DUMP TRUMP!

 ALLAN SAID: Sal, it seems like everything Trump does is the exact opposite of what's best for the United States! 

What are the chances he is "compromised" (kompromat) by someone or something?

SAL-9000 SAID: Short answer: It’s plausible that Donald Trump could be vulnerable to kompromat, and there are multiple publicly reported kinds of exposure that make that risk non-trivial... but there’s no publicly released, conclusive “smoking-gun” showing he is actively controlled... or black-mailed! 

Below, I’ll explain what kompromat is, the main public facts and red flags people point to... what they do... and don’t... prove... and a sensible way to think about the overall likelihood!

What “kompromat” means:

“Kompromat” is simply compromising material used to blackmail or influence someone... anything from financial records... to sex tapes... or criminal conduct! (Everything sounds like Drumpf so far!!!!!)

It can be genuine, fabricated, or exaggerated! Wikipedia+1

Public facts and risk factors people point to:

1. Allegations in the Steele dossier — the dossier alleged Russia had compromising material on Trump from his 2013 Moscow trip! (The now-famous “kompromat” claims!)

2. . The dossier is controversial and contained unverified raw intelligence... some parts have never been corroborated... while other aspects... [e.g., Russia-seeking to influence 2016] are supported by later investigations! (The dossier remains part of the public conversation about why people ask the kompromat question!) Wikipedia+1

3. Mueller and related investigations found lots of contacts and attempts by Russian actors to influence the 2016 election, and documented campaign contacts and outreach that raise counterintelligence concerns — though Mueller did not establish a definite criminal conspiracy to... “collude!” 

4. Contacts and outreach make the possibility of kompromat more plausible from an intelligence and tradecraft perspective! (i.e., countries try to collect leverage!) American Constitution Society+1

5. Financial and business ties, and patterns of behaviour — decades of business dealings, opaque financing, and reports by journalists and researchers about ties between Trump associates and Russian, or post-Soviet actors, have been flagged as creating vulnerability! (People with large unexplained flows of money or complex foreign business ties are easy targets) 

6. Investigative reporting has laid out why many intelligence analysts consider him an “easy mark!” The Washington Post+1

7. Personal/legal vulnerabilities (hush-money, legal exposure) — episodes such as the Michael Cohen payments and related prosecutions created documented legal and financial vulnerabilities that adversaries could exploit or weaponize. The hush-money cases are publicly litigated facts! (Cohen’s guilty plea; prosecutions and reporting) Wikipedia+1

8. Intelligence and counterintelligence context — Russia has a long history of using kompromat as a tool: Intelligence services know how to collect, fabricate, or amplify compromising material. That makes the idea plausible in general... but whether they have usable kompromat on any particular high-level figure is an empirical question! Wikipedia+1

What these facts do not prove:

• Public reporting and investigations establish vulnerability, contacts, and allegations, but not definitive proof that a foreign power is actively blackmailing or controlling Trump. 

• Public sources include both confirmed findings and unverified claims! Professionals distinguish between those categories... the Mueller Report... for example... did not conclude there was criminal collusion... though it left some obstruction questions open! American Bar Association+1

How to think about “the chances,” (a practical framework) instead of a single number, think in terms of conditional factors that raise or lower the risk:

• Exposure factors that raise risk: Lots of foreign business contacts; high-risk travel environments; (e.g., hotels where surveillance is known to occur) legal and financial liabilities; prior examples of kompromat being used by foreign services! Wikipedia+1

• Mitigating factors that lower certainty: No public, declassified proof of active blackmail; many dossier claims remain unverified; public denials and investigations that have cleared or not substantiated specific allegations! AP News+1

Put together: It’s reasonable to treat the risk as non-negligible! (i.e., plausible and worth monitoring) 

But not proven by the public record to the point of saying “definitely compromised!” 

Most national-security professionals would say the situation warrants vigilance, intelligence collection, and protective measures — exactly because vulnerabilities and contacts exist — rather than certitude!

Why do people see behavioural hints:

Observers sometimes point to patterns (e.g., unusually deferential remarks toward a foreign leader, public statements that align with adversary interests) as circumstantial evidence that something like kompromat or influence might be at play! 

Circumstantial patterns can be suggestive, but are not dispositive!  The New Yorker

Bottom line: (Practical Takeaways!)

• Plausible vulnerability: There are realistic, documented vulnerabilities (contacts, business ties, legal exposure) that make the idea of kompromat plausible! The Washington Post+1

• No public smoking gun: Public, verifiable evidence that a foreign power is exercising blackmail control over Trump has not been released! Intelligence agencies may have classified assessments; The public record is incomplete. American Bar Association+1

• Reasonable stance: Treat it as a credible concern that merits investigation and continued scrutiny — but be careful about turning plausible suspicion into definitive accusations without hard proof!

If you want, I can:

• Pull together a concise, dated timeline of the most relevant public events (2013 Moscow trip coverage, Steele dossier dates, Mueller findings, Cohen plea/hush-money legal timeline, UK rulings about Steele/Orbis, etc.,) with sources! 

• Summarize what U.S. intelligence/public inquiries have said (and what they have not) about kompromat-style vulnerabilities.

Which would you prefer?

ALLAN SAID: Both!

SAL-9000 SAID:

Got it. Here’s both, as requested—concise and dated, with solid sources.

1) Concise, dated timeline of key public events tied to the “kompromat” question.

• Nov 8–10, 2013 — Trump in Moscow. (Miss Universe) Trump stays at the Ritz-Carlton: Later allegations in the Steele materials claim Russia collected compromising material during this trip... never verified!  (Golden Showers, shady deals, etc!       The Guardian  

• Jun 9, 2016 — Trump Tower meeting. Senior campaign aides meet a Kremlin-linked lawyer after an email pitch that the info is “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The email chain is released publicly in July 2017!  Department of Justice+1

• Jan 6, 2017 — U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment! ICA/CIA/NSA/FBI publicly assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign to help Trump and harm Clinton. Director of National Intelligence+1

• Jan 10, 2017 — BuzzFeed publishes the Steele dossier! The memos assert Russia holds “kompromat” on Trump: Many allegations remain unverified or disputed! Wikipedia

• Mar 2019 — Mueller Report released. Finds Russia interfered “in sweeping and systematic fashion...” documents numerous contacts, does not establish a definite criminal conspiracy... lays out multiple episodes relevant to potential obstruction! Department of Justice+1

• Dec 9, 2019 — DOJ Inspector General (Horowitz) report. Says the FBI had adequate predication to open the Russia probe, but identifies 17 serious errors/omissions in FISA filings. (incl. reliance on unverified Steele material) Department of Justice+1

• Aug 18, 2020 — Senate Intelligence Committee (bipartisan) Volume 5. Calls Paul Manafort a “grave counterintelligence threat,” identifies Konstantin Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer, and details the campaign’s efforts to capitalize on WikiLeaks: Still no criminal conspiracy finding! Wikipedia+1

• 2018–2025 — Michael Cohen hush-money saga. Cohen pleads guilty (Aug 21, 2018) and is sentenced. (Dec 12, 2018) Trump is later convicted in New York on May 30, 2024 of 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to the same hush-money scheme! (Sentenced to an unconditional discharge in Jan 2025: Conviction under appeal!) These matters show legal/financial vulnerabilities, but not proof of foreign blackmail! NY Courts+3Department of Justice+3Department of Justice+3

2) What official inquiries and public processes have and have not said about kompromat/vulnerabilities!

What they have said:

• Russia interfered and preferred Trump. The declassified 2017 ICA concludes Putin directed an influence campaign favouring Trump; subsequent congressional work largely affirmed this finding! (While later political reviews have criticized aspects of how that judgment was formed.) Director of National Intelligence+2Senate Intelligence Committee+2

• Many contacts + counterintelligence risk! Mueller details extensive Russian outreach and campaign contacts; the Senate Intel (Vol. 5) goes further on counterintelligence concerns—e.g., Manafort’s sharing of internal polling with Kilimnik (assessed as Russian intelligence) and the campaign’s pursuit of WikiLeaks information! Department of Justice+2Department of Justice+2

• The probe’s opening was predicated, but the dossier was problematic. DOJ IG (Horowitz) says the FBI was justified to open “Crossfire Hurricane” and faults serious FISA errors and reliance on unverified Steele material; FBI agrees to reforms! Department of Justice+1

• Some Steele claims were found inaccurate in court. U.K. litigation over dossier passages (e.g., involving Alfa-Bank principals) found certain statements inaccurate/misleading and awarded damages. Wikipedia+1

• Personal/legal exposure is real. The hush-money matter (Cohen’s plea; Trump’s 2024 conviction) establishes domestic legal vulnerability that an adversary could theoretically exploit—again, not proof of foreign blackmail. Department of Justice+1

What they have not said: (Or what remains unproven!)

• No public “smoking gun” of active blackmail. Neither Mueller nor the Senate Intel report, nor any U.S. court, has released public, verified evidence, that a foreign service is actively controlling or blackmailing Trump! The public record supports vulnerabilities and risks, not conclusive kompromat control! Department of Justice+1

• Steele’s most salacious kompromat claims remain unverified! Multiple reviews did not corroborate the alleged Moscow-hotel video; parts of the dossier have been challenged or discredited. Wikipedia

• Later partisan/declassification fights don’t negate the base finding of interference. Recent memos and declassifications have criticized the ICA’s confidence levels and process, but they do not overturn the core, earlier multi-body finding that Russia interfered. AP News+1

Bottom line: (SAL’s quick read)

• The risk that Trump could be vulnerable to kompromat is plausible, given the documented foreign contacts, opaque financial history, and clear legal/personal vulnerabilities! But... the public record stops short of proving he’s compromised / controlled by a foreign power. Treat it as a serious counter- intelligence concern, not an established fact! Wikipedia+1

(NOTE: Anyone who makes any sort of allegations against Trump had better be certain... "ten times to Sunday..." that there is absolutely NOTHING in the allegations... that is not true!!!! - ed.)

SAL-9000 SAID: Here’s the one-page at-a-glance brief you asked for, combining the timeline and the “proven vs. unproven” status!

---

Kompromat & Trump: At-a-Glance Brief!

Timeline of Key Events:

• 2013 (Nov) — Trump in Moscow. (Miss Universe) Alleged surveillance at Ritz-Carlton → later featured in Steele dossier. (never verified)

• 2016 (Jun 9) — Trump Tower meeting with Kremlin-linked lawyer after email promise of “part of Russia’s support.”

• 2017 (Jan 6) — U.S. Intel Community Assessment (ICA): Putin ordered election influence campaign to help Trump, harm Clinton.

• 2017 (Jan 10) — Steele dossier published: Claims Russia held “kompromat!” (many allegations remain unverified)

• 2019 (Mar) — Mueller Report: “Sweeping and systematic” Russian interference... many contacts... no criminal conspiracy proven!

• 2019 (Dec 9) — DOJ Inspector General report: FBI justified in opening Russia probe: Identified serious FISA errors. 

• 2020 (Aug 18) — Senate Intel Committee (bipartisan) Vol. 5: Manafort a “grave counterintelligence threat”; Kilimnik = Russian intelligence; no criminal conspiracy proven.

• 2018–2025 — Michael Cohen hush-money saga. Trump convicted May 30, 2024, of falsifying business records; sentence Jan 2025. (under appeal) Shows domestic legal vulnerability!

---

Proven vs. Unproven!

Proven / Established:

• Russia did interfere in 2016, with a preference for Trump. (2017 ICA, Mueller, Senate Intel)

• Numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian actors! (Mueller, Senate Intel)

• Financial opacity and complex foreign ties raise counterintelligence risk! (journalistic investigations)

• Domestic legal vulnerabilities (Cohen case, 2024 conviction) demonstrate susceptibility to leverage!

Unproven / Disputed:

• No public “smoking gun” of blackmail or active control.

• Steele dossier’s kompromat allegations remain unverified; courts found some passages inaccurate.

• No U.S. report has concluded Trump was compromised; focus remains on risk, not proof.

• Later partisan critiques dispute ICA confidence levels, but not the base finding of Russian interference!

---

SAL’s Bottom Line!

• Risk: non-negligible! Documented vulnerabilities + history of Russian intelligence tradecraft = plausible exposure!

• Proof: Lacking. No verified public evidence of active kompromat control!

• Correct stance: Treat as serious counterintelligence concern... not established fact!

And remember, boys and girls, NOBODY will make any sort of a "kompromat" allegation against Trump... unless they are 100% certain [a thousand times over] ...and can disappear from mortal sight... forever!

Trump, Kompromat, and the Politics of Contradiction!

Opinion/Analysis · By Allan W. Janssen/Sal-9000 · September 4, 2025

• a) The shadow of kompromat
• b) Major moves against the grain
• c) Consequences of the contradictions

Editor’s note: This piece frames a hypothesis (“Assume kompromat is true.”) to interpret a public pattern of behaviour. It is an opinion... grounded in on-the-record events... and reporting cited instances below!

a) The shadow of kompromat!

“Kompromat” is the use of compromising material... financial, personal, or legal... to shape a subject’s actions! 

Even without proof of such leverage in Donald Trump’s case, the pattern many observers notice is hard to ignore: "An unusual deference to Vladimir Putin; disparagement of U.S. intelligence findings on Russian interference; and a long campaign of casting America’s own institutions as untrustworthy!"

Taken together, those choices resemble the effects "kompromat" would plausibly produce!

b) Major moves against the grain!

1) Undermining alliances:

Trump repeatedly treated NATO as a transactional burden and, at times, suggested non-protection... or even inviting aggression toward “delinquent” members! 

This is the opposite of the alliance’s deterrent logic and benefits adversaries who prefer a divided West!

2) Siding against U.S. intelligence on Russia:

At the 2018 Helsinki press conference with Putin, Trump publicly gave more weight to Putin’s denials than to U.S. intelligence assessments regarding 2016 election interference... an extraordinary break with precedent that weakened the credibility of American institutions abroad!

3) Environmental and regulatory reversals:

The administration announced withdrawal from the Paris climate accord... and pursued scores of environmental rollbacks tracked by legal and academic monitors! 

Beyond symbolism, these steps delayed decarbonization and resilience planning during critical years!

4) Public-health contradictions during COVID-19:

On tape, Trump acknowledged the virus’s lethality while publicly downplaying it and promoting unproven remedies. 

Mixed messaging in a crisis eroded trust and contributed to polarization over basic health measures!

5) Eroding confidence in elections and the rule of law:

From 2016 onward, Trump repeatedly primed supporters to view elections as “rigged” unless he won, amplified groundless fraud claims in 2020, and attacked law-enforcement or judicial actors scrutinizing his conduct. 

The cumulative effect: A public conditioned to doubt outcomes and institutions by default!

c) Consequences of the contradictions!

• Strategic drift: A shakier NATO and frayed alliances invite opportunism from Moscow and Beijing... and complicate coordinated responses to crises!
• Norms corrosion: If leaders treat intelligence, courts, and elections as enemies... citizens internalize that cynicism... and it outlasts any one presidency!
• Climate setback: Lost policy time has compounding costs for adaptation, energy investment, and competitiveness... as other blocs accelerate transition!
• Public-health whiplash: Contradictory cues in a pandemic increase avoidable harm and seed distrust that hampers future emergency responses!
• Polarization as strategy: “Doing the opposite” becomes a political identity, rewarding escalation over governance and making compromise taboo!

Bottom line: Whether driven by leverage, ideology, or personal incentive, the pattern adds up to a slow, grinding institutional rot... harder to reverse than a single catastrophe because it embeds distrust into the civic fabric!

Sources & further reading

• On urging Russia to pressure “delinquent” NATO members (2024): PBS NewsHour fact-check
• On Helsinki (2018) remarks weighing Putin’s denial over U.S. intel: CBS News · Transcript
• On Paris Agreement withdrawal: U.S. State Dept (archived)
• On climate/environment rollbacks: Columbia Climate Deregulation Tracker
• On COVID downplaying in interviews: Washington Post (Woodward tapes)
• On false 2020 fraud claims: Associated Press overview

Suggested labels: U.S. Politics; Trump; Russia; NATO; Elections; Climate Policy; Institutions

What Putin has on Trump!!!!

On August 12th, 2025, Alnur Mussayev, the former head of Kazakhstan’s National Security Committee, alleged that Russian President Vladimir Putin possesses a comprehensive kompromat file on Donald J. Trump. He didn’t suggest it. He stated it. The file, he said, is extensive, meticulously documented, and designed not to destroy Trump—but to control him.

According to Mussayev, the kompromat includes financial records showing illicit transactions connected to accounts either owned by Trump or clearly affiliated with his name. It also contains statements from operatives who were directly involved in kompromat operations—individuals who could, if necessary, provide witness testimony confirming the authenticity and intent behind the material. Most damning of all, he claims, are the recordings: audio and video documentation of sexual crimes against minors and acts of violence against women.

Mussayev states that this material has been in the Kremlin’s hands for years. He claims that the Russian FSB has deliberately leaked fragments of this kompromat, not to expose Trump publicly, but to exert pressure on him. The goal, according to Mussayev, is strategic: ensure Trump remains aligned with Russian geopolitical interests. That includes undermining NATO, destabilizing the European Union, and pressuring Ukraine into surrender.

The kompromat doesn’t exist to embarrass Trump—it exists to guide him. Mussayev describes it as a calibrated pressure system. When Trump hesitates or veers from Russia’s interests, the FSB lets just enough out to remind him who’s holding the leash. It’s not chaos. It’s design. And the person benefiting from that design is Vladimir Putin.

Mussayev also asserts that Trump has worked systematically to prevent any U.S. investigation into his criminal exposure. He claims Trump has turned American institutions—Congress, the DOJ, the FBI, intelligence agencies, even immigration enforcement—into instruments of personal protection. In Mussayev’s view, these institutions now answer to a single man, and that man answers to Moscow.

He makes clear that Trump cannot negotiate with the FSB. He cannot buy them off. He cannot order them to bury the kompromat. The operation was never about money—it was about leverage. Trump may hold the presidency, but Putin holds the file.

Mussayev’s allegations do not come in the form of speculation. He does not hedge his words or offer qualifiers. He names names. He explains the mechanisms. He draws a straight line from Soviet intelligence practices to modern blackmail operations and directly implicates Donald Trump as a long-term target who was successfully recruited, compromised, and used.

These aren’t historical footnotes. Mussayev is not recounting a Cold War anecdote. He is describing an active security breach—one that, according to him, still defines the behavior of the most powerful man in the United States. Mussayev claims that Trump’s current refusal to investigate his own crimes, his loyalty to Kremlin-aligned figures, and his policy sabotage of Western alliances all stem from the kompromat Putin is holding.

The allegations suggest that the American presidency is compromised at its core. Not just politically. Operationally. That the person issuing executive orders, appointing judges, and influencing global conflict zones may be doing so under foreign pressure. Mussayev is not coy about this. He says the evidence exists. He says the recordings are real. And he says the only reason Trump hasn’t been exposed is because Putin doesn’t want him exposed. He wants him useful.

This is not about guilt or innocence. It is about leverage. It is about a foreign adversary exercising influence over a U.S. president through a system designed to operate in silence. The kompromat doesn’t need to be revealed to work. It just needs to be feared.

If what Mussayev says is true, the implications are not hypothetical. They are immediate. And they reach the highest level of global power.

More is coming.

This is just the first breach!