The Hoax
Trump Colluded With Russia To Win The 2016 Election
The Russian Collusion Hoax refers to the widespread and ultimately unfounded narrative that Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign conspired with Russia to influence the outcome of the election. This narrative dominated media coverage and political discourse for much of Trump’s presidency, despite a lack of substantive evidence. The claims originated from a dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which was indirectly funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This document spurred an investigation by former FBI Director Robert Mueller, costing millions and lasting nearly two years, with no criminal conspiracy ultimately found.
What Really Happened
There Was No Basis For The Russian Collusion Investigation, Nor Did The Investigation Find Any Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy
The origins of the Russian Collusion narrative can be traced back to the Steele dossier, a collection of unverified reports compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who had previously worked for MI6 as a Russia specialist1. The Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton and her campaign for opposition research on Trump.
Key Events in the Timeline:
- June-December 2016: Christopher Steele compiles the dossier containing unsubstantiated claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. These claims were never verified for accuracy but were taken seriously by intelligence and law enforcement officials. The dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS, a research firm hired by the law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of the DNC and Clinton’s campaign2.
- July 2016: The FBI opens an investigation into potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.” This investigation relied on the Steele dossier despite its unverified nature and being funded by Clinton3.
- January 2017: January 2017: BuzzFeed News publishes the Steele dossier, even though its contents remained unverified, amplifying public and media suspicion of Trump4.
- May 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller is appointed to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential Trump campaign involvement.
- March 2019: The Mueller investigation concludes, finding no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.5.
The Significance of Clinton’s Involvement
That Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC indirectly funded the Steele dossier is crucial for several reasons:
- Conflict of Interest: Clinton, as Trump’s direct opponent in the 2016 election, had a vested interest in discrediting him. The fact that she funded a dossier intended to defame her political rival raises questions about the objectivity and reliability of the document, which heavily influenced the investigation into Trump6.
- Political Weaponization: The use of opposition research to trigger a federal investigation into a political rival set a new and controversial precedent, raising ethical concerns about the potential abuse of intelligence agencies for partisan purposes.7.
- Media Bias: Many media outlets reported on the dossier’s claims extensively, often failing to disclose its origins or the Clinton campaign’s involvement. This selective reporting led to biased coverage, treating the dossier’s unverified allegations as credible, fueling public belief in the collusion narrative.
- Undermining Democracy: Propagating unverified claims to delegitimize a democratically elected president can be seen as an attempt to undermine his presidency and the electoral process itself.
Hoaxology | How The Hoax Was Made
Here’s how this hoax was made.
Credibility Laundering
Credibility laundering is a technique where an unverified or unreliable piece of information is presented as credible by passing it through reputable channels. The Steele dossier is a prime example; although it was unverified and funded by Trump’s political opponents, it was treated by media and intelligence agencies as a credible document. The FBI’s use of the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants lent it an appearance of legitimacy, which in turn provided the media with a basis to report on its contents. The involvement of the FBI and media elevated the dossier’s credibility in the public eye, despite its unsubstantiated nature, fueling the collusion narrative.
Strategic Ambiguity
Strategic ambiguity involves using vague, suggestive language to imply wrongdoing without making specific claims that could be easily disproven. In the case of Russian collusion, phrases like “ties to Russia” or “links to Russian officials” were frequently used by media and political figures. These phrases were nebulous, suggesting a sinister relationship between Trump and Russia without detailing the nature or significance of these “ties.” The ambiguity allowed the narrative to linger without providing specific, actionable evidence, which would have been subject to quicker verification and potential dismissal.
Selective Reporting
Selective reporting is when media outlets report only certain facts or details while omitting others that would challenge or dilute the intended narrative. Coverage of the Russian collusion allegations focused heavily on accusations, such as those in the Steele dossier, while largely ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicted the collusion claims. For instance, when officials stated there was no direct evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, many outlets either minimized these statements or buried them in articles that otherwise highlighted the accusations. This approach skewed the public’s perception, giving disproportionate weight to claims of collusion.
Anonymous Sources
The reliance on anonymous sources was central to sustaining the collusion narrative. Articles about supposed Russian collusion often cited unnamed “officials” or “people familiar with the matter,” which made it difficult to assess the credibility of the information. Without named sources, readers had no way to verify the claims, but the repetition of these anonymous reports fostered a sense of credibility. The anonymity of sources also allowed dubious or speculative information to be presented as credible news, fueling suspicions of collusion without solid proof.
Circular Reporting
Circular reporting is when a claim originates from a single source and is then repeated by multiple outlets, creating the impression that the information is widely corroborated. In the Russian collusion hoax, initial unverified claims—such as those in the Steele dossier—were reported by various media outlets, which then cited each other as sources. This repetition made it appear as though the dossier’s claims were widely confirmed, even though they remained unverified. The circularity reinforced public belief in the allegations, as each repetition implied additional legitimacy.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly- https://abcnews.go.com/US/shadows-christopher-steele-defiant-dossier-trump-potential-threat/story?id=80522891 ↩︎
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59168626 ↩︎
- https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/senate-russia-report-proves-trump-was-wrong-mueller-was-right-ncna1237743 ↩︎
- https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html ↩︎
- https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2023/06/21/169/108/CREC-2023-06-21-pt1-PgH3013.pdf ↩︎
- ↩︎
- https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-you-read-an-article-from-a-nMY7KppMT7WvDECuPdy80g#:~:text=for%20political%20purposes-,8,-. ↩︎
Leave a Reply