Los anti-Trump (políticos y periodistas de los principales medios) le dieron la victoria a Putin en el encuentro televisado hoy desde Helsinki, aduciendo con alborozo que el "alfa macho" de Manhattan fue vapuleado por el ruso.
Aluden por cierto a la conferencia de prensa conjunta que dieron luego de las conversaciones con sus expertos y que inconscientemente la compararon con una pelea de box entre dos pesos pesados de categoría mundial.
Lo que querían de Trumo es que se lanzara a puñetazos contra Putin hasta dejarlo sangrante en la lona, luego de acusarlo como ellos querían de haber interferido en las elecciones presidenciales´ del 2016 (cuando regía Obama) en contra de su rival, Hillary Clinton.
Para ello el clan anti-Trump enquistado en el FBI y otros organismos del Estado prepararon a última hora un listado de 12 supuestos funcionarios de Putin, con nombres, acusados de haber interferido en los comicios, concretamente en el hackeo de los emails de la dirigencia demócrata.
Esa lista, según reveló el diputado Davide Nuñez, jefe del Comité de Inteligencia de la Cámara de Representante, era conocida desde hace un año y medio y que la CIA y el FBI se negaron a dar detalles al respecto hasta que divulgaron el documento el viernes pasado, con tantos tachones de seguridad come textos legibles.
Los 12 de la lista están "indicted", esto es, acusados o sindicados ´pero no condenados, pues falta probar la acusación. Entre Rusia y los Estados Unidos no existe tratado de extradición pero Putin citó una ley internacional que podría aplicarse para que investigadores vayan a Rusia a estudiar el caso.
Un periodista anti-Trump le preguntó había condenado a Putin por esta "clara" intereferencia en las elecciones y el Presidente replicó que Putin le confirmó que la acusación era falsa y que ello podría comprobarse mediante el recurso legal indicado por Putin, que éste pidió sea recíproco.
Indicó que hay muchos casos de donanciones e inversiones desde Rusia a Estados Unidos, como la donación a Hillary de 400 millones de dólares, que se hicieron fraudulentamente sin pagar impuestos. Convendría, dijo, investigar in situ al respecto. No mencionó los casos de espionaje e intervención de la CIA en la política interna de otros países en Centro América, Chile y últimamente en Israel cuando Obama destinó una millonada para disputar la reelección de Netanyahu.
Trump dio a entender que resta una investigación pues la lista de rusos fue elaborada por la misma elite del FBI que planeó boicotear y frenar su Presidencia, al día siguiente de ganar él las elecciones. La interferencia rusa en las elcciones fue detectada en el 2016 pero Obama pidió ignorarla para no empañar la victoria de Hillary, que todos daban por segura.
Es el mismo grupo corrupto, añadió, que exoneró a Hillary Clinton por el uso ilegal y antipatriótico de servidores en su domicilio y la pérdida de más de 33.000 emails de alta seguridad; que nada hizo con un pakistaní asesor de la directora del DNC durante la campaña, acusado de fraude y que fugó; que está mintiendo en el Congreso sobre la directiva para crear la idea de colisión
Trump/Putin para invalidar las elecciones del 2016. (*)
Fue solo a partir de su derrota que comenzó a forjarse la conspiración rusa que aún sigue su curso a un costo de más de 20 millones de dólares al mando de Bob Moeller con 13 abogados ultrahillaristas. Han agotado todo esfuerzo imaginables por encontrar alguna prueba de la colusión, pero hasta la fecha han fallado.
El último recurso de guerra ha sido la publicación de la vieja lista de hackers, para animar a Trump a que se pelee a dentelladas con Putin. ¿Cómo iba a hacerlo si el caso era de Obama y aún no hay dictamen y si por añadidura se trataba del primero de muchos diálogos (según advirtió) para zanjar diferencias con la segunda potencia nuclear del mundo.
Putin, demonizado por quienes protegían a la URSS cuando el senador Joseph McCarthy denunciaba la infiltración de agentes comunistas en este país, no estaba ahí para recibir insultos del jefe de Estado con quien había covenido en dialogar. Es lo que buscan los anti-Trump, que obcecados por el odio pretenden incluso obstruir los esfuerzos del Jefe de Estado por garantizar los intereses de la seguridad nacional y la paz mundial.
(*)
Los hackers están acusados, entre otras cosas, de haber entregado a Wikileaks los emails de Podesta, el jefe de campaña de Hillary. Julian Assange y jefe de Wikileaks, que permanece refugiado aún en la Embajada del Ecuador en Londres, niega que los emails los recibió de los rusos pero no quiere revelar la fuente. Esta nota se publicó en el 2016:
Julian Assange associate: It was a leak, not a hack and the DNC insider is NOT Russian
December 11, 2016 Carmine Sabia Print Article
A hole has been blown in the Democratic Party, and mainstream media’s narrative, that Russia was behind the leak of DNC emails to Wikileaks.
On Sunday, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said he has met the person who gave the DNC emails and it was not the Russians.
‘Total respect!’ Troops show their love for Trump at Army-Navy game; check out the video, photos
“I know who leaked them,” Murray told The Guardian. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
hillary-meme
Murray, who is a close associate of Wikileaks head Julian Assange, explained it further on his website.
“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two,” he wrote. “And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”
It’s the reality that so many in the mainstream media ignore. It wasn’t about who leaked the emails. It was about what they said.
Assange himself vehemently denied Russia had any involvement in the hacks during an interview right before Election Day.
Some rich donors snubbed from Hillary’s lavash thank-you party are ticked off!
But, as Murray pointed out, the press is going along with the narrative that Russia delivered the presidency to Donald Trump and will attack any russia-did-itmedia source that doesn’t toe the line.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth-telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
(*)
Los hackers están acusados, entre otras cosas, de haber entregado a Wikileaks los emails de Podesta, el jefe de campaña de Hillary. Julian Assange y jefe de Wikileaks, que permanece refugiado aún en la Embajada del Ecuador en Londres, niega que los emails los recibió de los rusos pero no quiere revelar la fuente. Esta nota se publicó en el 2016:
Julian Assange associate: It was a leak, not a hack and the DNC insider is NOT Russian
December 11, 2016 Carmine Sabia Print Article
A hole has been blown in the Democratic Party, and mainstream media’s narrative, that Russia was behind the leak of DNC emails to Wikileaks.
On Sunday, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said he has met the person who gave the DNC emails and it was not the Russians.
‘Total respect!’ Troops show their love for Trump at Army-Navy game; check out the video, photos
“I know who leaked them,” Murray told The Guardian. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
hillary-meme
Murray, who is a close associate of Wikileaks head Julian Assange, explained it further on his website.
“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two,” he wrote. “And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”
It’s the reality that so many in the mainstream media ignore. It wasn’t about who leaked the emails. It was about what they said.
Assange himself vehemently denied Russia had any involvement in the hacks during an interview right before Election Day.
Some rich donors snubbed from Hillary’s lavash thank-you party are ticked off!
But, as Murray pointed out, the press is going along with the narrative that Russia delivered the presidency to Donald Trump and will attack any russia-did-itmedia source that doesn’t toe the line.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth-telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
No comments:
Post a Comment