OF THE
TIMES
"(The) report is an attempt to silence Russian official proposals to resume cooperation in key areas on which the security of the entire world depends. The US State Department is not very fond of the existence of alternative sources of information. Serious resources are employed to discredit them. Any voice that contradicts Washington is dubbed 'disinformation' in the service of the 'Kremlin' and Russian intelligence."Parts of the document are absurd, the Russian diplomats noted. For example, the authors classified far-right opposition LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the private radio station Govorit Moskva as "Official Government Communications." The officials also cite Russian media with state funding, with headlines from Sputnik, RIA Novosti, RT and others presented as examples of 'disinformation.'
See also:
Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That's because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.
Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The other, led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them.
US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the mammoth explosion that rocked Beirut was likely an accident, pouring cold water on a theory floated by the president, who claimed the Pentagon assessed that a "bomb" had set off the blast.
"[We're] still getting information on what happened," Esper told the Aspen Security Conference on Wednesday, but added that "most believe it was an accident as reported, and beyond that I have nothing further to report on that. It's obviously a tragedy."
Hours after the massive explosion tore through a port in the Lebanese capital on Tuesday, killing at least 135 people and wounding more than 4,000, US President Donald Trump told reporters that he had met with "some of our great generals," saying they felt the blast was "an attack, it was a bomb of some kind."
Trump declined to elaborate on that assessment, and cited no evidence, but on Wednesday doubled down on his doubts.
"How can you say accident? Somebody left some terrible explosive type devices and things around... perhaps it was that. Perhaps it was an attack."
"I don't think anybody can say right now. We're looking into it very strongly. Right now, you have some people think it was an attack and some people that think it wasn't. In any event, it was a terrible event," Trump told a press conference.
Despite widespread speculation and rumors about a potential attack, which were only fueled by the president's remarks, Lebanese authorities have brushed aside any suggestion of foul play and maintain the blast was accidental, resulting from the improper storage of some 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate at a port warehouse. A probe into the exact cause of the blast is ongoing, and authorities have placed a series of port officials under house arrest as they look into those responsible for the vast store of dangerous chemicals.
Comment: See also: