If 2016 told us anything it was “never say never”.
So they’d allow an overtly pro-Russian (and covertly blackmailed) leader who’d been elected through a foreign power intervening illegally in the ‘democratic’ process to carry on ruling simply in order to avoid taking a political hit in the short term?
Many Republican representatives hate Trump as it is, and this report being true would drive even more away from him. Additionally, if there’s one thing which conservatives care about it’s the constitution.
Neither of those are ‘proof’ for what you claimed.
Did you read the BuzzFeed dossier?
Who knows, probably not but it’s certainly not impossible.
This is Putin we’re talking about.
UN Charter pretty sure does, and that’s just one example
You have no evidence to back up this claim.
“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is pretty broad. If Bill Clinton can get close to impeachment for allegedly lying about adultery and a claim of sexual assault, some of the allegations against Trump could, if true, lead to impeachment.
tfw the man who produced these allegations is a local, and owns a company 4 miles away with 200k profit, just one employee, 320k debtors-falling-within-a-year and 155k cash lying in the bank but an empty office
Ah his partner has another company under almost the same name “Orbis International” … which in 2016 made 98 pounds of investments (aaaand also the exact same number, 98 pounds, in 2015) with 99k net profit.
What exactly are they trading?
Christopher Steele’s role in the company is “Political Consultant”
in case anyone cares on the broader stuff anyway
the office that I talked about earlier is literally empty and always has its doors open. I live fairly close to one of the partners in the company so I might want to cycle there tomorrow to see how many reporters are there for the lulz, at least if the correspondence address isn’t a total sham either
Here’s an overview of a former CIA officer reading and giving his feedback on the leaked dosier. Basically it all looks correct and is probably real, but relies mainly on a single source (called ‘Source E’) and the investigation was probably commissioned with the purpose of finding negatives on Trump. So with that in mind, it’s fairly easy to come to the conclusion that about half of the claims are speculation and/or complete fiction resting on the truth of the other half.
As with the e-mail leaks, it’s not a good idea to just look at one sides “truth” and make conclusions based off of it.
"My suspicion would be that the report is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even some fiction. It is very similar to the types of media-focused disinformation produced by both CIA and KGB in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, where a little bit of factual information would be used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. In this case, the original intent might well have been to discredit Trump personally; its release at this time is likely intended to delegitimize his presidency, or to narrow his options on recalibrating with Russia.
I expect, however, that much of the possibly tall tale being told will unravel as the FBI continues and expands its investigation. Trump has predictably denounced the entire matter as “fake news.” He may be right."
I suspected you meant this, but you should have made that more clear.
The report being a real report compiled by a private intelligence company is different from the information in the report being real
I know this report was circling around Washington for a couple months, but it wasn’t really in the public sphere at that point, so either someone has trolled the US intelligence services (which would be hilarious), or someone in the Washington circle saw it and decided to pretend that they’d planted it.
Probably the second to be honest, given the ‘saviour’ mentality it brings. But if it’s the first then it would be hilarious, but it wouldn’t be surprising, given that a 15 year old hacked FBI last year and that a senior I&A cybersecurity expert clicked on a phishing link to reveal documents.
or my personal belief:
Manufacture a native to fit a brief, pass it around from reputable source to reputable source to give it an impression of authenticity with a bit of a press leak here and there, then present it with an air of confidence as fact. All work of intelligence agencies themselves.