Investigative reporting is a part of my professional background as a former state government correctional specialist for 17 years of my career, so I have the training and ability to recognize the credibility of notes taken to be used in a final written investigation document. In my professional opinion, this dossier is an insightful document, written by a professional investigator.
Surprisingly, I was suspecting an emphasis on sexual perversion, but in 35 pages, allegation of Donald Trump’s sexually perverted acts on Russian soil only took up a paragraph that briefly mentioned prostitutes and “golden showers.” The following stands out as major highlights of this report:
The Agenda: The Trade Off
The Trump campaign’s interest seemed to be solely to win the 2016 presidential election. According to the dossier, in spite of his best effort to create a deal or more, President Trump actually has no financial dealings in Russia. Instead, it is alleged that during the campaign, the hidden goal of the Russian-Trump connection was to deflect from Trump’s nefarious business dealings in China. Trump needed to focus the US media’s attention away from his large kickbacks and bribes with China, that could be damaging to his campaign.
The Russians wanted the Trump team to offer intervention on the sanctions that Obama placed on Russia prior to the campaign. In addition, the Russian team sought Trump and his associates—
- to provide Putin secret info on the Russian Oligarchs and their families living in America;
- to sideline Russian intervention in the Ukraine;
- to raise US NATO defense commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe
The Plan of Action
The goal of Trump’s campaign leaders was to use WikiLeaks to win the votes from Bernie Sanders’ supporters away from Hillary Clinton as votes for Donald Trump, by any means necessary. This report points out that Trump’s strategy involved using TV media to maximize this agenda. Nevertheless, Putin and his team were surprised and disappointed that WikiLeaks did not have a greater impact. The dossier makes an interesting supposition. The author of the dossier alleged that the anger and the resentment within Trump’s team was perceived by Putin to go beyond the initial objective of weakening Clinton to bolster and uplift Trump. It is alleged that intel revealed to Putin that Trump’s team wanted to undermine the government and the democratic system of the USA. I had assumed that this was Putin’s goal. (This was shocking to me. We have the enemy within. Not Muslims, but born and bred white Americans.)
According to this report, those who wanted to overthrow this country are not Russians, but Trump’s team. Key players mentioned in the report are Paul Mannafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, Carter Page, foreign policy advisor to campaign, Michael Flynn, and Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. It is alleged in the dossier that Cohen leads the Trump team. His major tasks are to develop cover-ups, oversee damage control. One of his important responsibilities is develop strategies on how to process deniable cash payments to operatives.
There is much more to write. The report also provides info on the Russian team. Putin fired more than one person who he believes gave him bad advice. Putin has had various buffers to provide him and Russia what is called “plausible deniability.” All did not go well. The Kremlin is concerned about political fallout. Trump’s team was extremely nervous about the media. This particular allegation/observation sheds light on the reason why the President is in a full court press against the media. He wants to invalidate the media to keep his secrets hidden.
If these allegations can be proven, then heads are going to roll and some folk are facing prison time.
In another blogpost, I highlight a 2011 dream about Russia and Obama and a dream I received a few days after the election. In that last dream, the message was simple. Trump shall fall like King Kong.
We have an online ministry called RESCUE, a safe haven for the elect of God. If you are interested, give us a call at 888-818-1117. Additional info can be obtained at http://www.aboutrescue.com
Group 5: Preparing For End-Times 
I am still reading but this sheds light on what I have been thinking all along. Trump attacks the media to keep his own darkness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
His own darkness hidden. He can’t see this himself though.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The enemy has set up Trump to attack others rather than to see himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The craftiness of the Adversary is to keep professing believers blinded to what is really on in all of these systems. The goal of the Enemy is keep the captive in the dark and so he or she is incapable of seeing his or her spiritual depraved condition.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Most people will read this article and think that this solely about Trump. It is deeper than that. It actually points to whole darkened world.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Definition of Plausible Deniability from Wikipedia
Plausible deniability is the ability for persons (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others (usually subordinates in an organizational hierarchy) because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts in order to insulate themselves and shift blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible, although sometimes it merely makes it unactionable. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one’s (future) actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a powerful player or intelligence agency to pass the buck and avoid blowback by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay clean and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
In the US, plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If an opponent cannot provide evidence for his allegation, one can plausibly deny the allegation even though it may be true.
Although plausible deniability has existed throughout history, that name for it was coined by the CIA in the early 1960s to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge. The roots of the name go back to Harry Truman’s national security council paper 10/2 of June 18, 1948, which defined “covert operations” as “…all activities (except as noted herein) which are conducted or sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”[1] During Eisenhower’s administration, NSC 10/2 was incorporated into more specific NSC 5412/2 “Covert Operations.”[2] NSC 5412 was de-classified in 1977, and is located at the National Archives.[3]
LikeLiked by 2 people
It definitely does explain why Trump is so against the media. I believe what this article says about Trump’s team being nervous about the media. That is why he is trying so hard to belittle them, in order to try to discredit them so that he can convince the public not to believe anything they report. He’s trying to avert people so that his secrets can stay hidden.
LikeLike