Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dr. Spook and the Manchurian President?
Well, that’s a heck of a story to wake up to:
During a special briefing last Friday, leaders of the intelligence community gave President-elect Donald Trump a synopsis of unsubstantiated and salacious allegations that Russian operatives had obtained potentially compromising personal and financial information about the president-elect, a U.S. official confirmed Tuesday.
I gather that everyone who’s anyone in Washington has read the memo containing these allegations, but no one thought it was worth publishing (until now).
Some thoughts, in random order:
1. It looks as if the first publication to write about this was Mother Jones, on October 31. Here’s how they put it:
And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.
Let’s call the “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country” Dr. Spook, for short. Was Dr. Spook shopping this to every publication in the US? Or just to Mother Jones? Maybe Mother Jones was the only publication willing to publish it? Kurt Eichenwald at Newsweek also seems to have used the memos in his reporting. Did Dr. Spook fax his memos to every journalist in Washington?
2. The story as it’s now being presented is that this became newsworthy because Trump himself had been briefed about it. Who leaked the story that he’d been briefed about it, and why? Why now? Apparently, “multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” told CNN about this. How many people would have direct knowledge of these briefings in the first place? Why didn’t any of these leaking briefers think to come forward with this before the election, given that everyone in Washington apparently knew about this?
3. As Lawfare blog puts it,
… 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.
If Dr. Spook was passing these memos to every journalist and politician in Washington as early as October 31, at least a few of the key points should have been substantiated by now, wouldn’t you think?
4. John Schindler of 20Committee says that the “GOP was informed back in the spring that Trump was a 1-man FSB kompromat machine come to life. They did nothing. This is on them now.” Was this circulating as early as last spring, then? And no one has made any progress since then in substantiating or discrediting it?
5. Presumably everyone in Hillary’s camp also knew about it, too: It was an oppo research briefing, right? I wonder what kept her from bringing it up?
… the documents reached the top of the FBI by December. Senator John McCain, who was informed about the existence of the documents separately by an intermediary from a western allied state, dispatched an emissary overseas to meet the source and then decided to present the material to Comey in a one-on-one meeting on 9 December, according to a source aware of the meeting. The documents, which were first reported on last year by Mother Jones, are also in the hands of officials in the White House.
McCain is not thought to have made a judgment on the reliability of the documents but was sufficiently impressed by the source’s credentials to feel obliged to pass them to the FBI.
Who is this source? And who’s the Guardian’s source for this story, I wonder? The point of sending an emissary overseas to meet the source is to ensure that only he and the emissary knew of it. So I assume McCain authorized this leak. Why would McCain leak to the Guardian, though? Why not at least leak to a US publication?
7. The Guardian claims that as early as last summer, the FBI applied FISA warrant to monitor four members of the Trump team “suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials.” If so — what’s up with the FBI?
8. If Trump’s the victim of a disinformation campaign, who’s behind it? Is this the intel community’s response to Trump’s claim that they have “no clue?” Hillary’s revenge?
9. It doesn’t help when yet again, Trump replies using exactly the same language the Kremlin does:
10. I don’t understand how our Deep State works. Don’t we have spies of our own in Russia? Why do we need Dr. Spook to tell us this? Why is this only being reported now?
My verdict: I’ve got no idea what’s going on, but this seems fishy.
That said: That people will believe it is Trump’s fault. His behavior toward Putin has been so sycophantic and bizarre that even an extraordinarily weird story like this sounds plausible. If Obama’s refusal to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” convinced a significant number of Americans that he was a Muslim, the same phenomenon will be at work here — even if these memos prove to be a complete fabrication and fantasy.
It’s entirely plausible to imagine that Trump enjoyed the company of ladies of poor repute when he was in Russia. No one can say, with a straight face, “That’s ridiculous. Donald Trump is an upright and responsible married man and a faithful husband. He would never consort with Slavic hookers.” Exactly no one would be surprised if he had, and exactly no one would be surprised that the Russians taped the encounter.
Trump’s eagerness to adopt the Kremlin’s line in matters of foreign policy and his general mien of moral incontinence will be enough to convince a significant number of Americans that all of these allegations are true.
It won’t be enough for Trump to Tweet indignantly and wait for the media to bore with the story. It won’t. We’ll hear of nothing but this for years to come, I reckon.
What do you make of it?
UPDATE: The Trump Dossier: Dynamite or Disinformation? makes the skeptical case better than I did, and concludes:
In the absence of any evidence, this will do nothing but widen the dangerous divide within American society.
And here’s the irony: that’s exactly what the Kremlin wants. Whether damning proof of complicity with an antagonistic foreign power, or a piece of raw anti-Trump disinformation, at present this cache of documents is probably more effective than any number of hours of programming by Russia’s RT television station – which emerged as the star of the recent and deeply flawed open source on the hacking case – in turning America against itself.
Published in General
Tales of the New Cold War: Who are the real enemies of U.S. national security?
…. If a student of Cohen’s claimed in a paper that Putin hacked our elections based on the evidence published in the “intelligence community’s” report, Cohen would give that paper an “F.”
The report that alleged Trump’s compromise was opposition research initially paid for by anti-Trump Republicans, then the Clinton camp. The NYT was unable to substantiate any of the charges but published it anyway.
I guess this stuff is delightful for NeverTrumps.
Now you’re just trolling. This is irrational hatred. You see any attack on Trump as valid no matter how absurd and obviously false.
I suspect the reaction of those who were (or for some reason still are) NeverTrumps is mixed.
I certainly know some whose reaction was disbelief or indifference rather than glee.
Trump Slams Report on Alleged Russian Scheme as Fake News.
How great to know that some of our contributors and pundits on Ricochet indulge in slander and gossip without a single verification. BYW, those that believe in the Ten Commandants, “You shall not bear false witness.” There are so many false stories floating around, please try not to perpetuate them.
Weird analysis. We are way out on the skinny branches here.
Ricochet Code of Conduct
Welcome to the conspiracy Komrade.
Glenn Reynolds has an interesting take:
As a NeverTrumper speaking for myself, It confirms my bias… as for being delighted, no. I think anger and disappointment are more my feelings. It’s gonna be a tough 4 years with this guy as POTUS. If in a year or two, Trump has figured it out, I will admit my mistake in judgement, and feel relieved.
I’ve heard that theory as well.
It’s not too different from what you yourself said here:
Mainstream Americans prize the “normal”. They revel in Trump fighting back against ridiculous-sounding allegations of being “abnormal”. Have I got this wrong?
Well, here’s what I see. Some here will say how false this is and then, instead of making a case that all this should be left behind (I’m not saying that’s possible but that’s a reputable position), they join the chorus of all this to be expected and isn’t it delightful.
Letting Trump retaliate with a press conference any time this sort of allegation comes up is the apotheosis of letting Trump be Trump.
Do you mean you actually believe it?
“Mainstream America” no longer has any idea what the word “normal” means.
I disagree. Enough mainstream Americans saw Trump as basically “normal” enough to vote for. How many times have we heard that part of Trump’s appeal is that underneath all the glitz he really is a “regular guy”, unlike all those politicians who merely try (and often fail) to play regular guys on TV?
Trump is “normal”. The media elites are freaks. Now someone in the media permitted publication of a “too good to be true” story of how Trump is a freak, too, and Trump is fighting back. On behalf of all of what’s “normal” and non-freakish. Against all those whom normal Americans see as trying to undermine the very idea of normality itself. It’s brilliant, really. I give Trump credit for it.
The presser was pre-scheduled.
Yes.
This whole conversation is ridiculous, along with the OP.
I believe the allegations could be true, we will have to let the process play out to make that determination though. So I am withholding judgement til then. It’s an explanation for Trumps actions in regards to Russia, I had assumed that he was soft on Russia due to ignorance or an attempt to protect his business interests, but blackmail would explain it as well.
That’s sort of the point. Most or all of these specific claims might be fantasies, but they are not really inconsistent with what we know about his character. That’s why they’re not all so obviously implausible. Substitute Mitt Romney for Donald Trump and not even BuzzFeed or MSNBC has the chutzpah to try to run with it. Trump has “opened the door” to this sort of thing by acting like a flaming %*&)^& so much of the time.
Well I would say your analogy is flawed in the sense that the trashy girl doesn’t her self molest other people. Trump is like a guy who picks bar fights and then complains when someone picks a fight with him. Or maybe it is like a trashy girl who calls other girls trashy. Trump is a kettle calling every other pot black.
I’m a former NeverTrumper, so let me state my position rather than allow the Trump fans to state it for me, as they are annoyingly prone to do.
Well I stated it wrong above too, I believe the allegation is that the hookers peed on each other while the Donald watched (he is a germaphobe afterall…)
Cato, Bryan, it seems to me likely that the right may be divided on whether this claim is inconsistent with Trump’s character.
Many people who are inclined to support Trump do see Trump as basically a normal guy, and likely see kinks as incompatible with normal-guy-dom. Therefore this attack may not strike them as consistent with what they know about Trump’s character: his lack of sexual restraint is at least normal lack of restraint, not that disgusting kinky stuff.
Those less inclined to support Trump are less inclined to believe Trump really is just a normal guy, and may also come from a social milieu where kinky illicit sex isn’t any more shameful than “normal” illicit sex. For those reasons, they would see these allegations as consistent with Trump’s character.
Meh. Let’s not bicker and argue about who peed on who.
Dude. Correct phraseology would be “Don’t get into a pissing match over it”.
It was a Monty Python reference.
Looks like your aim is off. ;)
I’ve had my differences with @claire in the past (as I’m sure she’ll happily tell you) but this is all anyone was talking about last night and this morning and I for one am happy to have a relevant, timely and active thread on the front page.
Just to be pedantic, Donald Trump is accused of paying Russian hookers to pee on a bed in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow because Barack Obama slept in it and Trump hates Obama that much.
I understand the confusion, considering that the privilege to pee on a hooker is something that can be more easily imagined to be paid for than this bizarre claim in the “report.”
I don’t recognize the Python reference. It’s pretty close to a Friends reference though.
One gets the sense the report wasn’t properly peer reviewed…