"Now, we see that Trump’s own approval ratings are dropping, protests are growing, and America is not Russia—power is not absolute there...In the end, people will decide. No matter how much Trump tries to act like a king, the public and the system will push back."
Let's just hope that, if and when that happens, it won't be too late.
You overstated the importance of this interview. It offers nothing new. And no evidence at all of collusion. In fact, any journalist reading carefully - can see the ex agent has no evidence, no proof and repeatedly reminds the interviewer that he doesn’t know for sure. He’s just assuming based on his experience and protocol.
As journalists - it’s our job to investigate and chase down leads and contacts and facts. As the line goes in All The President’s Men…..you don’t have a story.
In times like this - it’s even more important than ever for journalists to do their job.
Your skepticism is fair—journalists should chase down leads, verify facts, and not take intelligence veterans at their word without scrutiny. That’s Journalism 101. But your argument hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of how intelligence and kompromat work.
The reality is that direct, smoking-gun "evidence" of collusion—the kind that fits neatly into a courtroom exhibit—is rarely how these operations play out. Intelligence isn’t about courtroom admissibility; it’s about pattern recognition, inference, and understanding how power brokers operate behind the scenes. If you were expecting Zhirnov to slam a classified dossier onto the table with Trump’s signature in blood, you’re in the wrong business.
Zhirnov is not claiming to have conclusive proof of Trump’s recruitment—he’s laying out a logical framework based on known KGB practices, historical context, and his own experience within that system. And let’s be honest: does anyone really think a 1987 visit to the USSR by an American businessman with political aspirations didn’t trigger a full-court press by Soviet intelligence? That’s just how the game works.
So no, this isn’t All the President’s Men. It’s not about smoking guns. It’s about understanding that espionage, manipulation, and kompromat don’t work in ways that lend themselves to neat and tidy confessions. You don’t “have a story” because some bureaucrat stamps "CONFIRMED COLLUSION" on a file. You have a story because the patterns are undeniable.
The question isn’t whether there’s a signed contract between Trump and the FSB—it’s whether Putin has leverage over him. And after watching Trump trust Putin over U.S. intelligence in 2018, after seeing his longstanding financial entanglements with Russian oligarchs, after hearing him echo Kremlin propaganda word-for-word, are you really going to argue that’s just a coincidence?
We'll do our job, Sean. But don’t pretend the only stories worth telling are the ones wrapped in a bow.
"Now, we see that Trump’s own approval ratings are dropping, protests are growing, and America is not Russia—power is not absolute there...In the end, people will decide. No matter how much Trump tries to act like a king, the public and the system will push back."
Let's just hope that, if and when that happens, it won't be too late.
He acts like a king but he's worshiped like a religion for some. It's going to be tough to get enough of them to change course.
Thank you for sharing this..
You overstated the importance of this interview. It offers nothing new. And no evidence at all of collusion. In fact, any journalist reading carefully - can see the ex agent has no evidence, no proof and repeatedly reminds the interviewer that he doesn’t know for sure. He’s just assuming based on his experience and protocol.
As journalists - it’s our job to investigate and chase down leads and contacts and facts. As the line goes in All The President’s Men…..you don’t have a story.
In times like this - it’s even more important than ever for journalists to do their job.
Do your job.
Your skepticism is fair—journalists should chase down leads, verify facts, and not take intelligence veterans at their word without scrutiny. That’s Journalism 101. But your argument hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of how intelligence and kompromat work.
The reality is that direct, smoking-gun "evidence" of collusion—the kind that fits neatly into a courtroom exhibit—is rarely how these operations play out. Intelligence isn’t about courtroom admissibility; it’s about pattern recognition, inference, and understanding how power brokers operate behind the scenes. If you were expecting Zhirnov to slam a classified dossier onto the table with Trump’s signature in blood, you’re in the wrong business.
Zhirnov is not claiming to have conclusive proof of Trump’s recruitment—he’s laying out a logical framework based on known KGB practices, historical context, and his own experience within that system. And let’s be honest: does anyone really think a 1987 visit to the USSR by an American businessman with political aspirations didn’t trigger a full-court press by Soviet intelligence? That’s just how the game works.
So no, this isn’t All the President’s Men. It’s not about smoking guns. It’s about understanding that espionage, manipulation, and kompromat don’t work in ways that lend themselves to neat and tidy confessions. You don’t “have a story” because some bureaucrat stamps "CONFIRMED COLLUSION" on a file. You have a story because the patterns are undeniable.
The question isn’t whether there’s a signed contract between Trump and the FSB—it’s whether Putin has leverage over him. And after watching Trump trust Putin over U.S. intelligence in 2018, after seeing his longstanding financial entanglements with Russian oligarchs, after hearing him echo Kremlin propaganda word-for-word, are you really going to argue that’s just a coincidence?
We'll do our job, Sean. But don’t pretend the only stories worth telling are the ones wrapped in a bow.
Underwhelming. What of this did we not already know?