Hum de hum. The Guardian says it's gotten hold of a secret Russian report written before the 2016 election. The report says that Donald Trump is the candidate best positioned to wreck the United States:
There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.
There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected — the document says — from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.
The paper refers to “certain events” that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow. Security council members are invited to find details in appendix five, at paragraph five, the document states. It is unclear what the appendix contains. “It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.
I have my doubts about all this, mainly because the report is a bit too perfect. It was supposedly written in January 2016, but it sure sounds as if it could have been written a few weeks ago. It's just a little too spot on.
But who knows? Maybe appendix five, paragraph five will become the new rallying cry for the anti-Trump forces. Weirder things have happened.
Does it even matter at this point? It could turn out to be entirely true and what minds would change either way? It is fun watching Glenn Greenwald meltdown on Twitter though.
This is more or less what I was about to say, modulo the Gr**nw*ld concern, he's become entirely too predictable to be entertaining anymore.
Reading it it to the Congressional Record will be fun for about 2 minutes of outrage, but otherwise this will be slotted neatly into everyone's existing narrative with barely any retconning at all.
"Weirder things have happened."
When it comes to Trump, expect the most bizarre.
Not to mention Xiden and his addict son. But he's a Democrat, and Democrats love their peophile junkies. LOL
At least Hunter Biden can climb at least one step.
That's more effort than El Jefecito can expend.
So you're fine with corruption, as long as it's a Democrat. LOL
Republican politicians and voters don't care anyway. Evidently they hate liberals and non-whites more than Russians.
correct. Russians love corruption and hate gays just like republicans
Considering most of the Republican party is gay.....Your point is dead.
Just because they are gay doesn't mean they aren't selfhating.
It's because they are elitism. They are selling product. You should read on bush/rove era "orgies" which included Rand Paul.
No lies detected.
Nonwhites???? Why does that matter. Where is the proof they like "whites"??? You just don't get it
Mission Accomplished
As they say, be suspicious of something that confirms your biases a little *too* much. On the other hand, this really isn't anything new -- pretty much what the Mueller report confirmed. And, again, if this is real, what does it say about Russian security measures that something this sensitive/top-secret could be leaked to a foreign media outlet? This is like a copy of the PDB ending up in the China People's Daily.
I think that it's wrong to assume that Russia is good at keeping secrets. Russia isn't a particularly well-run or even powerful country. It's just a gangster state whose leaders have a stranglehold on their public and so doesn't need to care much about international norms or laws. I'd expect them to be sloppier about secrecy than a normal government. They care less about getting caught, and the incentives of individual operatives are more aligned with keeping Putin happy than with professionalism per se.
Yes. Well said.
It seems very well established that Soviet and later Russian intelligence had some kind of long term relationship with Trump. But also mostly as an asset to be exploited in connection with propaganda and disinformation operations but otherwise needed to be handled carefully because of his volatile personality and mental illnesses. In that regard, Russian support aligns perfectly with disinformation operations over the years in various western countries. So this is no surprise.
In terms of evaluating the documents authenticity, one obvious question is how widely such a document is disseminated and whether it's common for extremely sensitive information to be disseminated in the form of an appendix with a separate (more closely guarded) list of subscribers. If so, that might account for the extreme reluctance of the source to divulge the context of such an appendix. Does anyone know the practices of the various Russian intelligence agencies?
The only thing that "seems well established" is that you are part of the majority of Democrats who have "mental health issues." LOL
Calling Mitch Guthman a Democrat is so wrong.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I say that calling me a Democrat is right. But calling Joe Manchin a Democrat is so wrong.
The documents appear to be genuine and as aldoushickman says, it is wrong to assume they have superpower expertise in holding on to secrets. But, as also mentioned, this does nothing to change perceptions - especially among the New Confederates who support Trump and his kind. The fact that he is mentally unstable and assessed that way by foreign analyists (and not just in Russia) is not news.
Since this is the geography in which I work, to answer your question, even run-of-the-mill policy documents are broken down into sections and appendices that are meant for different officers. In and of itself, that is not unusual. Additionally, some sections may indeed be more sensitve and contain information that, if revealed, could identify sources if not by name but through the data collected.
Having said all that, I think it is more interesting that Putin suffers from the same serious flaw afflicting Trump - not the mental instability part but the "I am always right" part. He made a decision in 2014 to invade Ukraine, without provocation, in order to prevent Ukraine from moving closer to Europe. At that time there was virturally no animus toward Russia. His decsion succeeded in creating a burning hatred among the majority of Ukrainians, revitalized a sense of "nation" and the creation of a military arm that jumped from an effective force of 6,000 to over 300,000 today. He still does not think his invasion - a continueing one - was a mistake.
Thanks for the explanation.
I do understand that during certain periods of time there was a flood of probably genuine documents from the KGB such as the “Mitrokhin Archive” (or, at least, documents which I personally am not remotely capable of evaluating for genuineness). And this document certainly comports with a lot of other materials which are evidently held in high regard by US and other Western intelligence agencies.
The thing that makes me uncomfortable is where it would have come from at this particular time. I don’t know much about how the Russians works but my assumption is that these Russian disinformation plans and cyber attacks would naturally be closely held, perhaps even in special reading rooms with only very high officials receiving their own copies. If that’s the case, the number of people with access to the main document but not the appendices would be large but hardly unmanageable for the GRU and FSB internal security organizations.
Consequently, it seems to me that if the source of this leak is within a Western intelligence agency or a political actor, they are taking a huge risk of burning an obviously extremely well-connected source. This seems genuinely nuts, particularly since it’s likely that if the holder of the document is part of a Western government or intelligence agency, he would probably had held the document during the last election and that would have been the time to leak it. So why now, especially if it risks a source?
If it doesn’t risk a source, then the source must have already been discovered by Russian security. So why not validate the leaked material by naming the source? And by so doing, the leaker might also explain why the leak doesn’t include the more secret appendix (source didn’t have access)and thereby reduce doubts about the authenticity of the document.
I’m still not comfortable with this document. I think the Manchester Guardian should provide some additional information to substantiate its authenticity.
On Ukraine, I think it's too soon to tell. He's gained a lot of ground and probably will be able to conquer the rest of Ukraine in a few years. And he's learning that the West is not willing to make even small economic sacrifices by imposing meaningful economic sanctions on Russia. I think Putin's playing a weak hand surprisingly well.
Leaking it to fuel outrage here, strengthen the partisan divide, cause general chaos---all the while showing how powerful Putin can be in playing at psyops.
Grand strategy--probably not. I don't know if it was leaked deliberately or not--I don't think the Russians really care that much at this point.
I don't think it's that far fetched for somebody--even a secret report-writing Russian somebody--in January of 2016 to look at the field of candidates and conclude that Trump was the candidate best positioned to wreck the US. That's certainly what my take was.
The surprise for me was never how terrible and damaging a Trump presidency would be--it's been how many people think Trump was a great president (and the smaller-but-still-significant number of millions who think he's *still* president).
Yes, aldous,
Does anyone really think that there aren't meetings at high level of many governments about elections in other countries? Of course there are.
What was different about the Russia Trump situation is (a) due to a variety of things, its not longer necessary to really keep this sort of thing secret if you are Russian, and (b) Trump lowered the bar so much that even he doesn't really care if its secret either.
Hum de dum indeed.
I'm reading now around the interwebs that there are grammatical errors and other inconsistencies in the document that point towards this being a fake. I suspect a classic ratfucking operation, whether by the Kremlin or other pro-Russia outlet.
One of the lesser known things about Russia in the West is how badly most Russians speak/write the language. The grammar is complicated and not very consistent. Grammatical errors abound, even among the elite.
Don't know about "other inconsistencies," though. Got any examples?
You "progressives" crack me up!
First you Anglo racists decide that my first language -- Spanish, where EVERY noun is masculine or feminine -- is inferior to USA English, so you introduce "Latinx," because you want Latino men to be transgender like so many of you apparently are.
And now you think Russians can't speak or write their own language, and must be "saved" by the same arrogant, racist American "progressives" who "save" Latinos while shitting on us and our language. And here you want our votes. LOL
I don't think that's gyrfalcon's point. I believe he's saying that a factor in assessing the authenticity of these particular documents is whether the language usage is consistent with what we'd expect to see in a document that would have been written by the person who is the purported author and whether the grammatical usage is consistent with that person and with other documents circulated within the Russian governmental circles that are the purported subscribers to this document.
If other Russian intelligence documents which are accepted as genuine are seen to generally have really excellent grammar and similar phrasings, this might suggest to a Russian language expert that they were indeed written by a Russian. Similarly, if the way in which other documents known to be genuine had grammatical flaws and usages which are not common among native speakers or which are not used in documents of this kind, it would suggest they are not genuine.
I think you'll find that if you think things through just a bit, this will make sense to you.
You can make excuses for "progressive" Anglo racism if you want, but the fact remains that you and your kind think you will rewrite my first language, and tell Russians that American "progressives" think they're too stupid to speak and write their own.
Your arrogance, racism, and hypocrisy are unbounded. You hate just about everyone, including yourselves. The latter is appropriate. LOL
Cordially,
The Latinx
I don't think anyone is seeking to rewrite the Spanish language. If what you're talking about is the debate over adding gender natural nouns and pronouns, that's not an "Anglo" debate—it's a debate that is taking place among Spanish speakers. I really don't know enough Spanish to have an opinion.
Just as there's a very active debate in the francophone countries and even within the Académie française itself about the gender of nouns, for example the way that some "high status" professions are masculine only rather than having both masculine and feminine titles for certain professions, etc. I do understand the Académie's point about the difficulties of both neutral and creation of feminine versions of high status professions.
But these debates are amongst speakers of languages with have gendered nouns. You don't seem to be making a case for your positions (whatever it might actually be) so I don't think you are contributing to the debate as much as if you made an actual argument.
There is no "debate among Spanish speakers," you typical Anglo "progressive" racist. Your kind invented "Latinx," and my kind (who you piss on) laugh at your kind.
"Progressive" Anglos shot themselves in both feet on this. I realize how much you hate your "gender," but we don't hate ours, racist. LOL
Cordially,
The Latinx
"I really don't know enough Spanish to have an opinion," the racist Anglo "progressive" wrote, while giving its opinion that Latinos should have their gonads removed. I'm telling you: Your message has been heard, and is now part of Latino folk lore.
You might not like your "gender" but I assure you that we like ours. Good luck with your tranny propaganda. Should work great in future elections. LOL
I don’t know remotely enough Spanish to have an opinion of “LatinX”. I can barely order beer and tacos. But there does seem to be a debate amongst people whom I would personally consider to be authoritative speakers and experts on the Spanish language. The Instituto Cervantes is a very culturally conservative institution and it is debating reforms along the lines that the Académie is debating.
https://cultura.cervantes.es/espanya/es/Gu%C3%ADadecomunicaciónnosexista/141074
I really don’t know enough Spanish to have an opinion but you apparently don’t know enough about your maternal language to explain what you think is wrong with the proposal for gender neutral nouns and pronouns (as in, for example, German).
As I’ve said, the only language with gendered nouns with which I have even a passing familiarity is French. There is an ongoing debate which mainly revolves around the idea that high status professions and words are normally masculine (as are nearly all loan words). I have read about the pressure to create the formes féminines to mirror the masculine, so professeur but sometimes in common usage professeure. And I have read the position of the Académie and I see important points on both sides that involve practicalities and not just upholding traditions.
If that’s the kind of thing you’re talking about for Spanish, I’d be happy to hear your points. As it happens, I’m going to be visiting my cousin who speaks quite good Spanish and I’d like to hear what he thinks. So I would be happy to hear your arguments against the creation of neutral nouns and pronouns.
I really don’t know enough Spanish to have an opinion but you apparently don’t know enough about your maternal language to explain what you think is wrong with the proposal for gender neutral nouns and pronouns
------
So, Anglo "progressive" racist, just what entitles you to change a language? Do you even realize how fucking ARROGANT and RACIST you are? LOL
As I’ve said, Spanish grammar is not an interest of mine and I don’t really care one way or another. But I gather that your main objection is that you find gender neutral pronouns to be emasculating. I can understand your situation but even for one whose masculinity seems a bit fragile, your reaction is quite extreme—unbalanced, even. You have my sympathy.
You typical condescending "progressive." Yes, "Latinx" seeks to turn Latino men into what you are (pathetic), but it also disrespects Spanish. Not that you care, "progressive" racist savior. LOL
In Post-Soviet Russia, Charlie Kelly is Da Mare.
" It was supposedly written in January 2016, but it sure sounds as if it could have been written a few weeks ago."
Who knows if it is true or not, but in fairness, Trump's description in the report was pretty much what many (including top Republicans) thought about Trump back then.
It's entirely possible the Russians leaked this themselves. They've gotten about as much out of Trump as they can expect to get, so what else can they get? They can get the credit for the most successful espionage plot in history. There are jerks all over the world who will be pretty impressed.
In predicting what Trump might do in any given situation, I found "What is most damaging to the U.S.?" to be a good heuristic.
You know the "progressives" are desperate when they tout The Guardian. LOL
Who won the 2020 election cupcake!
Not Xiden, "progressive" racist.
Cordially,
The Latinx
Not Drumph the jew either
It's entirely accurate. Saying it's "too spot on" isn't evidence against it, it just further proves how predicatable Trump, and everything he did, was.
On January 6th Mike Pence thought the Secret Service were so in the bag for Trump they were going to kidnap him,
https://www.rawstory.com/mike-pence-feared-secret-service/
This explains one of the missing elements. One problems that I've always had is that Trump knew that Pence intended to vote to certify the Biden victory and that eventually he'd do so.
The obvious solution would be to gain leverage over Pence, such as by threatening his family, or by killing him and then justifying a state of emergency which would then enable him to "bargain" with the insurgents (assuming his forces also captured the Congressional leadership). Essentially, he would "agree" to the insurgents demand that he remain in power (essentially, Trump's variation on Hitler's "Operation Himmler" theme.)
So it makes sense to me that two things happened that untracked the hit: (1) Pence refused to get into a car with Secret Service agents he thought belonged to Trump and (2) if these agents really belonged to Trump they lost their nerve and didn't make a move against Pence in the presence of a significant number of agents who were either loyal to Pence or to the country.
Basically, think about the Corleones baptism day massacre planned by Fredo instead of Michael Corleone. That's what I'm kind of thinking went wrong with Trump's plan on Jan 6th.
That is exactly the plot he'd have thought of.
My question now is how literally did he try to get it across to others who would have to implement it? I can't picture him coming right out and saying it to anyone but I can picture him sort of mumbling along those lines and encouraging others to start mumbling back until they talk themselves into it, and the Secret Service guys aren't famous for brains.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. An actual coup d'état requires both intricate planning and capable participants. I think Trump appointed people and hinted at what he wanted and make the assumption that the MAGA-insurgents were actually capable insurgents with a well thought-out plan for taking the Capital quickly. Clearly, those people were disorganized morons and posers. So one key element, seizing the Congressional leadership of both parties, was a disorganized failure. One of the problems of having only people who posture and engage in "performative" actions is that there's nobody to translative their "performative" Fox News speeches into a plan of attack that effectively uses the time that Trump's allies in the Defense Department and the Capital police provide to take control of the Capital and the leadership or other hostages before the national guard and Metro police reinforcements begin to arrive.
The other obvious failure was that nobody from Trump on down was prepared to really commit to the coup until they saw it was going to work. That basically left everyone in the position of the gingerbread man who couldn't run until he got hot but couldn't get hot without running. Nobody wanted to stick his neck out by bringing guns but the plan to bring over guns from the other side of the river depended on having the Capital under control during a hostage situation, which, in turn, was nearly impossible (and certainly vastly more difficult) without having weapons in the first place.
Similarly, if Pence's guess about the Secret Service detail is right (i.e., they're Trump's guy sent to wack him), the time to kill or capture Pence was long before he got to the Capital and the necessity was to use Trump's administrative power to make sure that, on the day, everyone in the detail guarding the Pences is Trump's guy and is ready to kill or abduct them so that Pence will either be unavailable to vote or will be scared enough about his family being held hostage that he'll finally do as he's told. But, clearly, the problem with all this hinting and Tweeting by Trump is that nothing is really planned or organized.
Clearly, the more we're learning about the events of the day, the closer we know that they came. But it's essential a coup by serendipity.
Trump launched one of his patented distraction statements - “I would never do a coup with that wimp Gen. Milley” - so that argues strongly that the Guardian story is 100% fact.
Much of this is already known. Follow FBI drops. Trumps relationships with Russians goes back to the mid-80's. Then after the early 90's CRE bust, began money laundering for the Oligarchs. After the 2008 bust, became a political terrorist. The family business is global in nature and has serviced countless countries.
I just want to see appendix five.
The best argument for the existence of kompromat is lack of a better explanation for Trump's actions.
Malignant narcissism and mental illness. Trump worshiped various strongman politicaioins and dictators and was constantly putting down our allies and democratically elected leaders if they didn't kow-tow to him.
He self owns without kompromat.
Its a message from Putin to Trump with love. You still owe us pal and we still have you by the b*lls.