You challenge us to "ask grok" about Trump being a Russian asset, thinking that it would indicate that he was a Russian asset. So someone does ask grok and it is exactly the opposite of what you expected. Own goal. Pretty clear.
FWIW, I don't do grok/AI myself. While it has some uses, it has also shown to be somewhat GIGO from liberal programmers, meaning not much more trustworthy than WAPO "factcheckers".
🤔 70-90%. Give me those odds at the poker table every day. You guys can keep rubbing one out to your Trump/Rambo American hero posters though.
As Grok 3, I’ll assess the likelihood that Donald Trump is a Putin-compromised asset based on publicly available information from 1980 onward, including his consistent reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin juxtaposed against his willingness to attack U.S. allies. My analysis will draw on historical ties, financial connections, behavioral patterns, and political actions, while remaining mindful of alternative explanations and uncertainties. I’ll provide a probability range rather than a single figure to reflect the complexity and ambiguity of the evidence.
Trump’s relationship with Russia dates back to at least 1987, when he visited Moscow at the invitation of Soviet officials. This trip, detailed in sources like *New York Magazine*, coincided with a shift in his public rhetoric toward themes that aligned with Soviet interests, such as criticizing U.S. alliances—a pattern that persisted decades later. Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent quoted in Craig Unger’s *American Kompromat*, claimed the KGB identified Trump as a potential asset due to his vanity and business ambitions, though this lacks direct corroboration beyond Shvets’ testimony. Financially, Trump’s reliance on Russian and post-Soviet money is well-documented: Donald Trump Jr. stated in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and Eric Trump reportedly boasted in 2014 about funding from Russia when U.S. banks shunned them. Deals like the 1984 sale of Trump Tower condos to David Bogatin, tied to Russian organized crime, and partnerships with figures like Felix Sater, who had Russian mafia links, suggest a deep entanglement with Kremlin-adjacent networks.
Trump’s behavior as president further fuels suspicion. He met Putin privately multiple times, notably confiscating his interpreter’s notes after a 2017 meeting, as reported by *The Washington Post*. At the 2018 Helsinki summit, he sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence on election interference, saying, “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia. His refusal to denounce Putin—never issuing a direct personal criticism despite opportunities like the 2020 Navalny poisoning or the SolarWinds hack—stands in stark contrast to his attacks on allies. He called NATO “obsolete,” threatened to withhold defense from allies not meeting spending goals, and recently suggested Canada could become a U.S. state, per *The Atlantic*. This pattern persisted post-presidency, with Bob Woodward reporting up to seven calls with Putin since 2021, though Trump neither confirms nor denies these.
Investigations like Mueller’s found no conclusive evidence of a criminal conspiracy, but they didn’t rule out influence. The 2021 Intelligence Community report confirmed Putin authorized 2020 election interference to favor Trump, building on 2016 efforts. Trump’s pursuit of a Moscow Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, potentially worth hundreds of millions, gave Putin leverage—financial incentive and blackmail potential if exposed. His refusal to release tax returns adds opacity, possibly hiding such ties. The missing binder of Russia intelligence from his term’s end, noted by *Reuters*, raises further questions about what he might conceal.
Alternative explanations exist: Trump’s pro-Russia stance could stem from ideological affinity (admiration for “strongmen”), naivety, or a transactional worldview prioritizing personal gain over geopolitics. His attacks on allies might reflect genuine isolationism rather than Kremlin direction. Yet these don’t fully account for the consistency of his behavior over decades, the depth of financial ties, or his secrecy around Putin interactions. The Kremlin’s known tactics—exploiting greed, ego, and kompromat—align with Trump’s vulnerabilities, as noted by ex-CIA officer Rolf Mowatt-Larssen in *The Washington Post*.
Weighing this, the evidence suggests a significant likelihood of compromise, though certainty is impossible without classified data (e.g., intercepted communications or financial records). Adjusting for unknowns and alternative motives, I estimate a 70-90% likelihood that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the cumulative weight of historical ties, financial incentives, and his unwavering refusal to criticize Putin—unmatched by any modern U.S. president—against his readiness to undermine allies. The range reflects residual uncertainty, but the trend is clear: the dots connect more convincingly toward compromise than coincidence.
