I took that part out of the prompt and the rating went higher, 75-90%. It did list some counterpoints, too.

"To assess the likelihood that Donald Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, I’ll analyze publicly available information from 1980 onward, focusing on financial ties, personal interactions, political behavior, and circumstantial evidence. A “Putin-compromised asset” implies someone who, wittingly or unwittingly, is influenced or controlled by Vladimir Putin or Russian interests, potentially through financial leverage, blackmail (kompromat), or ideological alignment. This evaluation will weigh evidence suggesting compromise against alternative explanations (e.g., naivety, business pragmatism, or personal admiration), providing a probability range rather than a single number due to the complexity and absence of definitive proof like classified intelligence.

Starting with financial ties, Trump’s business dealings from the 1980s onward show significant Russian involvement. After multiple bankruptcies in the 1990s, he increasingly turned to foreign capital, including from Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs. Between 2003 and 2017, individuals from the former USSR made 86 all-cash purchases of Trump properties totaling $109 million, flagged as potential money laundering. Donald Trump Jr. stated in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and Eric Trump claimed in 2014, “We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” Partnerships with figures like Felix Sater, a Russian-born associate with organized crime links, and sales like Dmitry Rybolovlev’s 2008 purchase of a Trump property for $95 million (far above its prior value), suggest a dependency on Russian money that could create leverage.

Personal interactions with Russia date back to 1987, when Trump visited Moscow, a trip facilitated by Soviet officials. Former KGB agent Yuri Shvets claimed Trump was targeted then due to his ego and financial vulnerabilities, a view echoed in Craig Unger’s books “House of Trump, House of Putin” and “American Kompromat.” The unverified Steele Dossier alleges kompromat from Trump’s 2013 Moscow trip for the Miss Universe pageant, and leaked Kremlin documents reported by The Guardian in 2021 suggest Putin approved a 2016 operation to back Trump, viewing him as “mentally unstable” and exploitable. Trump’s lack of transparency—hiding tax returns and seizing interpreter notes after Putin meetings—fuels suspicion.

Politically, Trump’s behavior is striking. He has never directly criticized Putin, even when pressed, such as at the 2018 Helsinki summit where he sided with Putin’s denial of election interference over U.S. intelligence. Post-presidency, Bob Woodward’s 2024 book “War” reports Trump spoke to Putin up to seven times, including a secretive 2024 call at Mar-a-Lago. Intelligence reports bolster the case: the 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community assessment confirmed Putin authorized 2016 election interference to favor Trump, and a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report detailed “extensive” Trump campaign-Russia contacts. The Mueller Report, while not proving criminal conspiracy, documented over 100 such interactions.

Counterarguments include Trump’s sanctions on Russia and military aid to Ukraine, suggesting independence. However, these were often driven by Congress or aides over his objections, and he maintained personal warmth toward Putin. His refusal to criticize Putin could reflect admiration for authoritarianism or a transactional approach rather than compromise. The absence of a “smoking gun”—direct evidence of Putin’s control—leaves room for alternatives like ideological alignment or incompetence.

Weighing this, the financial ties (decades-long and opaque), intelligence suggesting Russian intent, and Trump’s consistent pro-Putin behavior despite attacking allies tilt the scale toward compromise. The “useful idiot” scenario—where Trump’s ego and debts make him pliable without formal recruitment—fits the evidence. Adjusting for uncertainty and alternatives, I estimate a 75-90% likelihood that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward 85% due to the cumulative weight of patterns and historical ties. The remaining 10-25% reflects the lack of conclusive proof, which only classified data could resolve. On a 1-100 scale, this translates to a point estimate of 85, with a confidence range of 75-90."