The Republicans Have Developed a Theory of Alt-Collusion to Defend Trump From Mueller
The Republicans have developed a theory of alt-collusion. Their version of the story uses Steele’s research in Russia as evidence that Steele is a tool of the Russian government. Steele’s report, charges the The Wall Street Journal editorial page , is “based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources.” Ergo, “Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say ‘collusion’?” Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer has circulated the same bizarre theory.
It is obviously true that Steele’s sources had some contact with the Kremlin. That, of course, is why they were sources. If they had no connections to the Russian government, Republicans could say they were ignorant people speculating on subjects they knew nothing about. But by pretending that Steele’s sources were actually acting as agents of the Kremlin, Republicans can proceed to hypothesize that they were deliberately spreading a message devised by Putin in order to smear Donald Trump.
There are some important confounding facts that the theory of alt-collusion avoids. For one, Trump’s apparent collusion with Russia involved a crime: stealing Democratic emails. Steele’s “collusion” involves no crime at all. Second, while the Russian propaganda apparatus publicly amplified political messages generated by its email theft, it has done nothing of the sort with the Steele dossier. Indeed, Russia fervently denied the charges in the dossier and called them an attempt to smear Trump.
But if you ignore these massive flaws, the theory of alt-collusion opens the way for a prosecution of the people investigating Trump. After all, if Putin was using Steele to spread nefarious lies about Trump, then why did the FBI treat these charges seriously? Could it be that the FBI is also a tool of the Russian conspiracy?
The purpose of the theory of alt-collusion is not necessarily to be swallowed whole. It is merely to be taken plausibly enough to raise questions about Trump’s investigators. If the FBI might be compromised by a sinister Russian conspiracy, then it follows that James Comey is suspect. And since Mueller is close with Comey, he too is suspect.
“The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated,” charges the Journal . And Mueller’s close relationship to sacked FBI director James Comey therefore dictates Mueller “resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.” Versions of this message have been echoed by Tucker Carlson and Representative Devin Nunes. “I think the next focus is going to be on whether or not did the FBI use this dossier to get any warrants, did they use it to open a counterintelligence investigation and if they did, if they’re using unverified information to open up inquiries into American citizens,” he tells Tucker Carlson.
In some ways the theory of alt-collusion mirrors the propaganda methods used by Putin himself. When William Browder publicizes Russia’s murder of crusading lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, Russia turns around and implies that maybe Browder is the one who murdered Magnitsky. The accusation is preposterous, but that doesn’t matter. The purpose is to create an offsetting accusation against the accuser, so that the average bystander can only puzzle at the spectacle of two sides making the same allegation against each other.
This method can work if you have enough mouthpieces who are sufficiently devoid of skepticism or intellectual self-respect to be willing to spread your obviously absurd message. A key fact that Trump has discovered, and which has enabled his takeover of the Republican Party, is that this is a resource the American right has in abundant supply.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
This article is a nice update on the latest Trumper fantasy play.
Some people will believe anything
Raise your hand Rex.
We need to stop reacting and exercise some patience. This is an example of one side reacting to the other with their bigger and more salacious claims. The msm continues to make the same mistakes over and over and over. It's important to report "facts". It's irresponsible to air "panels" that give their slanted impression of what the information means. Because the msm couldn't wait to report about the upcoming indictment (of which we know little facts) it was going to attract a response. Now we will have to listen to the msm talk about this NON STOP until the indictment is handed out.
I think this article is just noise and I wished both sides would wait for Mueller's investigation is be completed. Then we will have all the facts that will tell us who did what when.
Well, thats not going to happen PJ. But it is a nice thought.
Well don't be surprised when Trump is re-elected because people don't like to be told they're wrong and they don't like it rubbed in their faces. That's all the left leaning media is doing right now and it's countered with the ridiculous right leaning argument of "but....but....but....she did it too".
The media should report the facts and shut up about their opinions. As you said, it's not going to happen so more idiots will probably be elected in response.
Agreed, but that is very hard to do when they are so heavily invested in a narrative, which we now know was driven by the Clinton campaign. The people arent going to forget that this story was fed to us on a daily basis - since election day.
The first news that the Russians were hacking into our elections came out in June of 2016, Hillary Clinton didn't mention it until sept. 2016.
Why would she wait until then, why would her campaign not make it a running ad on TV with Trump and, Putin standing side by side from June to the end of the election if what you say is true?? Use some common sense and, think for a change.
Well I think it's probably driven more by greed from the network owners but no matter who is driving it I think we can agree it's not helpful.
They didn't hack into our elections - they hacked the DNC and John Podesta and the DNC wouldn't even let the FBI take a look at their server. Now we know why. The hacking is a far different thing then the story that Trump colluded with the Russians. It is time we separated the two, don't you think?
For sure
Well, it can't be Trump or his family, because that information would have been leaked by now.
yeah.......probably on a tweet. ( hehehehehehe )
The right wing lie machine never stops churning...
"It is obviously true that Steele’s sources had some contact with the Kremlin. "
You know how you can telll this is an obvious dishonest hack job?, when the author describes a source reported as someone high up in the foreign ministry as someone who has "some contact" with the kremlin. The dossier itself describes the source as a high ranking government official,not someone who has "some contact" with goverment officals.
This article is an example of the situation described in the last paragraph.
It takes a bass ackwards twist of logic to suggest that the dossier is an affront to Trump. He is the subject of the allegations in the dossier , not the aggrieved party. The authorities will sort it out, not conservative media crazies.
Republicans and conservatives looking to protect the president from the Russia scandal keep trying to build up distractions. The Steele memos have been a main target. Republicans appear to believe that if they can cast the Steele memos as no more than a spurious product of partisan oppo research—essentially, a dirty trick—they can persuade people that the whole Trump-Russia affair is the hoax the president claims it is. Some Trump backers even contend that the FBI investigation is a sham because it was predicated on the Steele material.
There is no indication that Steele’s memo triggered the FBI’s probe of the Trump-Russia connections. The available information shows that the bureau was already interested in the ties between Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Putin-friendly Ukrainians and that the FBI was keeping an eye on Carter Page, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser who had in 2013 been a recruiting target of Russian intelligence. Steele did, on his own initiative, start to share his material with the FBI in July 2016—weeks after the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee became public—but it was not until early October that the bureau requested a briefing from him. The bottom line: There was plenty of reason for the FBI to investigate Trump-Russia ties without the Steele stuff.
Still, the Steele memos should not be dismissed. Some of his material now tracks with what’s become publicly known. Steele’s first memo, written in June 2016, reported there had been secret exchanges of information between the Russian government and Trump and his team. This past July it was revealed that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort met with a Russian emissary in June 2016 in an effort to obtain dirt on Clinton as part of a secret Russian government scheme to help Trump. That initial Steele memo also reported that the Kremlin had for years been trying to cultivate Trump by offering him lucrative real estate deals in Russia. Though Trump’s efforts to score a big project in Russia has long been known, only recently was it disclosed that during the 2016 campaign, Trump—while he was making positive remarks about Putin—was secretly trying to land a deal to build a Trump tower in Moscow. Was that part of a Russian attempt to woo the developer-turned-candidate?
There are elements in the Steele memos that are far more solid than the Clinton-uranium conspiracy theory. The gist of that tale is that when Clinton was secretary of state she supposedly approved a Russian takeover of a uranium firm that controlled about one-fifth of uranium production in the United States—and she okayed this deal after the Clinton Foundation received $145 million from investors in the company. The two foundational premises of this are inaccurate . The State Department was one of nine federal agencies that had to sign off on the deal, and there is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Foggy Bottom’s decision-making on the matter. (The official in charge of foreign investment issues at the State Department has said that Clinton did not participate in these decisions.) And about $140 million of the payments to the Clinton Foundation came from a Canadian businessman who says he sold his stake in the company three years before the Russian deal. (One investor did give between $1.3 million and $5.6 million while the deal was being reviewed.)
As the New York Times noted in a long 2015 story that used material from Clinton Cash, “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.” The Clinton Foundation did pose ethical challenges for Clinton when she was secretary of state—it accepted donations from foreign governments and businesspeople who had interests in US policy—and this was a subject that warranted scrutiny. But there has been no evidence that this uranium deal—hyped by conservative outfits—amounted to a secret and corrupt pay-to-play arrangement. Yet that is what Trump and other Republicans have claimed, in a brazen effort to present a counter-controversy. And this week, Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, announced their committees would be conducting a joint investigation of the deal. (This is before there has been any conclusion of the Trump-Russia probe.)
John,
Given you spent the summer claiming Donald Trump Jr. attempted to collude/commit treason by attending a meeting with a Russian lawyer who has some contact with the Kremlin, do you now agree that Hillary Clinton did in fact collude with the Russians/commit treason in that she successfully paid money for dirt on Donald Trump from high ranking officials in Putin's government?
I guess we'll wait for an answer
If you follow the published evidence, you have to say that the Democrats were the ones colluding with the Russians as that is what the evidence so far shows. Remember, this story has been changing every single day since it was first posited back on November 9, 2016 by Hillary's campaign and the evidence keeps pointing back at Hillary and the DNC. There has been ZERO evidence that points to Trump, only accusations which continue to be disproven and then changed to try to deflect from the evidence that keeps piling up against the Democrats' front door.