dnesni guardian (jen repete jejich standardni linky) vs realita vysetrovani (nize)
Joe Biden begins transition as Trump plays golf and refuses to concede – US election live | US news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/...avirus-covid-19-live-updates?page=with:block-5fa80c328f0870a6e75fa0ed
It bears repeating that despite team Trump repeatedly dismissing it as the ‘Russian hoax’ and similar, the CIA did find in December 2016 that Russia had interfered to try and help Trump win. Here’s the details:
Officials briefed on the matter were told that intelligence agencies had found that individuals linked to the Russian government had provided WikiLeaks with thousands of confidential emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others.
The people involved were known to US intelligence and acted as part of a Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt the chances of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. “It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favour one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” one said.
The emails were steadily leaked via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton’s White House run by revealing that DNC figures had colluded to harm the chances of her nomination rival Bernie Sanders.
New: Mueller Investigated Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, And Roger Stone For DNC Hacks
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/...nleopold/new-mueller-investigated-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-roger
Prosecutors investigated Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Roger Stone for the hacking of Democratic National Committee servers as well as for possible campaign finance violations, but ultimately chose not to charge them, newly released portions of the Mueller report reveal.
Although WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the DNC in July and October 2016 and Stone — a close associate to Donald Trump — appeared to know in advance the materials were coming, investigators “did not have sufficient evidence” to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing. In addition, federal prosecutors could not establish that the hacked emails amounted to campaign contributions benefitting Trump’s election chances and furthermore felt their publication might have been protected by the First Amendment, making a successful prosecution tenuous.
The fresh details of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision not to charge Assange, WikiLeaks, or Stone for their role in influencing the 2016 election come just a day before voters head to the polls for the 2020 presidential election.
...
Separately, prosecutors looked into whether publishing those emails could be viewed as an illegal campaign contribution because they materially benefitted the Trump campaign. But in their analysis, that case would be difficult to make because of the challenges in determining the emails’ value. In addition, they worried that Stone, Assange, and WikiLeaks could all be protected under the First Amendment.
“Assuming that no coordination with the Campaign occurred,” Mueller wrote, “a criminal prosecution of overseas actors providing non-express-advocacy information to American listeners would likely be difficult.”