Trump came up with how to prevent Russian interference in US elections
It seems that the United States is completely confused: Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election or did not intervene. Do you worry about American politicians about interference in the upcoming elections or not.
During a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Leuven, which took place in the White House, Trump touched on this widely discussed topic. He gave an interesting wording: Russia, as well as other (not named by him) countries, allegedly interfered in the elections held in 2016. But this, he said, had no effect on the voting results.
Trump promised to prevent Russia from interfering in the midterm congressional elections next year.
- he said.
Among the measures to counteract the “insidious Russian hackers,” Trump considers the counting of votes not only using computers, but also on paper:
It should be recalled that the case of Russian interference in the US presidential election is being conducted by specially appointed prosecutor Robert Muller. He indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies. This topic was recently touched upon by the head of national intelligence, Daniel Coates, who even asked Trump for special powers to counter “Russian interference”.
The question remains: is such an intervention of “Russian hackers” and “Internet trolls” possible, which supposedly “existed” and at the same time completely “did not affect the results”? And, if it had no effect, then why did the scandal surrounding this last more than a year?
Apparently, in this way the American president tried to resolve the contradiction: if Russia intervened and assisted him (as the representatives of the US Democratic Party say), then he, as president, does not have sufficient legitimacy. If you didn’t intervene, then it’s time to stop the anti-Russian hysteria. Nobody seems to want this in Washington.
The most comical thing is that, against the backdrop of this scandal, the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko is trying to make loud statements. In an interview with The Financial Times, he said that there is a fairly high probability of Russian interference in the Ukrainian elections. Of course, he attributed the role of “defender” from the “Russian threat” to himself:
Truly, "where the horse with the hoof, there is cancer with the claw."
During a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Leuven, which took place in the White House, Trump touched on this widely discussed topic. He gave an interesting wording: Russia, as well as other (not named by him) countries, allegedly interfered in the elections held in 2016. But this, he said, had no effect on the voting results.
Trump promised to prevent Russia from interfering in the midterm congressional elections next year.
We are conducting very, very serious studies, and we will come up with some ... very strong proposals for the 2018 election ... We will oppose what they are doing, we will very strongly oppose
- he said.
Among the measures to counteract the “insidious Russian hackers,” Trump considers the counting of votes not only using computers, but also on paper:
It's old-fashioned, but it's always good to have a paper copy ... It's called “paper,” a not-so-complicated computer system — paper. And many states do this
It should be recalled that the case of Russian interference in the US presidential election is being conducted by specially appointed prosecutor Robert Muller. He indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies. This topic was recently touched upon by the head of national intelligence, Daniel Coates, who even asked Trump for special powers to counter “Russian interference”.
The question remains: is such an intervention of “Russian hackers” and “Internet trolls” possible, which supposedly “existed” and at the same time completely “did not affect the results”? And, if it had no effect, then why did the scandal surrounding this last more than a year?
Apparently, in this way the American president tried to resolve the contradiction: if Russia intervened and assisted him (as the representatives of the US Democratic Party say), then he, as president, does not have sufficient legitimacy. If you didn’t intervene, then it’s time to stop the anti-Russian hysteria. Nobody seems to want this in Washington.
The most comical thing is that, against the backdrop of this scandal, the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko is trying to make loud statements. In an interview with The Financial Times, he said that there is a fairly high probability of Russian interference in the Ukrainian elections. Of course, he attributed the role of “defender” from the “Russian threat” to himself:
I am trying to protect Ukraine from the dangers of a hybrid war, which includes a system of fake wars, using social networks
Truly, "where the horse with the hoof, there is cancer with the claw."
Information