Mediaboss Marketing

Sean Hannitys defense of Donald Trump Jr. during his Fox News interview on Tuesday evening began with a lengthy and muddled pastiche of ways in which the Democrats and Hillary Clinton in particular had behaved just as badly. Or, maybe, worse.

Trump Jr. was there, youll recall, to respond to questions about his having accepted a meeting with an individual who explicitly promised negative information about Clinton offered by the Russian government. That Hannity was his first interlocutor on the subject is hardly surprising; the Fox News host has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to gloss over negative news about the administration. And as the show began, he made that clear.

Hannity revisited one of the points from his introduction later in the show a point that Trump Jr. himself had made on Twitter on Tuesday morning. What about a Politico report from January, Hannity asked, suggesting that Ukraine was colluding with the Clinton campaign to help her candidacy?

After loosely describing that Politico report, Hannity suggested that the media was ignoring it at their peril.

I pose this question to everybody in the media thats forced to tune in tonight, he asked. Which is worse?

The Russia-Trump Jr. issue is worse. Allow us to explain.

Hannitys argument stems from a January Politico article by Ken Vogel and David Stern, titled, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.

It centers on a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who worked as a consultant for the Democratic Party throughout the 2016 cycle through her firm, Chalupa & Associates. Her role with the party was outreach to ethnic communities, but, a Ukrainian American herself, Chalupa had been researching Paul Manaforts work in that country even before he was tapped to serve as Donald Trumps campaign chairman in March of last year. Chalupa, Politico said, occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and [Hillary] Clintons campaign though the timing on this sharing isnt clear.

When Manafort began his work with Trump, Vogel and Stern write, Chalupa found herself in high demand. The day after he was selected, Chalupa briefed the partys communications staff on Manaforts background.

More to the point, Chalupa allegedly also worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in researching Manafort and any links between Russia and Trump. In an interview with Politico, she describes the embassy staff as being helpful in trying to answer her questions. A former political officer at the embassy told Politico that an aide to the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States had ordered him to help Chalupa in that regard. He described a meeting in which that aide, Oksana Shulyar, asked him to update Chalupa on an investigation into Manafort being conducted by an American media organization.

Vogel and Stern also report that Chalupa introduced reporter Michael Isikoff, who was working on articles about Manafort, to the Ukrainians. Chalupas work with the party ended in July.

Its worth noting that Chalupa gained some renown after the election for promulgating an unproven conspiracy theory on Facebook. Promoted by a viral tweet from her sister Andrea, who described Chalupa as having led Trump/Russia research at DNC, the Facebook post hinted darkly at Russian meddling directly in vote tallies, speculating about a Justice Department investigation into votes that were manufactured in favor of Trump in heavily Republican counties in key states. No evidence of this happening has been demonstrated in any form.

The Politico story also notes another way in which the Ukrainians allegedly submarined Manafort. He left his position with the Trump campaign last summer after a secret ledger detailing nearly $13 million in under-the-table payments to Manafort from the pro-Russia Party of Regions for which hed been working in Ukraine. The ledger was first reported by the New York Times after being discovered by a Ukrainian government agency and promoted by a journalist who was also a member of the countrys parliament which some argued meant that the countrys prime minister approved of the leak in order to damage Manafort.

The short-hand version of this story Russia helped Trump, but Ukraine helped Clinton! suffers badly from a collapse of scale.

While the Politico story does detail apparent willingness among embassy staffers to help Chalupa and also more broadly documents ways in which Ukrainian officials appeared to prefer Clintons candidacy, whats missing is evidence of a concerted effort driven by Kiev.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed his intelligence agencies to hack into and release private information from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. That effort included hackers from two different intelligence agencies which spent months inside the DNC network before releasing thousands of pages of documents to the public.

Whats more, they coordinated a widespread campaign to amplifying unflattering stories about Clinton and promote Trump. Russia also repeatedly probed American election systems, prompting an unusual warning to states from the federal government.

American intelligence agencies saw signs that people allied with Trumps campaign may have been aiding the Russians in that effort. Thats why this is all being discussed right now, of course, since Trump Jr.s emails draw the clearest line between the Russians and the campaign weve yet seen. The FBI began a counterintelligence investigation into Russias meddling a year ago.

By contrast, Politicos report details the work of one person who was researching Manafort with help from inside the Ukrainian Embassy and who, at some undetermined point, provided info to the Clinton campaign, though she worked for the DNC as a consultant until shortly before the party conventions. That, coupled with the Manafort ledger revelation, is the full scope of the Ukrainian plot thats been revealed. A weak link to the Ukrainians and a weaker link to the Clinton campaign.

You dont have to take our word for it, though.

Lawrence Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, spoke with The Washington Post on Tuesday about how Trump Jr.s emails might pose a legal risk to him. Over email, he weighed in on the Politico story as well.

I think the article raises some troubling questions about Ukraine involvement in our elections, Noble said. The difference is that there is not clear evidence of the Clinton campaign coordinating with a foreign national or encouraging or accepting their help.

If the Ukrainian government did oppo[sitional] research in coordination with the Clinton campaign or the DNC and they knowingly accepted the information, he added, there is a possible foreign national contribution. But if Chalupa was gathering the information and passing it on, the question is who did the work and what did the Clinton campaign and DNC know. Thats not clear from the report.

If the Ukrainian government did the same with Clinton as the evidence suggests Russia did with Trump, he said, its just as serious. But we are not there.

To any objective observer, thats clearly the case. Neither Trump Jr. nor Hannity meets that description.

Excerpt from:
Exploring Sean Hannity's defense of Donald Trump Jr.: Clinton and Ukraine did it, too - Washington Post

OVERVIEW

On 21 June, in Minsk parties to the conflict have agreed for full cessation of hostilities enforced from 24 June to 31 August 2017 to allow safe harvesting. While not fully implemented, the agreement has reduced the overall level of hostilities. However, daily combat activities were reported throughout June, which continued to generate civilian casualties and increased humanitarian needs. OHCHR verified 65 civilian casualties (12 killed and 53 injured) in June, representing a decrease by 14 per cent comparing to the previous month. Causes of casualties vary, while shelling and incidents related to mines and explosive remnants of war prevail (63 per cent and 28 per cent respectively). The Protection Cluster reports that more than 7,000 km2 of areas along the contact line have been contaminated by mines and other remnants of war. Ongoing insecurity, the need for livelihoods and start of agriculture activities, particularly during the planting and harvesting seasons, indicate that the tendency of mine-related incidents is likely to continue. Damage to housing and critical civilian infrastructure is recorded almost daily, increasing critical needs across all sectors. According to the Shelter/NFI Cluster, since the start of 2017, needs in acute shelter intervention have increased by 140 per cent as of May. In parallel, WASH Cluster reports that since the start of 2017, disruption of water supply affected some 3 million people, which is an increase by 13 per cent of the initial 2017 HRP target. A single incident of shelling of a Pumping Station of the South Donbas Water Pipeline reported on 11 June denied access to water for some 400,000 people for more than five days, while an additional 700,000 people were also affected at variety stages. In addition, access to health has been severely hampered by constant insecurity. Health and Nutrition Cluster reports that some 160 health facilities are impacted by shelling due to conflict, while some 130 facilities are in urgent need of medical supplies to assist thousands of civilians in need. Respect for civilian areas and infrastructure by all parties to the conflict is the only solution to sustain dignity of lives of millions, who depend on proper functioning of these critical infrastructures. On 29 June, Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) concluded an analysis of the 2017 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) covering January - May 2017. The results indicate that while humanitarian needs grew, partners abilities to meet the life-threatening needs shrunk significantly due to lack of financial resources and access constraints. Because of underfunding several humanitarian partners were forced to readjust the programmes, and often, cease planned critical activities. Some of these activities included seasonal projects, such as agricultural and livelihoods support. Overall, underfunding remains a critical concern. As of 13 July, HRP is funded only at 20.3 per cent. Advocacy efforts to raise funding for Ukraine humanitarian portfolio continue. On 29 June, the HCT convened an expanded meeting with the donor community in Ukraine. The meeting discussed the results of the 2017 HRP January to May analysis, stressed the urgency of gaps as well as evolving needs and called for urgent support and increased funding for life-saving and prioritized activities of the 2017 HRP.

View post:
Ukraine: Humanitarian Snapshot (as of 13 July 2017) - ReliefWeb

Donald Trump Jr. spoke with Fox News host Sean Hannity about his emails about materials from Russia that would undercut Hillary Clinton. (Screenshot)

Donald Trump Jr.s 2016 meeting with a lawyer tied to the Russian government prompted a resolute response from Fox News host Sean Hannity: Democrats looked for dirt on the Republican nominee, too. And they were willing to turn to a foreign government to get it.

"Democrats, the mainstream media, are hysterical over the story," Hannity said July 11. "But they have completely ignored an example of actual election interference."

Hannity went on to summarize a January 2017 article from Politico headlined "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story details the work of a Ukrainian-American consultant to the Democratic National Committee who looked for compromising information about former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Manafort had provided extensive political guidance to deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.

According to Politico, the pro-Western administration that replaced Yanukovych preferred Clinton over Trump and was eager to help the consultant.

For Hannity, this was a direct parallel to the Trump affair, and he asked people to consider, "which was worse."

"Now that you have evidence from both sides, you have to decide for yourself," he told his viewers.

Are the two episodes basically the same?

No one has all the facts, but we can compare the details that we do have. The cases have similarities and differences.

The similarities

Benjamin Wittes, editor of the respected Lawfare blog, told us he doesnt think the comparison is frivolous.

"If everyone is running around with the assumption that its illegitimate to work with a foreign government in a campaign, then its perfectly fair to ask what was the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the Ukrainians," Wittes said.

The American intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in the election with the goal of defeating Clinton and helping Donald Trump. According to Politico, some Ukrainian officials were happy to accomplish the same thing, except they preferred Clinton over Trump.

Politico reporters said that top Ukrainian diplomats deny any interference, but they cited a former Ukrainian embassy staffer who said that he had been told to "research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia."

He said he coordinated with the key person in the Politico story, a Ukrainian-American consultant to the DNC named Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa told Politico that she took it on herself to dig into Manaforts past and reached out to the embassy. She had a network of sources in Washington and Ukraine, and as she learned things, she would sometimes share them with colleagues at the DNC.

By the summer of 2016, more and more journalists were interested in Manafort, and Chalupa said she and people at the embassy would guide them in the right direction.

The Politico articles point was that Ukraine preferred Clinton. From what it reported, Chalupas efforts produced no specific result. The most significant revelation came from a Ukrainian lawmaker who held a news conference to disclose an accounting book that purportedly showed over $12 million set aside for Manafort by the party of the deposed president. The ledger emerged from an anti-corruption investigation.

The pressure grew and in mid August, Manafort stepped down from the campaign.

At the end of the day, information emerged from Ukraine that disrupted the Trump campaign. Taking the Politico report at face value, at least some Ukrainian officials helped in that process.

By contrast, private emails acquired by the Russians and distributed through Wikileaks and DCleaks, in conjunction with a false news disinformation campaign, disrupted the Clinton campaign.

The differences

If the broad outlines are similar, some key elements distinguish these episodes from each other.

The Politico article highlighted a major one.

"Russias effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (and) involved the countrys military and foreign intelligence services," the article said. "Theres little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."

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

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

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

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

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

Other details also separate the two narratives.

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

Lastly, the stories from Trump associates have changed over time as more press reports emerge. In the case of Donald Trump Jr., he first said he never represented the campaign in any meetings with Russians. Then he said there was a meeting, but it was about adoption laws. Then he said it was about Clinton, but it represented ordinary opposition research.

Its best to think of both stories as moving targets. The more they are explored, the more we will learn.

But to paraphrase Hannity, you have the information. You can decide how similar these stories are.

Go here to read the rest:
Trump and Russia, Clinton and Ukraine: How do they compare? - PolitiFact

If President Trump's nominee for FBI director is confirmed by the Senate, the Democratic National Committee could face an investigation into its interactions with the Ukrainian government.

During his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Christopher Wray signaled a willingness to investigate allegations that the DNC worked with the Ukrainian government to impede Trump's presidential campaign in 2016.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., read an excerpt from Politico's January investigation into the matter during his allotted time to question Wray. "Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country," Graham quoted from the report.

Politico's investigation asserted that Ukrainian government officials "helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers."

The report, published before Trump's inauguration earlier this year, also cited "people with direct knowledge of the situation" claiming that a "Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the DNC met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."

Alexandra Chalupa, described by Politico as a "veteran Democratic operative," was engaged during the presidential campaign in research on Trump's ties to Russia, part of which was guided by the Ukrainian embassy. At the time, she was consulting for the DNC on outreach to ethnic communities. Politico reported that the DNC "encouraged" Chalupa to facilitate an interview during which Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko would discuss Paul Manafort's connections to former President Viktor Yanukovych.

Chalupa confirmed to Politico that she "occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign."

"Will you look into this?" Graham asked Wray after reading an excerpt from Politico's article. The nominee responded he would be "happy to dig into it."

For its part, the DNC has denied any wrongdoing. A source familiar with the matter spoke to CNN, claiming in a story published Wednesday, "We never got any actual information. It didn't go beyond running by someone in a hallway and hearing rumors ... It was hearsay in the hallway conversation, there was never any formal conversation or paper research."

Allegations regarding the DNC's interactions with Ukraine resurfaced this week after news broke that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer to potentially receive opposition research on Hillary Clinton sourced from the Russian government during his father's campaign.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read the original post:
DNC could face investigation into Ukraine ties if Christopher Wray is ... - Washington Examiner

July 12, 2017 BerlinLost in all the attention focused on President Putin's presumed meddling in the 2016 US election is the changing state of Russia's ongoing undeclared war on Ukraine. But in his brief stop in Ukraine on Sunday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson brought it to the fore, scoring a judo flip on the Russian judo master.

The big question last week was the West's worry that President Trump might reach a strongman deal with Putin that would sacrifice Ukrainians to Moscows dominance in return for a vague promise of Russian restraint in, say, Syria.

But this week, the big question belongs to Putin, who now fears that Ukrainians continuing enthusiasm for Western democracy and rule of law might sway his own Russian subjects.

As a Newsweek headline put it, Despite Cozy Trump-Putin Summit, Tillerson Zaps Russia, Backs Ukraine.

In other words, Putins military brashness when he started his undeclared war on Ukraine in 2014 by annexing Crimea has become a vulnerability in 2017. The West, which has struggled to confrontPutins attacks on Europes 70-year-old system of peace and integration, is rediscovering its own resilience. Putin, meanwhile, is rediscovering the fundamental weakness of his country's economy and politics, exposed by Ukraine's defection from centuries of East Slav fraternity with Russia.

Within Russia, jingoist pride in seizing neighboring countries' territory is losing some of its mobilizing power. Alexei Navalnys nascent campaign to challenge Putin in the next presidential election is gaining strength, and while Mr. Navalny does not opposes Russias intervention in Ukraine, the growing popularity of an independent challenger to Putin would have been unthinkable during the euphoria of Crimean annexation.

Putin, an old KGB hand who doesn't understand the self-organizing power of Ukraines vibrant civil society, may attribute it to manipulation by Ukrainian and Western secret services. Yet he himself was the one who united Ukrainians in a historically unprecedented anti-Russian identity through his war, at a cost of more than 10,000 dead and 1.8 million Ukrainian refugees. By now, even Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country (who long mistrusted western Ukrainians), are converging with their compatriots for an overall 57 percent who hold "cold" or "very cold" feelings toward Russia.

Tillerson achieved his over-the-shoulder flip by making four points in Kiev.

First, he said Washington will not lift the financial sanctions it imposed on much-needed Western investment in Russia until Russia returns the territory they seized from Ukraine.

Second, he signaled that the US is finally bringing its muscle to the desultory Minsk peace talks on the separatist eastern Donbas that is in fact controlled by 5,000-10,000 rotating Russian troops. He also said that Moscow must take the first step in stopping violations of the cease-fire agreements of 2014 and 2015.

Third, Tillerson brought to Kiev Kurt Volker, his freshly minted special envoy for peace negotiations in Ukraine. Mr. Volker is a protg of Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, and, like Mr. McCain, publicly endorsed delivering defensive weapons to Kiev in 2014 and campaigned against letting Putin [call] NATOs bluff.

Volker wont be calling for NATO action against Russia, but he will surely revive the debate about providing high-tech defensive weapons to Ukraines surprisingly robust Army.

Fourth, Tillerson is now reviving the alliance between the Wests financiers of the pro-Western regime in Kiev and the embattled young reformers in Ukraines parliament, media, and civil society. In the absence of existing democratic institutions, this is the only engine that might make deep enough reforms to break the business-political collusion that has not yet been rooted out in Ukraine. The reformers provide the intelligence; the West withholds money if reforms continue to be blocked. Tillerson publicly warned President Petro Poroshenko and other oligarchs that if they do not clean old judges out of the courts and guarantee rule of law, Western investors will stay away.

Pointedly, Tillerson met first with reformers, including Mustafa Nayyem, the Afghan-Ukrainian who started the Maidan demonstrations that toppled the old regime in 2013.

Tillersons gamble could, of course, be halted by one contrary3 a.m.tweet from his boss. But until that happens, the secretary of State is creating a new fait accompli on the ground in Ukraine that is no doubt catching the Kremlins attention.

Elizabeth Pond is aformer European Bureau Chief for The Christian Science Monitor.

Visit link:
In brief visit, Tillerson changes the conversation on Ukraine - Christian Science Monitor