Russia & U.S. election – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Governments concludes a two-part investigation into the refusal by the media and the FBI to examine the relationship between Russia and the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Surprisingly little attention was paid to the matter of the Democrat party’s key figure, Senator Edward Kennedy, who had an extraordinary relationship with Moscow. As noted by The Spectator:

“Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s self-serving, secret correspondence with Soviet agents during the height of the Cold War included proposals for collaborative efforts designed to undermine official U.S. policy set by Democratic and Republican administrations, KGB documents show… Kennedy’s long history with the KGB is well documented, but underreported… Kennedy’s actions occurred at the expense of presidential authority and in violation of federal law, according to academics and scholars who are familiar with the documents… Kennedy…offered to work in close concert with high level Soviet officials to sabotage President Ronald Reagan’s re-election efforts and to orchestrate favorable American press coverage for Andropov and Soviet military officials, according to the 1983 KGB document…

“It is also evident from the letter that Kennedy believed the nuclear freeze movement was gaining momentum in 1983 and could help to short-circuit Reagan’s military buildup. With the economic climate improving in the U.S., Reagan would only be vulnerable politically on matters of foreign policy, Kennedy informed the Soviets. ‘The only real potential threats to Reagan (according to Kennedy) are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,’ [a] KGB official explained to Andropov. ‘These issues will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.’”

While media and political attention has concentrated on questionable allegations against the Trump campaign, very real and very substantive offences committed by Hillary Clinton, both against primary rival Bernie Sanders and the national security of the United States, remain largely undiscussed.

WikiLeaks provided numerous examples of Clinton campaign misdeeds, including, as outlined by The Gateway Pundit :

DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
DNC discussed their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
Super PAC paid young voters to push back online Sanders supporters.
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand.
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”

Cheap Kamagra Online Offer Elegant Benefits Now buy Kamagra has not been a concern among the ED http://djpaulkom.tv/da-mafia-6ixs-dj-paul-announces-the-triple-6ix-massacre-tour/ prescription cialis patients. sildenafil mastercard Headaches, eliminating, dyspepsia as well as nose over-crowding were additionally registered. The product will settle all your sexual viagra generic sale weakness once and for all and will give you another elaboration about your sexual health. Michael Irwig. ‘Because it is an early statement, further investigation will become necessary on tadalafil canada the ramifications of finasteride in the mind.
No issue stands out more, nor illustrates better, the medias’—and the political establishments’—double standard, and “get out of jail free” attitude towards Hillary Clinton, than the entire matter of the Russian uranium deal, in which the Kremlin’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, took control of 20% of U.S. uranium. National Review described the deal:

“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in [a] …company..whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech. While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One’ began. ‘These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

This came from the same administration, led by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, which, in the New START treaty, gave Russia, for the first time in history, the lead in strategic nuclear weapons and maintained Moscow’s ten-to-one lead in theater nuclear weapons.

Despite the dangerous threat to U.S. national security and the clear financial profit to the Clintons and the Clinton foundation imposed by the Obama/Clinton actions, no investigation has been formed, and no major media outrage (or even significant interest) has been expressed. The blackout on Moscow’s ties to the Left extends to internet search engines, which bury the details far down in search results.

The New York Analysis of Policy and Governments presents a two-part investigation into the refusal by the media and the FBI to examine the relationship between Russia and the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

The appointment of a special counsel, former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, to review as of yet unsubstantiated allegations concerning Russian involvement in the 2016 election, highlights an issue utterly unintended by those who called for the move: the extraordinary double standard of reporting and the justice system, and the use of the press and the investigatory process for overtly partisan goals.

The gist of the question Mueller will confront is this: Were there any contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and if so, was the nature of those contacts an agreement to influence the campaign?

Interestingly, the only significant information that those questioning the Trump campaign have alleged is that Moscow may have leaked hacked emails to a third party containing embarrassing statements by the Clinton campaign about itself.

Wikileaks, which released emails embarrassing to Clinton during the campaign, has denied a Moscow connection, and states that the information came from a disgruntled DNC staffer.

Questions have been raised about suspicions that the Clinton campaign’s potential involvement to the strange murder of Seth Richards, whom Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a noted journalist, says his organization was in contact with. That information is fleshed out by a Zero Hedge report which notes that “Many believe Rich was a victim retaliation for being the source who provided Wikileaks with a trove of DNC emails. Rumors were fueled by the odd circumstances surrounding his death, the sudden retirement of D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier five weeks after the murder, and an email John Podesta sent to Hillary’s inner circle about making an example of a suspected leaker.”

This pill is supposed to regencygrandenursing.com viagra shop online be eaten up only after consulting the doctor. It is estimated that around 600,000,000 pounds viagra online for sale click to read more of steel was used in the manufacture of this bridge. Let’s face it, annoying people are everywhere and anyone can be annoying in some regard, and someday everyone will be “difficult” for some reason or another. cialis viagra levitra For more information, please visit 99eyao website: regencygrandenursing.com cheap viagra professional After most of patients are diagnosed as Hydrosalpinx, the doctor’s first word is always fluid infusion of the fallopian tube. 1.About uterine hyperplasia. Julian Assange had clearly and substantially offended the U.S. government on a number of past occasions, but no actual action against his internet connection was taken until it began exposing Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings, including providing evidence that Clinton was instrumental in the transfer of uranium (the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons) to the Russians, and providing information about her criminally negligent handling of emails classified as secret.

There is a significant connection between the embarrassment of the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration from Wikileaks, and the attempt to link the Trump campaign to Russia.

A central question in the entire matter is why The Kremlin would prefer Trump to Clinton, who, as part of the Obama Administration and through her Foundation, greatly benefited the Russian state through an arms pact that favored Russia, by the sale of American uranium (the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons) to the Kremlin, and through various foreign policies that greatly strengthened Moscow’s influence at the expense of the United States.

Wikileaks became a significant issue even in down-ticket races. In New York, Wendy Long, the Republican candidate who opposed the re-election of incumbent Senator Chuck Schumer (best known for introducing legislation that would weaken the First Amendment) called for a “full, complete, and absolute pardon” to be extended to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for any potential violations of U.S. law, “on the ground that he has served a far greater good of truth and transparency.” Long stated that “Julian Assange has shed the light of truth on matters that the American people need to know to conduct self-government under our Constitution. Investigative journalism is dead in this country, and citizen journalists are trying to fill the void.”

The Kremlin has sought to influence American elections for decades. Oddly, neither the media nor official Washington has made much of that fact, predominately because it has been the Democrat Party and the Left that has consistently been involved with Moscow. A release from the CIA discussed a House Select Committee on Intelligence report that disclosed evidence linking the USSR with the U.S. nuclear freeze movement. Classified documents noted that Soviet agents were actively involved in the campaign, providing large amounts of time and money on it. Former KGB official Stanislav Levchenko emphasized the extraordinary extent of his former agency’s involvement with the left-wing cause.

The Report concludes Monday.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.