Here’s how Russia and Trump conspired to steal the US election

Anonymous sources in Russia have given Russia Feed a memorandum detailing how Russia made contact with Donald Trump shortly before he declared his decision to seek the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States.

The anonymous sources showed Russia Feed a memorandum that contained a transcript of a conversation between an unknown Russian agent and Donald Trump.

The Russian source told Trump the following,

“We understand that you are self-funding your campaign and are not seeking donations, but we believe we could strike a deal to help push you towards winning the nomination and eventually the election.

We are prepared to use highly classified technology to hack into the computers of your political opponents before passing them onto our FSB agents who have direct contact with Wikileaks.

We are willing to do this if upon winning, you lift all sanctions against Russia, recognise Russia’s modern borders which the Obama administration fails to do and also, we would be willing to share military secrets in order to help the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad”.

This is understood by unnamed Russia experts as the offer which ultimately sealed the deal.

Further anonymous sources in the Trump Organisation’s IT department contacted us and produced an email send from Donald Trump to his Russian contact. The pertinent information is published below,

“I am willing to work with you to seal this deal. I’ve found you to be great people throughout this process. I think we could make terrific progress on sanctions once I get in. Everyone who knows me understands my loyalty. I have the best loyalty, you’ve never seen anything like it, trust me.

I think if we help each other reach our mutual goals, it would be great. I look forward to our next formal meeting”.

Here’s the real scoop: NONE OF THIS IS TRUE. There were no anonymous sources and the content discussed in this piece is total fiction. 

Anyone exercising a bit of logic would be able to ascertain that these sensational claims seem too ludicrous to believe. Anyone who thinks otherwise would be operating under faith, not logic and certainly not hard evidence.

No one trying to rig an election would brag about it’s abilities to do so in such an earnest way and likewise, the Donald Trump email is laughably hyperbolic.

Furthermore, the fact that such a fake report relied on anonymous sources should also be an immediate cause for healthy scepticism.

If anyone thinks that every report relying on anonymous sources is based on existing sources, this would be a profound naivety. It is entirely possible to disguise total fiction or exaggerated hearsay as something which came from a specific but anonymous source.

Furthermore, anonymous sources are inherently dangerous. True, one could remain anonymous because one fears retribution, but one could also simply be a fibber, with nothing to show, rather than someone with something to hide.

It is also important to understand the difference between protecting one’s privately known source and admitting that one has an anonymous source.

Wikileaks has privately named sources. Wikileaks knows a lot about who they are. Wikileaks which unlike the Washington Post and New York Times, is a publisher with a 100% accuracy rating, keeps its sources concealed from the public because retribution against them by those whom the leaks impacted is a given. Just look at the Manning case or Edward Snowden.

An anonymous source could be anyone, saying anything for reasons that are never ending. It could range from a political fanatic trying to see how many people could believe his or her damaging lie, to a prankster never expecting to be taken seriously.

Don’t try this at home…but do be aware of just how easy it is to fool some of the people, all of the time.