President Donald Trump kicked off the process of dismantling the Department of Education by signing an executive order on Thursday.

Yes

Now this we would watch 🍿

Estimating the likelihood that Donald Trump is a "Putin-compromised asset" from 1980 to the present involves analyzing a vast array of publicly available information—business dealings, political behavior, statements, and investigations—while acknowledging the absence of definitive proof (e.g., a "smoking gun" like a signed agreement or recorded blackmail). The term "compromised asset" here implies either witting collaboration with Putin’s interests or unwitting exploitation due to vulnerabilities like financial ties, ego, or kompromat (compromising material). I’ll assess this systematically, drawing on historical patterns, Trump’s consistent refusal to criticize Putin, and his attacks on U.S. allies, while remaining grounded in evidence and avoiding speculation beyond what’s supportable. ### Key Factors and Analysis #### 1. Historical Ties to Russia (1980s-Present) - **1980s Business Beginnings**: Trump’s first notable Russian interaction came in 1987 when he visited Moscow, invited by Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin. This trip, documented in *Collusion* by Luke Harding and other sources, followed KGB interest in Trump as a potential asset due to his ego and ambition. Around this time, he took out a full-page ad in U.S. newspapers criticizing American foreign policy and NATO spending—eerily aligned with Soviet goals to weaken Western unity. - **1990s-2000s Real Estate**: Trump’s financial troubles after casino failures made him reliant on non-traditional funding. His sons, Donald Jr. ("Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," 2008) and Eric ("We have all the funding we need out of Russia," 2014), boasted of Russian money flowing into Trump properties. Deals like the 1984 sale of Trump Tower condos to David Bogatin, a Russian mob figure, and later partnerships with figures like Felix Sater (ex-Trump Organization associate with Russian mafia ties) suggest a pattern of Russian financial entanglement. - **2010s Projects**: Trump pursued a Moscow Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, a deal worth hundreds of millions, per Michael Cohen’s testimony and Mueller’s findings. He hid this from the public while denying Russian business ties, giving Putin potential leverage. #### 2. Behavioral Evidence: Never Criticizing Putin, Attacking Allies - **Silence on Putin**: Across decades, Trump has not once publicly condemned Putin, even when prompted (e.g., 2018 Helsinki summit, where he sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence on election interference). He’s praised Putin as "smart," "strong," and "highly respected," even amid Russia’s 2014 Crimea annexation, 2022 Ukraine invasion, and documented cyberattacks. This contrasts sharply with his readiness to slam allies like Germany ("captive to Russia" over energy), Canada (Trudeau is "weak"), and NATO (calling it "obsolete"). - **Policy Alignment**: Trump’s actions—weakening NATO, pushing Ukraine to cede territory (2025 peace talks), and lifting Russia sanctions—mirror Putin’s wishlist. His 1987 shift to isolationist rhetoric post-Moscow and his 2025 pivot blaming Ukraine for Russia’s invasion further align with Kremlin narratives. #### 3. Investigations and Intelligence - **Mueller Report (2019)**: Found no prosecutable conspiracy but documented over 100 Trump campaign-Russia contacts, including Manafort sharing polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a suspected Russian intelligence operative. Mueller didn’t explore counterintelligence questions (e.g., financial leverage or kompromat). - **Senate Intelligence Report (2020)**: The GOP-led report called Trump’s campaign a "grave counterintelligence threat" due to Russian ties, noting Manafort’s Kremlin links and Trump’s vulnerability to exploitation. - **Intelligence Community (2021)**: Confirmed Putin authorized 2020 election interference to boost Trump, building on 2016 efforts. Leaked Kremlin papers (Guardian, 2021) allege Putin greenlit a 2016 operation to back Trump, citing his "mental instability" and kompromat from prior Moscow visits. - **FBI Insights**: Ex-agent Peter Strzok (*Compromised*, 2020) argued Trump’s behavior suggests compromise, pointing to lies about Russian contacts and odd Oval Office meetings with Russian officials (e.g., post-Comey firing, 2017). #### 4. Potential Kompromat - The Steele Dossier (unverified) alleges compromising acts in Moscow (e.g., 2013 Miss Universe trip). While unproven, Trump’s secrecy—hiding tax returns, confiscating interpreter notes after Putin meetings (2017, 2018)—fuels suspicion. Putin’s KGB background and Russia’s use of kompromat on Western figures (per ex-KGB agent Yuri Shvets) make this plausible. #### 5. Counterarguments - No hard evidence (e.g., bank records, audio) proves Trump knowingly serves Putin. His pro-Russia stance could stem from admiration, a desire to "deal" with Putin, or shared authoritarian tendencies rather than compromise. His chaotic governance limited his ability to fully enact Putin’s agenda (e.g., NATO endured). ### Probability Assessment Weighing these factors: - **High Likelihood (75-90%)**: The depth of financial ties (1980s-2010s), consistent pro-Putin behavior, refusal to criticize him despite attacking allies, and intelligence findings point to at least unwitting compromise. The Moscow Tower deal alone gave Putin leverage Trump hid. Historical KGB cultivation and 2016-2020 election interference tip this toward the higher end. - **Intent vs. Exploitation**: Witting collusion is harder to pin (say, 50-60%), but being a "useful idiot" exploited via greed, ego, or kompromat fits the evidence better (80-90%). - **Uncertainty**: Without classified data (e.g., missing binder of Russia intel, Reuters 2023), I can’t hit 100%. The 10-25% doubt reflects the lack of a public "tape" or direct witness. ### Final Estimate Based on all publicly available data from 1980 to March 4, 2025, I estimate a **80-90% likelihood** that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward 85% given the consistency of his behavior and the weight of historical ties. The range reflects remaining uncertainty, but the evidence—financial, behavioral, and intelligence-based—overwhelmingly suggests compromise, whether deliberate or exploited.