There was never a Russian scheme to aid Trump’s 2016 campaign. That idea originated from a campaign myth, initially shared by Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager. This was nine years ago today. Investigations by the CIA ultimately determined there was no credible evidence, despite some assertions from then-President Barack Obama and CIA official John Brennan.
What followed was a series of distractions—misleading narratives, file deletions, special investigations, and testimonies. At the core was the assumption that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump as president and took steps to influence the election. This assumption has since been disproven.
Over nearly a decade, countless journalists, politicians, and critics delved deeply into every detail surrounding this issue. They spent hours analyzing, theorizing, debating accusations, and grappling with the falsehoods that defined the narrative.
Personally, I’ve spent time working on various figures involved in this saga—names like Carter Page, Stephen Halper, and Christopher Steele come to mind. It’s been a tangled web, full of confusion and conflicting information.
Take Carter Page, for instance. The FBI attorney Clinesmith pleaded guilty to making false claims regarding surveillance applications. Unbeknownst to many, Page was actually associated with the CIA. It’s a convoluted situation that upset a lot of people.
It’s interesting how the Democratic press doesn’t often address these topics. When contradictions emerge, they tend to sidestep clarity, focusing instead on muddying the details.
This pattern continues.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins recently questioned National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard about inconsistencies with Senate Intelligence Committee findings. That report, backed by then-chairman Marco Rubio, didn’t confirm collusion but mentioned Russia’s interference.
What’s telling is that the committee lacked Gabbard’s declassified emails and internal documents. Instead, they based their conclusions on testimonies from Brennan and Comey—two individuals whose credibility has come into question.
The Washington Post opted to ignore these facts, choosing instead to scrutinize Gabbard’s opinions on Rubio’s credibility.
Post-lawsuit, the Associated Press continued to echo the claims about Russia being universally acknowledged as meddling in the elections, intent on shifting narratives and obscuring reality.
In truth, Russia had much to gain if Clinton had won.
The widely touted claim that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed on Russian interference turned out to be misleading. Only the CIA participated in that assessment, and now it appears even the CIA had its doubts. Under Obama’s directive, Brennan seems to have hidden this fact from the final summary.
Russian intelligence was aware of Clinton’s vulnerabilities, both mental and emotional. They recognized her campaign tactics involving medication for stress and anger management.
Putin, understanding the concerns within the Democratic camp, could have potentially utilized this damaging insight but chose not to humiliate Clinton. Instead, he opted for a more subtle approach.
The real story is now becoming clearer. The narrative around Russia’s interference was fabricated—one more untruth among many that have surfaced in recent years.
Politicians, media, and former intelligence officials who perpetuated this narrative have also misled the public. They might still hold awards, but their credibility has taken a major hit, and their historical legacy is in jeopardy.
