By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article revisits a 2018 claim suggesting Russian leverage over Donald Trump, potentially dating back to a 1987 Moscow trip. The author’s initial assessment of Russian influence was around 10-20%, now raised to over 50% based on Trump’s subsequent pro-Russia stances and confirmation from a former KGB spy. While the full extent of this influence remains unknown, the author now believes that even definitive proof would have had limited impact on public opinion or Trump’s political standing, mirroring the muted reaction to previously confirmed Russian kompromat. Ultimately, Trump’s inherent weaknesses and incompetence undermined any significant leverage Russia may have held.
Read the original article here
An ex-KGB agent’s claim that Donald Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987 is certainly a significant allegation. The timing, dating back to Trump’s reported trip to Moscow in 1987, suggests a long-term cultivation of influence. This isn’t just about a single incident; it paints a picture of potential decades-long manipulation. The implications for American politics are staggering.
The core of this claim centers around Trump’s reported interactions with Soviet officials during his 1987 Moscow visit. The suggestion is that he was subtly encouraged and perhaps even groomed for political ambition. This alleged grooming hints at a deliberate strategy by Russian intelligence to leverage influential figures, which isn’t unheard of in international espionage.
The alleged manipulation isn’t solely based on this single visit. The argument extends to Trump’s subsequent political career and his often pro-Russian stances. Actions like meetings with Vladimir Putin and his overall rhetoric regarding Russia are cited as evidence supporting the theory of ongoing manipulation.
The ex-KGB agent’s assessment of Trump’s personality is also relevant. The description of Trump as possessing “low intellect coupled with hyperinflated vanity” suggests vulnerability to manipulation. This assertion, though subjective, points towards a potential weakness that Russian intelligence may have exploited.
The question of whether this matters is complex. Even if the allegations are proven true, it remains uncertain how significantly they would alter public perception. We’ve seen in recent years how deeply entrenched partisan divides can make even the most damning revelations seemingly inconsequential to many. The political landscape appears increasingly polarized, potentially rendering such revelations ineffective in altering political dynamics.
However, the inherent gravity of the situation should not be understated. If a foreign power successfully cultivated a U.S. president as an asset, the implications for national security and the integrity of American democracy are profound. The very foundations of trust in leadership would be severely shaken. The impact on international relations, particularly with Russia, would be massive.
The lack of immediate and widespread outrage over this claim is troubling. The fact that a story with such immense potential impact is not dominating headlines raises questions about the media landscape and whether certain elements are downplaying or even suppressing this information. This lack of response calls into question the efficacy of traditional media outlets in holding power accountable.
The timing of the release of this information, years after Trump’s presidency, also warrants consideration. The current political climate and its implications for future elections need to be evaluated in the context of this allegation. Has the damage already been done? Could this information influence future elections, and what safeguards can be put in place to prevent such influence in the future?
While some may argue that the damage is already done and the information is too late to affect meaningful change, it’s essential to consider the long-term implications. The revelation of a compromised leader, no matter the timing, remains relevant for understanding the past and informing the future. It serves as a cautionary tale and a reminder of the ongoing threats to democratic institutions from foreign interference.
Ultimately, the question of “Does it matter?” is not simply a yes or no answer. It hinges on our willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, hold those in power accountable, and work toward safeguarding our democratic systems from future manipulation. The gravity of the accusation should not be dismissed simply because the immediate political consequences may be unclear. The long-term ramifications remain significant.