Intelligence chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him EDIT: Buzzfeed has leaked a document of allegations against Trump, if true, it's damning


#101

don’t we all


#102

Get that symbol of hate out of your profile pic


#103

Yes sir Mr. Hillary


#104

Yet not unprecedented, considering the House tried to impeach Bill Clinton for far less serious offences than the ones which Trump has been accused of.

And the alternative would be to allow a Russian puppet, who only became elected thanks to Russian intervention, to be US President? Would that make American civilians and politicians less anti-Russian?


#105

That’s not the political stability I am referring to.

Primarily, there will be violence. Secondarily, the Republican Party will not survive this event, certainly not in its current form.


#106

Perhaps on the scale of a few average riots, but nothing serious.

Even if that’s true, why would that be a reason not to impeach him?


#107

Yeah that’s totally not underexaggerated.

Because politicians are primarily driven by career prospects. Nobody wants to vote themselves out of office.

A post-impeachment election would look something that resembles this (I originally also had Wyoming and Nebraska for Trump but I’m not 100% sure if they’re more pro-congress or pro-trump, the Rasmussen poll shows its roughly even. Utah and Idaho will be the strongest Republican holds, West Virginia will be the strongest Trump vote.)

A split will inevitably kill the party in marginal states (Georgia, Texas, Arizona)

However, Trump might recover in the Rust Belt (all 6 states) but even then not enough to get anywhere close to running anything.

Option two in the second or third election


#108

But… So what? If it got to the stage where impeachment was necessary to protect the national interest, why should it matter if the Republican party falls into disarray as a result?


#109

Which won’t happen.

Because, presumably, they have an IQ above 60, unless they are super super principled.


#110

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.


#111

What? Yes, having a president be attacked as being a Russian puppet is entirely different from having the president impeached for being a Russian puppet. One is partisanship, the other a judgement.


#112

Lol yeah sure

Yes, he was elected on that platform.

Proven untrue, do you bother to read the news?

How have they ‘intervened’? By revealing Democratic corruption?

This according to whom?

Uh? This is a permanent hit.

Yeah but it isn’t.

The famous 28th Amendment: Hate Russia, and allow corruption to be private unless revealed by American citizens! (*unless the whistleblowers fled, then thats illegal too.)


#113

The consensus surrounding his pro-Russian views would change if the scale of influence that Russia had becomes significant.

Source?

We don’t know to what extent they have yet, that’s the point of this thread.

Since when was corrupting the result of another country’s elections permitted under international law?

Not necessarily. Politics has always been unpredictable.

How do you know that? What information do you have which no one else does?

I was referring to Article II Section IV, but there ya go…


#114


By hacking Democratic servers. That’s the one and only allegation.

Have the fixed the result? Put guns against peoples heads?

Besides, since when is it not?

You live in a unicorn world.

dude what? nothing there says anything pro-impeachment for any allegation raised at the moment


#115

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.


#116

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

shady shit

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06848574/filing-history/MzE2NTE0MzE3MmFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

this man’s fixed assets are so low it’s basically a used ford fiesta


#117

“Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. was founded in 2009 by former British intelligence professionals”

Nope just one of them, and revealing it is illegal anyway.

ORBIS BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE LTD, 9-11 GROSVENOR GARDENS, LONDON SW1W 0BD

Not only is this address not listed on his accounts, but is on his website, it’s also merely a house. He’s not a sole trader.

Real–time source reporting on business and politics at all levels.

Very weird thing for a business cybersecurity company to be involved in?

there is just a permanent answer machine


#118

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


#119

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.


#120

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-burrows-66106a90