Mediaboss Marketing

A watchdog group will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commissionon Wednesdayalleging that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) violated federal law by soliciting opposition research on the Trump campaign from a foreign government.

The conservative group Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT), launched in 2014 by former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker, will allege that political operative Alexandra Chalupa, in her capacity as a DNC consultant, improperly sought intelligence on President Trumps former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, from Ukrainian officials.

FACT alleges that Chalupa violated the ban by knowingly soliciting a valuable in-kind contribution in the form of opposition research and information on a Trump campaign official from a foreign national on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint is based on an investigation by Politico, which found that Chalupa 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.

Chalupa developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives, according to Politico, and occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC.

Chalupa was a minorities outreach coordinator at the DNC. Officials say she was freelancing and not representing the DNC in her efforts to gather information on Manafort.

The White House has been pushing this narrative to distract from the Trump campaigns willingness to work with a hostile foreign government to interfere in our election. No one is buying it, Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the DNC, said in a statement.

The Trump campaign embraced an offer from a hostile foreign government to interfere in our elections. Trump and some of his family watched for months as the Kremlin attacked our democracy, and did nothing but encourage and celebrate their efforts. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign was involved in these efforts.

A New York Times story on Manaforts work for a pro-Russia group in the Ukraine contributed to him being forced out of the campaign.

Manafort is now the focus of a special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Manafort is cooperating with House and Senate investigators on the matter, but the Washington Post reportedWednesdaythat the FBI raided his home a day after he met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The FACT complaint is part of an effort by conservatives to push back on allegations that Trump officials had improper contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Last year, Trumps son, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Caitlyn Jenner apologizes for wearing Make America Great Again hat Conway, ABC host tangle over Trump's involvement in son's statement MORE Jr., met with a Russian lawyer and a Russian-American lobbyist, believing they had campaign dirt on Democrat Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonClintons attend private screening of 'Wonder Woman' Rosenstein: Trump did not direct feds to investigate Clinton GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism MORE.

Manafort was also at the meeting, as was Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

All of the parties involved have said the offer of informationwas a gambit to land the meeting and that the Russian lawyer instead pitched the Trump campaign officials on changes to a law that sanctions Russians for human rights violations.

Trumps critics have said the meeting is evidence that campaign officials were eager to collude with the Russians, even if that effort failed in this instance.

Ironically, the FACT complaint cites several reports from liberal media outlets, including ThinkProgress, in which experts claimed that Trump Jr. violated campaign laws by seeking an in-kind contribution from a foreign national in the form of opposition research.

FACT is now turning that allegation on the DNC.

Federal law and commission regulations prohibit any person from knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions or donations of money or other things of value from a foreign national, the complaint says.

Several watchdog groups have filed the same complaint against Trump Jr. FACT says that it took much of the language forits complaint from those complaints.

--This report was updated at 12:20 p.m.

See original here:
Watchdog files complaint alleging DNC worked with Ukraine - The Hill

Crimean border guards have rescued a Ukrainian teenager who spent three days drifting in the open sea after falling asleep on an inflatable trampoline.

Mykhailo Doroshenko, a 19-year-oldlifeguardin Lazurne, a resort in southern Ukraine, decided to spend the night on an inflatable trampoline that was attached to a pier on the beach.

When he woke up the next morning, he found himself in open sea.

The incident took place on Saturday but was only reported by Russian media this week.

At first, I saw it as a fun adventure. [I thought] Id drift for a couple of hours, and then some vessel would rescue me, Mr Doroshenko was quoted as saying by the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.

But on the second day, it wasnt fun at all.

The young man spent three days on the trampoline without food or drinking water,exposed to 40C heat.

At some point I saw a ship far away, Mr Doroshenko told Komsovolskaya Pravda. I started waving and shouting, but they didnt see me. Then another yacht passed by without noticing me. At times, I was feeling really desperate.

On Saturday, Crimean border guards received a reports about a man on an inflatable vessel in need of assistance.

Visit link:
Ukrainian lifeguard drifts to Crimea after falling asleep on inflatable trampoline - Telegraph.co.uk

Donbass Media Forum, Svyatohirsk, 2017. Source: DMF. More details on the forum here. When armed conflict broke out in Ukraines Donbass in spring 2014, many Donetsk journalists found themselves on the frontline by chance. Some of the citys editorial offices changed their addresses, while others had to close down their operations entirely. Other editors and journalists have stayed in their profession, but are now bound by the demands made by the new rulers of Donetsk and Luhansk. Since the beginning of the Russian Spring, the new authorities main rule of thumb has been to suppress independent media. Indeed, there are no local journalists in the Donbas whose fates did not change after April 2014. In order to figure out whats become of our profession in the region and to retain our ties weve been holding the Donbass Media Forum for several years now.

Facing aggression from the authorities of the so-called Donetsk Peoples Republic, the editorial staff of the News of Donbas left Donetsk in small groups. Our first reaction to this situation was: we need to tell the truth about whats happening in Donetsk, and the truth about those people who had suddenly declared a republic in our region. In our broadcasts for Donbas Public Television, we shed light on the DNR and its leaders, in order to inform as many people as possible about the situation.

At some point, I started receiving invitations to appear on every TV programme imaginable, as an expert on the Donbas. On air, Id hear the same information which Id published elsewhere. It seemed as though some media outlets werent interested in my knowledge of the current situation, but instead my interpretation of information which Id been collecting since 2006, and my status as a witness in a criminal case into the activities of the Donetsk Republic organisation, which was banned in 2007.

Thats when I decided to conduct an experiment of my own. When I was invited to speak on Ukrainian television channels, I started asking uncomfortable questions on topics which are often considered taboo in our media. For example, why do Ukrainian newsmakers have a critical attitude to any peace process (if there were people clearly antagonistic toward this idea in the studio) or how they view the realisation of the Minsk Agreements (if there were people calling for peaceful reintegration on air). That is, I changed the tone of the debate from the affirmative (transmitting new facts about the DNR and my interpretation of the situation in Donetsk) to the interrogative. Because thats a journalists job. After all, if Im already sitting beside the countrys VIPs, when why shouldnt I use them just as other journalists have used me in their own talk shows?

Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.I started asking even more questions and, every time, I observed how the reactions of the guest speakers and hosts changed towards me. As a result, one of the presenters declared me to be working for Viktor Medvedchuk. She continued that my interest in such issues as Minsk or even worse, the peace process, amounted to clear evidence for my close ties to strange circles and apparent desire for the capitulation of Ukraine to Russia. This TV presenter, whom I know well, later took me to one side and told me that since it was so clear why we dont need Minsk, there was simply no point discussing them on the air. That is to say, as it seemed so clear to her, she believed it must be the same for everybody else.

Well, as a journalist, I always have my doubts. Doubt courses through my entire life. Perhaps thats the reason why I decided to become a journalist in the first place, rather than a political analyst, a course which was always open to me given my Masters degree in political science.

Was it right for our editors to insist on calling those on the DNR side terrorists? Was it right to react to the conflict solely with excessive patriotism that flooded our newsfeeds?

I also had my doubts in 2014. Was it right for our editors to insist on calling those on the DNR side terrorists? Was it right to react to the conflict solely with excessive patriotism that flooded our newsfeeds? What will actually change from the medias employing the terminology used by Ukrainian military commanders, soldiers or simply online haters? Will the war really grind to a halt if some strive to make their insults twice as potent as their opponents?

In 2016, a wonderful book fell into my hands, published by the OSCE and freely accessible on their website. It concerns conflict-sensitive journalism, and I still read it once a week, whenever I look back over the content produced for News of Donbas. I almost remember it by heart. That very year at the Donbas Media Forum in Mariupol, one of the speakers called on journalists working in the conflict zone not to make things worse than they already are. That phrase, and the OSCEs book, allowed me to answer those questions I raised earlier.

By following its recommendations, as well as the experience of journalists from other countries who lived through other events, I like to think that Im helping the media outlets I work for to become more balanced and produce work of a higher quality. This in turn opens them up to wider audiences on both sides of the frontline, which after all is at the very heart of the goal which the Donetsk Institute of Information has set for itself. The institute, which administers News of Donbas and Donbas Public Television, promotes the establishment of democratic, humanistic values across Ukraine through the dissemination of fact-checked news and quality analysis.

Scenes from Maryinka, a town just east of Donetsk which is under Ukrainian state control. Source: "Lives on the Line" film by Iryna Solomko / Center for Civilians in Conflict.The result of all the discussions, debates and, of course, arguments weve held over the past three years has drawn me to the following question: is it possible for journalists to dial down the toxicity of their work? If my hypothesis is correct, this could lead to a dialling down in the aggression which has swept society an aggression which divides society ever more with each passing year, along various lines of discord.

The longer this war drags on, the deeper the sense of frustration and alienation. This can be easily seen in discussions in social media and among journalists themselves. My colleagues even receive threats simply because they, as journalists, permit themselves to consider and pose uncomfortable questions, to put journalistic ethics into practice and perfect what they produce, which is becoming more and more critical.

For some reason, many now appear to feel that media has a duty to serve a certain position on current affairs. That is to say, their position. Ill only trust sources which view things as I do. Why, then, cant media outlets become trusted for every audience? They dont even have to be trusted 100% the doubting reader is the most valuable kind of reader. How can a media outlet become the kind of resource that provokes confidence in its readers (even if they may disagree with some of its materials), one which does not countenance distortions and sticks to standards and dedication to balanced reporting? That is to say, a truly mass media organisation? Only journalists themselves can answer this question, by producing high-quality materials, generating and maintaining an impeccable reputation.

The key question that must be asked regarding the last three years of war in the Donbas is this: what can the media do to de-intensify this conflict that has engulfed our country?

Were often told that this war was unleashed by the media, that the medias role in this conflict is greater than ever before, and that we must react to the wave of information aggression before us. But to my mind, the key question that must be asked regarding the last three years of war in the Donbas is this: what can the media do to de-intensify this conflict that has engulfed our country?

I ask myself this question every day, and my search for a compelling answer continues. All I can repeat to myself in response is this: Dont make the situation worse than it already is.

This article originally appearedat News of Donbas.

Go here to see the original:
What is the meaning of journalism in Ukraine today? - Open Democracy

Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A. (ABI.BT) on Wednesday said it reached an agreement to merge its Russia and Ukraine businesses with those of Turkey-based brewer Anadolu Efes Biracilik ve Malt Sanayii A.S.(AEFES.IS).

Under the deal, each brewer would own an equal share of the combined company, AB InBev-Efes. The deal would see AB InBev halt further consolidation of its operations in Russia and Ukraine. AB InBev-Efes will be included in Anadolu Efes's financial accounts. No financial details of the deal were disclosed.

The board of AB InBev-Efes will have equal representation from its parent companies and is to be chaired by Tuncay Ozilhan, the current chairman of Anadolu Group and Anadolu Efes.

Both companies have in principle agreed to nominate Dmitry Shpakov, AB InBev's president for Russia and Ukraine, as chief executive of AB InBev-Efes.

AB InBev and Anadolu Efes said they expect the deal to be completed by the end of the first half of 2018. Until then, both companies' businesses in Russia and the Ukraine will remain separate and operate as normal.

The agreement follows AB InBev's acquisition of a 24% stake in Andolu Efes as part of the Belgium-based brewer's combination with SABMiller in October 2016.

Successful completion of the transaction depends on satisfactory due-diligence checks, as well as regulatory approval in Russia and Ukraine.

Read the original post:
AB InBev, Efes merge Russia, Ukraine units - MarketWatch

Major donors to former President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Illinois makes 'Barack Obama Day' a state holiday GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism MORE arent committing to Joe BidenJoe BidenIllinois makes 'Barack Obama Day' a state holiday Bidens kick off bike race fundraiser for cancer research Bill Clinton wishes Obama happy birthday: 'I love a good balloon' MORE.

While it is exceedingly early in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, top Obama donors are signaling that Biden cannot depend on their support.

Some say they might prefer a fresher face.

Hes got more than 40 years in Washington, one Obama donor said of Biden.

The Hill contacted more than 10 top donors to Obama for this story.

None of them would commit to backing Biden, and many of them said they preferred to find a new voice to run against PresidentTrump in 2020.

On the heels of Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonClintons attend private screening of 'Wonder Woman' Rosenstein: Trump did not direct feds to investigate Clinton GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism MOREs stunning Election Day defeat, the donors say they are picking up on the partys mood for a new direction and that they have to be practical about who they back financially.

[We've] gotta be realistic and strategic, not emotional, said one top fundraiser to the Obama-Biden tickets in 2008 and 2012. Democrats can't support a candidate over obligation, the fundraiser added.

There are some who love Joe and have a lot of respect for him but want a whole new face for the party and want an aspirational voice,acknowledged a second Obama-Biden donor, who wouldonly speak on background in order to discuss reservations about Biden more candidly.

When donors talk about fresh, new faces, one name frequently mentioned is Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who many believe will play a significant role in the future of the Democratic Party.

Harris lit up the donor circuit last month in the Hamptons, where she was feted by top fundraisers. The event signaled to many in the room that she would seek higher office and they continue to buzz about the prospects. Even some longtime Obama aides say she fits the bill as a face for the partys future.

Kamala has come to embody whats next for our party, Ben LaBolt, the longtime Obama spokesman, told The Hill last month.

Harris has conservatives talking, too. Last week, talk show host Hugh Hewitt predicted Harris could be the partys next nominee.

This isnt to say that Obama World is unifying around Harris at this early stage.

Valerie Jarrett, Obamas senior adviser and confidante, has been trying to convince former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to enter the race, according to a source familiar with their conversations.And others in the Obama orbit say they're intrigued by Patrick.

Progressives are still clutching to the hopes that Sens. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenFive tough decisions for the GOP on healthcare Warren: 'I am not running for president, Im doing my work' Senators push federal prisons to expand compassionate release MORE (D-Mass.) and Bernie SandersBernie SandersFive tough decisions for the GOP on healthcare Booker on hug with McCain after healthcare vote: 'I'm a hugger' Former DNC chair criticizes whiny left MORE (I-Vt.) will enter the race. But donors point to Sanderss age hell be 78 in 2020 as a possible negative if he follows up his 2016 presidential bid with a second run.

They also wonder if Warren, 68, will be able to appeal to party centrists.

Age is an issue mentioned with Biden as well. The former vice president will be 77 during the next presidential race, said the first Obama donor source in noting that campaigning is really exhausting.

Biden hasnt said whether he intends to run for president again. But all signs indicate hes considering it seriously.

For starters, he has a book coming out next month, which some allies say will be a barometer for a presidential run. He has also been giving campaign-style speeches in New Hampshire and other states.

Several donors predicted it would be difficult for Biden to do well with major donors and low-dollar fundraising, the two major buckets candidates rely on to filler their coffers.

A Biden spokesperson did not respond to request for comment.

The former vice president ran into fundraising walls in 2016 as he considered whether he would jump into the Democratic primary. As he took time to make his decision following his son's death, he realized that many of the staunch donors who had supported the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 and 2012 had already committed to Clinton.

This time around, Biden may find himself in a similar situation.

I hate to say it, because I love Joe, but some feel hes yesterdays news, one donor said.

Elections are about the future not the past, one Obama fundraiserput it when asked why he would likely not support Biden.

But Robert Wolf, a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who is close to Biden, said the former vice president is a strong potential candidate. There isn't anyone who doesn't love Joe, Wolf said. And I think everyone would be excited if he decided to take the next step.

One former Biden aide said Bidenappeals to the fractured Democratic Party, bringing together progressives and centrists.

Showing how to successfully lead is a model for the future, the former aide insisted. It's about having that vision. And if theres one thing Joe Biden has in spades it's theenergy and the steadfastness to get things done.

A Morning ConsultPolitico poll out in June showed that 74 percent of Democrats viewed Biden favorably. Warren followed in second place, at 51 percent.

Most donors and fundraisers interviewed for this story said they wont begin to commit to candidates until the first quarter of 2019. And some acknowledged they could tread water, as one put it, until late 2019, when it will be difficult to avoid choosing sides.

Until then, donors and fundraisers say theyll be watching how the candidates set the stage in the coming months.

Its all about how they get noticed, one donor said. Donors will be watching Biden and what the mood around him is like, but hell have his work cut out for him.

Original post:
Obama donors not committing to Biden - The Hill