Talk:Russiagate

First discussion about the proper target
I think we need to activate this article, detail how this term was coined, link to the conspiracy article that (for now) clears Trump, link to the actual proven meddling, hacking etc, link to the actual possible collusion or detail the meetings etc by his team and family and show how this article has propagated especially in the Russian media to try to discredit the election process and the USA itself, thought? 2404:4408:205A:4B00:8BD:C177:AACA:961A (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The main article on this is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The redirect target had been changed, I've reverted it now. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, there is not really enough here for a solo article, even the name is not that widely used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, legal scholars use the term . It should probably be renamed to Russiagate conspiracy theory similar to Pizzagate conspiracy theory because it is ambiguous as Mabetex Case is commonly referred to as "Russiagate" e.g. . w umbolo   ^^^  12:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, as Russiagate is pretty widely used, especially on more right-wing sites (see, https://www.b reitbart.com/politics/2018/08/27/democrats-poised-to-double-down-on-russiagate-if-they-take-the-house/, ). It seems to be much more commonly used to describe the "dubious origins of the Mueller investigations" as opposed to "Russian interference in the 2016 elections" itself. I like naming it Russiagate conspiracy theory, although I'm not sure whether it's premature to call it a "conspiracy theory" given that there are official investigations on it. It could start with the content from List_of_conspiracy_theories. Also, once this article is created, Russia-gate should also redirect here. Llightex (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the best target for this redirect?
Politrukki, let's discuss this so I understand you correctly. I'd like to know why you reverted my edit. In the process, maybe I'll learn something from you. Pinging those who have commented above: Þjarkur, Slatersteven, Wumbolo, Llightex. (I obviously can't ping the IP.)

My immediate concern is that the choice of the current target of this redirect means that Wikipedia appears to be pushing a conspiracy theory. That makes this a serious matter.


 * My (now deleted) sentence summary for why I made the edit:
 * "Russiagate" is a right-wing conspiracy theory largely described in the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (conspiracy theory) article."


 * Your revert and edit summary:
 * "That is the opposite of reality. I would suggest reading Boyd-Barrett, O. (2019). Fake news and 'RussiaGate' discourses: Propaganda in the post-truth era. Journalism, 20(1), 87–91. Or Majin, Graham (2021). "A catastrophic media failure? Russiagate, Trump and the illusion of truth: The dangers of innuendo and narrative repetition". Journalism. 22 (10): 2548–2565.)"

Those sources
 * Summary of speeches: Boyd-Barrett, O. (2019). Fake news and 'RussiaGate' discourses: Propaganda in the post-truth era. Journalism, 20(1), 87–91.
 * A quick glance through that speech shows a clearly anti-American, pro-Russian slant, especially by referring to proven events (like Russian interference and hacking) as "alleged" and "supposed". He also attacks mainstream media as fake news and makes Putin look like an undeserved and innocuous victim of Western paranoia. All that makes him a supremely unreliable source.
 * Article: Majin, Graham (2021). "A catastrophic media failure? Russiagate, Trump and the illusion of truth: The dangers of innuendo and narrative repetition". Journalism. 22 (10): 2548–2565.
 * Only the abstract is available to me.

A few questions to be answered:


 * 1) You write "That is the opposite of reality." Then what is the reality? (OR is fully allowed here.)
 * 2) What are the points in those sources that you believe are significant to this issue?
 * 3) How do the authors' views align with what RS and our articles that are based on those RS?
 * 4) Would they agree with them, or would they accuse us of bias in how we wrote those articles?
 * 5) How do RS treat the term "Russiagate"?
 * 6) How do unreliable sources (like Breitbart, Fox, and TFG) treat it?
 * 7) Who uses the term "Russiagate" the most?
 * 8) Why do they do it?
 * 9) Other questions?

The two competing targets are:


 * Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. It describes a right-wing conspiracy theory, making it the logical target. "Russigate" is nearly always used as a synonym for that conspiracy theory, and we redirect synonyms and shorthand terms to the article they are referring to.
 * Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. "Russiagate" is usually used to ridicule and minimize this interference.

Why I pointed the redirect to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative as the logical target:

I agree with Wumbolo and Llightex that this is really about a Russiagate conspiracy theory similar to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Since we already have the "Russia investigation origins counter-narrative" article, then we should point it there (or rename that article to Russiagate conspiracy theory). That article already describes most of the aspects of the right-wing "Russiagate" conspiracy theory (and right-wing media do use it in that manner).

I happen to use hundreds of Google Alerts to keep me informed about current events and other topics. I follow both RS and unreliable sources, so I know what's being said on all sides, and who is telling the truth and who isn't.

When TFG and right-wing media say "Russiagate", they are ridiculing the investigations into the proven Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and clearly implying: that they were all illegitimate; that they were based on left-wing conspiracy theories about TFG; and that TFG is the innocent victim of a witch hunt, IOW they are pushing conspiracy theories that are proven to be false. They are also denying that the proven myriad illicit and secretive Links between Trump associates and Russian officials were of any significance, even though those actions are seen as part of the large amount of evidence that TFG and his campaign did "collude" with Russia by cooperating, aiding, and welcoming (that describes "collusion", but not "conspiracy") the Russian interference.

Occasionally one sees mainstream media use the term to mean that the whole subject of "Russian interference and Trump's cooperation with it" is a big, and real, scandal, and in that sense they are right. That would be a legitimate use of the term, but it's rarely used in that sense by mainstream media, compared to the daily use by right-wing media. It is mostly (by far!) used by the right-wing media to defend and cover-up for TFG. It is the conspiracy theory they daily push on their base.

By supporting their use of the term as if it was true, Wikipedia is pushing their false conspiracy theory. At Wikipedia, we should edit in a manner that supports RS and our articles that are based on those RS. We should not edit in a manner that promotes conspiracy theories. The latter is what I see happening here. I'm certain that it's unintentional, but that is still the result.

Politrukki and others, please make your cases below in the area labeled "Discussion". (It is deliberately not made a section. That makes it easier to hop up and down when referring and quoting from this area in the discussion below.) If we can't resolve the matter with this discussion, then an RfC may be in order. I hope not. We all have better things to do with our time. -- Valjean (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

MAybe make it a disambig, and thus both possible target will be found.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is also an option but we'd need to append some explanation for each entry as there is another Russiagate, a 1990s Russian money-laundering scandal, but we don't have an article about it. My reply immediately above shows how we can kill two birds with one stone by renaming the currently awkward "origins counter-narrative" article. -- Valjean (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Slatersteven This is an interesting proposal. Which sources connect Russiagate to the "counter-narrative"? I remember seeing only one; Majin (see above) says that there's a "pro-Trump counternarrative that Russiagate was a Mccarthyesque witch-hunt based on a hoaxical dossier". However, within the same paragraph Majin mentions "BBC's own role in promoting the Russiagate narrative" and in this instance "Russiagate" refers to Trump–Russia collusion theory. The latter meaning is obviously the primary topic. would still need to redirected to the primary topic.I have a counter-proposal that should be pretty non-controversial: there's a Russiagate entry in List of "-gate" scandals and controversies. Why don't we target that article? The sourcing there is not stellar as the cited sources are op-eds that don't define Russiagate, but the definition is consistent with reliable sources that actually do. Details can be debate on that article. Politrukki (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * [], [], THis was just a quick search, and there were a couple of sources I could not check.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I read your comment as a reply to ScottishFinnishRadish, because their comment was incorrectly placed above yours. I still don't understand what you mean by "both possible target", particularly after your links. Did Russia meddle the US 2016 presidential election in the 1990s? Politrukki (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Move Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (quite possibly the worst name for an article I've seen) to Russiagate. That's what that article is about. It's sometimes called a conspiracy theory, but not often, so it doesn't need to be at Russiagate conspiracy theory, but if it is then we redirect Russiagate to it there. If the article stays at the supremely uninformative, unused Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, then redirect Russiagate there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd favor moving (and thus eliminating!) the awkward Russia investigation origins counter-narrative to Russiagate conspiracy theory. That's how we usually treat conspiracy theories. The title itself should say it. --Valjean (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From my highly scientific study referenced above, new sources, by a degree of magnitude, don't refer to it as a conspiracy theory, but I'm not terribly bothered either way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I like your "study"! Others could be done. I suspect that many more uses are found in unreliable sources than in RS; sources like TFG, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Steve Doocy, Shapiro, Fox News, New York Post, Breitbart News, The Federalist, OAN, Drudge Report, Newsmax, Newsbusters, RedState, InfoWars, The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, Townhall, and such sources would account for 95-98% of them, and always in the way described above (as part of a fringe conspiracy theory to whitewash TFG). That's what my Google Alerts tell me. It's rare that I find a RS doing it, but on the rare occasions it happens, they mean it in a totally different and mainstream way. -- Valjean (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean You have already tried to retarget Russiagate to Spygate, which was odd. At that point was a redirect to Kremlingate, a disambiguation page. This should not be the forum for deciding the target of redirect if the decision is controversial. Editors are free to make non-controversial retargets. An example would be fixing a broken anchor or something that is obvious. Generally controversial changes should go through WP:RFD. There are also non-controversial alternatives for changing status quo (see my comment to Slatersteven).

I have not read everything you wrote, but many of your questions are irrelevant.

The most important question is, how "Russiagate" is defined in reliable sources? We don't care about what unreliable sources say. There seems to be no simple answer. Most sources – and I'm obviously guessing based on a sampling – make relatively vague references to Russiagate. An example from scholarly sources is when Olivier Jutel writes in "Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory" (a book chapter) that "space prohibits a thorough analysis of the Russiagate theory and discourse" and never defines Russiagate, but nevertheless has some interesting things to say:

Interestingly Jutel suggests that mocking the so-called romance of Trump and Putin, promoted by late-night comedians and published in opinion sections of USA Today and The New York Times, has homophobic undertones.

In Joseph Uscinski book "Conspiracy Theories: A Primer" (2020) there's a chapter devoted for addressing Democratic and Republican Trump–Russia conspiracy theories. Uscinski writes that Trump–Russia conspiracy theories promoted by Hillary Clinton and others (p. 115)

Uscinski noted the irony that (p. 118)

In popular sources, The Guardian reports that Barr was investigating "whether Italy had played a role in the so-called Russiagate affair", but we never learn what the "Russiagate affair" is. From Vanity Fair we learn that "on the central question of the Russiagate hysteria, the president and his allies got closest to the truth", but again "Russiagate" remains undefined.

When "Russiagate" is defined, the definitions are not always consistent. I think the main definitions for Russiagate would be:
 * 1) The allegations that Russia meddled the 2016 US presidential election to sow discord and/or elect Trump.
 * 2) The allegations that Donald Trump or Trump associates cooperated in Russia's efforts.

Definition #2 is more relevant for us because a) Russiagate critics generally don't focus on proving/disproving Russian meddling and b) #2 seems to be prevalent. Many sources treat #2 as a conspiracy theory, some explicitly, others implicitly. Many sources mention that #2 has been discredited by Mueller, Horowitz, and Senate investigations, but others can't, as they were submitted before relevant investigations finished.

Majin defines Russiagate a phenomenon like this:

Majin also writes: "Journalist Caitlin Johnstone (2019) also argues that the world's media were reckless in uncritically promoting a narrative which proved to be little more than a false con- spiracy theory:

You can understand, then, how a populace who is consuming repetitive assertions, innuendo, and incriminating questions on a daily basis through the screens that they look at many times a   day could be manipulated into believing that Robert Mueller would one day reveal evidence which will lead to the destruction of the Trump administration. The repetition leads to belief, the belief leads to trust."

The paper concludes with questions about the media coverage of Russiagate:

(The term "pseudo-fact" refers to allegations; I can claim that all Wikipedia editors are cats. Then a reputable news source can report it as a "fact" that a Wikipedia whistleblower has said "all Wikipedia editors are cats" and the rumour can be propagated if it is briefly mentioned that so far the claim has been unsubstantiated.)

I don't know whether your comment about "Fake news and 'RussiaGate' discourses: Propaganda in the post-truth era" is a joke or trolling. We can't dismiss sources simply because they don't represent our personal point of view. Journalism is a top-quality peer-reviewed journal in the area of communication. Some claims in reliable sources can be dubious or outdated, but we can still cite them for something as long as NPOV and other relevant policies and guidelines are adhered to.

TL;DR: the main topic of "Russiagate" is the allegation that Trump campaign was in cahoots with Russia to steal the election. I don't understand why we would need a separate article for that. In my view, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections would be the best target that matches the description, but Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) or Links between Trump associates and Russian officials would also vaguely match. Politrukki (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your concerns and feel that some kind of compromise might be best. I'll get back to you. Thanks for all your work. Very interesting reading from one side of the issues. -- Valjean (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't accept Majin as authoritative on this subject. First he claims that there had been no collusion, because the but he omits that the Mueller Report admits that the  due to many, many reasons. Secondly he claims that Mueller felt there was insufficient evidence to make a judgement. He omits key parts of Mueller's positions:, then , so a was needed to handle this. . Essentially, Majin is following in Barr's footsteps of spinning the report, and we know reliable sources impugned Barr for doing that. For the other sources, I have no comment, but Majin has really shot himself in the foot here.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This should be a disambig
The term "Russiagate" is not even mentioned in the body of the article it currently redirects too (Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections). And this term is used in various contexts. In addition to the recent US-centric one described above, and related Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, there are others, ex.:
 * A late 1990s scandal in which billions of dollars were laundered out of Russia by the bureaucracy of president Boris Yeltsin with the assistance of Western banks such as the Bank of New York; see source at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Russiagate or this scholarly publication:
 * A series(?) of scandals in Europarliament related to ties with Russia : Italy in 2019,, , Catalonia 2023 , Latvia 2023 , . Or at minimum we need an article called Russiagate (disambiguation) if this is to remain a redirect as it is now, and then the target article need a hatnote to a disambiguation, and to mention that concept there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, thanks for taking the initiative to get this discussion started. I have reviewed the history of the redirect and this talk page and, in the absence of creating a new article, think your idea of a disambiguation page is probably the best option. At one point, it was redirected to Kremlingate, and maybe we can point it to that disambig page or create something akin to it here. There can be some duplication in both places. What do you think of that option? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Valjean I'd not redirect this to Kremlingate (related but not synonymous), but certainly put a see also in the disambig. I do wonder if the primary meaning of Russiagate these days is one of the Trump-related events, and therefore, do we just disambig this term here, or keep the redirect with the new disambig above and a hatnote in the current target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, that sounds intriguing! Would you mind demonstrating it, IOW doing it so we can see how it works? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean I've created for now - take a look: Russiagate (disambiguation) However, please note that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections fails MOS:DABMENTION - the term "Russiagate" is not mentioned in that article at all outside references (some titles and/or quotations). Russia investigation origins counter-narrative right now is better since it at least mentions the term few times in the body.
 * Two issues to address, urgently, are: whether and how to mention the term Russiagate in the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article (I think you are better posed than me to address it) and whether Russiagate should be a redirect there or should it be overwritten by the disambig I've created (which would be moved from "Russiagate (disambiguation)" to "Russiagate"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS. Looking at this, I see there's a lot of confusion as to what this term means even in the context of the recent(ish) US events. I think disambig will be best, rather than a redirect. Also ping still active folks who edited this page: @Politrukki, @FallingGravity, @Pharos, @ Master of Time, @Þjarkur or discussed stuff above, @Llightex, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Slatersteven - hope I did not miss anyone, feel free to ping others. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bingo! That link is a good example of the conspiratorial mindset that asserts a left-wing conspiracy against Trump by denying the Russian interference, or at least downplaying it. That would be a prime example for an article on the subject, but 99% of the sourcing would be from unreliable sources, and not because those sources are rated bad at WP:RSP, but because they are literally counterfactual. That's why we consider them unreliable. They make the mistake of claiming that because Mueller was unable to prove a "conspiracy", there was therefore no "collusion" or cooperation, when in fact there was a lot of it. They forget that Mueller explained they were two different things. So using "Russiagate" as an accusation against the left-wing and against the Mueller investigation is just a counterfactual slur.
 * Therefore, I tend to favor a disambiguation page, per your suggestion. We can't write an article based primarily on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 08:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Tentatively, RS seem to exist (GScholar query), no? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RS for the authors' opinions, some quite contrary to mainstream RS. Some authors ignore or downplay proven facts, ergo their opinions are little better, and no more authoritative, than counterfactual MAGA/Russian/Fox propaganda, and we can't really use them. The quickest proof of what I'm saying is to read our articles and their sources. The contrast is great. Far right authors have their axes to grind without the safeguards that apply to journalists. We can be proud of providing the public the most thorough and accurate coverage of these topics. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 07:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that the term "Russiagate" is not even mentioned in the body of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – no, it is – The "hacking and disinformation campaign" to damage Clinton and help Trump became the "core of the scandal known as Russiagate". I also see "Russiagate" in some seven of the references at the bottom of the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * wbm1058, it was added yesterday. It is also a rare mainstream, non conspiracy theory, usage of the term. 99% of the time it is used by fringe unreliable sources to claim that Russia did not interfere in the elections and that all investigations are a Russiagate scandal that is part of a witch hunt against Trump. It's refreshing to see a RS rescue the term and use it properly. The interference itself is the scandal. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be one of the terms linked in the disambig. I'll add it now if it isn't already Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, Russiagate (conspiracy theory), a redirect created in October 2023‎ by, still redirects to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Wiktionary defines conspiracy theory as having two meanings. The original meaning is simple and straightforward: "A hypothesis that posits conspiracy or collusion." Wikipedia's article essentially asserts in its lead sentence that this hypothesis has been proven. Watergate was once a conspiracy theory, too. Multiple participants in that scandal were convicted of conspiracy. Has anyone been convicted yet in a US court, for interference in the 2016 United States elections? I see that Paul Manafort plead guilty to a charge of conspiracy against the United States, Rick Gates plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States. Any Russians? Yes, I know it's harder when they're not on American soil. The other (dismissive, derogatory) meaning: "Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish." is the meaning used in Wikipedia's conspiracy theory article: "when other explanations are more probable"?! What the hell do you call it then when it's the most probable explanation?? I don't have time to try to fix this, because if I tried, I wouldn't get any work done around here. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd redirect the conspiracy theory redirect to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (which frankly might benefit from being renamed, but that's another discussion to be held there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Piotrus|, your suggestion for a better target for the conspiracy theory redirect is correct, so I have changed the target to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. It's a much better target. We don't promote the fringe conspiracy theory that the Russians did not interfere in the election and that all investigations were a Democratic Party/Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory to take down Trump. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What the hell is a "conspiracy theory narrative"? The term makes no sense to me. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ?? That exact phrase is not used. If you're referring to "counter-narrative", it is used as a synonym for the Trump/Giuliani false narrative described in that article. They sought to imply Clinton, not Trump, was guilty of working with the Russians, and even tried to make her appear to be guilty of working with Ukraine, thus removing all blame from Russia. Assange helped them in that effort, even pushing part of the blame onto Seth Rich. They unsuccessfully tried to pressure Ukraine and use misinformation from Russian agents to create a fake narrative that Clinton was the one who really conspired with Ukraine to interfere in the election to harm Trump. That attempt failed and has been exposed. There is abundant evidence that the Trump campaign cooperated in many ways with the Russians in their efforts to harm Clinton and help Trump. There is no evidence that Ukraine was involved in that election interference. BTW, "conspiracy theory narrative" is a logical term. All conspiracy theories push and/or serve some sort of (usually false) narrative. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you being intentionally dense, or what. The exact phrase is used right in the lead sentence: The Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, or Russia counter-narrative, is a conspiracy theory narrative... – wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were referring to something on this page. I now see you're referring to the lead of Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. The rest of my explanation still applies: "Conspiracy theory narrative" is a logical term. All conspiracy theories push and/or serve some sort of (usually false) narrative. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My brain hurts when I try to read that "counter-narrative" article. Wikipedia should focus on facts, not theories and narratives. I can't really follow what the other conspiracy is. It seems to just be saying the the Russians say that the theory that they conspired to disrupt the American elections is not true, while the main Russiagate article asserts that the conspiracy theory has been proven, as the Russians have indeed been proven to have conspired to disrupt the election. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We really should be discussing it at the talk page of that article. Where frankly I'd propose a rename to denial of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your last comment. I assume you're referring to the "....counter-narrative" article. Your suggestion is worth pursuing. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean Yes :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a proven hoax.
The article should be called a debunked conspiracy theory. It was always a lie driven by the Feds to discredit the election of Trump and has put US and Russia relations on perilous footing. 2601:603:5301:700:889C:EEAF:D2DA:57ED (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)