Reports late Tuesday of Russia having “compromising” information on President-elect Donald Trump quickly escalated into a media frenzy on Wednesday, with the release of the full dossier making the allegations by Buzzfeed, which both fueled serious doubts about the veracity of the claims and a flurry of speculation surrounding some of sexual allegations therein.
The dossier makes several different claims, none of them substantiated beyond the claims of alleged and anonymous officials, accusing the Trump campaign of direct cooperation with Russia on the election, trading dirt on Hillary Clinton for intelligence somehow collected by the Trump team on Russian oligarchs living in the US, and providing leaked Clinton emails in return for Trump expressing doubt about US support for NATO.
The more salacious aspects of the report got the most attention, however, centering on claims that Russia had substantial dirt on Trump himself, not the least of which a 2013 video in which Trump putatively rented the presidential suite at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, knowing that the Obamas had stayed there, explicitly to “defile” their bed.
The “defiling,” if the dossier was to be believed, involved Trump throwing a wild “golden shower party” involving multiple Russian prostitutes urinating on one another. The dossier further claims Russia’s spy agency, the FSB, had multiple concealed cameras and microphones in the room at the time.
Needless to say, this sort of allegation that Trump both organized such a party and was caught on tape doing so would be a potential scandal, if true, but the realibility of the dossier is in major doubt, not the least of which because of the many wild claims made therein.
The dossier also isn’t as “new” as it would seem, as while it was just leaked to the public last night, it had reportedly been circulating in political circles for months, and Sen. John McCain (R – AZ) reportedly handed it off to the intelligence community. The FBI is said to have had the dossier since August.
Trump of course denies the allegations, as does the Kremlin. Trump angrily faulted the intelligence community for the release of the dossier, claiming it was “unfair” and the sort of thing that would happen in Nazi Germany.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper expressed doubt the dossier had been leaked by the intelligence community directly, and indeed it appears more than a few media outlets have had ahold of it for awhile. At the same time, Clapper insisted the leak was “damaging to our national security.”
Clapper added that the US intelligence community has not made any judgement that the dossier is factual, though some reports suggest the FBI used it as the basis for a FISA warrant aiming to launch surveillance operations against multiple members of the Trump campaign during the election. In a rare move, FISA is said to have denied the request.
Despite the huge doubts surrounding the dossier, it seems securely in the center of US political discourse for the time being, and has supplanted the hacking allegations from the headlines, despite this unsubstantiated series of allegations being even further removed from any actual sources and evidence than the hacking was.
Globalists neocons style — it is amazing that anybody would publish it in MSM. And that anybody would be just dismissing it up until now? What has changed since July? And the factual mistakes of the worst kind just dismissed? There is a certain Mr. Cohen meeting with a Russian in Prague, suggesting a lawyer on Trump’s team. Just to find out that it was somebody else, and Trump’s associste has never been to Prague. This is the kind of mistake one can make by Googling around for people and events — and making sloppy mistakes.
But if we consider that this country — its top legislative body — engaged in the hearings of Russian hacking, when in fact all investigation should have been closed when repeated requests by FBI to have access to DNC servers were denied. FBI testified to that — and still had to go along with this shamefull show trial of President elect.
If Congress cannot stand for basic principle of investigation –prior to having a debate on opinions, what exactly can it do.
No one of US corporate mass media was ever condemned because of lying. Many people persecuted because they exposed the lies.
> Needless to say, this sort of allegation that Trump both organized such a
party and was caught on tape doing so would be a potential scandal, if
true
Really? Anything illegal in there? Hmmm…..
Anyone ready to seriously look into “Pizzagate” in the meantime? No? Ok.
Prostitution is illegal in Russia. Not that illegality is required for a “scandal” anyway.
As far as “Pizzagate” is concerned, the next piece of evidence publicly divulged which actually substantiates the idea will be the first.
So Russia is a BAD country these days
Prostitution is illegal in Russia. Except for highly trained Russian spies. During WW1 prostitution was illegal in Germany. Yet the German government did not arrest Mata Hari who worked for them as a prostitute-spy. That is how it goes.
I think you know that the spook agencies wouldn’t make it up. If they say they have something then it’s very likely they do. But I wouldn’t worry about it getting out from any Russian source because that would be against their interests right now. Later, when Trump renegs on his ‘friends’ ploy with Russia that he used in his campaign, there could be a possibility. For now, I think you know that the spooks would have rose above this crazy sh-t with Trump. They’re probably all holding their breathe hoping that Trump doesn’t compromise anything important.
We might soon learn what it takes for social conservative Republicans to break unity. If the sex and bribery stuff is proven, the democrats may be the least of Trump’s problems when it comes to getting anything done.
That’s pretty naive of you to think that legality plays into it. The real point is, more than half the US is more concerned about what is legal in their sky fairy’s eyes.
luv from Canada.
so the dossier has been out there more months but nobody in the media had bothered to let the public know about this
> this sort of allegation that Trump both organized such a party and was caught on tape doing so would be a potential scandal,
Because fun is forbidden?
True enough, but that’s not American of you. It’s likely that Trump stood on the sidelines and watched the pissing but didn’t take part. He’s too old and ugly for that and his vanity wouldn’t allow him to be involved.
Many years ago I attended a scientific conference on isotope enrichment. It was attended by X from the USA and Y who had defected from East to West Germany. Both were well known scientists. Here is what I witnessed. Y had a copy of a then de-classified book of X on U235 enrichment in the context of the Manhattan project and asked X to sign it. Since this was at the time of the McCarthy witch hunt X said no. To which Y responded: why not? I got your classified materials on my desk almost immediately after they were written (from Russian spy sources when Y was still in East Germany) and I am sure that you got mine on your desk soon after I had written them. X walked away.
Y stated the gist of all spying in our world. You tried to get mine, we tried to get yours. The difference in the current case was that some information was actually released via a third party (Assange) during an election campaign. That is not normal in international spying when one considers that the released information was almost trivial compared to real big stuff such as betraying how nuclear weapons are made. The current release by Russia made no sense other than as an attempt to influence our election.
dieter heymann: “The current release by Russia made no sense other than as an attempt to influence our election.”
There is proof the election was rigged in favor of Clinton. There is no proof whatsoever that Russia was responsible for the release of that proof to the public, and the testimony of Assange himself that Russia had nothing to do with it.
Yet we’re supposed to believe Russia rigged the election in favor of Trump by leaking information about how the election was rigged in favor of Clinton. More than that, we’re supposed to infer that the only reason Clinton lost was because the election was rigged. Never mind her corruption and her belligerence and her contempt for the ‘deplorables.’
Occam’s Razor would suggest that the people who attempted to rig the election for Clinton, and the people putting forward all these completely unsubstantiated claims that Russia is responsible for her loss, are one and the same.
That Russia hacked the election is fake news.
“That Russia hacked the election is fake news.”
That’s not really the news so don’t get ahead of yourself. The claim that Russia influenced the ballot count directly was withdrawn and never was taken seriously. Russia hacking the emails and then passing that info on to Assange is the claim that is being made and with which Trump agrees. Saying that others hacked too for his damage control contribution.
Assange received the hacked emails but not necessarily from the Russians. It’s more likely that the source would have kept him/herself at some distance from the Russians. In any case, it doesn’t matter all that much because Trump has admitted the guilt of the Russians. It seems that he didn’t have the balls to stand firm against the spooks on his claim that the Russians weren’t involved.
And that’s the important part of the story. Trump caved again, which makes it pretty obvious that he’s going to cave on everything he promised. Even though he will try to spin it to make it look like he hasn’t. Will the lowlife who supported him allow him to do that?
luv from Canada.
“Trump agrees.”
” Trump has admitted the guilt of the Russians”
” Trump caved again, ”
False.
False.
False.
Just repeating a lie over and over won’t make it true, Donny Mockingbird.
I would like to just ignore your denial of the facts john but I think it calls for a mention at least. If it’s really that bad for you john then maybe you should stop and take stock of how you’ve been snookered by Trump. It’s going to be a big letdown for all those who believed in Trump. Nuff said for now.
luv from Canada.
No Don. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods.
And I’m not a Trump believer.
But that doesn’t mean I’ll sign up to believe the lies of the pretend progressives like you.
john,
If you’ve been following Don for any amount of time at all, you should be able to figure out that he’s not dishonest, just in the grip of mental illness.
I’d bet that he’s a paid troll.
I would be interested to learn from you who you think is paying me? For you to suggest that would mean that I’ve shown loyalties to somebody who you find to be not worthy. Who could that be?
I’m certainly not paid by the Russians but you could say that I’m sympathetic to Russia. Saying I am loyal to Russia would be going a bit too far. I’m going to remain loyal to my own country even though I admit it’s wrongs and it’s faults.
Hillary? No, she’s a warmongering bi=ch.
Trump? No, he’s a phony pig who should be shot for snookering the lowlife as-holes who bought into his lies.
Obama? No on the loyalties but definitely believe that he could have been the answer to nearly all your problems if the R’s didn’t hijack his presidency.
So who wise a-s?
Who knows but you? There’s any number of corporate/government bodies employing trolls to subvert discussion on social media.
The fact that you constantly spit out establishment talking points almost verbatim gives your game away.
You need to improve your act.
Thank you Thomas! That’s really decent of you because the first part is what is important to me. My mental illness is beside the point.
This is an attack on our election and on the peaceful transition. It is the intelligence leaders trying to take down the President-elect.
No matter what he is (none good) that is an attack on something more fundamental to our country.
If only the democrats hadn’t rigged it so the wicked witch would win the nomination President Sanders would be having a smooth transition.
I agree, it would have been great if Sanders had become your new pres.
BUT! And it’s a big ‘but’. Would Sanders have won?
I think that would have been a long shot because Sanders was known as a self-admitted socialist and even as a commie by a lot of Americans. It’s more likely that would have become a bigger negative than Hillary’s lack of trust or credibility or whatever it was.
So what I’m saying is that the Dems probably thought that Hillary was the best bet as their nominee. The real issue was, Trump, although completely an off the wall psychopath, was still anti-establishment and turned out to be the choice of the lowlife as-holes who were fooled into thinking he was going to help them out.
luv from Canada.
Sanders would have won in a landslide if he would have been nominated.
A question: The following from a comment on the UNZ report article:
“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange floated the possibility on Tuesday that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was an informant for the organization.”
Does anybody know if that is true? It seems that if it is true then according to Assange it would be the first time. Even though it’s just a subtle hint.