Monthly Archives: February 2021

Although public opinion doesnt determine the outcome of impeachment trials, it shapes the environment within which senators must decide. Based on multiple polls conducted during the past month, here are five key facts about Americans sentiment as Donald Trumps second Senate trial looms.

With former president Trumps trial set to begin in the Senate, a clear but not overwhelming majority of Americans favor removing him from office. In surveys conducted by 6 different polling organizations between January 10 and February, support for his removal averaged 52%, while 42% were opposed.[i]

There have been no clear trends in public opinion in the month since the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. One of the earliest surveys, conducted by Quinnipiac University between January 7th and 10th, found 52% favoring removal and 45% opposed. The next Quinnipiac poll (January 15-17) reported a 54-42 split, while the latest (January 28-February) put it at 50-45. Similarly, a comparison among the different polling organizations found no trend. It appears that most people made up their minds early on and havent changed them.

Although many observers believe that the case against Mr. Trump is significantly stronger than it was in his first impeachment trial, the share of Americans who want to see him convicted is only modestly higher than it was a year ago. Between December 18, 2019, when the House impeached then-President Trump for the first time, and on February 5, 2020, when the Senate acquitted him, support for removing him from office averaged between 46.4 and 48.5%. This was between 4 and 6 points lower than the average in support of conviction during the past four weeks of this, his second impeachment trial.

Support for barring Donald Trump from future public office, which averages 56%, is somewhat higher than for just convicting him. The Monmouth University survey found that when respondents who opposed conviction but favored barring him from office were told that he could not be barred unless he was convicted, support for conviction rose from 52 to 55%. With 56% of the public wanting to bar him from public office, Trump will face steep odds against regaining the presidency in 2024, even if he is acquitted.

Patterns of support for convicting or acquitting Mr. Trump closely mirror the divisions that prevailed throughout his presidency. Nearly all Democrats support conviction, while nearly all Republicans opt for acquittal. Non-whites favor conviction more than whites, women more than men, and whites with college degrees more than whites without them. According to Quinnipiac, the gender gap among white Americans was a stunning 23 points: 56% of white women favored conviction, compared to just 33% of white men.

As we begin Trumps second impeachment trial, it is hard to distinguish judgments about convicting him from judgments about the Trump presidency and Trump the man. The share of Americans who support convicting him is almost identical to the share who ousted him from office by voting for Joe Biden. Seventeen Republican senators would need to join all the Senate Democrats to convict Trump in his second trial. But so long as Senate Republicans from red states fear the wrath of their voters if they break ranks, few are likely to do so. The court of public opinion will have to move more strongly in favor of conviction to influence wavering Republicans, and so far, theres scant evidence that this will happen.

[i] Sources: Monmouth University, The New York Times, Times of San Diego, Politico, CS Monitor, Quinnipiac University

Continue reading here:

Should the Senate convict Donald Trump? Heres what the American people think - Brookings Institution

BuzzFeed News; Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images

The Trump Organization negotiated on behalf of then-president Donald Trump to make Parler his primary social network, but it had a condition: an ownership stake in return for joining, according to documents and four people familiar with the conversations. The deal was never finalized, but legal experts said the discussions alone, which occurred while Trump was still in office, raise legal concerns with regards to anti-bribery laws.

Talks between members of Trumps campaign and Parler about Trumps potential involvement began last summer, and were revisited in November by the Trump Organization after Trump lost the 2020 election to the Democratic nominee and current president, Joe Biden. Documents seen by BuzzFeed News show that Parler offered the Trump Organization a 40% stake in the company. It is unclear as to what extent the former president was involved with the discussions.

The never-before-reported talks between Trumps business organization and Parler, a social media network that promises less moderation than mainstream sites and is embraced by the far right, provide more insight into the frantic last weeks of Trumps presidency. Until the Jan. 6 insurrection, after which Facebook and Twitter suspended or banned him for continuing to sow discord about the election, Trump used those internet platforms to peddle baseless conspiracy theories. While doing so, his representatives actively negotiated to bring him to Parler, which sought to make the president a business partner who would help it compete with Twitter and Facebook by getting him to post his content on its platform first.

Former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale raised the idea to Trump of taking an ownership stake in Parler during a meeting last year at the White House, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Parscale had taken an early interest in Parler, and reportedly considered creating an account for Trump on the site in 2019 as a bulwark against Twitter and Facebook.

Brad Parscale, former manager of President Donald Trump's reelection campaign, in Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 30, 2020

Four sources told BuzzFeed News that Parscale and Trump campaign lawyer Alex Cannon met with Parler CEO John Matze and shareholders Dan Bongino and Jeffrey Wernick at Trumps Florida club Mar-a-Lago in June 2020 to discuss the idea. But the White House counsels office soon put a stop to the talks, one person with knowledge of the discussions said, ruling that such a deal while Trump was president would violate ethics rules.

The president was never part of the discussions, Parscale told BuzzFeed News. The discussions were never that substantive. And this was just one of many things the campaign was looking into to deal with the cancel culture of Silicon Valley.

Parscale was replaced as the Trump campaign manager in July.

Discussions were revived in the weeks following the election, according to two people involved, but the deal fell apart after the Capitol invasion. Following that event, Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores, and Amazon kicked the company off its cloud hosting service, forcing the site offline. The tech giants determined that Parler had not done enough to moderate hate speech and calls for violence on its platform before, during, and after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

When reached by phone on Friday, Wernick, who called himself an adviser to the company, said that there had been discussions with the Trump Organization about bringing Trump onto the platform, but that the former president had not been involved in those conversations. He also said there were inaccuracies in what BuzzFeed News was reporting, but did not provide specifics on what, if anything, was inaccurate.

We have spoken to several people about potential stakes in the company for producing certain things, Wernick said. He declined to get into the specifics of negotiations citing nondisclosure agreements he said were in place between Parler and the Trump Organization.

Cannon and Matze declined to comment. Bongino and a Parler spokesperson did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

A Trump Organization spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

John Matze during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight

Founded in 2018 by former college roommates John Matze and Jared Thomson, and Rebekah Mercer, the right-wing political donor and daughter of hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer, Parler focused on building a social network that would serve as an alternative to Facebook and Twitter by taking a more lax approach to content moderation. It billed itself as a site that allowed free expression.

While it struggled to gain traction in its early months, it soon became a home for conservative and far-right personalities who had been suspended or banned from mainstream social media. By late 2020, it had become a go-to online gathering place for hate groups, conspiracy theorists, and believers in the QAnon mass delusion, as well as prominent Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Devin Nunes.

On Wednesday, Matze told the Wall Street Journal that the site had 15 million users, including the former presidents sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., as well as various current and former members of Trumps staff.

Donald Trump, however, never maintained a verified account on that platform, and preferred to keep his daily missives to Twitter and Facebook, where his audience was much larger. He had 88 million followers on Twitter and more than 35 million followers on Facebook before his Twitter ban and indefinite Facebook suspension last month. Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner, intervened to keep him off Parler during his last days in office, according to Bloomberg News.

However, in negotiations with the Trump Organization, Parler offered a 40% stake in the company, according to a December document seen by BuzzFeed News and two people with direct knowledge of the proposed deal. Upon completion of that deal, half of that stake would have been given immediately to the Trump Organization, while the other half would have been doled out in tranches over the 24-month period of the agreement.

The Trump Organization, which oversees Trumps brand and real estate interests, is a collection of hundreds of businesses that are owned or controlled by Donald Trump.

As part of the agreement, Parler wanted Trump to make it his primary social network. According to the documents, Trump would have had to post all his social content including daily posts, video, and livestreaming on Parler for at least four hours before putting it on any other platform.

As part of the deal, Parler also asked that Trump link back to Parler when posting to other social media sites or emailing his supporters, and to allow the company to use his email lists to promote its platform. In addition, Parler wanted Trump to make introductions to any potential investors or advertisers.

People familiar with the discussions said they were unclear if Trump was involved with negotiations, which were led from Parlers side by two shareholders, Wernick and Bongino, a popular right-wing personality with close ties to Trump.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at the Washington University in St. Louis, said that, had the deal gone through while Trump was still in office, both Parler and the president could have been in violation of anti-bribery laws. Because the former president often used his Twitter and Facebook accounts to make official communications for example, announcing the firings of government officials seeking to gain something in exchange for making posts exclusive to another platform could be illegal.

I think it would have actually violated the bribery statute in that he would have been offered something of value a stake in this company in exchange for influencing an official act the act of where to publish his official comments, Clark said.

Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said the news warranted an immediate criminal investigation. A companys mere act of offering a stake for the presidents participation looks unethical and deserves further scrutiny, he noted.

While then-president Trump bragged that ethics rules didnt apply to him, bribery laws do apply, and courts have held that Trumps social media posts constituted official business while he was in office, Amey said. His posts were a preferred method for the White House to communicate with the public. If the offer included anything of value, and Trump planned to post on a social media platform while he was still in office, that would almost certainly be illegal, and he should be held accountable.

Discussions to bring Trump onto Parler were ultimately derailed by the events of Jan. 6. After months of casting doubt on election results and calling for violence on social media platforms, the presidents supporters stormed the US Capitol. Some posted pictures or videos of their exploits to Parler, which had become a breeding ground for organizing hate and threats ahead of the riot.

The blowback for the company came fast, culminating in Parlers removal from Apple and Googles app stores and Amazon Web Services.

Rebekah Mercer attends the Time 100 Gala at Jazz at Lincoln Center on April 25, 2017, in New York City.

Matze, who said he was fired as Parler CEO last week by Mercer, told the Journal that before he was fired he had tried to implement more content moderation so that Apple and Google would allow the app back into their app stores. He said his suggestion to ban groups based on affiliations with designated domestic terrorism organizations was ultimately resisted by the board.

In a press statement on Thursday, Amy Peikoff, Parlers chief policy officer, called Matzes characterization of his termination misleading but did not say what exactly was inaccurate.

The owners and managers of the company worked tirelessly to build a resilient, non-partisan platform dedicated to freedom of expression, civil discourse, and user privacy, she said in the statement.

With Parlers management in flux, its unclear when the app will come back online. With Matze gone, Mercer who maintains majority control has reportedly designated responsibilities to Matthew Richardson, a British lawyer, and Mark Meckler, a former tea party activist, according to a source.

Mercer, Richardson, and Meckler did not respond to requests for comment.

The company also recently attempted to raise funding, including from Narya Capital, the venture capital firm of J.D. Vance, the author of the popular memoir Hillbilly Elegy. Two sources told BuzzFeed News that Vance has also advised Mercer on matters regarding Parler.

J.D. Vance in Sun Valley, Idaho, July 12, 2017

Vance did not provide a comment for this story.

With no major social media outlet, Trump, who was impeached for his role in inciting the insurrection and will face a Senate trial next week, has been communicating with the public largely through the email list for his post-presidency office. Parler remains dormant, with a note that reads, We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon.

On Friday, Wernick said he believes Parler will be up by next week and that the company has an executive team in place that has stepped up.

For now, the most recent post on the site is a Jan. 26 meme from Matze. It features a photo of a masked and gloved Bernie Sanders from Bidens inauguration with superimposed text that says, I wish that John guy would hurry up already.

Here is the original post:

Donald Trumps Business Sought A Stake In Parler Before He Would Join - BuzzFeed News

This less well-known section of the amendment that also gave people due process and equal protection under the Constitution after the Civil War has gotten a lot of attention of late. Some commentators have suggested that Section 3 could be invoked to bar Trump from future office regardless of the outcome of impeachment. But its procedurally tricky. And if it is to work, as many are suggesting, it may require that Congress shore it up statutorily so that it might survive the scrutiny that it needsand would undoubtedly getif Section 3 were ever employed against Trump.

The last time it was invoked was in 1919. That year, the House of Representatives refused to seat the first Socialist elected to Congress, Victor Berger, on Section 3 grounds. Berger actively opposed U.S. participation in World War I, and was prosecuted and convicted under the Espionage Act. The House of Representatives referred his case to a special committee for investigation, concluded that he was ineligible for membership and refused to seat him. If Trump were to run successfully for Congress, a Democratic majority in either chamber could presumably follow suit and vote to preclude him from taking office. But that option doesnt address a possible 2024 presidential bid, which is perhaps foremost among concerns of Democratsand many Republicans, too.

Alternatively, the current Democratic-controlled Congress could simply declare Trump in violation of Section 3 in due course, but whether that declaration would be enforceable in a future election is hard to tell.

There are few reported judicial opinions that even mention Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and none from the U.S. Supreme Court. The primary case appears to be the 1871 opinion in United States v. Powell, in which Amos S.C. Powell was indicted for accepting public office after the Civil War. Before the war, he had held the office of constable, which was such an office as rendered those who had held it engaged in the Rebellion against the Union. As a result, the court explained, Powell was deemed ineligible to any office now, by the provisions of the 3d section of the 14 amendment.

To bring this aspect of the 14th Amendment up to date, and to make it useful in a modern political context, Congress likely needs to pass a new law. Somewhat surprisingly, the Constitutions terms are not self-executingthat is, for an individual to seek judicial enforcement of the Constitution, Congress generally must have passed a statute giving litigants a cause of action.

Congress has done this as a matter of criminalbut not civillaw for Section 3. To enable judicial enforcement of Section 3 the 14th Amendment, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (also known as the Enforcement Act or the First Ku Klux Klan Act), among other laws. Section 15 of that act makes it a misdemeanor to run for office when ineligible to do so under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, punishable by up to a year in prison. Section 14 of the same law also allows a federal prosecutor to forcibly remove an offender from office. (Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which lifted political barriers for senior members of the former Confederacy.)

Whether the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden would have an appetite to indict Trump for a misdemeanor under the 1870 statute is highly dubious. When the act was drafted, everyone knew precisely what sections 14 and 15 were aimed at: former members of the Confederacy, whom Congress wanted to keep out of public office during Reconstruction. The actand thus Section 3 itselfis outmoded.

Congress can enhance the enforceability of the 14th Amendments ban on certain individuals holding public office by permitting private citizens to bring lawsuits for alleged violations of Section 3. Of course, theres plenty of precedent for statutes authorizing judicial causes of action.

For example, in order to bring a lawsuit against a state or local police officer for allegedly violating the 4th Amendments ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and other constitutional rights, a plaintiff must invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983a statute passed in 1871 after the Civil War to implement the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution. In 1961, the Supreme Court prominently brought that statute to life in Monroe v. Pape, which allowed a homeowner to use the act to sue individual Chicago police officers for money damages in connection with a warrantless search.

In theory, a law passed by Congress to implement Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could give a competing candidate for the same office the necessary standing to bring a civil lawsuit. If Trump were to run in 2024 and a plaintiff brought a suit to enjoin his campaign, the constitutionality of the legislation would undoubtedly wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, with unpredictable results.

But this route would at least avoid criminal prosecution and thus the perception that the Department of Justice under a Democratic administration was trying to silence a political enemy. It would also shore up Congress role as a co-equal branch charged with ensuring that Oval Office occupants remain accountable for wrongdoing in officea constitutional obligation that a second impeachment acquittal would largely disavow.

Not since the Civil War has America seen a violent insurrection the likes of Jan. 6. Nor has it seen a president as cynically prone to undermining the Constitution and the rule of law as Donald Trump. If Senate Republicans arent willing to risk their own political relevance for the sake of the republic come Feb. 9, then the rest of those members who swore an oath to the Constitution should take steps to give it meaning through Congress legislative prerogative.

Read the rest here:

Opinion | Congress Still Has One More Way to Ban Trump from Future Office - POLITICO

Former President Donald Trump made his social media comeback on Friday with a post on Gab in which he called his second impeachment a "public relations stunt."

In his firstpost to the site since January 8, Trump put up a letter addressed to Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, who recently called on the former president to testify at his second impeachment hearing next week.

The letter, which Trump's attorneys David Schoen and Bruce Castor Jr signed, read: "We are in receipt of your latest public relations stunt. Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: you cannot prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen."

"The use of our Constitution to bring a purported impeachment proceeding is much too serious to try to play these games," they added.

Read more: How Google finally decided to remove Parler after months of flagging the app's harmful content

Here is a screenshot of the post.

Screenshot of the Donald J. Trump post on Gab. Gab

Trump is in the midst of a second impeachment over his role in stirring up a mob of supporters that stormed the US Capitol on January 6.

Trump's return to Gab comes after reports that the ex-president was still so frustrated by being barred from Twitter that he is writing down insults and trying to get aides to post them from their own accounts.

The former president was permanently suspended from Twitter in the wake of the insurrection, which resulted in five people's deaths. He was also blocked on YouTube.

Gab is a social networking website that is popular among far-right supporters. It rose to infamy following the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh when it was discovered the shooter had posted anti-Semitic comments on the platform.

It was launched by "Christian technology entrepreneur" Andrew Torba following what he says was the rise of big tech censorship during the 2016 election, according to the company's website.

Trump joined the site in August 2016, shortly before he was elected.

Originally posted here:

Trump breaks silence with post on Gab denouncing impeachment trial - Business Insider - Business Insider

Donald Trump attends a rally in support of ultimately unsuccessful Georgia Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler on December 5, in Valdosta, Georgia.

Donald Trumps reelection campaign, which never received a cent from the former president, moved an estimated $2.8 million of donor money into the Trump Organizationincluding at least $81,000 since Trump lost the election.

In addition, one of the campaigns joint-fundraising committees, which collects money in partnership with the Republican Party, shifted about $4.3 million of donor money into Trumps business from January 20, 2017, to December 31, 2020at least $331,000 of which came after the election.

The money covered the cost of rent, airfare, lodging and other expenses. All the payments are laid out in filings the campaign submitted to the Federal Election Commission. Representatives for the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Two days after the election, on November 5, the joint-fundraising committee paid $11,000 to Trumps hotel empire. A week laterafter the Associated Press, Fox News and other major media outlets had already called the race for Joe Bidenthe same committee put another $294,000 into Trumps hotel business to rent space, order catering and pay for lodging. The campaign pitched in additional change$110 that had been earmarked for recount efforts on November 16, another $220 the following day and $189 more the day after that.

On November 19, the campaign paid $31,000 for air travel to a company named DT Endeavor LLC. Five days later, the joint-fundraising committee paid the same entity $39,000. Forbes did not include those payments in its overall total of money moving into Trumps empire, since its not 100% clear that the former president owns DT Endeavor LLC. There are strong indications that he does, though. The federal filings list the address for the DT Endeavor LLC as Trump Tower in one spot and Mar-a-Lago in another. Trump also owns an aviation company with an almost identical name, DT Endeavor I LLC.

Whether or not Trump owns DT Endeavor LLC, he certainly controls several other companies collecting money from the campaign. On November 20, one of Trumps joint-fundraising committees paid $20,000 to his hotel outfit.

Less than a week after that, the campaign paid $3,000 in rent to Trump Restaurants LLC, which the former president owns outright. That company appears to be connected to a souvenir stand in the basement of Trump Tower.

On December 1, nearly a month after the election, the campaign handed over $38,000 in rent to Trump Tower Commercial LLC, the company through which Trump owns his stake in the famous Fifth Avenue tower. Fifteen days later, the campaign sent another $3,000 to Trump Restaurants LLC and added $38,000 more for Trump Tower Commercial LLC. In all, the postelection payments from the campaign and its joint-fundraising committee add up to $413,000or $484,000, if you include the money that flowed into DT Endeavor LLC, according to a review of the filings.

Thats not a life-changing amount of money for Trump, who is worth an estimated $2.5 billion. But it would be for most people, including many of the donors who chipped in to support Trumps campaign.

Read more here:

Trump Shifted Campaign-Donor Money Into His Private Business After Losing The Election - Forbes

The question of Donald Trumps relationship with the Kremlin has surfaced once again, this time in a new book by veteran US journalist Craig Unger. The book, American Kompromat, claims that the former US commander-in-chief was cultivated as a Russian intelligence asset for more than four decades.

Its not the first time this has been reported. In 2017 the former Moscow correspondent for The Guardian Luke Harding published a book: Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, which propounded roughly the same idea that Trump had been courted for years after marrying his first wife, Ivana Zelnickova, a model from Czechoslovakia. And then theres the Christopher Steele dossier, published in 2017 with its allegations of honey-trap blackmail and bizarre sexual practices. Although this came with a big handle-with-care caveat.

Could it really be true that one of Washingtons bitterest adversaries would have a stooge at the very top of its ranks? To consider this question its important to understand the distinction between an asset and an agent (or spy).

Former KGB major, Yuri Shvets, who appears to be Ungers key source, compares Trump to the infamous Cambridge Five a group of ideologically motivated agents in the heart of the British establishment, who willingly and systematically supplied the Soviet Union with state secrets over several decades to advance the communist cause. When you compare their story with that of the former US president, something looks wrong.

During Trumps tenure, NATO turned its heels towards Russia, and the Magnitsky Act has made life very difficult for a lot of powerful Russians by targeting their assets in the west. British intelligence has reclassified Russia as a tier one threat, putting it on at least equal footing to transnational terrorism.

Meanwhile, in 2018, the US expelled more than 60 Russian officials after identifying them as intelligence officers. To put it bluntly, any gains Russia might have achieved through Trumps good offices are far outweighed by the strategic, economic, and counterintelligence realities that have emerged during his presidency.

Assets in intelligence jargon, can mean anything from full-blown agents (people who knowingly offer their countrys secrets to a foreign intelligence agency) to those who might serve some use along the way. But they are far more likely to be at the more casual end of that spectrum. To identify and handle agents, intelligence officers need to expand their social circles (to meet more people in sensitive positions), find private safe houses and develop plausible cover stories to explain why they are meeting.

On the other hand, making friends with a masseuse who gives massages to oligarchs while they gossip about Kremlin affairs could represent a perfect asset. An elderly babushka who attends dissident rallies and owns a private B&B? Perfect asset. An overworked secretary who arranges scientific conferences in China? Perfect asset.

Few assets ever become spies proper. The simple proposition would you like to work for our intelligence agency? is never an easy sell. If a source panics or overreacts, they might tell the authorities. At which point, that relationship is either swiftly ended, or the asset becomes a counterintelligence pawn, playing the intelligence officer at his or her own game. When one overly eager Russian officer tried to recruit an American diplomat a few years ago, he made the mistake of playing his cards too early. The result? The diplomat reported the encounter, and the FBI then set up their own meeting with the Russian, turning the game back on him.

As such, an intelligence officer never asks a useful asset to become an agent unless theyre confident of a positive answer. In many cases, an asset doesnt even know theyre an asset. In whats known as tradecraft in the world of espionage, its often better to let assets exist in blissful ignorance of the intelligence officers intentions, trading friendly favours and gossip. That isnt really espionage, its just business.

Just look at Carter Page, one of Trumps former foreign policy advisers. Despite his strong pro-Kremlin views, despite living in Moscow in 2004, and despite being a target of Russian intelligence, there is no evidence that Page crossed the threshold. Russian intelligence officers certainly attempted to cultivate Page, but even the Mueller report couldnt determine whether or not he was a full-blown agent.

But why should he be? Carter was a fan of Putin, so Russian officers could bank on him taking the Kremlins interests straight to Trumps team even without explicit instruction. He neednt be anything more than a friend, and the Russians neednt risk asking for anything more.

Now compare this to the allegations levied against the 45th president. According to Unger, once Trump came on to the KGBs radar in 1977, he was fed a cocktail of flattery and subtle manipulation, which is nothing new for asset cultivation. The Steele dossier, largely discredited, made allegations of blackmail, which fits within the Russian proclivity for seeking out compromising information about their targets.

But any Russian intelligence officer would need to consider whether Trump really cares enough about kompromat and Russian money. Indeed, why enrol him as an agent of influence a move that carries enormous consequences for both parties when Russia could opt for a convenient friend in Washington?

In reality, even if Russia sees Trump as an asset, were not talking about Trump being a new Kim Philby (of Cambridge Five fame). Were talking about Trump being a self-interested businessman whos happy to do a favour if it works to his own best interests and that includes staying out of jail. Theres no evidence that Trump knowingly associated with any Russian intelligence officers. And theres a big distinction between making the wrong kind of friends and committing treason.

Simply put, an agent is a partner for life, whereas an asset is a friend with benefits. And, most likely, if Trump has been one of the two, its the latter.

Follow this link:

Donald Trump spying allegations: more likely useful idiot than Putin's agent - The Conversation UK