or, as now seems more than likely in the form of additional congressional sanctions, further escalation occur, the Kremlin may well pursue a more confrontational policy towards the United States. Following Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in last year’s presidential election, Moscow was cautiously optimistic about the new administration’s policy towards Russia. Alexey Pushkov, a Russian senator and former head of the State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told The National Interest that the positive feelings many in Russia felt towards Trump stemmed from two main reasons. First, they welcomed his public statements about Russia, which raised the possibility of a normalization of relations. Secondly, they found him clearly preferable to Hillary Clinton, whom they regarded as the “architect” of U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Obama administration’s “anti-Russian policy.” Read full article

24 июля, 13:28

FULL TEXT: Jared Kusher's prepared statement to Congress

As prepared for delivery. STATEMENT OF JARED C. KUSHNER TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEESJuly 24, 2017I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting forinterviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.I am not a person who has sought the spotlight. First in my business and now in publicservice, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception. Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.My Role in the Trump for President CampaignBefore joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managingcompanies. My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President. However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued toevolve. I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting,polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign governmentofficials.All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I wasfaced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person tomanage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan ofaction. I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whommade significant contributions toward the campaign’s ultimate success. Our nimble cultureallowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as thesituation warranted. I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.It is also important to note that a campaign’s success starts with its message and itsmessenger. Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly.The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled andexperienced primary opponents and win the presidency; he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election. He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.Campaign Contacts with Foreign PersonsWhen it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nomineefor President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted toreach out to the campaign. My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries. These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries. To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States. While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail. To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate. In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign. I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign,there were hardly any. The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. in April 2016. This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policyspeech. Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution. I arrived at] the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order. After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together. Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event. He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. With all the ambassadors, including Mr. Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump’s speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America’s foreign policy. The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election. Each exchange lasted less than a minute; some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies. I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at sometime between April and November of 2016. While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador. We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place. A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls. I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then. In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador. When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how wecould verify it was real. To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact Irecalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met monthsearlier, so I sent an email asking Mr. Simes, “What is the name of the Russian ambassador?”Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedlyoccurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak. The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred. The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information. In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr. asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3:00 p.m. The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other’s meetings when requested. He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meetingwould occur at 4:00 PM at his office. Documents confirm my memory that this was calendaredas "Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner." No one else was mentioned.5 I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since beenidentified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russianchildren. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time wasnot well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that themeeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to mywork, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutesand wrote "Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting." I had not met theattorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this shortmeeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange beforeit was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees.No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow upto the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names),and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted. Finally, after seeing theemail, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to mysecurity clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.There was one more possible contact that I will note. On October 30, 2016, I received arandom email from the screenname "Guccifer400." This email, which I interpreted as a hoax,was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demandedthat we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information. I brought the emailto the attention of a U.S. Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and askedwhat he thought. He advised me to ignore it and not to reply -- which is what I did. The sendernever contacted me again.6To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during thecampaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russiangovernment.Transition Contacts with Foreign PersonsThe transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign. Startingon election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations fromwell-wishers in the United States and abroad. Dozens of messages came from foreign officialsseeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships withwhat would be the new administration. During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts withpeople from over fifteen countries. Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which Isolicited.On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the RussianAmbassador. As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recallthe Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at theMayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier. In addition, far from being urgent, that meetingwas not set up for two weeks -- on December 1. The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, wherewe had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes. Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.),who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended. During the meeting, afterpleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have withforeign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations. Also, as I had done in othermeetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person(whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who hadcontact with his President. The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after7Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one thatexisted before Election Day.The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especiallywanted to address U.S. policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what hecalled his "generals." He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the newadministration. He said the generals could not easily come to the U.S. to convey this informationand he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation. GeneralFlynn or I explained that there were no such lines. I believed developing a thoughtful approachon Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they hadan existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would becomfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn. TheAmbassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive thisinformation after the Inauguration. Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a "secret backchannel." I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when theadministration took office. I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any otherRussian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period.We did not discuss sanctions.Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with theAmbassador on December 7. I declined. They then asked if I could meet on December 6; Ideclined again. They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet. I declined these requestsbecause I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition. He asked if he couldmeet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed. He did so onDecember 12. My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person8named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the RussianPresident who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and bestways to work together. I agreed to meet Mr. Gorkov because the Ambassador has been soinsistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr. Gorkov was onlyin New York for a couple days. I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred thenext day, on December 13.The meeting with Mr. Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes. He introducedhimself and gave me two gifts -- one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where mygrandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Anynotion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as abusinessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with thetransition office). After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements aboutthe Russian economy. He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expresseddisappointment with U.S.-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a betterrelationship in the future. As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the samesentiments I had with other foreign officials I met. There were no specific policies discussed. Wehad no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration. At no time wasthere any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans,banking arrangements or any private business of any kind. At the end of the short meeting, wethanked each other and I went on to other meetings. I did not know or have any contact with Mr.Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.9To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during thetransition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russiangovernment.Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance FormThere has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form. As myattorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted dueto a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) withforeign government officials. Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made tosupplement it.In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of myinvolvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work todivest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financialdisclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organizeit, review it and put it into the electronic form. They sent an email to my assistant in Washington,communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpretedthat message as meaning that the entire form was completed. At that point, the form was a roughdraft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts andeven omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known). Because of thismiscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informedthe transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form. The very nextday, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, whichconfirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI. The supplement10disclosed that I had "numerous contacts with foreign officials" and that we were going throughmy records to provide an accurate and complete list. I provided a list of those contacts in thenormal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or mediareports about my form.It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians. That is notthe case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted. Thesupplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twentycountries that might be responsive to the questions on the form. These included meetings withindividuals such as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico’sSecretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left offbefore.Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whateverinformation is needed to investigate my background. In addition, my attorneys have explainedthat the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited. Theform itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be"update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]" as part of the security clearance process. A goodexample is the June 9 meeting. For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of thatmeeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it asone with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86. When documents reviewed for productionin connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because ofthe language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on asupplement. I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyerwas a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form. This11supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries,reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of themeeting.* * * *As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with theinvestigating bodies. I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperateas I have nothing to hide. As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation andconjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia. I have disclosed thesecontacts and described them as fully as I can recall. The record and documents I am providingwill show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands duringthe campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election orparticularly memorable. I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I alsohave tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate thatwe supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense.I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country tothe best of my abilities. I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements anddocuments I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russianrepresentatives during the campaign and transition. I did not collude, nor know of anyone elsein the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. Ihave not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. Ihave tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above andbeyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.David KiharaCell: 571-329-3568

24 июля, 13:28

FULL TEXT: Jared Kushner's prepared statement to Congress

Remarks as prepared for delivery. STATEMENT OF JARED C. KUSHNER TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEESJuly 24, 2017I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.I am not a person who has sought the spotlight. First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception. Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.My Role in the Trump for President Campaign Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies. My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President. However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve. I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action. I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign’s ultimate success. Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as thesituation warranted. I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.It is also important to note that a campaign’s success starts with its message and itsmessenger. Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly. The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency; he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election. He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.Campaign Contacts with Foreign PersonsWhen it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign. My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries. These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries. To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States. While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail. To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate. In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign. I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any. The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. in April 2016. This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech. Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution. I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order. After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together. Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event. He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. With all the ambassadors, including Mr. Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump’s speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America’s foreign policy. The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election. Each exchange lasted less than a minute; some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies. I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016. While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador. We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place. A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls. I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then. In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador. When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real. To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr. Simes, “What is the name of the Russian ambassador?”Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak. The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information. In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr. asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3:00 p.m. The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other’s meetings when requested. He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4:00 PM at his office. Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as "Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner." No one else was mentioned.I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote "Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting." I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees.No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted. Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.There was one more possible contact that I will note. On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname "Guccifer400." This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information. I brought the email to the attention of a U.S. Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought. He advised me to ignore it and not to reply -- which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.Transition Contacts with Foreign PersonsThe transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign. Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad. Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration. During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries. Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador. As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recallhe Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier. In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks -- on December 1. The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes. Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.), who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended. During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations. Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President. The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address U.S. policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his "generals." He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration. He said the generals could not easily come to the U.S. to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation. General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines. I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn. The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration. Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a "secret back channel." I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office. I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period.We did not discuss sanctions.Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined. They then asked if I could meet on December 6; I declined again. They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet. I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition. He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed. He did so on December 12. My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together. I agreed to meet Mr. Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr. Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days. I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.The meeting with Mr. Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes. He introduced himself and gave me two gifts -- one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office). After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy. He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with U.S.-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future. As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met. There were no specific policies discussed. We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration. At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind. At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings. I did not know or have any contact with Mr. Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance FormThere has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form. As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials. Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it. In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form. They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed. At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known). Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form. The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI. The supplement disclosed that I had "numerous contacts with foreign officials" and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list. I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians. That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted. The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form. These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background. In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited. Theform itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be "update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]" as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting. For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86. When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement. I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form. This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.* * * *As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies. I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide. As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia. I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall. The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable. I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved. It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense.I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities. I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition. I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.

24 июля, 09:06

Деньги для террористов

Правительства разных государств пытаются лишить террористические сети доступа к мировой финансовой системе. Толку от этого почти ноль. В арсенале противодействия политиков террористам «заморозка» финансовых активов, составление «чёрных списков», разработка законов, перекрывающих лазейки для финансирования теневой деятельности, которая может быть связана с терроризмом. Однако длинные минусы от такой политики получают в своих кассах бизнес и бюджет.

Выбор редакции
23 июля, 20:00

EU's Mogherini urges direct talks to end Gulf crisis

Qatar and its neighbours should agree 'clear principles and a roadmap' to resolve row, says EU's foreign affairs chief.

21 июля, 23:11

Anthony Scaramucci Is the Right Answer to the Wrong Question

If Trump were right to blame all of his problems on messaging, perhaps the smooth-talking businessman could solve them. But he’s not.

21 июля, 16:26

Пресс-конференция С.В.Лаврова и С.Камары | Sergey Lavrov & Samura M. W. Kamara Press conference

Пресс-конференция Министра иностранных дел России С.В.Лаврова с Министром иностранных дел и международного сотрудничества Республики Сьерра-Леоне Самурой Камарой, Москва, 21 июля 2017 года | Press-conference of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Sergey Lavrov with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Sierra Leone Samura Kamara, Moscow, July 21, 2017

21 июля, 12:54

С.Лавров и С.Камара | Sergey Lavrov & Samura M. W. Kamara

Министр иностранных дел России С.В.Лавров встретился с Министром иностранных дел и международного сотрудничества Республики Сьерра-Леоне Самурой Камарой, Москва, 21 июля 2017 года | Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Sergey Lavrov met with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Sierra Leone Samura Kamara, Moscow, July 21, 2017

06 февраля 2016, 11:56

ФРС на Украине: идеальное порабощение

Глава Федрезерва Бен Бернанке сделал все, чтобы вызвать в "незалежной" хаос

03 декабря 2015, 06:06

Ливия. Приглашение в бездну

Из огня да в полымя. Так кратко можно описать последние события в Ливии. Запад взялся за примирение двух правительств, существующих в стране, но последствия этой инициативы могут ввергнуть Ливию в ещё больший хаос и окончательно уничтожить когда-то процветавшее государство.

26 октября 2015, 15:30

Как работать с Россией в Сирии ("Foreign Affairs", США)

Трудно вести войну, когда твои союзники не могут договориться, кто враг. Именно с такой ситуацией Соединенные Штаты столкнулись в Сирии. Вашингтон в попытках создать коалицию для борьбы вынужден уговаривать союзников из Персидского залива, которые хотят воевать с сирийским лидером Башаром аль-Асадом, но не с радикальными исламистами. Ему приходится иметь дело с Турцией, которая выступает против Асада и радикальных исламистов, но воевать хочет преимущественно с курдами. Еще один союзник США Израиль нерешительно смотрит на бурлящий водоворот своих врагов и, как кажется, готов вмешаться лишь в том случае, если появятся серьезные угрозы. И наконец, Германия желает вооружать курдов, а американский спецназ уже взаимодействует с ними. Во всей этой путанице неудивительно, что результаты борьбы с самопровозглашенным «Исламским государством» (ИГИЛ) у коалиции сегодня - весьма неутешительные.

22 апреля 2015, 14:22

Китай: правила дорожного движения для Шелкового пути ("Foreign Affairs", США)

Пекин задумался о евразийской интеграции Пока мир внимательно следит за агрессивным поведением Китая в восточных морях, китайские лидеры глядят на запад. В конце марта китайская Комиссия по национальному развитию и реформам совместно с министерством иностранных дел и министерством торговли подготовила подробный проект «Экономического пояса Шелкового пути» и «Морского Шелкового пути 21 века». Этот проект зачастую сокращенно называют «Один пояс, один путь». В случае успеха амбициозных планов Пекина, Китай станет ключевой движущей силой экономической и дипломатической евразийской интеграции. «Один пояс, один путь» призывает страны Азии, Европы, Ближнего Востока и Африки координировать дипломатические усилия, стандартизировать и объединять торговые площадки, зоны свободной торговли и торговые процедуры, интегрировать финансовую сферу с опорой на юань и развивать международные культурные и образовательные программы. Иногда его называют «китайским планом Маршалла», но китайские власти не согласны с такими сравнениями. С их точки зрения, они объединяют Евразию, а не проводят в ней новые границы и стремятся к экономическому росту, а не к политическому влиянию. Однако это не отменяет опасности, связанной с усилиями Китая: если Пекин не сможет найти баланс между инвестициями и дипломатией, с одной стороны, и поиском политического влияния, с другой, он может оказаться втянутым в конфликты, к которым он не готов. В дальний путь Хотя точная конфигурация «Одного пояса, одного пути» в разных вариантах выглядит по-разному, в целом проект предусматривает, что сухопутный «пояс» из автомобильных и железных дорог, трубопроводов и телекоммуникационных сетей должен будет связать Китай, Центральную Азию, Ближний Восток, Европу и Россию. Морской «путь», в свою очередь, пройдет от берегов Китая по Южно-Китайскому морю, Индийскому океану, Красному морю и Средиземному морю (через Суэцкий канал) с остановками в Африке. В основе «Одного пояса, одного пути» лежит давняя идея китайских ученых о продвижении на Запад в ответ на американский «стратегический поворот к Азии». Название двойного проекта Пекина отсылает к еще боле давнему прошлому — к временам Шелкового пути — и к исторической роли Китая в торговле между Европой и Азией. Китайский президент Си Цзиньпин впервые официально заявил о проекте «пояса» в сентябре 2013 года в Казахстане, а о проекте «пути» — в октябре того же года в Индонезии. Деньги на проекты пойдут из пресловутого Азиатского банка инфраструктурных инвестиций (АБИИ), капитал которого составляет 50 миллиардов долларов, Фонда нового Шелкового пути с капиталом в 40 миллиардов долларов и Нового банка развития, созданного странами БРИКС. По расчетам китайских властей, их программы затронут 4,4 миллиарда человек в 65 странах, а объем торговли Китая со странами-участниками может за десятилетие дойти до 2,5 триллиона долларов в год. South China Morning Post назвала этот проект в своей редакционной статье «самым крупным и масштабным в истории страны». Стратегия «Один пояс, один путь» должна помочь Китаю достичь ряда внутриполитических целей, соответствующих «китайской мечте» Си о национальном обновлении. Главная из этих целей — укрепить китайскую экономику, дав выход излишкам промышленного производства. Сейчас, когда Пекин старается охладить перегретый инфраструктурный сектор, не создавая при этом массовой безработицы, планы, которые позволяют перенаправить вызываемый притоком инвестиций рост за пределы Китая, особенно актуальны. Внутри китайских границ проект фокусируется на сравнительно слаборазвитых западных и южных регионах. Власти надеются, что экономический рост и рост занятости в них помогут снизить межэтническую напряженность — а также улучшат ситуацию с занятостью в других регионах. Во внешней торговле Китай также рассчитывает получить выгоду от валютных операций, подкрепляющих статус юаня как глобальной валюты. Помимо этого, энергетические сделки должны будут гарантировать Китаю бесперебойные поставки энергоносителей на фоне растущего спроса. Вдобавок сухопутная энергетическая инфраструктура сможет ослабить опасную зависимость от морских поставок. К тому же развитые экономики по-прежнему растут медленно, и Китай рассматривает азиатские развивающиеся страны как удобные — и географически близкие — источники роста. «Один пояс, один путь» также служит внешнеполитическим целям, укрепляя отношения Китая с соседями. Двойной проект расширит связи Пекина с ведущими развивающимися странами и сможет послужить основой для новой международной системы, в центре которой будет находиться Китай. Рост значения Китая заставил Пекин смириться — пусть и неохотно — с международными обязательствами, а теперь торговый проект позволит Си начать воплощать в жизнь идею «сообщества общей судьбы», подразумевающую совместный рост азиатских экономик в ближайшие десятилетия. Укрепление двусторонних связей со странами, лежащими вдоль «пути» и «пояса», может помочь Китаю создать сеть незападных международных организаций, в которых он сможет играть основную — если не преобладающую — роль. Такие структуры, как Шанхайская организация сотрудничества и Совещание по взаимодействию и мерам доверия в Азии дадут Пекину возможность обрести дипломатический вес за пределами отношений с Вашингтоном. Препятствия на пути Сейчас «Один пояс, один путь», по-видимому, постепенно набирает обороты. У проекта есть серьезная финансовая база, которую ему обеспечивают, в первую очередь, хваленый китайский АБИИ и поддержка китайских политических и экономических элит. Тем не менее, на пути китайских амбиций по-прежнему лежат определенные препятствия. Хотя попытки заполнить инфраструктурный вакуум Азии (в инфраструктуру в этом регионе необходимо вложить до 2020 года восемь триллионов долларов) можно только приветствовать, прогрессу могут помешать недостаточно жесткие правила кредитования. Если страны-участники потратят связанное с «Одним поясом, одним путем» финансирование на бессмысленные или нерациональные проекты и не смогут расплатиться с долгами, пострадают китайские капиталовложения. Вдобавок, если с этими проектами будут связаны скандалы в областях экологии или прав человека, может пострадать имидж Китая на международной арене. В морской сфере усилия Китая по модернизации портовой инфраструктуры вдоль пути и созданию зон свободной торговли должны увеличить торговый потенциал стран-участников, однако пока не ясно, как «морской Шелковый путь» повлияет на существующие судоходные линии. Более того, хотя китайский министр иностранных дел Ван И (Wang Yi) подчеркивал, что «Один пояс, один путь» не следует считать «геополитическим инструментом», Китай, скорее всего, попробует превратить экономическое сотрудничество в источник политического влияния. Для этого Пекину потребуется преодолеть ряд серьезных преград — таких, как конкуренция в Центральной Азии, Южной Азии и на Ближнем Востоке со стороны Индии, России и Соединенных Штатов. Российский проект Евразийского союза, экономически объединяющего бывшие советские республики, напрямую конкурирует с интеграционной стратегией Китая — несмотря на улучшающиеся китайско-российские отношения. У Индии китайские планы также вызывают опасения, так как проекты Пекина могут подорвать ее программы «Действия на Востоке» и «Связь с Центральной Азией». Кроме того Индию тревожит расширяющаяся деятельность Китая в Индийском океане — особенно в портах, которые могут послужить опорными точками для операций китайского военного флота. Хотя Соединенные Штаты сейчас уменьшают свою роль в Центральной Азии по мере ухода из Афганистана, китайское присутствие в Евразии, на Индийском океане и на Ближнем Востоке все равно будет требовать от Пекина постоянных поисков баланса между конкуренцией и сотрудничеством. Китайцам придется работать совместно с соседями и мировыми державами — вместо того, чтобы бороться с ними. Успех «Одного пояса, одного пути» во многом будет зависеть от готовности капризных региональных и местных лидеров сотрудничать. Многие лидеры, особенно в Центральной Азии и на Ближнем Востоке, опираются на многовековой опыт стравливания иностранных держав друг с другом ради личных политических и финансовых выгод. Скажем, на фоне нарастающего межконфессионального конфликта на Ближнем Востоке китайским лидерам будет трудно совместить давние связи между Китаем и Ираном и новые отношения с суннитскими государствами во главе с Саудовской Аравией. Еще один характерный пример — недавнее решение Шри-Ланки пересмотреть более двух десятков проектов, поддерживаемых Китаем. Вдобавок существуют негосударственные субъекты, порождающие дополнительные политические риски, к которыми Китай не привык. Талибы в Афганистане, «Исламское государство» (ИГИЛ) в Ираке и в Сирии и хуситы в Йемене угрожают китайским капиталовложениям и ключевым перевалочным пунктам на будущих торговых маршрутах. «Один пояс, один путь» станет серьезной проверкой на прочность для внешнеполитической доктрины и внешнеполитического потенциала Пекина. Риторика Китая с ее «взаимовыгодными решениями», «консенсусами» и «невмешательством» может не выдержать столкновения с суровой реальностью, требующей защищать китайских граждан и китайские инвестиции. Опыт китайской миротворческой деятельности в Судане наглядно демонстрирует, что Китай готов идти на военные операции, когда речь идет о защите его финансовых интересов. Китайское стремление не вмешиваться исчезло, когда Судан начал распадаться и под угрозой оказались нефтяные инвестиции Китая. В итоге Пекин был вынужден выступить дипломатическим посредником и разместить в стране свой миротворческий контингент. Если Китай перейдет от простой защиты своих вложений к более широкой геополитической деятельности и начнет активнее вмешиваться в происходящее в других странах, это может окончательно убедить соседей в наличии у него империалистических амбиций. Именно так в последние годы развивались отношения Пекина с соседями по Восточно-Китайскому и Южно-Китайскому морям. Не трудно представить себе нечто подобное и на западном направлении. На оперативном уровне обширные глобальные интересы Китая могут поставить новые задачи перед его растущими, но неопытными вооруженными силами. Недавняя эвакуация китайских граждан из Йемена стала важной вехой: это была первая успешная военная операция по вывозу китайцев и граждан других стран из зоны кризиса. Еще в 2011 году Народно-освободительная армия не смогла осуществить аналогичную операцию в Ливии. В дипломатической сфере Китай явно претендует на глобальную роль. Он пытается стать посредником в афганском урегулировании, организовывая переговоры с талибами, и помочь израильско-палестинскому диалогу, предлагая мирный план из пяти пунктов. Впрочем, пока все эти усилия остаются символическими — у страны до сих пор не получилось добиться подлинных дипломатических побед ни по одному из вопросов, которыми она занималась. В целом во внешней политике Китай может оказаться в парадоксальном положении: пытаясь обеспечить себе стратегическую глубину на западном направлении, он может чрезмерно — и преждевременно — растянуть свои силы, оказаться втянутым во множество конфликтов и столкнуться с проблемами, с которыми он пока не готов справляться. Необходимость превратить «Один пояс, один путь» из амбициозных историко-картографических построений в рабочую экономическую и дипломатическую стратегию и — возможно — в инструмент геополитического влияния, станет испытанием для внешнеполитических возможностей Китая во всех возможных аспектах. Путь на запад может оказаться долгим. Автор: Джейкоб Стоукс (Jacob Stokes),  Источинк: ИноСМИ 22.04.2015 VK.init({apiId: 4591053, onlyWidgets: true}); VK.Widgets.Like("vk_like", {type: "mini", height: 20 }); Tweet апрель 2015