Russian intelligence services, acting on Donald Trump’s well known obsession with sex, arranged an evening for him with a bevy of hookers, with hidden cameras and microphones recording all the action. Trump is allegedly seen on the video engaged in “golden showers,” a sex act involving urine.

The Kremlin has video footage of Trump engaging in the sex act on the same hotel bed in Moscow that Barack and Michelle Obama had previously slept in.

The President-elect denied the credibility of the memos calling them “FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!” on his bully pulpit overnight.

The 35 pages of memos were compiled by a former British intelligence officer and can be read in full at The Cedar Rapids Defender. The documents have been in possession of U.S. officials for months and were published yesterday by Buzzfeed, who acknowledges the documents contain some errors and details that would be impossible to vet individually.

The memos are reprinted here in their original form and contain numerous spelling and syntax errors.





Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting
at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage 5

divisions in western alliance

plits and

So far TRUMP has declined various sweetener real estate business deals
offered him in Russia in order to further the Kremlin?s cultivation of him.
However he and his inner circle have accepted a regular ?ow of
intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other

political rivals

Former top Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has compromised
TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to
blackmail him. According to several knowledgeable sources, his conduct
in Moscow has included perverted sexual acts which have been

arranged/ monitored by the FSB

A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated
by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly
comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and
intercepted phone calls rather than any embarrassing conduct. The
dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on
orders. However it has not as yet been distributed abroad, including to

TRUMP. Russian intentions for its deployment still unclear


1. Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian
intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian
authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican
presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years. Source
asserted that the TRUMP operation was both supported and directed by
Russian President Vladimir PUTIN. Its aim was to sow discord and



both within the US itself, but more especially Within the
Transatlantic alliance which was Viewed as inimical to Russia’s inte
Source c, a senior Russian financial olricial said the Tltqu operation
should be seen in terms oi desire to return to Nineteenth
Century ‘Great Power’ politlL’S anchored upon countries’ interests rather
than the idealsrbased international order established after World War
Two, S/he had overheard talking In way to close associates on

several occasions.

res .

in terms oispecihcs, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been ieedmg
TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on lus opponents, including
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years
[see more below]. This was confirmed by Source a close associate of
TRUMP who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow, and
who reported, also in Tune 2016, that this Russian intelligence had been
“very helpful”. The Kremlln’s cultivation operation on TRUMP also had

comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development
business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World
Cup soccer tournament, However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP

had not taken up any ofthese.

However, there were other aspects to TRUMP’s engagement with the
Russian authorities. One which had borne fruit for them was to exploit
personal obsesslons and sexual perversion in order to obtain
suitable ‘kompromat’ [compromising material] on him. According to
Source D, where s/he had been present, (perverted) conduct in
Moscow included hiring the presidential suite ofthe Ritz Carlton Hotel,
where he knew President and OBAMA {whom he hated] had stayed
on one ottherr orhcial trips to Russia, and deriling the bed where they had
slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’
(urination) show in front of him. The hotel was known to be under FSE
control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms

to record anything they wanted to.

The Moscow Ritz Carlt involvin TRUMP reported above was
confirmed by
who said that s/he and several ofthe Staffwere aware ofit att time
and subsequently. S/he believed it had happened in 2013. Source
provided an introduction for a company ethnic Russian operative to
Source F, a female staffer at the hotel when TRUMP had stayed there, who
also confirmed the story. Speaking separately in lune 2016, Source [the
former top level Russian intelligence officer) asserted that
unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the
authorities there with enough embarrassing material on the now
Republican presidential candidate to be able to blackmail him if they so

Asked about the Kremlin’s reported intelligence feed to TRUMP over
recent years and rumours about a Russian dossier of’kornpromat’ on



Hillary CLINTON (being circulated), Source confirmed the file’s
existence. S/he confided in a trusted compatriot that it had been collated
by Department ofthe FSB for many years, dating back to her husband

Bill?s presidency, and comprised mainly eavesdropped conversations of
various sorts rather than details/evidence of unorthodox or

embarrassing behavior. Some ofthe conversations were from bugged
comments CLINTON had made on her various trips to Russia and focused
‘tion on various

on things she had said which contradicted her current p051
issues. Others were most probably from phone intercepts.

or Kremlin official, confided

6. Continuing on this theme, Source G, a seni

that the CLINTON dossier was controlled exclusively by chief
spokesman, Dmitriy PESKOV, who was responsible for
compiling/handling it on the explicit instructions of PUTIN himself. The
dossier however had not as yet been made available abroad, including to
TRUMP or his campaign team. At present it was unclear what

intentions were in this regard.

20 June 2016






– Russia has extensive programme of state-sponsored offensive cyber
operations. External targets include foreign governments and big
corporations, especially banks. FSB leads on cyber within Russian
apparatus. Limited success in attacking top foreign targets like G7
governments, security services and but much more on second tier
ones through IT back doors, using corporate and other visitors to Russia

– FSB often uses coercion and blackmail to recruit most capable cyber
operatives in Russia into its state?sponsored programmes. Heavy use also,
both wittingly and unwittingly, of CIS emigres working in western
corporations and ethnic Russians employed by neighbouring

governments e.g. Latvia

– Example cited of successful Russian cyber operation targeting senior
Western business visitor. Provided back door into important Western


– Example given of US citizen of Russian origin approached by FSB and
offered incentive of “investment” in his business when visiting Moscow.

– Problems however for Russian authorities themselves in countering local
hackers and cyber criminals, operating outside state control. Central Bank
claims there were over 20 serious attacks on correspondent accounts
held by CBR in 2015, comprising Roubles several billion in fraud

– Some details given of leading non-state Russian cyber criminal groups


1. Speaking in June 2016, a number of Russian figures with a detailed
knowledge of national cyber crime, both state-sponsored and otherwise,
outlined the current situation in this area. A former senior intelligence
of?cer divided Russian state-sponsored offensive cyber operations into
four categories (in order of priority):- targeting foreign, especially



penetrating leading foreign business corporations,

monitoring of the elite; and attacking political

western governments;

especially banks; domesti
opponents both at home and abroad. The former intelligence 0

reported that the Federal Security Service (FSB) was the lead I
organization within the Russian state apparatus for cyber operations.

In terms ofthe success of Russian offensive cyber operations to date, a
that there had been only limited

foreign targets. These comprised

ty and intelligence
for this shortfall,
in attacking

senior government figure reported
success in penetrating the ?first tier’
western (especially G7 and NATO) governments, securi
services and central banks, and the lFls. To compensate
massive effort had been invested, with much greater success,
the “secondary targets”, particularly western private banks and the
governments of smaller states allied to the West. S/he mentioned Latvxa

in this regard. Hundreds ofagents, either consciously cooperating with

the FSB or whose personal and professional IT systems had been
unwittingly compromised, were recruited. Many were people who had
ethnic and family ties to Russia and or had been incentivized financially
to cooperate. Such people often would receive monetary inducements or
contractual favours from the Russian state or its agents in return. This
had created dif?culties for parts of the Russian state apparatus in
obliging/indulging them e.g. the Central Bank of Russia knowingly having
to cover up for such agents’ money laundering operations through the

Russian financial system.

In terms of the SB’s recruitment of capable cyber operatives to carry out
its, ideally deniable, offensive cyber operations, a Russian IT specialist
with direct knowledge reported in June 2016 that this was often done
using coercion and blackmail. In terms of ?foreign’ agents, the FSB was
approaching US citizens of Russian (Jewish) origin on business trips to
Russia. In one case a US citizen of Russian ethnicity had been visiting
Moscow to attract investors in his new information technology program.
The FSB clearly knew this and had offered to provide seed capital to this
person in return for them being able to access and modify his IP, with a
view to targeting priority foreign targets by planting a Trojan virus in the
software. The US visitor was told this was common practice. The FSB also
had implied significant operational success as a result of installing cheap
Russian IT games containing their own malware unwittingly by targets

on their PCs and other platforms.

In a more advanced and successful FSB operation, an IT operator inside a
leading Russian SOE, who previously had been employed on conventional
(defensive) IT work there, had been under instruction for the last year to
conduct an offensive cyber operation against a foreign director of the
company. Although the latter was apparently an infrequent visitor to
Russia, the FSB now successfully had penetrated his personal IT and
through this had managed to access various important institutions in the

West through the back door.



5. In terms ofother technical IT platforms, an FSB cyber operative flagged
up the ‘Telegram’ enciphered commercial system as having been of
especial concern and therefore heavily targeted by the FSB, not least
because it was used frequently by Russian internal political activists and
oppositionists. His/her understanding was that the FSB now successfully
had cracked this communications software and therefore it was no longer

secure to use.

6. The senior Russian government figure cited above also reported that
non-state sponsored cyber crime was becoming an increasing problem
inside Russia for the government and authorities there. The Central Bank
of Russia claimed that in 2015 alone there had been more than 20
attempts at serious cyber embezzlement of money from corresponding
accounts held there, comprising several billions Roubles. More generally,
s/he understood there were circa 15 major organised crime groups in the
country involved in cyber crime, all ofwhich continued to operate largely
outside state and FSB control. These included the so-called ?Anunak?,
‘Buktrap’ and ?Metel? organisations.

26 July 2015






– Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between campaign
team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian
diplomatic staffbased in the US

– TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-
mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability

– Agreed exchange of information established in both directions.
team using moles within DNC and hackers in the US as well as outside in
Russia. PUTIN motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary CLINTON. Russians
receiving intel from team on Russian oligarchs and their families

in US

– Mechanism for transmitting this intelligence involves ?pension?
disbursements to Russian emigres living in US as cover, using consular
officials in New York, DC and Miami

– Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican
campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman to mask more
extensive corrupt business ties to China and other emerging countries


1. Speaking in con?dence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source B, an
ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate
Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of
co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was
managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate?s campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter
PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest
in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom
President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.

2. Inter alia, Source E, acknowledged that the Russian regime had been

behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from
the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform.



The reason for using WikiLeaks was “plausible deniability? and the
operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of
TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team. In return the TRUMP
team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a
campaign issue and to raise defence commitments in the
Baltics and Eastern Europe to de?ect attention away from Ukraine, 3
priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterise the subject.

In the wider context campaign/Kremlin co-operation, Source

claimed that the intelligence network being used against CLINTON
comprised three elements. there were agents/facilitators within
the Democratic Party structure itself; secondly Russian ?migr? and
associated offensive cyber operators based in the and thirdly, state-
sponsored cyber operatives working in Russia. All three elements had
played an important role to date. On the mechanism for rewarding
relevant assets based in the US, and effecting a two-way ?ow of
intelligence and other useful information, Source claimed that Russian
diplomatic staff in key cities such as New York, Washington DC and
Miami were using the ?migr? ?pension? distribution system as cover. The

operation therefore depended on key people in the US Russian ?migr?
community for its success. Tens ofthousands of dollars were involved.

In terms of the intelligence ?ow from the TRUMP team to Russia, Source
reported that much of this concerned the activities of business
oligarchs and their families? activities and assets in the US, with which

PUTIN and the Kremlin seemed preoccupied.

Commenting on the negative media publicity surrounding alleged
Russian interference in the US election campaign in support of TRUMP,
Source said he understood that the Republican candidate and his team
were relatively relaxed about this because it de?ected media and the
Democrats? attention away from TRUMP’s business dealings in China and
other emerging markets. Unlike in Russia, these were substantial and
involved the payment of large bribes and kickbacks which, were they to
become public, would be potentially very damaging to their campaign.

Finally, regarding claimed minimal investment profile in Russia,
a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want
of trying. previous efforts had included exploring the real estate
sector in St Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end TRUMP had had
to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local
prostitutes rather than business success.






TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE holds secret meetings in Moscow with

SECHIN and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN

raises issues of future bilateral US-Russia energy co-operation
and associated lifting ofwestern sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

PAGE non-committal in response

DIVEYKIN discusses release of Russian dossier of’kompromat? on
TRUMP’s opponent, Hillary CLINTON, but also hints at Kremlin

possession ofsuch material on TRUMP

1. Speaking in July 2016, a Russian source close to Rosneft President, PUTIN

close associate and US-sanctioned individual, Igor SECHIN, confided the
details of a recent secret meeting between him and visiting Foreign
Affairs Advisor to Republican presidential candidate Donald TRUMP,

Carter PAGE.

According to SECHIN’s associate, the Rosneft President (CEO) had raised

with PAGE the issues of future bilateral energy cooperation and
prospects for an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western
sanctions against Russia. PAGE had reacted positively to this demarche
by SECHIN but had been generally non-committal in response.

Speaking separately, also in July 2016, an of?cial close to Presidential
Administration Head, S. IVANOV, con?ded in a compatriot that a senior
colleague in the Internal Political Department of the PA, DIVYEKIN (nfd)

also had met secretly with PAGE on his recent visit. Their agenda had

included DIVEYKIN raising a dossier of ?kompromat? the Kremlin
possessed on Democratic presidential rival, Hillary CLINTON,

and its possible release to the Republican?s campaign team.

However, the Kremlin of?cial close to S. added that s/he believed
DIVEYKIN also had hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian
leadership also had ?kompromat? on TRUMP which the latter should bear

in mind in his dealings with them.








Kremlin concerned that political fallout from DNC e-mail hacking operation is spiralling
out of control. Extreme nervousness among associates as result of negative
media attention/accusations

Russians meanwhile keen to cool situation and maintain ?plausible deniability? of
existing /ongoing and operations. Therefore unlikely to be
any ratcheting up offensive plays in immediate future

Source close to TRUMP campaign however confirms regular exchange with Kremlin
has existed for at least 8 years, including intelligence fed back to Russia on oligarchs?
activities in US

Russians apparently have promised not to use ?kompromat? they hold on TRUMP as
leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team

Speaking in confidence to a trusted associate in late July 2016, a Russian ?migr? figure
close to the Republican US presidential candidate Donald campaign team
commented on the fallout from publicity surrounding the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) e-mail hacking scandal. The ?migr? said there was a high level of
anxiety within the TRUMP team as a result of various accusations levelled against
them and indications from the Kremlin that President PUTIN and others in the
leadership thought things had gone too far now and risked spiralling out of control.

Continuing on this theme, the ?migr? associate of TRUMP opined that the Kremlin
wanted the situation to calm but for ?plausible deniability? to be maintained
concerning its (extensive) and operations. S/he therefore
judged that it was unlikely these would be ratcheted up, at least for the time being.

However, in terms of established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and
the Kremlin, the ?migr? confirmed that an intelligence exchange had been running
between them for at least 8 years. Within this context priority requirement
had been for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading
Russian oligarchs and their families. TRUMP and his associates duly had obtained and
supplied the Kremlin with this information.


4. Finally, the ?migr? said s/he understood the Kremlin had more intelligence on
CLINTON and her campaign but he did not know the details or when or if it would be
released. As far as ‘kompromat? (compromising information) on TRUMP were
concerned, although there was plenty of this, he understood the Kremlin had given its
word that it would not be deployed against the Republican presidential candidate
given how helpful and co-operative his team had been over several years, and
particularly of late.

30 July 2016




Head of PA IVANOV laments Russian intervention in US presidential
election and black PR against CLINTON and the DNC. Vows not to supply
intelligence to Kremlin PR operatives again. Advocates now sitting tight

and denying everything

Presidential spokesman PESKOV the main protagonist in Kremlin
campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON. He is now scared and
fears being made scapegoat by leadership for backlash in US. Problem
compounded by his botched intervention in recent Turkish crisis

Premier of?ce furious over DNC hacking and associated
anti-Russian publicity. Want good relations with US and ability to travel
there. Refusing to support or help cover up after PESKOV

Talk now in Kremlin withdrawing from presidential race
altogether, but this still largely wishful thinking by more liberal elements

in Moscow


1. Speaking in early August 2016, two well-placed and established Kremlin
sources outlined the divisions and backlash in Moscow arising from the
leaking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) e-mails and the wider
operation being conducted in the US. Head of Presidential
Administration, Sergei IVANOV, was angry at the recent turn of events.
He believed the Kremlin “team” involved, led by presidential spokesman
Dmitriy PESKOV, had gone too far in interfering in foreign affairs with
their “elephant in a china shop black IVANOV claimed always to have
opposed the handling and exploitation of intelligence by this PR ?team?.
Following the backlash against such foreign interference in US politics,
IVAN CV was advocating that the only sensible course of action now for

the Russian leadership was to ?sit tight and deny everything?.

2. Continuing on this theme the source close to IVANOV reported that
PESKOV now was ?scared shitless? that he would be scapegoated by
PUTIN and the Kremlin and held responsible for the backlash against
Russian political interference in the US election. IVANOV was determined


to stop PESKOV playing an independent role in relation to the US going
forward and the source fully expected the presidential spokesman now to
lay low. position was not helped by a botched attempt by him
also to interfere in the recent failed coup in Turkey from a government
relations (GR) perspective (no further details).

3. The extent of disquiet and division within Moscow caused by the
backlash against Russian interference in the US election was underlined
by a second source, close to premier Dmitriy MEDVEDEV (DAM). S/he
said the Russian prime minister and his colleagues wanted to have good
relations with the US, regardless ofwho was in power there, and not least
so as to be able to travel there in future, either officially or privately. They
were openly refusing to cover up for PESKOV and others involved in the
operations or to support his counter-attack ofallegations
against the USG for its alleged hacking ofthe Russian government and

state agencies.

4. According to the first source, close to IVANOV, there had been talk in the
Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race
altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his
state and unsuitability for high office. This might not be so
bad for Russia in the circumstances but in the View of the source, it
remained largely wishful thinking on the part ofthose in the regime
opposed to PESKOV and his “botched” operations, at least for the time


5 August 2016




– Head of PA, IVANOV assesses Kremlin intervention in US presidential electionand outlines leadership
thinkingon operational wayforwa rd

– No new lea ks envisaged, as too politically risky, but rather further exploitation of (Wiki Lea ks) material
already disseminated to exacerbate divisions

– Educated US youth to be targeted as and swing vote in attempt to turn them
over to TRUMP

– Russian leadership, including N, celebrating perceived success to date in splitting US hawks and

– Kremlin engaging with several high profile US players, including STEIN, PAGE and (former DIA Director
Michael and funding their recent visits to Moscow


1. Speaking in confidence to a close colleague in early August 2016, Head of the Russian Presidential
Administration (PA), Sergei IVANOV, assessed the impactand results of Kremlin intervention in the US
presidential election to date. Although most commentators believed that the Kremlin was behind the
leaked e-mails, this remained technically deniable. Therefore the Russians would not
risk their position for the time being with new leaked material, even to a third party like WikiLeaks.
Rather the tactics would be to spread rumours and misinformation about the content of what already
had been leaked and make up new content.

2. Continuing on this theme, IVANOV said that the audience to be targeted by such operations was the
educated youth in America as the PA assessed thatthere was still a chancethey could be persuaded to
vote for Republican candidate Donald TRUMP as a protest against the Washington establishment (in
the form of Democratic candidate Hillary CLINTON). The hope was that even if she won, as a resultof
this CLINTON in power would be bogged down in working for internal reconciliation in the US, rather
than being ableto focus on foreign policy which would damage Russia?s interests.This also should give
President PUTIN more room for manoeuvre in the run-upto Russia?s own presidential election i 2018.

3. IVANOV reported that although the Kremlin had underestimated the strength of US media and liberal
reaction to the DNC hackand links to Russia, PUTIN was generally satisfied with the progress
ofthe anti operation to date. He recently had had a drinkwith PUTIN to markthis. In
view, the US had tried to dividethe Russian elite with sanctions butfailed,whiistthey, by contrast, had
succeeded in splittingthe US hawks inimical to Russia and the Washington elite more generally, half of
whom had refused to endorse any presidential ca ndidateas a resultof Russian intervention.

4. Speaking separately, also in early August 2016, a Kremlin official involved in US relations commented
on aspects ofthe Russian operation to date. its goals ha been threefold- USactors
how Moscow could help them,- gathering relevant intelligence; and creating and disseminating
compromisinginformation (?kompromat?). This had involved the Kremlin supporting various US political
figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow. S/he named a delegation from
Lyndon presidential candidateiill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser

Carter and former DIA Director Michael in this regard and as successful In terms of
perceived outcomes.

10 August 2016




– TRUMP campaign insider reports recent DNC e-mail lea ks were aimed at switching SANDERS (protest)
voters awayfrom CLINTON and over to TRUMP

Admits Republican campaign underestimated resulting negative reaction from US liberals, elite and
media and forced to change courseas result

– Need now to turn tables on use of PUTIN as bogeyman in election, although some
resentment at Russian president?s perceived attempt to undermine U56 and system over and above
swinging presidential election


1. Speaking in confidence on 9 August 2016, an ethnic Russian associate of Republican US presidential
candidate Donald TRUMP discussed the reaction inside his ca mp, and revised tactics therein resulting
from recent negative publicity concerning Moscow?s clandestine involvement in the campaign.
associate reported that the a i oflea ki ngthe DNC e-mails to Wi ki Lea ks duringthe Democratic
Convention had been to swingsupporters of Bernie SANDERS awayfrom Hillary CLINTON and across to
TRUMP. These voters were perceived as activistand anti -status quo and anti -esta blishmentand in that
regard sharing ma nyfeatures with the TRUMP campaign, includinga visceral dislike of Hillary CLINTON.
This objective had been conceived and promoted, inter alia, foreign policy adviser Carter
PAGE who had discussed itdirectly with the ethnic Russian associate.

2. Continuing on this theme, the ethnic Russian associate of TRUMP assessed that the problem was that
the TRUMP campaign had underestimated the strength of the negative reaction from liberals and
especially the conservative elite to Russian interference. This was forcinga rethink and a likely change
of tactics. The main objective in the short term was to check Democratic candidate Hillary
successful exploitation of the PUTIN as bogeyman/Russian interference story to tarnish TRUMP and
bolster her own (patriotic) credentials.The TRUMP campaign was focusing on tapping into supportin
the American television media to achievethis, as they reckoned this resource had been underused by

them to date.

3. However, associate also admitted that there was a fair amount of anger and resentment
within the Republican ca ndidate?s team at what was perceived by PUTIN as going beyond the objective
of weakening CLINTON and bolstering TRUMP, by attempting to exploit the situation to undermine the
US government and democratic system more generally. It was unclear at present how this aspect of
the situation would play out inthe weeks to come.

10 August 2016




– Kremlin insider reports TRUMP lawyer secret meeting/ 3 with Kremlin officials in
August 2016 was/ were held in Prague

– Russian parastatal organisation Rossotrudnichestvo used as cover for this liaison and premises
in Czech capital may have been used for the meeting/s

– leading Duma ?gure, KOSACHEV, reportedly involved as ?plausibly deniable”
facilitator and may have participated in the August meeting with COHEN


Speaking to a compatriot and friend on 19 October 2016, a Kremlin insider provided further
details of reported clandestine meeting/ 5 between Republican presidential candidate, Donald
lawyer Michael COHEN and Kremlin representatives in August 2016. Although the
communication between them had to be for security reasons, the Kremlin insider
clearly indicated to his/ her friend that the reported contact/ 3 took place in Prague, Czech



Continuing on this theme, the Kremlin insider highlighted the importance of the Russian
parastatal organisation, Rossotrudnichestvo, in this contact between TRUMP campaign
representative/ 3 and Kremlin of?cials. Rossotrudnichestvo was being used as cover for this
relationship and its office in Prague may well have been used to host the COHEN Russian
Presidential Administration (PA) meeting/ 3. It was considered a “plausibly deniable? vehicle

for this, whilst remaining entirely under Kremlin control.

The Kremlin insider went on to identify leading Duma ?gure, Konstantin
KOSACHEV (Head of the Foreign Relations Committee) as an important figure in the TRUMP
campaign-Kremlin liaison operation. KOSACHEV, also “plausibly deniable? being part of the
Russian legislature rather than executive, had facilitated the contact in Prague and by
implication, may have attended the meeting/ 5 with COHEN there in August.

Company Comment

We reported previously, in our Company Intelligence Report 2016/ 135 of 19 October 2016 from the
same source, that COHEN met of?cials from the PA Legal Department clandestinely in an EU
country in August 2016. This was in order to clean up the mess left behind by western media
revelations of TRUMP ex-campaign manager corrupt relationship with the former
pro-Russian YANUKOVYCH regime in Ukraine and TRUMP foreign policy advisor, Carter
secret meetings in Moscow with senior regime ?gures in July 2016. According to the
Kremlin advisor, these meeting/ 3 were originally scheduled for COHEN in Moscow but shifted to


what was considered an operationally ?soft? EU country when it was judged too compromising
for him to travel to the Russian capital.

20 October 2016






Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he
authorised kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in western
media. Assures Russian President however there is no documentary


PUTIN and Russian leadership remain worried however and sceptical that
YANUKOVYCH has fully covered the traces of these payments to

former campaign manager

Close associate explains reasoning behind recent
resignation. Ukraine revelations played part but others wanted
MANAFORT out for various reasons, especially LEWANDOWSKI who

remains in?uential

Speaking in late August 2016, in the immediate aftermath of Paul
resignation as campaign manager for US Republican
presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, a well-placed Russian figure
reported on a recent meeting between President PUTIN and ex-President
YANUKOVYCH of Ukraine. This had been held in secret on 15 August near
Volgograd, Russia and the western media revelations about MANAFORT
and Ukraine had featured prominently on the agenda. YANUKOVYCH had
con?ded in PUTIN that he did authorise and order substantial kick-back
payments to MANAFORT as alleged but sought to reassure him that there
was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence

of this.

Given (unimpressive) record in covering up his own
corrupt tracks in the past, PUTIN and others in the Russian leadership
were sceptical about the ex-Ukrainian president?s reassurances on this as
relating to MANAFORT. They therefore still feared the scandal had legs,
especially as MANAFORT had been commercially active in Ukraine right
up to the time (in March 2016) when he joined campaign team.
For them it therefore remained a point of potential political vulnerability

and embarrassment.

3. Speaking separately, also in late August 2016, an American political
?gure associated with Donald TRUMP and his campaign outlined the
reasons behind MANAFORT’s recent demise. /he said it was true that
the Ukraine corruption revelations had played a part in this but also,
several senior players close to TRUMP had wanted MANAFORT out.
primarily to loosen his control on strategy and policy formulation. Of
particular importance in this regard was predecessor as
campaign manager, Corey LEWANDOWSKI, who hated MANAFORT
personally and remained close to TRUMP with whom he discussed the
presidential campaign on a regular basis.

22 August 2016




Kremlin orders senior staff to remain silent in media and private on

allegations of Russian interference in US presidential campaign

– Senior figure however confirms gist ofallegations and reports IVANOV

sacked as Head ofAdministration on account of giving PUTIN poor advice
on issue. VAINO selected as his replacement partly because he was not
involved in operation/s

Russians do have further ?kompromat? on CLINTON (e-mails) and
considering disseminating it after Duma (legislative elections) in late
September. Presidential spokesman PESKOV continues to lead on this

– However, equally important is Kremlin objective to shift policy consensus
favourably to Russia in US whoever wins. Both presidential
candidates’ opposition to TPP and TTIP viewed as a result in this respect

– Senior Russian diplomat withdrawn from Washington embassy on
account of potential exposure in US presidential election operation 5


1. Speaking in confidence to a trusted compatriot in mid-September 2016, a
senior member of the Russian Presidential Administration (PA)
commented on the political fallout from recent western media
revelations about Moscow?s intervention, in favour of Donald TRUMP and
against Hillary CLINTON, in the US presidential election. The PA official
reported that the issue had become incredibly sensitive and that
President PUTIN had issued direct orders that Kremlin and government
insiders should not discuss it in public or even in private.

2. Despite this, the PA of?cial confirmed, from direct knowledge, that the
gist of the allegations was true. PUTIN had been receiving con?icting
advice on interfering from three separate and expert groups. On one side
had been the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergei and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with an independent and informal
network run by presidential foreign policy advisor, Yuri

predecessor in Washington) who had urged caution and the
potential negative impact on Russia from the operation/s. On the other
side was former PA Head, Sergei IVANOV, backed by Russian Foreign
Intelligence (SVR), who had advised PUTIN that the anti-
CLINTON operation/s would be both effective and plausibly deniable
with little blowback. The first group/s had been proven right and this had
been the catalyst in PUTIN’s decision to sack IVANOV (unexpectedly) as
PA Head in August. His successor, Anton VAINO, had been selected for the
job partly because he had not been involved in the US presidential

election operation/s.

Continuing on this theme, the senior PA official said the situation now

was that the Kremlin had further ?kompromat? on candidate CLINTON

and had been considering releasing this via ?plausibly deniable” channels
after the Duma (legislative) elections were out ofthe way in mid-
September. There was however a growing train of thought and associated
lobby, arguing that the Russians could still make candidate CLINTON look
?weak and stupid? by provoking her into railing against PUTIN and

Russia without the need to release more of her e-mails. Presidential
Spokesman, Dmitriy PESKOV remained a key figure in the operation,
although any final decision on dissemination of further material would be

taken by PUTIN himself.

The senior PA official also reported that a growing element in Moscow?s
intervention in the US presidential election campaign was the objective of
shifting the US political consensus in Russia?s perceived interests
regardless of who won. It basically comprised of pushing candidate
CLINTON away from President policies. The best example of
this was that both candidates now openly opposed the draft trade
agreements, TPP and TTIP, which were assessed by Moscow as
detrimental to Russian interests. Other issues where the Kremlin was
looking to shift the US policy consensus were Ukraine and Syria. Overall
however, the presidential election was considered still to be too close to


Finally, speaking separately to the same compatriot, a senior Russian

MFA official reported that as a prophylactic measure, a leading Russian
diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at
short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement-in the US
presidential election operation, including the so-called veterans? pensions
ruse (reported previously), would be exposed in the media there. His
replacement, Andrei BONDAREV however was clean in this regard.


Company Comment

The substance of what was reported by the senior Russian PA of?cial in paras 1
and 2 above, including the reasons for Sergei dismissal, was
corroborated independently by a former top level Russian intelligence officer
and Kremlin insider, also in mid-September.

14 September 2016




Top level Russian official confirms current closeness OfAlpha Group-
PUTIN relationship. Significant favours continue to be done in both
directions and FRIDMAN and AVEN still giving informal advice to PUTIN,

especially on the US

– Key intermediary in relationship identified as Oleg
GOVORUN, currently Head Ofa Presidential Administration department
but throughout the 1990s, the Alpha executive who delivered illicit cash

directly to PUTIN

PUTIN personally unbothered about Alpha?s current lack Of investment in
Russia but under pressure from colleagues over this and able to exploit it

as lever over Alpha interlocutors


1. Speaking to a trusted compatriot in mid-September 2016, a top level
Russian government Official commented on the history and current state
Of relations between President PUTIN and the Alpha Group Of businesses
led by oligarchs Mikhail RIDMAN, Petr AVEN and German KHAN. The
Russian government figure reported that although they had had their ups
and downs, the leading figures in Alpha currently were on very good
terms with PUTIN. Significant favours continued to be done in both
directions, primarily political ones for PUTIN and business/legal ones for
Alpha. Also, RIDMAN and AVEN continued to give informal advice tO
PUTIN on foreign policy, and especially about the US where he distrusted

advice being given to him by officials.

2. Although RIDMAN recently had met directly with PUTIN in Russia, much
Of the dialogue and business between them was mediated through a
senior Presidential Administration Official, Oleg GOVORUN, who currently
headed the department therein responsible for Social CO-operation With
the CIS. GOVORUN was trusted by PUTIN and recently had accompanied
him to Uzbekistan to pay respects at the tomb of former president
KARIMOV. However according to the top level Russian government
official, during the 19905 GOVORUN had been Head Of Government
Relations at Alpha Group and in reality, the ?driver? and ?bag carrier?

used by FRIDMAN and AVEN to deliver large amounts of illicit cash to the
Russian president, at that time deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. Given that
and the continuing sensitivity of the relationship, and need
for plausible deniability, much ofthe contact between them was now
indirect and entrusted to the relatively low profile GOVORUN.

3. The top level Russian government official described the PUTlN-Alpha
relationship as both carrot and stick. Alpha held ?kompromat’ on PUTIN
and his corrupt business activities from the 19905 whilst although nOt
personally overly bothered by Alpha’s failure to reinvest the proceeds 0f
its TNK oil company sale into the Russian economy Since, the
president was able to use pressure on this count from senior Kremlin
colleagues as a lever on FRIDMAN and AVEN to make them do his
political bidding.

14 September 2016




– Two knowledgeable St Petersburg sources claim Republican candidate
TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key
witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain

– Both believe Azeri business associate of TRUMP, Araz AGALAROV will
know the details


1. Speaking to a trusted compatriot in September 2016, two well-placed
sources based in St Petersburg, one in the political/business elite and the
other involved in the local services and tourist industry, commented on
Republican US presidential candidate Donald prior activities in

the city.

2. Both knew TRUMP had visited St Petersburg on several occasions in the
past and had been interested in doing business deals there involving real
estate. The local business/ political elite figure reported that TRUMP had
paid bribes there to further his interests but very discreetly and only
through affiliated companies, making it very hard to prove. The local
services industry source reported that TRUMP had participated in sex
parties in the city too, but that all direct witnesses to this recently had
been ?silenced? i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear.

3. The two St Petersburg figures cited believed an Azeri business figure,
Araz AGALAROV (with offices in Baku and London) had been closely

involved with TRUMP in Russia and would know most of the details of
what the Republican presidential candidate had got up to there.

14 September 2016





Buyer’s remorse sets In with Kremlin over TRUMP support operation In US presidential
election. Russian leadership disappointed that leaked e-malls on CLINTON have not had

greater impact in campaign

Russians have. Injected further material into the plausibly deniable’ leaks
pipeline which will continue to surface, but best material already In public domain

angry with senior officials who ?ouerpromised’ on TRUMP and turther heads likely to
roll as result. Foreign Minister LAVROV may be next

TRUMP supported by Kremlin because seen as divisive. anti-establishment candidate who
would shake up current International status quo In Russia’s favor. Lead on TRUMP operation

moved from Foreign Ministry to F83 and then to presidential administration where it now sits



Speaking separater in con?dence to a trusted compatriot In early October 2016. a senior
Russian leadership figure and a Foreign Ministry official reported on recent developments
concerning the Kremlin’s operation to support Republican candidate Donald TRUMP in the
US presidential election. The senior leadership figure said that a degree of buyer’s remorse
was setting in among Russian leaders concerning TRUMP. PUTIN and his colleagues were
surprised and disappointed that leaks ot Democratic candidate. Hillary CLINTON’s hacked
e-mails had not had greater impact on the campaign.

Continuing on this theme. the senior leadership llgure commented that a stream of further
hacked CLINTON material already had been injected by the Kremlin Into compliant western
media outlets like Wlkileaks. which remained at least ?plausibly deniable’, so the stream of
these would continue through October and up to the election. However sr’he understood that
the best material the Russians had already was out and there were no real game-changers
to come.

The Russian Foreign Ministry official, who had direct access to the TRUMP support
operation, reported that PUTIN was angry at his subordhate’s ?over-promising? on the
Republican presidential candidate, both in terms of his chances and reliability and being
able to cover andr’or contain the US backlash over Kremlin lnterlerenoe. More heads
therefore were likely to roll, with the MFA the easiest target. Ironically, despite his consistent
urging of caution on the Issue, Foreign Minister LAVRIOV could be the next one to go.

4. Asked to explain why PUTIN and the Kremlin had launched such an aggressive TRUMP

support operation in the first place, the MFA official said that Russia needed to meet the
liberal intematlonal status quo. Including on Ukraine-related sanctions. which was serioust

deedventayng the country. TRUMP was viewed as divisive In dlstupting the whole US

tioai system; anti-Establishment: and a pragmatlsl whom they could do business. As
the TRUMP support operation had gained momentum. control ol? it had passed tram the MFA
to the F88 and than Into the presidential ministration whore It remained. a renoclion of its
growing signi?cance me: time. There was still a view in tho Kremlin that TRUMP would
continue as a {divisive} political I’oroe own If he lost the presidency and may run for and be
elected to another public otitce.

12 October 2016



in July

Close associate 01′ SLCI confirms his. xterm mvtvimg Mmcow Cline-r PA

Substance included Ufer (if large elalte in Ronnt’ik In return for lifting on Russia PAGE

confirms this is lRUMl”s intention

– SECHIN continued to think TRUMP t’tvuld Vim plt’udl’nt’y up to l7 ot-lober Now liloking to
reorientnte his engagement the Us

– Kremlin insiderhighlights importance lawyer, Michael (’01 HEN in cover!
relationship Russia COHEN’s wile is of Russian descent and her tather a leading pruperty

developer in Moscow


Speaking to a trusted compatriot in mid October 2015, a close associate of Rbsnett President
and PUTIN ally Igur’ SECHIN elaborated on the reported secret meeting between the latter

and Carter PAGE, of us Republican presidential candidate’s foreign policy team, in Moscow in

July 2016. The secret had been confirmed to him/her by a senior member of
staff, in addition to by the Rbsneft President himself It (oak place on either 7 or 8 July, the same
day or the one after Carter PAGE made a public speech to the Higher Economic School in



In terms of the substance of their disc SECI-IIN’s associate said that the Rosneft
President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the
company, that he offered PAGE associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent
(privatised) stake in Rosnett in return PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were

TRUMP elected US preSIde-nl, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.

According to SECHIN’s close associate, the Rosnett President had continued to believe that
TRUMP could win the us presidency right up to I7 October, when he assessed this was no
longer possible, SECHIN was keen to readapt accordingly and put teelers out to other

business and political contacts in the US instead.

Speaking separately to the same compatriot in mid-October 2016, a Kremlin insider with direct
access to the leadership confirmed that a key role in the seclet TRUMP campaign/ Kremlin
la ed the Republican candida ‘5 personal Lawyer Michael




– Kremlin insider outlines important role played by lawyer
COHEN in secret liaison with Russian leadership

– COHEN engaged with Russians in trying to cover up scandal of I
MANAFORT and exposure of PAGE and meets Kremlin of?cials secretly 1n

the EU in August in pursuit of this goal

– These secret contacts continue but are now farmed out to trusted agents
in Kremlin?linked institutes so as to remain “plausibly deniable” for
Russian regime

– Further con?rmation that sacking of and appointments of VAINO
and KIRIYENKO linked to need to cover up Kremlin?s TRUMP support



1. Speaking in con?dence to a longstanding compatriot friend in mid-
October 2016, a Kremlin insider highlighted the importance of
Republican presidential candidate Donald TRUMP’s lawyer, Michael
COHEN, in the ongoing secret liaison relationship between the New York
tycoon’s campaign and the Russian leadership. role had grown
following the departure of Paul MANNAFORT as campaign
manager in August 2016. Prior to that MANNAFORT had led for the

TRUMP side.

2. According to the Kremlin insider, COHEN now was heavily engaged in a
cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the
full details of relationship with Russia being exposed. In
pursuit of this aim, COHEN had met secretly with several Russian
Presidential Administration (PA) Legal Department of?cials in an EU
country in August 2016. The immediate issues had been to contain
further scandals involving MANNAFORT’s commercial and political role
in Russia/Ukraine and to limit the damage arising from exposure of
former TRUMP foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE’s secret meetings
with Russian leadership ?gures in Moscow the previous month. The


overall objective had been to “to sweep it all under the carpet and make
sure no connections could be fully established or proven”

3. Things had become even “hotter” since August on the
track. According to the Kremlin insider, this had meant that direct contact
between the TRUMP team and Russia had been farmed out by the
Kremlin to trusted agents of in?uence working in pro-government policy
institutes like that of Law and Comparative Jurisprudence. COHEN
however continued to lead for the TRUMP team.

4. Referring back to the (surprise) sacking of Sergei IVAN OV as Head of PA
in August 2016, his replacement by Anton and the appointment of
former Russian premier Sergei KIRIYENKO to another senior position in
the PA, the Kremlin insider repeated that this had been directly
connected to the TRUMP support operation and the need to cover up now
that it was being exposed by the USO and in the western media.

Company Comment

The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA of?cials with whom
COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the
meeting/s. There were signi?cant internal security barriers being erected in the
PA as the TRUMP issue became more controversial and damaging. However s/he
continued to try to obtain these.

19 October 2016





1. We reported previously (2016/135 and /136) on secret meeting/s held
in Prague, Czech Republic in August 2016 between then Republican

presidential candidate Donald TRUMP’s representative, Michael COHEN
and his interlocutors from the Kremlin working under cover of Russian


TRUMP’s representative COHEN accompanied to Prague in
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers

Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event ofa

election victory

Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use ofBulgaria as bolt hole to ?lie low?

hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, and his


provided further details of these meeting/s and associated anti-
TON /Democratic Party operations. COHEN had been accompanied
to Prague by 3 colleagues and the timing of the visit was either in the last
week of August or the first week of September. One of their main Russian
interlocutors was Oleg SOLODUKHIN operating under

Rossotrudnichestvo cover. According the agenda
comprised questions on how deniable cash payments were to be made to

hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the
CLINTON campaign and various contingencies for covering up these
operations and Moscow’s secret liaison with the TRUMP team more


3. reported that over the period March-September 2016
a company called XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets
and porn traf?c to transmit viruses, plant hugs, steal data and conduct
?altering operations” against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities
linked to one Aleksei GUBAROV were involved and he and another
hacking expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, Seva
KAPSUGOVICH, were significant players in this operation. in Prague.
COHEN agreed contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the
Operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary
CLINTON won the presidency. It was important in this event that all cash
payments owed were made quickly and discreetly and that cyber and
other operators were stood down/able to go effectively to ground to
cover their traces. (We reported earlier that the involvement of political
operatives Paul MANAFORT and Carter PAGE in the secret TRUMP-
Kremlin liaison had been exposed in the media in the run-up to Prague
and that damage limitation of these also was discussed by COHEN with
the Kremlin representatives).

4. In terms ofpractical measures to be taken, it was agreed by the two sides
in Prague to stand down various “Romanian hackers” (presumably based
in their homeland or neighbouring eastern Europe) and that other
operatives should head for a bolt-hole in Plovdiv, Bulgaria where they
should ?lay low”. On payments, associate said that the
operatives involved had been paid by both team and the
Kremlin, though their orders and ultimate loyalty lay with IVANOV, as
Head of the PA and thus ultimately responsible for the operation, and his
designated successor/s after he was dismissed by president in
connection with the operation in mid August.

13 December 2016