Russia Has Compromising Info On Trump: Report

Image: iStock

CIA and FBI chiefs have information that alleges Russian intelligence operatives gained "compromising personal and financial information" on President-elect Donald Trump at some point throughout the 2016 US election campaign, according to a report from CNN. The documents, apparently gathered by a shadowy former British spook, shows that Russia's hacks into the election ranged further than just the attacks on the Democratic party and that the long-time US rival may have the ability to undermine or influence the incoming US President.

CNN reports that the information was presented in a two-page addendum to the inter-agency report on Russian digital interference in the 2016 US Presidential election collated by the NSA, DNI, CIA and FBI -- America's top four intelligence agencies -- that was delivered to both the outgoing Obama administration and the incoming Trump one.

The information, if it is accurate, shows that Russian hacks and intelligence operations have information on Trump that may impact his ability to function without fear or influence in his role as President. Trump has already been criticised repeatedly by his opponents in the lead-up and aftermath of the election for his close links and uncharacteristically close relationship both with Russia and directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

CNN says that the report makes claims that compromising information on both Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party and Trump and the Republican party was captured by Russian intelligence, but was only released to damage Democratic interests throughout the campaign. Trump's presidential transition team, CNN says, repeatedly refused to comment on the matter. [CNN]

WATCH MORE: Tech News


Comments

    "According to a report from CNN" - right.

      They've cited an addendum to the intelligence report released on Russian influence in the election campaign. I'm no fan of US news media but if it's a lie it's a bad one. It's trivially easy for the FBI to deny the addendum exists.

        Yep. It came from an official report and the information was sourced from an MI 6 operative who has worked with the US in the past, so pretty strong source. Not so sure about US intelligence lately but at least it actually came from an intelligence source.

    How about a few less articles about Trump? The media scrums around everything he's uttered is what helped him get elected.

      Don't worry, I hear you. We (at Giz AU) get a lot of Trump reporting from the US, and we only publish a portion of it. But I think we're going to publish even less of it as time goes on.

        thank you, the less i have to see of him the better, all the articles seem to be about fear when talking about trump now.

        @campbellsimpson
        Great news about the reduction in Trump reporting. It will help get my blood pressure down (Ignorance is bliss, etc).
        I do however look forward to one of your news items in Giz that will have the headline, "Trump Impeached".

          Might be more likely to read about Hillary getting a day in court if the server that was 'hacked' is ever presented to be scrutinized by the authorities.

          Yup, the Democrats have refused repeated requests from the security agencies to inspect them. Brilliant. I wonder if the former-PM of Oz, the one who gave Hill and Bill 130 Mil of Aussie tax payer dollars and ended up as chair person of one of their foundations would be included in any actions taken? Only time will tell.

            Using the Russian government propaganda news agency as a source on the 2016 election campaign in the middle of a controversy in which Russia used propaganda to affect the outcome of the 2016 election might not be the best choice.

            You're getting your news from Russia Today now?

              Honestly, it's like they're not even trying to be subtle

    Having just read "The New Tsar" by Steven Lee Myers, this would be pretty standard for Putin. It's the way he operated in the KGB, and its the way he's operated since his political career began, when he was still a member of the KGB.

    Its at the very least, plausible.

    I’m still totally baffled by the fact that there have been exactly zero repercusions for Donald Trump, even as the media started reporting that he likely colluded with Russian interests to subvert the natural course of the election.

    Like, what the hell is going on? If it’s true then shouldn’t he be arrested? Or worse, considering (I’m pretty certain) that using a foreign nation to mess with the election would be tantamount to treason which I believe still carries the death penalty.

    And now reports are coming out to say that Russia has comprimising information on him, which would absolutely mean that he can’t function without fear or influence in his role as President. But still nothing is happening? It’s like the whole world is going crazy.

    Regardless of your politics, this is the picture of a man who simply cannot be allowed to assume the office of President, for several reasons, but everyone seems to be determined to let it happen anyway.

      You are talking like there is proof of all these things. Until there is proof it all just media bs

        There is plenty of proof of these things, The reports on things he has said literally have video footage of him saying those things. This report is based off an Intelligence report released by the government.

        Sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming fake news does not invalidate a report.

          djbear, that 'evidence' appears to be a construct put together by analysts rather than being based on substantive evidence. Would it worry you that authorities are telling the public there's evidence when there isn't? It would worry me.

          The reports we hear about are those authorized by the authority figures with the most to loose.

            Right, and Russia has nothing to "loose" here, so RT's reports are completely substantive and not at all worrying to you.

            I haven't heard any confirmation about this report yet (though the CIA and FBI are clearly taking it seriously, given that they briefed Trump, Obama, and others about it some days ago). But the last place I'd look for reliable evidence on this subject is the the Russian government's state-owned propaganda network.

            Oh yes RT, the state funded and Kremlin controlled media organisation. Totally objective reporting right.......

            Last edited 12/01/17 2:24 pm

      The first problem is that there's no serious suggestion that he colluded with Russia even if he was a beneficiary. The second problem is that they'd actually have to publicly present some evidence that the Russians were even behind the leaks. The report itself currently provides no evidence and is entirely based on conjecture (the term "assessment" is used a lot). That's not to say no evidence exists, but I remain extremely skeptical seeing as Wikileaks maintains Russia was not the source of the leak. This current claim is based on a unseen addendum to a report that had no evidence at present.

      Long story short - if they had any real evidence, he'd be booted by now.

    Ummm. ... It's because it's all propaganda.
    The picture is painted by the main stream media wheras the alternative media points out the hypocrisy and their lies.
    Main stream media control is in a few hands. They are the same outlets that sold the world "weapons of mass destruction" when there were none.
    Listen to the words of Jackson Browne's song Lives in the balance & think hard on what the MSM media put across.
    Think critically if anyone had anything on Trump don't you think George Soros, Obama, Clinton or any of the globalism that hate Trump would already have leaked it to the world to stop him getting into power.?
    People can be really ignorant and just plain stupid when the believe the same BS time and time again. This is why traditional media is dying. People are now waking up and we are not going to stand for it any more. We talk about it. We speak out. We read. We look at alternative viewpoints. We then review to see through the propaganda (fake news) spread by the msm.

    Last edited 11/01/17 2:08 pm

      That makes no sense. The people who allegedly "have something" on Trump aren't Soros or Obama or Clinton, they're the Russians, who wanted Trump to win. Why would they leak it early and trash the chance of him winning, when they could just use it as leverage after he's sworn in?

      It's pretty much standard procedure in the intelligence community to gather intelligence both on your allies and your enemies, so you always have power over both of them.

        Actually, it makes complete sense.

          Yeah, you're right. What better way to accomplish their goal than to sabotage their goal. It makes complete sense. /s

            Sigh. If the Russians have it then obviously the NSA CIA etc would already have it. Hence Hillary or any of the other globalists would have already used it to stop Trump before he was elected.
            Since they did not do this it would indicate that the Russians have nothing. With all the anti Trump BS before and after the election by the msm surely they'd have something better than a tape of him in a conversation about women.
            Since the NSA sick up just about everything either Trump is so smart he can avoid the black hole that is the NSA or Hillary Soros the CIA and Russia all want to control Trump. Why? When they could have leaked it and got Hillary to do whatever they wanted (obviously excluding Russia in this).
            Then you have reports coming from 4Chan that this was all a hoax as some sort of fanfiction as indicated in this thread.

              Your argument relies on the premise that US intelligence knows everything Russian intelligence knows, and that they would share that intelligence with two private citizens (Clinton hadn't been secretary of state for three years and hadn't been a senator for seven years before her nomination campaign). For your premise to be true, it would mean intelligence agencies would have leaked classified information to unqualified people, a breach of the Espionage Act. Do you have evidence to support your premise?

    Actually really like Campbell's articles, but come on man. It's getting too easy to fool the supposed reporters of the 'news' (I understand you're not the one pushing the allegations). This is basic high school history source checking LOL

    https://i.redd.it/whwb2gqutz8y.png

      There's no reason to blindly accept this dossier, certainly - but holding up pro-Trump threads on reddit & 4chan as counter-evidence? Are they the most authoritative sources you can come up with?

      The FBI would run into crap "intel" like much like this every day of the week, there's no shortage of it around, yet they at least treated this one as plausible enough to brief Congress. There's a lot of people fact-checking it now, so any inconsistencies will be jumped on fast. But taking /pol/'s claims at face value is about as smart as getting your news from RT.

    Release all the information on both sides. Then it can't be held against anyone.
    Isn't that the Wikileaks philosophy?
    Secrets have power.

    Long after the 4chaners who fabricated it admitted responsibility, it has not been retracted in any news source. Interesting his successful libel defence is also making news at the same time.

      Perhaps because nobody believes 4chan about anything. Even if they insisted the sun would come up tomorrow, still nobody would believe a word they said without triple-checking it, a published peer-review study, and signed confirmation from both houses of Congress.

    There is a strong possibility that Russians did try to influence US election. So what? US admitted that Yeltsin won his first election only because Clinton have sent his advisers to help.
    Time to return the favour.

      Kind of makes a mockery of democratic elections, don't you think? The last thing anyone should want is foreign powers intervening in your leadership decisions to further their own interests rather than yours.

      It's no better when the US does it to others, sure, but I wouldn't be dismissing it with "so what", as the next time it could well be your own interests that lose.

        At the end of the day, the voters are deciding the fate of candidates. All hacked did is uncover what has to be public in a first place. This made US voters more informed. I do not see how democracy is in danger here.

          You must surely know that's not true. For one, the hacks only uncovered part of the truth, telling a one-sided story critical of Clinton while not touching Trump at all. Partial information can be worse than none at all, because it leads people to reach conclusions with more certainty than they should - for example, if I showed you a chess board with all white pieces visible but all black pieces hidden except a few pawns, you may come to the conclusion that white is far ahead of black when in reality they're evenly matched.

          It's also fairly well documented that more exposure leads to more support in US elections, which is why candidates spend such ridiculous amounts of money on campaigning and media blitzes. When one side's narrative is dominant over the other, the result is less informed decision-making, not more informed.

            You must surely know that's not true.
            Really? LOL I do not.
            It's also fairly well documented
            Where? I did not see it.
            In fact, I know that you do not have any proof, but just some statements.

              As I said, it's well documented. See papers such as Political Advertising and Election Outcomes (Spenkuch et al, 2015), Selective Exposure and Reinforcement of Attitudes and Partisanship Before a Presidential Election (Knobloch-Westerwick, 2012), The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Political Participation (Dilliplane, 2011), Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising (Huber et al, 2007), The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes (Shaw, 1999), or even as far back as Media Use and Electoral Choices: Some Political Consequences of Information Exposure (Dreyer, 1971).

              These papers all tell essentially the same story. Political exposure is non-informative but highly persuasive, and candidates who maximise their own exposure over their rivals tend to see proportional increases in support, independent of the specifics of their stance.

                As I have said, all documents are stating the fact without any proof. When asked for proof, only one answer is given - it is classified. Trust us.

                  They most certainly do provide proof, they're scientific studies. Did you read any of them?

                  Did you? All USA/World mass media were hysterically against Trump. And he won, so much for scientific studies. Some people here treat science as something unquestionable. In reality, science is dead without scepticism, as it is always approximate.
                  Back to the topic, the amount of political advertisement during this campaign was overwhelmingly on the Clinton side, but she lost and now you show some " scientific studies"?

                  Yes, I've read the papers. It would be nice if you'd read them too rather than blindly declaring things you've never read invalid.

                  I think you've done a good job of scuttling your own argument. Nothing else to say really.

                  You do not argue, but telling, that I did not read it. I did. Argue what I have said, or all will see who you are really.

                  Last edited 28/01/17 9:24 am

          You really don't see how selective information will skew voters' results?

          What if Clinton's emails were never released, but instead hackers "leaked" those tax returns Trump was so keen to keep private, along with more "grab them by the pussy" or "golden shower" videos. You cant' imagine how that might affect the way people vote? Informing voters is a good thing - so long as it's even-handed.

      It was Yeltsin's second term that was aided by US advisers, he won his first term in 1991 while Clinton was still governor of Arkansas. Minor nitpick but your point remains.

    Here's a hypothetical - what would happen if Donald Trump showed up to a press conference and said "Yeah I hired Russian prostitutes to perform a golden shower show. It was the funniest thing I've ever seen. Pissing all over each other on the same bed Obama slept on. It was crazy".

    Then what? Would that have broken any laws? Gross sure. But is that illegal? I don't know enough about Russian prostitution laws and I'm not going to google it.

      That's one of the least interesting things in the dossier IMHO, even if the twittersphere finds it amusing. The allegations that Trump had "close ties and coordination" with the Russians during the campaign, and that they have "compromising personal and financial information" about him, are far more concerning (if true).

    All of the trump supporters here believing 4chan...

    Last time that happened, #pizzagate

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now