Latest news with #interference
Associated Press
31 minutes ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
Remarks by Trump's pick for ambassador spark a political storm in Argentina
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump's choice for ambassador to Buenos Aires sparked a storm Wednesday over his remarks that Argentina's powerful ex-president should face justice in cases in which she was never convicted and his pledges to use his posting as a bulwark against China. Opposition politicians in Argentina accused Peter Lamelas, Trump's nominee for ambassador to the second-biggest South American country, of violating diplomatic conventions, interfering in Argentine domestic affairs and meddling in judicial matters. Argentine media went into fifth gear with their coverage of Lamelas. Lawmakers introduced a bill in Congress rejecting his remarks as 'an unacceptable interference in matters of national sovereignty.' Trade unions planned a mass protest for Thursday outside the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires. The Cuban-born Lamelas, a physician, founder of a chain of urgent care clinics in Florida and longtime Trump donor, would otherwise be stepping into the role at a time when the relationship between Argentina and the United States is at its strongest in recent memory. The testimony Lamelas spoke on Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on his nomination. He said he would support Trump's ally, right-wing Argentine President Javier Milei, in ensuring that the country's former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner — now serving a six-year sentence on corruption charges under house arrest — gets the 'the justice that she well deserves' in cases unrelated to her current sentence. He also claimed her house arrest was a result of 'political favoritism,' although it is common practice in Argentina for those convicted over the age of 70. Fernández, the most prominent figure in Argentina's left-leaning Peronist opposition movement, which holds a majority in Congress, did not mince words when she posted her reaction. 'The only thing he didn't say was that he'd appoint the courts himself,' she said. Referencing scandals roiling the U.S., such including the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, she added: 'They should clean their own house before commenting on ours.' There was no immediate comment on the hearing from libertarian Milei, elected in 2023 on a wave of public outrage over the failed economic policies of Fernández and other left-leaning populist predecessors. Milei has repeatedly praised Trump and replicated his policies — including by following the U.S. in pulling Argentina from The World Health Organization — and recently dined and posed for friendly photos with Lamelas at Trump's opulent Mar-a-Lago club. 'LAMELAS GO HOME,' wrote Axel Kicillof, the governor of Buenos Aires, Argentina's most populous province, on X. 'Lamelas' statements evoke the darkest times of United States interference in the democratic life of our region,' he added. The controversy Lamelas waded into a controversy Tuesday when remarking on the alleged role of Fernández, Milei's political enemy, in the cover-up to obstruct the investigation into the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300. While several people, including a former federal judge and a former head of the intelligence services, have been convicted for helping to stymie the investigation into the attack, Fernández has yet to stand trial on cover-up charges. She denies the allegations. In his testimony, Lamelas contended that Fernández was 'definitely involved in the cover-up,' without elaborating or saying why he believes this. As ambassador, he would support 'Milei and the Milei government on all their efforts to get to the bottom' of the bombing and 'make sure that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner receives the justice that she well deserves,' Lamelas said. Fueling the fire further, he suggested Fernández had something to do with the suspicious 2015 death of Alberto Nisman, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate the bombing. 'God knows if she was involved in (his) death,' Lamelas said. Fernández has not been formally accused or charged in connection with Nisman's death. An early investigation stated that Nisman committed suicide, but a later report showed that it was a homicide. The case has not been resolved. Alarm over China In another part of his testimony, Lamelas expressed concern over China's growing influence in Argentina, citing that the governors of Argentina's 23 provinces had the autonomy to negotiate 'with external forces, with the Chinese or others, to come in and do projects in those particular provinces.' 'That may also lend toward corruption,' he added. 'My role is to get out into the countryside and make sure that we weed out corruption.' Argentina's provincial governors castigated Lamelas and called on Milei to reject his nomination. 'Stay in your country and solve your (country's) corruption problems,' shot back Gustavo Melella, governor of Argentina's southernmost Tierra del Fuego province. 'No ambassador has the right to lecture us.' The governor of Argentina's central La Pampa province, Sergio Ziliotto, had a similar response: 'The only ones who can command us are the people of La Pampa.' Despite U.S. efforts to urge the Milei administration — along with other U.S. allies in Latin America — to move away from China, Argentina's trade with China has increased over the past year. China's Embassy in Argentina issued a statement apparently directed at Lamelas, though it did not mention him. 'Argentina should not become a stage for the games of major powers,' it said. ___ Associated Press writer Isabel DeBre in Buenos Aires, Argentina, contributed to this report
Reuters
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
China 'clearly' trying to interfere in Taiwan's democracy, Taipei says before recall vote
TAIPEI, July 23 (Reuters) - China is "clearly" trying to interfere in Taiwan's democracy and it is up to Taiwan's people to decide who should be removed from or stay in office, the island's government said on Wednesday ahead of a recall vote for around one-fifth of lawmakers. On Saturday, Taiwan voters will decide on the fate of 24 lawmakers from Taiwan's largest opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), in a recall campaign started by civic groups who accuse the lawmakers of cozying up to Beijing, which views the island as its own territory. The KMT denies being pro-Beijing, but says it needs to keep lines of communication with China open, and has denounced the recalls as a "malicious" attack on democracy that does not respect the results of last year's parliamentary election. China's Taiwan Affairs Office and Chinese state media have repeatedly commented on the recall vote and used some of the same talking points as the Kuomintang, Reuters reported this week. In a post on Facebook citing the Reuters report and research by Taiwan's IORG, which analyses Chinese state media reports, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council said it "rejects the Chinese Communist Party's intervention". "The Chinese Communist Party's attempt to interfere with Taiwan's democratic operation is evident and clear," it said. "Recall in Taiwan is a civil right guaranteed by the constitution, and it is up to the people of Taiwan to decide who should or should not be removed from office." China's Taiwan Affairs Office did not respond to a request for comment. It has also not responded to questions submitted last week by Reuters about the recall and whether China was seeking to interfere in the outcome. The recall campaign has been happening against a backdrop of China ramping up its own military and diplomatic pressure campaign against Taiwan to assert territorial claims that Taiwan resolutely rejects.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gabbard's Russian interference claims directly contradict what other Trump officials have said
When President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community on the topic of Russia's interference in the 2016 US election, then-Sen. Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Trump. The Florida Republican said in 2018 that the intelligence community's 'assessment of 2016 is accurate. It's 100% accurate. The Russians interfered in our elections.' He added: 'I think it was not a good moment for the administration, obviously. Hopefully, something like that never happens again.' But seven years later, it just keeps happening — over and over again — as Trump and his most loyal allies seek to sow doubts about that 2016 episode and punish their political enemies. That's now taken the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard threatening criminal referrals and even floating allegations of treason for key officials in the Obama administration. Her argument is full of holes, as even critics of the Russia investigation such as the National Review's Andrew McCarthy have noted. (Basically, the whole thing conflates Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election with nonexistent attacks on election infrastructure that changed votes. ) But just as notable is that Gabbard's move to cast doubt on Russia's 2016 interference is wholly at odds with several top Trump administration officials, most especially Rubio, along with a pair of congressional investigations spearheaded by Republicans. To be clear, Gabbard is basically suggesting there was no Russian interference. Her memo last week cited what it cast as false reporting 'that the CIA 'concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened' in the election to help President Trump.' The memo said the assessment 'falsely alleges … that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.' Gabbard in Fox News interviews accused the Obama team of ordering a 'a manufactured piece of intelligence that detailed not if, but how Russia tried to influence the outcome of the United States election.' She cited an intelligence document that purportedly said Russia 'did not attempt to affect the outcome of the election.' In fact, that document — a President's Daily Brief, or his daily intelligence report — merely said Russia hadn't impacted the election results 'by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.' It was referring narrowly to a very specific (and severe) type of potential election interference. The Obama administration never alleged such interference took place or that Russia manipulated actual votes that were cast. This is a kind of sleight of hand we've seen before with Trump allies trying to call Russia's election interference into question. But Gabbard's commentary is especially striking when juxtaposed with those she serves with in the second Trump administration. Rubio didn't just rebuke Trump for siding with Putin's denials back in 2018; he also spearheaded the Senate Intelligence Committee's big, bipartisan Russia report in 2020. The report concluded that Russia had 'engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.' It not only said Russia had interfered, but also that it had done so to benefit Trump. 'The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president,' the report said. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.' The report differed slightly from a similar report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2018. The House report, which was written by Republicans, did not say that Russia aimed to help Trump, but it did say it interfered and that Putin had ordered it. 'In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election,' the Republican-led House report said. 'The Russia government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.' Gabbard, who was a Democratic member of Congress until 2021, now suggestively casts all three of these pillars as false: that Russia interfered, that Putin ordered it, and that it was meant to help Trump. And her conclusions also run afoul of other Trump administration members' statements. During his 2020 confirmation hearing to become Trump's director of national intelligence, now-CIA Director John Ratcliffe — who then served on the House Intelligence Committee — made clear Russia interfered. 'Chairman, my views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016,' Ratcliffe said. 'They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord.' Even just days before Gabbard launched her effort last week, Ratcliffe issued a report that not only didn't dispute that Russia interfered, but actually praised the initial intelligence assessment's 'analytical rigor.' Mike Waltz, Trump's nominee for United Nations ambassador and his former national security adviser, has also issued strong statements on the topic. He at one point even warned that people were conflating Trump's claims of 'no collusion' with the idea that Russia didn't interfere at all. 'We do have to draw a bright line between 'no collusion' … versus the Russians attacking our constitutional system and attacking our electoral system, which they absolutely are doing,' Waltz, then a Florida congressman, told CNN's Jake Tapper in 2019. He added: 'We have to stay focused on that, because that is our democracy under attack.' Today, Trump's administration is yet again seeking to blur those lines. The conflations are continuing. And these officials will apparently just keep doing it — no matter what they said before.
CNN
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Gabbard's Russian interference claims directly contradict what other Trump officials have said
When President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community on the topic of Russia's interference in the 2016 US election, then-Sen. Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Trump. The Florida Republican said in 2018 that the intelligence community's 'assessment of 2016 is accurate. It's 100% accurate. The Russians interfered in our elections.' He added: 'I think it was not a good moment for the administration, obviously. Hopefully, something like that never happens again.' But seven years later, it just keeps happening — over and over again — as Trump and his most loyal allies seek to sow doubts about that 2016 episode and punish their political enemies. That's now taken the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard threatening criminal referrals and even floating allegations of treason for key officials in the Obama administration. Her argument is full of holes, as even critics of the Russia investigation such as the National Review's Andrew McCarthy have noted. (Basically, the whole thing conflates Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election with nonexistent attacks on election infrastructure that changed votes. ) But just as notable is that Gabbard's move to cast doubt on Russia's 2016 interference is wholly at odds with several top Trump administration officials, most especially Rubio, along with a pair of congressional investigations spearheaded by Republicans. To be clear, Gabbard is basically suggesting there was no Russian interference. Her memo last week cited what it cast as false reporting 'that the CIA 'concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened' in the election to help President Trump.' The memo said the assessment 'falsely alleges … that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.' Gabbard in Fox News interviews accused the Obama team of ordering a 'a manufactured piece of intelligence that detailed not if, but how Russia tried to influence the outcome of the United States election.' She cited an intelligence document that purportedly said Russia 'did not attempt to affect the outcome of the election.' In fact, that document — a President's Daily Brief, or his daily intelligence report — merely said Russia hadn't impacted the election results 'by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.' It was referring narrowly to a very specific (and severe) type of potential election interference. The Obama administration never alleged such interference took place or that Russia manipulated actual votes that were cast. This is a kind of sleight of hand we've seen before with Trump allies trying to call Russia's election interference into question. But Gabbard's commentary is especially striking when juxtaposed with those she serves with in the second Trump administration. Rubio didn't just rebuke Trump for siding with Putin's denials back in 2018; he also spearheaded the Senate Intelligence Committee's big, bipartisan Russia report in 2020. The report concluded that Russia had 'engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.' It not only said Russia had interfered, but also that it had done so to benefit Trump. 'The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president,' the report said. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.' The report differed slightly from a similar report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2018. The House report, which was written by Republicans, did not say that Russia aimed to help Trump, but it did say it interfered and that Putin had ordered it. 'In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election,' the Republican-led House report said. 'The Russia government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.' Gabbard, who was a Democratic member of Congress until 2021, now suggestively casts all three of these pillars as false: that Russia interfered, that Putin ordered it, and that it was meant to help Trump. And her conclusions also run afoul of other Trump administration members' statements. During his 2020 confirmation hearing to become Trump's director of national intelligence, now-CIA Director John Ratcliffe — who then served on the House Intelligence Committee — made clear Russia interfered. 'Chairman, my views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016,' Ratcliffe said. 'They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord.' Even just days before Gabbard launched her effort last week, Ratcliffe issued a report that not only didn't dispute that Russia interfered, but actually praised the initial intelligence assessment's 'analytical rigor.' Mike Waltz, Trump's nominee for United Nations ambassador and his former national security adviser, has also issued strong statements on the topic. He at one point even warned that people were conflating Trump's claims of 'no collusion' with the idea that Russia didn't interfere at all. 'We do have to draw a bright line between 'no collusion' … versus the Russians attacking our constitutional system and attacking our electoral system, which they absolutely are doing,' Waltz, then a Florida congressman, told CNN's Jake Tapper in 2019. He added: 'We have to stay focused on that, because that is our democracy under attack.' Today, Trump's administration is yet again seeking to blur those lines. The conflations are continuing. And these officials will apparently just keep doing it — no matter what they said before.
CNN
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Gabbard's Russian interference claims directly contradict what other Trump officials have said
When President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community on the topic of Russia's interference in the 2016 US election, then-Sen. Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Trump. The Florida Republican said in 2018 that the intelligence community's 'assessment of 2016 is accurate. It's 100% accurate. The Russians interfered in our elections.' He added: 'I think it was not a good moment for the administration, obviously. Hopefully, something like that never happens again.' But seven years later, it just keeps happening — over and over again — as Trump and his most loyal allies seek to sow doubts about that 2016 episode and punish their political enemies. That's now taken the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard threatening criminal referrals and even floating allegations of treason for key officials in the Obama administration. Her argument is full of holes, as even critics of the Russia investigation such as the National Review's Andrew McCarthy have noted. (Basically, the whole thing conflates Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election with nonexistent attacks on election infrastructure that changed votes. ) But just as notable is that Gabbard's move to cast doubt on Russia's 2016 interference is wholly at odds with several top Trump administration officials, most especially Rubio, along with a pair of congressional investigations spearheaded by Republicans. To be clear, Gabbard is basically suggesting there was no Russian interference. Her memo last week cited what it cast as false reporting 'that the CIA 'concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened' in the election to help President Trump.' The memo said the assessment 'falsely alleges … that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.' Gabbard in Fox News interviews accused the Obama team of ordering a 'a manufactured piece of intelligence that detailed not if, but how Russia tried to influence the outcome of the United States election.' She cited an intelligence document that purportedly said Russia 'did not attempt to affect the outcome of the election.' In fact, that document — a President's Daily Brief, or his daily intelligence report — merely said Russia hadn't impacted the election results 'by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.' It was referring narrowly to a very specific (and severe) type of potential election interference. The Obama administration never alleged such interference took place or that Russia manipulated actual votes that were cast. This is a kind of sleight of hand we've seen before with Trump allies trying to call Russia's election interference into question. But Gabbard's commentary is especially striking when juxtaposed with those she serves with in the second Trump administration. Rubio didn't just rebuke Trump for siding with Putin's denials back in 2018; he also spearheaded the Senate Intelligence Committee's big, bipartisan Russia report in 2020. The report concluded that Russia had 'engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.' It not only said Russia had interfered, but also that it had done so to benefit Trump. 'The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president,' the report said. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.' The report differed slightly from a similar report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2018. The House report, which was written by Republicans, did not say that Russia aimed to help Trump, but it did say it interfered and that Putin had ordered it. 'In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election,' the Republican-led House report said. 'The Russia government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.' Gabbard, who was a Democratic member of Congress until 2021, now suggestively casts all three of these pillars as false: that Russia interfered, that Putin ordered it, and that it was meant to help Trump. And her conclusions also run afoul of other Trump administration members' statements. During his 2020 confirmation hearing to become Trump's director of national intelligence, now-CIA Director John Ratcliffe — who then served on the House Intelligence Committee — made clear Russia interfered. 'Chairman, my views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016,' Ratcliffe said. 'They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord.' Even just days before Gabbard launched her effort last week, Ratcliffe issued a report that not only didn't dispute that Russia interfered, but actually praised the initial intelligence assessment's 'analytical rigor.' Mike Waltz, Trump's nominee for United Nations ambassador and his former national security adviser, has also issued strong statements on the topic. He at one point even warned that people were conflating Trump's claims of 'no collusion' with the idea that Russia didn't interfere at all. 'We do have to draw a bright line between 'no collusion' … versus the Russians attacking our constitutional system and attacking our electoral system, which they absolutely are doing,' Waltz, then a Florida congressman, told CNN's Jake Tapper in 2019. He added: 'We have to stay focused on that, because that is our democracy under attack.' Today, Trump's administration is yet again seeking to blur those lines. The conflations are continuing. And these officials will apparently just keep doing it — no matter what they said before.
