11 ms·

If you're still on the fence as to whether or not Trump is a Russian agent, ask yourself these hypotheticals: * is it possible, on principle, for a POTUS to be

If you're still on the fence as to whether or not Trump is a Russian agent, ask yourself these hypotheticals: * is it possible, on principle, for a POTUS to be a Russian agent? * if yes to above, what actions would such a POTUS take? * how do Trump's actions differ?

lm28469 2y ago
This is a "we never went to the moon" type of conspiracy, to many things would have to fit perfectly for it to make sense It's much more likely that he his completely incompetent and inapt, espacially if he gets his advices from Musk and Vance
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  How does his behaviour in this administration differ markedly from his first? Were Musk and Vance key influencers there? If not, what elements are constant?
  - lm28469 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q This is what's going on ^, people like you and me cannot agree on anything because whatever happens truth has no value whatsoever, there are two groups of people, being fed two flavors of reality
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Sorry, but how does that video (I'm quite familiar with it) explain your argument? For that matter, what is your argument? You're being quite vague.
      - lm28469 2y ago
        Half of the US think trump is saving them, the other half think we're witnessing the end of the republic. Depending on which bubble you live in you get bombarded with information going your way. > How does his behaviour in this administration differ markedly from his first? Was there a government purge during the first term ? Did we have 20 years old non vetted civilians getting access to critical systems ? Did we have the entire tech sector rallying behind trump ? Did we have a foreign billionaire melding with internal politics straight from the oval office ? No, we had an old man selling cans of beans from the oval office: https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f1091ef3075b61a6e553443/4:3/w_959,h_719,c_limit/Gessen-Goya.jpg https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f1091ef3075b61a6e553443/... We had people who mistook the "Four Seasons Hotel" with "Four Seasons Total Landscaping": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Four_Seasons_Total_Landscaping_press_conference.jpeg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Four_Seasons_... It was a clown show with minor influence on the long term direction of the US and the world, it's hardly comparable to what we're witnessing right now.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        If you care for a broader view, you can step outside the US media bubble, as I (being of course based on Altair IV) do frequently. The US media supportive of the present administration are a distinct anomaly globally. There were numerous signs of pro-Russian sentiments in the first term, as well as a well-documented set in the Mueller report (see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Conspiracy_or_coordination_vs_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Conspiracy_or_c...> for an overview), misrepresentations and denials notwithstanding. Your list is grossly deficient and spurious.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        And, apparently the video you'd linked ... has nothing at all to do with your argument, as you failed to address my question on that point.
        lm28469 2y ago
        There is a part of the video that is exactly about what we're going through: information overload to the point that most people can't form an opinion, you have your extreme position, I have mine, they're mutually exclusive yet we both think we're right
- affinepplan 2y ago
  > too many things would have to fit perfectly for it to make sense things like immediately reversing course on military support for the only country at war with Russia? things like torching relationships with our closest allies we've spent decades, if not centuries building? things like repeatedly and publicly praising Putin? things like both ex-KGB officers and current UK legislators publicly stating the possibility? things like everything in this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates... I don't know why you think it's quite so far fetched. it's not a certainty but at this point I would say the preponderance of evidence calls it "likely"
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > things like immediately reversing course on military support for the only country at war with Russia America has a tremendous interest in not being at war with the world’s second largest nuclear power. We also have no interest in sacrificing good relations with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
    - fedsocpuppet 2y ago
      We should definitely go back to the good relations we used to have. Maybe if we're nice to them again they won't be running around with polonium, forcing migrants through Belarus, sending in little green men to their neighbors, and generally trying to destabilize the entire West. They're just misunderstood - it's not a country of thugs, they just want to live in peace and pump oil. Hey maybe if we have good relations we'll even be able to benefit from their recent invaluable contributions to science and technology.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        fedsocpuppet 2y ago
        That was bad, and this is bad. Iraq was bad, and this is bad. Brilliant. We should care because it's an easy way to make friends and remain the most powerful country in the world. Well, was easy, when you could trust the US to not change their tariffs on you every three days. Art of the deal!
gedy 2y ago
Seriously - why then have all the moves against Ukraine were when Trump was not in office? Russia has been invading Ukraine for _14 years_, first under Obama/Biden then under Biden/Harris. Clinton was secretary of state. And the west continues to buy gas from them, etc. Maybe there's some 4d chess I'm missing but feels like gaslighting on how tough we've supposedly been on Russia aside from Trump.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  The US was manifestly not tough during the Obama years, and that was a mistake -- since Russia then tried to invade the whole country in 2022. I don't really understand the rest of your comment, since it sounds like you haven't been reading the news since 2022.
  - gedy 2y ago
    I'm addressing the extraordinary claim that "Trump is a Russian agent" and that now we are suddenly now being soft on Russia. If so, why didn't Putin mount a full invasion in 2016-2020? Why wait until 2022 when the supposedly tough Biden administration (which included veterans from the 2011 Crimea invasion)? It feels like gaslighting that, at minimum, we've been nothing but soft and ineffectual on Russia the entire time.
    - credit_guy 2y ago
      > If so, why didn't Putin mount a full invasion in 2016-2020? One possible explanation is that Russia is a petro-state. The average oil price between 2010 and 2014 was about $130/barrel. Then in a few short months it dropped by 50% and stayed there until this day (with a short exception around the start of the invasion when it was above $100 for about half a year). [1]https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-cha...
- 2510c39011c5 2y ago
  > why then have all the moves against Ukraine were when Trump was not in office? In regards to the timing of the two Russian invasions, perhaps Putin felt those were his best chances to make such moves. The first time when Russia invaded Crimea on February 20, 2014 was because of the Maidan Revolution. At the time Ukrainian government was a mess. The then Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who was an ally of Putin, was to be ousted on the next day of the Russian invasion and eventually fled to Russia. As for the timing when Russia invaded Ukraine again on February 24, 2022, I think one of the reasons was because of US troops chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan happened a few months ago. And after that, the US would be politically unlikely to get itself involved directly in another overseas war so soon; and Putin hoped this time it would be a blitzkrieg coup, and then he could replace Zelensky with a puppet president. I am not saying that Putin intentionally invaded Ukraine at a time when Trump was or wasn't in office; I only feel that these are two very opportune moments for Putin to seize, which both happened to be at times when Trump was not in office.
ty6853 2y ago
Ceasing assistance is a bit different than providing assistance to the enemy. The US helped support Ukraine for several years. That was nice. Someone else can now redirect domestic resources to that cause. We've had our turn. The real question is who benefits from the tall apocalyptic tales told to taxpayers that if families part with their dollars to at least equally corrupt foreign lands, they will be safer from the evil russians. It's not clear to me that the international meddling of the US this century has performed the claims of the war cries, and we're exhausted of servicing them.
- affinepplan 2y ago
  Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of a territorial aggression. calling them "equally corrupt" is propaganda.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Oh no Ukraine is not equally corrupt as Russia, I mean as the USA.
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- throw16180339 2y ago
  This argument relies on false equivalence and a straw man. It compares accusations of being a "Russian agent" to U.S. alignments with Islamists, but the two are not analogous. It also presents a false dilemma by asking if the U.S. is "captured" by Islamists, ignoring more complex geopolitical factors. Additionally, it implies causation (U.S. involvement leading to Islamist takeovers) without considering other historical influences. While the argument raises a valid point about shifting alliances, it does so using misleading rhetorical techniques.
itkovian_ 2y ago
It's an extraordinary claim. I think the reason I dismiss it as unlikely as when I look back at the steel dossier and muler investigation 1) if there was something, it's very likely they would have found it then 2) in hindsight both investigations were completely discredited and shown to be largely a institutional response to the shock which was 2016. This current re-emergence of 'trump is a Russian agent' is kinda surprising in that context. 3) I think the current behavior can be explained by a desire to end the conflict, while feeling no particular allegiance to Ukraine.
- affinepplan 2y ago
  > in hindsight both investigations were completely discredited .... discredited by whom, might I ask? possibly discredited by those it investigated?
  - itkovian_ 2y ago
    I mean theres lots one could say here. Probably the most straightforward is igor danshenko, who was the primary source for the steel dossier, stating that he never intended for the claims to be taken seriously.
    - grayhatter 2y ago
      so you're saying... it was just a prank, bro!
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      You're conflating the Steele Dossier and the Mueller investigation [1]. > However, the House Intelligence Committee, then controlled by Republicans, released in 2017 a report that stated that the Russia investigation had not started from information in the Steele dossier, but from information that the FBI received on George Papadopoulos. Do not draw a false equivalence between a private investigation self-admitted by Steele to be an unverified "starting point for further investigation" [2] and an official completed US investigation created by Republican Rod Rosenstein, led by Republican Robert Mueller. Republican William Barr, after preemptively declining to charge obstruction of justice, declining to release the executive summaries of the Mueller investigation to Congress, and omitting multiple details about whether Trump's actions were knowing vs. unknowing, still affirmed ten instances of potential obstruction [1][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/mueller-report-recounts-10-episodes-involving-trump-and-questions-of-obstruction.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/mueller-report-recounts-10-e...
layer8 2y ago
You’re giving Trump too much credit. He simply admires Putin as the authoritarian leader of a world power, and neither sees the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine conflict, nor does he feel moral/ethical repulsion towards what Russia has done there.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  I'm not swayed by the arguments that the white house is compromised. But I do appreciate the significance of the question "find the daylight between the actions of the white house and the actions of an ideal agent". You're a physician, your patient is running a fever of 42°C, that's very quickly going to become fatal. Do you administer antipyretics and cold compresses now, or do you debate the likely causes, and attempt the root cause analysis?
  - mbrumlow 2y ago
    First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. Faulty instruments or clerical errors could have lead us to believe the patient was 42C. The fist thing the doctor would do would likely be place their hand on the patients forehead and then take additional readings to confirm the prognosis. Last thing you would want to do is cold plunge a patient when instrumentation has extreme bias.
    - grayhatter 2y ago
      > First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. This is known as rejecting the hypothetical. The only time it's a good faith argument is after you've agreed with the conclusion. If you do agree with the argument, you should cite something verifiable that the white house has done that's incompatible with the original assertion. Which is the actions are indistinguishable from an ideal agent. Do you have any provable examples?
doublerabbit 2y ago
> if yes to above, what actions would such a POTUS take? All of the actions that have currently taken place. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630 Goes in to very good detail how Trump could be an agent. At this stage it's hard not assume so.
tim333 2y ago
Russian agent implies he's employed by the Russians and I don't think that is true. They do seem to have a lot of influence on him though. Grok gives him a 75-85% likelihood he is a compromised asset https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6 https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Nitpicking over nomenclature is petty. Other applicable descriptions might be "asset", "tool", or "useful idiot". One of the keys of tradecraft is to convince people to assist a specific contracted officer (that is, a direct employee of an intelligence service) without necessarily being part of the service, or even aware of doing its bidding. On usage within the CIA, specifically between "agent" and "asset": An intelligence asset is an individual who provides information and services to the CIA but is not officially paid or technically controlled by them. An agent, on the other hand, is someone who officially works for the CIA. They are paid by the CIA and are under their relative control as an employee. <https://rdctd.pro/cia-agents-versus-cia-assets/ https://rdctd.pro/cia-agents-versus-cia-assets/> Interestingly enough, the CIA's own nomenclature is ... less clear: Asset: a clandestine source; an agent. <https://www.cia.gov/resources/spy-glossary/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/spy-glossary/> Either way, the relevant discussion is whether or not the subject is, knowingly/intentionally or otherwise, assisting a hostile power. And there's strong circumstantial evidence that this is the case, sufficient to be the topic of international chatter, e.g., "Tory MP: Trump is a ‘Russian asset’" <https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mp-trump-is-a-russian-asset/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mp-trump-is-a-russi...> Paywall: <https://archive.is/k8Dr2 https://archive.is/k8Dr2>
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tim333 2y ago
    Though agent/asset is fairly clear. Trump isn't "someone who officially works for" the Russians. I think it's good to try to be clear about Russian influence because they are so sneaky with it. Like with Brexit - the leave campaign was basically funded by the Russians but how it was done, probably is there was a businessman, Banks with a struggling business. He got befriended by the Russians and someone connected to them put tens of millions of investment into his business. He then funded leave and can claim it's all his UK sourced money. The actual money came through an opaque offshore trust in a secrecy enforcing tax haven so you can't prove it. Probably Trump's dealings are similar - he has business issues which were sorted by Russian investment in an opaque way with favours down the line. Banks wife it seems by the way was an actual Russian agent ie recruited and paid salary by the Russian services.
rurban 2y ago
We will find out soon enough. If he is, CIA will take him down immediately. It wouldn't be the first time the CIA killed their president.
parliament32 2y ago
IMO a true agent would 1) announce an unverifiable top secret something-or-another uncovered WMDs-or-similar-boogeymen[1] in Ukraine, then 2) convince Ukraine to capitulate or send in boots. Why not cut to the chase? [1] Precedent: The Iraq War
evanjrowley 2y ago
Obviously a Russian agent would retain his trusted status with Ukraine leadership, feed them false information, and feed Russia true information. This is not what's happening here.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Closely-held assets do what is useful. Were that to be useful, it's what the asset would likely be doing. Removing material support to an enemy of the controlling agency also has great value.

lm28469 2y ago

This is a "we never went to the moon" type of conspiracy, to many things would have to fit perfectly for it to make sense It's much more likely that he his completely incompetent and inapt, espacially if he gets his advices from Musk and Vance

dredmorbius 2y ago
How does his behaviour in this administration differ markedly from his first? Were Musk and Vance key influencers there? If not, what elements are constant?
- lm28469 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q This is what's going on ^, people like you and me cannot agree on anything because whatever happens truth has no value whatsoever, there are two groups of people, being fed two flavors of reality
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Sorry, but how does that video (I'm quite familiar with it) explain your argument? For that matter, what is your argument? You're being quite vague.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      Half of the US think trump is saving them, the other half think we're witnessing the end of the republic. Depending on which bubble you live in you get bombarded with information going your way. > How does his behaviour in this administration differ markedly from his first? Was there a government purge during the first term ? Did we have 20 years old non vetted civilians getting access to critical systems ? Did we have the entire tech sector rallying behind trump ? Did we have a foreign billionaire melding with internal politics straight from the oval office ? No, we had an old man selling cans of beans from the oval office: https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f1091ef3075b61a6e553443/4:3/w_959,h_719,c_limit/Gessen-Goya.jpg https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f1091ef3075b61a6e553443/... We had people who mistook the "Four Seasons Hotel" with "Four Seasons Total Landscaping": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Four_Seasons_Total_Landscaping_press_conference.jpeg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Four_Seasons_... It was a clown show with minor influence on the long term direction of the US and the world, it's hardly comparable to what we're witnessing right now.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        If you care for a broader view, you can step outside the US media bubble, as I (being of course based on Altair IV) do frequently. The US media supportive of the present administration are a distinct anomaly globally. There were numerous signs of pro-Russian sentiments in the first term, as well as a well-documented set in the Mueller report (see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Conspiracy_or_coordination_vs_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Conspiracy_or_c...> for an overview), misrepresentations and denials notwithstanding. Your list is grossly deficient and spurious.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        And, apparently the video you'd linked ... has nothing at all to do with your argument, as you failed to address my question on that point.
        lm28469 2y ago
        There is a part of the video that is exactly about what we're going through: information overload to the point that most people can't form an opinion, you have your extreme position, I have mine, they're mutually exclusive yet we both think we're right
affinepplan 2y ago
> too many things would have to fit perfectly for it to make sense things like immediately reversing course on military support for the only country at war with Russia? things like torching relationships with our closest allies we've spent decades, if not centuries building? things like repeatedly and publicly praising Putin? things like both ex-KGB officers and current UK legislators publicly stating the possibility? things like everything in this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates... I don't know why you think it's quite so far fetched. it's not a certainty but at this point I would say the preponderance of evidence calls it "likely"
- rayiner 2y ago
  > things like immediately reversing course on military support for the only country at war with Russia America has a tremendous interest in not being at war with the world’s second largest nuclear power. We also have no interest in sacrificing good relations with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
  - fedsocpuppet 2y ago
    We should definitely go back to the good relations we used to have. Maybe if we're nice to them again they won't be running around with polonium, forcing migrants through Belarus, sending in little green men to their neighbors, and generally trying to destabilize the entire West. They're just misunderstood - it's not a country of thugs, they just want to live in peace and pump oil. Hey maybe if we have good relations we'll even be able to benefit from their recent invaluable contributions to science and technology.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - fedsocpuppet 2y ago
        That was bad, and this is bad. Iraq was bad, and this is bad. Brilliant. We should care because it's an easy way to make friends and remain the most powerful country in the world. Well, was easy, when you could trust the US to not change their tariffs on you every three days. Art of the deal!

gedy 2y ago

Seriously - why then have all the moves against Ukraine were when Trump was not in office? Russia has been invading Ukraine for _14 years_, first under Obama/Biden then under Biden/Harris. Clinton was secretary of state. And the west continues to buy gas from them, etc. Maybe there's some 4d chess I'm missing but feels like gaslighting on how tough we've supposedly been on Russia aside from Trump.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
The US was manifestly not tough during the Obama years, and that was a mistake -- since Russia then tried to invade the whole country in 2022. I don't really understand the rest of your comment, since it sounds like you haven't been reading the news since 2022.
- gedy 2y ago
  I'm addressing the extraordinary claim that "Trump is a Russian agent" and that now we are suddenly now being soft on Russia. If so, why didn't Putin mount a full invasion in 2016-2020? Why wait until 2022 when the supposedly tough Biden administration (which included veterans from the 2011 Crimea invasion)? It feels like gaslighting that, at minimum, we've been nothing but soft and ineffectual on Russia the entire time.
  - credit_guy 2y ago
    > If so, why didn't Putin mount a full invasion in 2016-2020? One possible explanation is that Russia is a petro-state. The average oil price between 2010 and 2014 was about $130/barrel. Then in a few short months it dropped by 50% and stayed there until this day (with a short exception around the start of the invasion when it was above $100 for about half a year). [1]https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-cha...
2510c39011c5 2y ago
> why then have all the moves against Ukraine were when Trump was not in office? In regards to the timing of the two Russian invasions, perhaps Putin felt those were his best chances to make such moves. The first time when Russia invaded Crimea on February 20, 2014 was because of the Maidan Revolution. At the time Ukrainian government was a mess. The then Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who was an ally of Putin, was to be ousted on the next day of the Russian invasion and eventually fled to Russia. As for the timing when Russia invaded Ukraine again on February 24, 2022, I think one of the reasons was because of US troops chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan happened a few months ago. And after that, the US would be politically unlikely to get itself involved directly in another overseas war so soon; and Putin hoped this time it would be a blitzkrieg coup, and then he could replace Zelensky with a puppet president. I am not saying that Putin intentionally invaded Ukraine at a time when Trump was or wasn't in office; I only feel that these are two very opportune moments for Putin to seize, which both happened to be at times when Trump was not in office.

ty6853 2y ago

Ceasing assistance is a bit different than providing assistance to the enemy. The US helped support Ukraine for several years. That was nice. Someone else can now redirect domestic resources to that cause. We've had our turn. The real question is who benefits from the tall apocalyptic tales told to taxpayers that if families part with their dollars to at least equally corrupt foreign lands, they will be safer from the evil russians. It's not clear to me that the international meddling of the US this century has performed the claims of the war cries, and we're exhausted of servicing them.

affinepplan 2y ago
Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of a territorial aggression. calling them "equally corrupt" is propaganda.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Oh no Ukraine is not equally corrupt as Russia, I mean as the USA.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

throw16180339 2y ago
This argument relies on false equivalence and a straw man. It compares accusations of being a "Russian agent" to U.S. alignments with Islamists, but the two are not analogous. It also presents a false dilemma by asking if the U.S. is "captured" by Islamists, ignoring more complex geopolitical factors. Additionally, it implies causation (U.S. involvement leading to Islamist takeovers) without considering other historical influences. While the argument raises a valid point about shifting alliances, it does so using misleading rhetorical techniques.

itkovian_ 2y ago

It's an extraordinary claim. I think the reason I dismiss it as unlikely as when I look back at the steel dossier and muler investigation 1) if there was something, it's very likely they would have found it then 2) in hindsight both investigations were completely discredited and shown to be largely a institutional response to the shock which was 2016. This current re-emergence of 'trump is a Russian agent' is kinda surprising in that context. 3) I think the current behavior can be explained by a desire to end the conflict, while feeling no particular allegiance to Ukraine.

affinepplan 2y ago
> in hindsight both investigations were completely discredited .... discredited by whom, might I ask? possibly discredited by those it investigated?
- itkovian_ 2y ago
  I mean theres lots one could say here. Probably the most straightforward is igor danshenko, who was the primary source for the steel dossier, stating that he never intended for the claims to be taken seriously.
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    so you're saying... it was just a prank, bro!
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    You're conflating the Steele Dossier and the Mueller investigation [1]. > However, the House Intelligence Committee, then controlled by Republicans, released in 2017 a report that stated that the Russia investigation had not started from information in the Steele dossier, but from information that the FBI received on George Papadopoulos. Do not draw a false equivalence between a private investigation self-admitted by Steele to be an unverified "starting point for further investigation" [2] and an official completed US investigation created by Republican Rod Rosenstein, led by Republican Robert Mueller. Republican William Barr, after preemptively declining to charge obstruction of justice, declining to release the executive summaries of the Mueller investigation to Congress, and omitting multiple details about whether Trump's actions were knowing vs. unknowing, still affirmed ten instances of potential obstruction [1][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/mueller-report-recounts-10-episodes-involving-trump-and-questions-of-obstruction.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/mueller-report-recounts-10-e...

layer8 2y ago

You’re giving Trump too much credit. He simply admires Putin as the authoritarian leader of a world power, and neither sees the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine conflict, nor does he feel moral/ethical repulsion towards what Russia has done there.

grayhatter 2y ago
I'm not swayed by the arguments that the white house is compromised. But I do appreciate the significance of the question "find the daylight between the actions of the white house and the actions of an ideal agent". You're a physician, your patient is running a fever of 42°C, that's very quickly going to become fatal. Do you administer antipyretics and cold compresses now, or do you debate the likely causes, and attempt the root cause analysis?
- mbrumlow 2y ago
  First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. Faulty instruments or clerical errors could have lead us to believe the patient was 42C. The fist thing the doctor would do would likely be place their hand on the patients forehead and then take additional readings to confirm the prognosis. Last thing you would want to do is cold plunge a patient when instrumentation has extreme bias.
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    > First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. This is known as rejecting the hypothetical. The only time it's a good faith argument is after you've agreed with the conclusion. If you do agree with the argument, you should cite something verifiable that the white house has done that's incompatible with the original assertion. Which is the actions are indistinguishable from an ideal agent. Do you have any provable examples?

doublerabbit 2y ago

> if yes to above, what actions would such a POTUS take? All of the actions that have currently taken place. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630 Goes in to very good detail how Trump could be an agent. At this stage it's hard not assume so.

tim333 2y ago

Russian agent implies he's employed by the Russians and I don't think that is true. They do seem to have a lot of influence on him though. Grok gives him a 75-85% likelihood he is a compromised asset https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6 https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6

dredmorbius 2y ago
Nitpicking over nomenclature is petty. Other applicable descriptions might be "asset", "tool", or "useful idiot". One of the keys of tradecraft is to convince people to assist a specific contracted officer (that is, a direct employee of an intelligence service) without necessarily being part of the service, or even aware of doing its bidding. On usage within the CIA, specifically between "agent" and "asset": An intelligence asset is an individual who provides information and services to the CIA but is not officially paid or technically controlled by them. An agent, on the other hand, is someone who officially works for the CIA. They are paid by the CIA and are under their relative control as an employee. <https://rdctd.pro/cia-agents-versus-cia-assets/ https://rdctd.pro/cia-agents-versus-cia-assets/> Interestingly enough, the CIA's own nomenclature is ... less clear: Asset: a clandestine source; an agent. <https://www.cia.gov/resources/spy-glossary/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/spy-glossary/> Either way, the relevant discussion is whether or not the subject is, knowingly/intentionally or otherwise, assisting a hostile power. And there's strong circumstantial evidence that this is the case, sufficient to be the topic of international chatter, e.g., "Tory MP: Trump is a ‘Russian asset’" <https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mp-trump-is-a-russian-asset/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mp-trump-is-a-russi...> Paywall: <https://archive.is/k8Dr2 https://archive.is/k8Dr2>
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 2y ago
  Though agent/asset is fairly clear. Trump isn't "someone who officially works for" the Russians. I think it's good to try to be clear about Russian influence because they are so sneaky with it. Like with Brexit - the leave campaign was basically funded by the Russians but how it was done, probably is there was a businessman, Banks with a struggling business. He got befriended by the Russians and someone connected to them put tens of millions of investment into his business. He then funded leave and can claim it's all his UK sourced money. The actual money came through an opaque offshore trust in a secrecy enforcing tax haven so you can't prove it. Probably Trump's dealings are similar - he has business issues which were sorted by Russian investment in an opaque way with favours down the line. Banks wife it seems by the way was an actual Russian agent ie recruited and paid salary by the Russian services.

rurban 2y ago

We will find out soon enough. If he is, CIA will take him down immediately. It wouldn't be the first time the CIA killed their president.

parliament32 2y ago

IMO a true agent would 1) announce an unverifiable top secret something-or-another uncovered WMDs-or-similar-boogeymen[1] in Ukraine, then 2) convince Ukraine to capitulate or send in boots. Why not cut to the chase? [1] Precedent: The Iraq War

evanjrowley 2y ago

Obviously a Russian agent would retain his trusted status with Ukraine leadership, feed them false information, and feed Russia true information. This is not what's happening here.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Closely-held assets do what is useful. Were that to be useful, it's what the asset would likely be doing. Removing material support to an enemy of the controlling agency also has great value.