This is a ridiculous assertion. The Steele Dossier is undeniably real. You can read the whole thing here.
What in the world could you possibly mean by ‘fake’ that would accurately describe the Steele dossier?
I do not agree with this assertion, given their vagueness in how we would think they apply to Trump. Would need more info. But anyway, I’ve already stated that as of now, I don’t think he’s being blackmailed. Which do you think is the most likely?
For a great many people, the word “fake” now means “something I disagree with”.
It’s the same thing with the word “socialism”. This means “a policy I do not understand or do not like”
Should make for interesting reading. I didn’t know this was available. So, when I said in the OP that I’ve been following this shit, it’s now obvious I’ve missed some things. Thanks for the link.
We know the stuff about the peeing is false, because it came from the Steele dossier, which is all false. We know everything in the Steele dossier is false, because one of the things in it is false. The thing we know is false is the peeing thing, because it came from the Steele dossier.
Trump’s actions are consistent with each of the last three bullet points, and his actions are the important part here.
He is undeniably an asset to Putin because he is acting in ways that are useful and/or valuable Putin. It doesn’t really matter if he is acting knowingly because he’s being blackmailed or being unwittingly manipulated into taking these actions. The end result is the same. He’s a Russian asset whether he knows it or not.
It doesn’t matter if Putin has something on Trump, Trump is acting as if he has been compromised, and that’s what counts. The reason we don’t want presidents to be compromised by foreign countries is because they will act the way Trump does. So it doesn’t matter why he is acting that way, it is the same problem and results if he is acting on Putin’s orders or just acting on his own stupid ideas.
Reposting because I forgot to emphasize the following sentence.
“Proof” of treason? No.
Unprecedented and almost unimaginable dereliction of duty? An action hard to understand without a treasonous motive? Of course.
Here’s an example… ‘Very aggressive’: Trump suggests Montenegro could cause world war three
Shortly after a private meeting with Putin, Trump goes after Nato member Montenegro for some reason. He says they’re a ‘very aggressive’ people who might start world war three. He suggests the US might not fulfill its article five obligations to come the Montenegro’s defense.
Trump could probably not find Montenegro on an unlabeled map so its pretty clear this Montenegro business got into Trump’s head directly from Putin in that closed door meeting. Now did Putin blackmail Trump into throwing Montenegro under the bus or did he manipulate into doing so without Trump realizing it? Does that matter?
Either way NATO is weakened because NATO membership has become less attractive. This is what Putin wants and why the Trumps comments were described as a “gift to Putin”.
I think this is largely it.
The overwhelmingly proven effort by Russia to interfere in the US elections and Brexit is Putin’s response to the West for what we (“we” in the Russian view) did to them in 1917 - identify people who can destabilize a country, assist them in achieving positions where they can destabilize them (Germany transported Lenin from Switzerland to the Finnish/USSR border, Putin assisted with GRU hacking, the IRA, and collusion with Manafort), and hope for the best.
IMHO, it all started from that impulse for revenge - getting revenge against the West for 1905, 1914, 1917, 1941, 1989, 1991. And Putin was there for the 1989 and 1991 collapses, so he has a personal stake in this as well.
Trump? He just happened to be there. If it wasn’t him, it would be somebody else.
But I wouldn’t call him an agent, just a patsy. A fall guy.
I don’t think Trump is an “asset” of foreign nations in any sense that these nations actually have command authority over him and can order him what to do. Rather, I think Trump thinks *they *are *his *assets, in the sense that *he *can use *them *(i.e., ask Ukraine to do this or that favor for him.)
When Obama whispered to Medvedev “After my election, I have more flexibility”, did you consider this “an action hard to understand without a treasonous motive”? Was it “unprecedented” or a “dereliction of duty”? Should he have had an American translator present to translate his whispers? Was it wrong of him to communicate directly with the Russian leader?
Agreed, except to say that it does matter why. If it’s because he’s a moron only, maybe he can be talked out these things. If Putin is blackmailing him, or paying him as one of Lance’s bullet points alluded to, it may he more difficult. But again, the above two quotes are undeniably true.
Here is a fortuitous event, for the purposes of the thread, that is. Trump says US forces are moving aside in northern Syria. This could benefit Putin, as Russia backs Syria. So, is Trump doing this because he’s being blackmailed? Or for his own good reason? Or for his own bad reason?
It’s good when you defeat an enemy. Maybe Trump is pulling out because he wants to publicize the idea that we have defeated ISIS. Whether this is a good idea is not the question. I think it’s plausible that this is the case. I would also say that it’s plausible that he is doing because he is a useful idiot, and even plausible, but to me extremely unlikely because he is literally being blackmailed. IOW, I do not immediately say “a ha!”, there’s all the evidence you need that he is not acting only on his ideas and his advisers’, but because he wants to help Russia for some reason.
It doesn’t matter why if you’re trying to to answer the question in your thread’s title.
Q: Is Trump an Asset of Russia (Or Some Other Foreign Power)?
A: Yes, because he is doing things that are valuable and/or useful to Russia.
That’s just what asset means and why doesn’t really come into it.
Or maybe what was mentioned in your link is the reason:
Perhaps Trump just doesn’t get the idea of mutual defense as practiced by NATO. This decision came a few days after his Putin meeting, certainly enough time for him to do this for his own reasons. So I would not characterize it as Putin unequivocally causing Trump to do what he did. But I would characterize it as suggestive of this. But as you say, why is not the issue in the end. It’s that Trump acts in ways not beneficial to the U.S.
Oh, sure. I just meant as a general idea. If a president is doing stupid things, the one easiest to correct is the better of two evils.
Reining in mouthy allies that are figuratively writing checks they expect the U.S. to cash is beneficial to the U.S. These sort of mutual defense treaties with dramatically-weaker countries who are facing off against significant global powers almost always involve some degree of triangulation. We don’t want the insignificant country to feel so emboldened that they drag us into a nuclear exchange with China or Russia, but we also don’t want China or Russia feeling free to run roughshod over their weaker neighbors. It’s a bit of a balancing act, and has been for many decades before President Trump ever came on the scene.
Not really. I’m pretty sure this hasn’t come up before.
Right on man. What have those Kurds ever done for us anyway? To hell with them. I’m sure nothing bad can happen as a result of this.
The Trump Administration is considering pulling out of the Open Skies Treaty, which allows the United States and our allies and partners in Europe to monitor Russian military deployments. The House Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the head of the NSC today protesting this move:
I still guess we need to see that signed agreement, eh, Fiddle Peghead?