அரசியல் பிரச்சாரத்தின் ஆதாரக் கோட்பாடு

========================================================================================================

அரசியல் பிரச்சாரத்தின் ஆதாரக் கோட்பாடு.

'' நீதி, மதம், அரசியல், சமுதாயம் சம்பந்தமான எல்லாவித சொல்லடுக்குகளுக்கும் பிரகடனங்களுக்கும் வாக்குறுதிகளுக்கும் பின்னே ஏதாவதொரு வர்க்கத்தின் நலன்கள் ஒழிந்து நிற்பதைக் கண்டுகொள்ள மக்கள் தெரிந்துகொள்ளாத வரையில் அரசியலில் அவர்கள் முட்டாள்தனமான ஏமாளிகளாகவும் தம்மைத் தாமே ஏமாற்றிக்கொள்வோராகவும் இருந்தனர், எப்போதும் இருப்பார்கள். பழைய ஏற்பாடு ஒவ்வொன்றும் எவ்வளவுதான் காட்டு மிராண்டித் தனமாகவும் அழுகிப் போனதாகவும் தோன்றிய போதிலும் ஏதாவது ஒரு ஆளும்வர்க்கத்தின் சக்தியைக் கொண்டு அது நிலைநிறுத்தப்பட்டு வருகிறது. சீர்திருத்தங்கள், அபிவிருத்திகள் ஆகியவற்றின் ஆதரவாளர்கள் இதை உணராத வரையில் பழைய அமைப்பு முறையின் பாதுகாவலர்கள் அவர்களை என்றென்றும் முட்டாளாக்கிக் கொண்டே இருப்பார்கள். இந்த வர்க்கங்களின் எதிர்ப்பைத் தகர்த்து ஒழிப்பதற்கு ஒரே ஒரு வழிதான் உண்டு. அது என்ன?

பழைமையைத் துடைத்தெறியவும் புதுமையைச் சிருக்ஷ்டிக்கவும் திறன் பெற்றவையும், சமுதாயத்தில் தாங்கள் வகிக்கும் ஸ்தானத்தின் காரணமாக அப்படிச் சிருக்ஷ்டித்துக் தீரவேண்டிய நிர்ப்பந்தத்திலிருக்கிறவையுமான சக்திகளை, நம்மைச் சூழ்ந்துள்ள இதே சமுதாயத்துக்குள்ளேயே நாம் கண்டுபிடித்து, அந்தச் சக்திகளுக்கு ஞானமூட்டிப் போராட்டத்துக்கு ஸ்தாபன ரீதியாகத் திரட்ட வேண்டும். இது ஒன்றேதான் வழி. ''

மாமேதை தோழர் லெனின்
===========================================================================================================================

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

About the Trump-Russia Dossier - New York Times

What We Know and Don’t Know About the Trump-Russia Dossier
President-elect Donald J. Trump leaving a meeting in Manhattan last week. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
By SCOTT SHANEJAN. 11, 2017
How did American intelligence officials come to brief President Obama, President-elect Donald J. Trump and lawmakers about supposed Russian plans to try to blackmail Mr. Trump? There are far more questions than answers. But here is a look at the story so far.
What We Know
 
• Last year, a Washington political research firm, paid by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals, hired a retired British intelligence officer to investigate the candidate’s ties to Russia.

• After it became clear that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee, Democratic clients began to pay the firm for this same “opposition research,” standard practice in politics.

• The former British spy, who had long experience in Russia and a network of connections there, compiled dozens of reports detailing what he heard from his contacts. The memos he wrote, mostly one to three pages long, are dated from June to December.

• The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail him with sex tapes and bribe him with business deals. They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and their leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

• The Washington firm and the former British spy, not identified here because of a confidential source agreement with The New York Times, gave the memos first to their clients but later to the F.B.I. and multiple journalists at The Times and elsewhere. The memos, totaling about 35 pages, also reached a number of members of Congress.

• Last week, when the F.B.I., C.I.A. and National Security Agency gave a classified report on the Russian hacking and leaking and efforts to influence the presidential election to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders, they attached a two-page summary of the unverified allegations in the memos.

What We Don’t Know

• Whether any of the claims in the memos are true. American intelligence agencies have not confirmed them, and Mr. Trump has said they are a complete fabrication. In addition, one specific allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with a Russian official in Prague in August or September — has been denied by both Mr. Cohen, who says he has never been to Prague, and the Russian, Oleg Solodukhin.

• Who concocted the information in the memos, if it is entirely false or partially so, and with what purpose. Did the British intelligence officer accurately report what he heard? Who gave him the information that, if false, amounts to a very sophisticated fabrication?

• What exactly prompted American intelligence officials to pass on a summary of the unvetted claims to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congress. Officials have said they felt the president-elect should be aware of the memos, which had circulated widely in Washington. But why put the summary in a report going to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch, virtually assuring it would be leaked?

• What will happen now. The F.B.I. has been investigating the claims in the memos, and Democrats are demanding a thorough inquiry into the reports that Trump representatives met with Russian officials during the campaign. But as of Jan. 20, Mr. Trump will be in charge of the bureau and the other intelligence agencies, and he may not approve such an investigation.

Questions You May Be Asking

• Everyone is talking about this document and passing it around online. Why can’t I read it on your website?
 Because the 35 pages of memos prepared as opposition research on Mr. Trump contain detailed claims that neither the intelligence agencies nor The Times have been able to verify, the editors decided to briefly summarize the claims and not publish the document.

• Why did The Times and other outlets report extensively on the hacking of Democratic National Committee and Podesta emails before the election, but not this?

 The Times did report before the election that the F.B.I. was investigating claims about Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia – an article that resulted from an extensive reporting effort. The Democratic National Committee and Podesta emails were public, their authenticity was not in doubt and they contained newsworthy information.

• Why did James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, write two letters about Ms. Clinton’s emails before the election, but not about this?

 That is a question Mr. Comey may eventually have to answer. His two public statements about the bureau’s investigation of the Clinton emails were highly unusual and a break with long F.B.I. tradition.

• There are reports that many people in the news media knew about this opposition research on Mr. Trump and Russia for months, but it was never raised during the campaign. Why not?
 Many reporters from multiple news organizations tried to verify the claims in the memos but were unsuccessful. That does not mean that none of the claims are true, but most news organizations choose not to publish damaging allegations against a public figure unless they believe them to be true.

• So what changed on Tuesday? Why is this now being reported and discussed by every news media organization?

CNN broke the news that a summary of the memos had been attached to the classified report by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and National Security Agency on the Russian hacking and leaking during the presidential election and that it was given to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congressional leaders last week. That level of official attention prompted news media organizations to decide to inform the public about the memos.

• The president and president-elect were given a two-page report, but there is a much longer document on BuzzFeed. What’s the difference?

BuzzFeed made the  controversial decision to publish the opposition research memos in full, despite the fact that their reporters had not confirmed or disproved the claims in them. The two-page document is a summary of the claims in the series of memos.

No comments:

Post a Comment