• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Bombshell: Opposition research memos (not yet substantiated) discuss compromising Russian info on Trump

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,199
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
If there is something real to this, this could lead to impeachment. There has definitely been something bizzare about Trump's consistent pattern in always talking about Putin and Russia in a positive and praiseworthy light and also stacking his admin with those holding the most pro-Russia views ever.

It sounds like the intelligence agencies are looking into the matter to see whether there is anything to it (though they have not commented on whether they are investigating the matter).

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.

The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over the real estate magnate.

The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/...ligence.html?referer=https://news.google.com/
 
Will be interesting to see if there is anything to this indeed. But wouldn't an impeachment just make way for President Pence? I'm not sure which way I'm hoping this goes.
 
Best analysis of the situation I have seen so far:

First, we have no idea if any of these allegations are true. Yes, they are explosive; they are also entirely unsubstantiated, at least to our knowledge, at this stage. For this reason, even now, we are not going to discuss the specific allegations within the document.

Second, while unproven, the allegations are being taken quite seriously. The President and President-elect do not get briefed on material that the intelligence community does not believe to be at least of some credibility. The individual who generated them is apparently a person whose work intelligence professionals take seriously. And at a personal level, we can attest that we have had a lot of conversations with a lot of different people about the material in this document. While nobody has confirmed any of the allegations, both inside government and in the press, it is clear to us that they are the subject of serious attention.

Third, precisely because it is being taken seriously, it is—despite being unproven and, in public anyway, undiscussed—pervasively affecting the broader discussion of Russian hacking of the election. CNN reported that Senator John McCain personally delivered a copy of the document to FBI Director James Comey on December 9th. Consider McCain’s comments about the gravity of the Russian hacking episode at last week’s Armed Services Committee hearing in light of that fact. Likewise, consider Senator Ron Wyden’s questioning of Comey at today’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, in which Wyden pushed the FBI Director to release a declassified assessment before January 20th regarding contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. (Comey refused to comment on an ongoing investigation.)

So while people are being delicate about discussing wholly unproven allegations, the document is at the front of everyone’s minds as they ponder the question: Why is Trump so insistent about vindicating Russia from the hacking charges that everyone else seems to accept?

Fourth, it is significant that the document contains highly specific allegations, many of which are the kind of facts it should be possible to prove or disprove. This is a document about meetings that either took place or did not take place, stays in hotels that either happened or didn’t, travel that either happened or did not happen. It should be possible to know whether at least some of these allegations are true or false.

Finally, fifth, it is important to emphasize that this is not a case of the intelligence community leaking sensitive information about an investigative subject out of revenge or any other improper motive. This type of information, referencing sensitive sources and methods and the identities of U.S. persons, is typically treated by the intelligence community with the utmost care. And this material, in fact, does not come from the intelligence community; it comes, rather, from private intelligence documents put together by a company. It is actually not even classified.

https://lawfareblog.com/about-explosive-trump-story-take-deep-breath
 
Best analysis of the situation I have seen so far:

First, we have no idea if any of these allegations are true. Yes, they are explosive; they are also entirely unsubstantiated, at least to our knowledge, at this stage. For this reason, even now, we are not going to discuss the specific allegations within the document.

Second, while unproven, the allegations are being taken quite seriously. The President and President-elect do not get briefed on material that the intelligence community does not believe to be at least of some credibility. The individual who generated them is apparently a person whose work intelligence professionals take seriously. And at a personal level, we can attest that we have had a lot of conversations with a lot of different people about the material in this document. While nobody has confirmed any of the allegations, both inside government and in the press, it is clear to us that they are the subject of serious attention.

Third, precisely because it is being taken seriously, it is—despite being unproven and, in public anyway, undiscussed—pervasively affecting the broader discussion of Russian hacking of the election. CNN reported that Senator John McCain personally delivered a copy of the document to FBI Director James Comey on December 9th. Consider McCain’s comments about the gravity of the Russian hacking episode at last week’s Armed Services Committee hearing in light of that fact. Likewise, consider Senator Ron Wyden’s questioning of Comey at today’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, in which Wyden pushed the FBI Director to release a declassified assessment before January 20th regarding contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. (Comey refused to comment on an ongoing investigation.)

So while people are being delicate about discussing wholly unproven allegations, the document is at the front of everyone’s minds as they ponder the question: Why is Trump so insistent about vindicating Russia from the hacking charges that everyone else seems to accept?

Fourth, it is significant that the document contains highly specific allegations, many of which are the kind of facts it should be possible to prove or disprove. This is a document about meetings that either took place or did not take place, stays in hotels that either happened or didn’t, travel that either happened or did not happen. It should be possible to know whether at least some of these allegations are true or false.

Finally, fifth, it is important to emphasize that this is not a case of the intelligence community leaking sensitive information about an investigative subject out of revenge or any other improper motive. This type of information, referencing sensitive sources and methods and the identities of U.S. persons, is typically treated by the intelligence community with the utmost care. And this material, in fact, does not come from the intelligence community; it comes, rather, from private intelligence documents put together by a company. It is actually not even classified.

https://lawfareblog.com/about-explosive-trump-story-take-deep-breath

I almost hope it traces to a "Fake News" site for a couple of reasons. I don't like the idea of further staining the Office of POTUS with orange sleaze. And there would be something delicious about seeing republicans on the wrong end of the disinformation weapon.
 
Seems way too juicy to be true. If it was true, we are talking prison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Talk about 'out of the frying pan...'

Yeah, there's no good scenario here. Pence is the less narcissistic and impulsive of the two, and will at least act like a grown-up for the most part, but he's ideologically off the fucking walls. Trump is just a pandering con artist and doesn't believe in anything except his own brand.

I'm doubtful this will lead to anything substantive. It's pretty obvious after this election that nobody gives a fuck. Even if the video itself had "leaked" before the election, I'm not confident Hillary would have won.
 
I find it interesting that Kellyanne Conway hasn't denied it:

Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”

Is she avoiding asserting that it's untrue? And, when did he say that? Sounds like she's distancing herself, not her usual bombast.

It makes sense to deal with it now, before Trump can do anything.
 
Which part are you referring to, and who made it secret?

The part we are discussing here and whoever wrote that russian hacking report.

It was a research report paid for by opponents of Trump to a company owned by a credible former British intelligence official. The contents of the report were never "secret" in so far as the parties that paid for it could do with it as they pleased. The report got around to many politicians, journalists and Washingtion insiders. It was pretty much the exact opposite of "secret".
 
The part we are discussing here and whoever wrote that russian hacking report.

It was a research report paid for by opponents of Trump to a company owned by a credible former British intelligence official. The contents of the report were never "secret" in so far as the parties that paid for it could do with it as they pleased. The report got around to many politicians, journalists and Washingtion insiders. It was pretty much the exact opposite of "secret".
It was a part of secret part of the CIA&Co report. Why was it made secret?
And why Hillary sat on it? Is it because it had no substance?
 
If this was "opposition research", why does it come out now rather than during the election? The whole point of opposition research is to find dirt on your opponent that you can use against him in the election, not afterwards. Besides, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
 
If this was "opposition research", why does it come out now rather than during the election? The whole point of opposition research is to find dirt on your opponent that you can use against him in the election, not afterwards. Besides, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Two comments.

First, the allegations are so substantial that it would be political suicide in some sense to release them as true without throughal vetting, which wasn't accomplished in time. The person would be seen as a complete liar/fake news purveyor in an extreme sense that doesn't compare to what currently occurs.

Second, this former British intelligence official has a credible reputation. This reputation is the basis for why serious people go to his company and pay big bucks for this kind of research. If nothing here can be substantiated and key parts can be demonstrated to be false, meaning the methods used were especially shoddy or may even have been falsified altogether, his and his company's reputation will be utterly ruined and the money will dry up. This consequence leads me to believe that the idea that this was all completely made up is unlikely.
 
looks like it could be fake

4Chan Claims To Have Fabricated Anti-Trump Report As A Hoax

In a story that is getting more surreal by the minute, a post on 4Chan now claims that the infamous "golden showers" scene in the unverified 35-page dossier, allegedly compiled by a British intelligence officer, was a hoax and fabricated by a member of the chatboard as "fanfiction", then sent to Rick Wilson, who proceeded to send it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election.

Here is 4Chan's explanation of how the story came to light:

ZmsO6afG5fxZ9_FK1xRBvHDerRK5tcShO4Hxh9LG8wo_0.png
 
Last edited:
It was a research report paid for by opponents of Trump to a company owned by a credible former British intelligence official. The contents of the report were never "secret" in so far as the parties that paid for it could do with it as they pleased. The report got around to many politicians, journalists and Washingtion insiders. It was pretty much the exact opposite of "secret".
It was a part of secret part of the CIA&Co report. Why was it made secret?
And why Hillary sat on it? Is it because it had no substance?

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. These memos were mentioned as part of a classified report (two pages out of a much longer report) provided to senate intelligence committee and Obama and Trump. Are you asking why they were mentioned as part of a classified report?

Also, do you understand the difference between a report/research memo being shown to have no substance vs having insufficient substantiation at the time the decision had to be made to go public with the findings given the seriousness of the allegations?
 
Back
Top Bottom