Fact Check: Was Trump ‘Installed’ as President in 2016?

No, contrary to an MSNBC contributor’s claim.

By
54

MSNBC show The Cross Connection featured a guest Saturday who claimed that former President Donald Trump was “installed as the president of the United States in order to weaken the alliances that were preventing Putin from achieving his goals.”

The guest, Sarah Kendzior, is a journalist and academic, whom The Cross Connection described as a “scholar of authoritarian states.” She is the author of Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America.

Despite Kendzior’s suggestion, there is no evidence that Russia “installed” Trump as president. The 2016 election has been thoroughly investigated, and just like in 2020, conspiracy theories about the election were found wanting. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
54
By
Comments (54)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    To think all those wikileaks didn’t make the difference in tens of thousands of votes seems totally absurd to me.

    “Hillary’s emails” dominated the narrative

    If not “installed” what is the appropriate single-word verbiage?

    Putin ________ Trump in 2016

    Installed is probably the most accurate

    “Helped” surely does not capture the criminal nature of the assistance.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    JohnF

    If you guys are going to get into the business of fact-checking random commenters on cable news shows, you're going to need a lot more fact-checkers.
    It might just be easier to write articles when someone says something that's actually true.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    “Installed” might be a strong word but the crimes committed by the Kremlin to assist Trump and harm Clinton were absolutely massive, the greatest in US Presidential campaign history by far. They seem to me to have clearly made the difference, although of course many other factors also would have made the difference too.

    And it sure seems to me, despite Mr Muellers conclusions, that he caught Manafort red handed. I’m not sure why Mueller didn’t at least try to prosecute Manafort for crimes related to collusion, but he caught him passing exactly the information to Russian spies they would need to coordinate their propaganda campaign with Trump’s. Polling and strategy from the USA, the only thing Russian intelligence would have any trouble collecting without US help.

    Anyone who thinks this is crazy conspiracy theory should read the first full page of text here in the Senate Intelligence committee’s report on counterintelligence surrounding all this

    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

    Copy/pasted:
    Paul Manafort ,
    (U) Paul Manafort's connections to Russia and Ukraine began in approximately late 2004 with the start of his work for Oleg Deripaska and other Russia-aligned oligarchs in Ukraine. The Committee found that Deripaska conducts influence operations, frequently in countries where he has a significant economic interest. The Russian government coordinates with and directs Deripaska on many of his influence operations.
    (U) From approximately 2004 to 2009, Manafort implemented these influence operations on behalf ofDeripaska, including a broad, multi-million dollar political influence campaign directed at numerous countries ofinterestto Deripaska and the Russian government. Pro- Russian Ukrainian oligarchs with deep economic ties to Russia also paid Manafort tens of millions o f dollars and formed strong ties with Manafort independent o f Deripaska.
    (U) Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond.
    (U) Prior to joining the Trump Campaign in March 2016 and continuing throughout his time 6n the Campaign, Manafort directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik, Deripaska, and the pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine. On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. The Committee was unable to reliably determine why Manafort shared sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy with Kilimnik or with whom Kilimnik further shared that information. The Committee had limited insight into Kilimnik's communications with Manafort and into Kilimnik's communications with other individuals connected to Russian influence operations, all o f whom used communications security practices. The Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU's hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.
    Beginning while he was Campaign chairman and continuing until sed with Kilimnik a eace lan for eastern Ukraine that
    After the election, Manafort continued to coordinate with Russian persons, particularly Kilimnik and other individuals close to Deripaska, in an effort to
    undertake activities on their behalf. Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sou ht to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in .the 2016 U.S. election.
    vi
    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION ONLY

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    "Installed" is surely the wrong word, but clearly Putin did everything he could to help Trump win, and the Trump campaign helped him to that.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      Taking a lot of offense at that word here. I don’t think its even factually inaccurate.

      Trump was installed.

      Here is the dictionary definition as per Merriam-Webster
      “to set up for use or service“

      Putin’s crimes against our nation, as far as I can tell, accomplish exactly this definition, whereas without that involvement, there was a different leader of the USA from 2017-2021. Therefore it is accurate, at least partially, to say Putin installed Trump.

      The implication of how that occurred, directly via changing votes or indirectly by committing massive campaign crimes to favor one candidate over the other, was not stated here. And knowing Ms Kendzior’s prophetic work quite well, I can tell you she is quite clear eyed about what occurred in 2016 and with Central asian autocracy in general, that being her scholarly focus for over a decade.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Yup.

    No votes were changed.

    Thank you for the fact check——

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Straw man. Nobody ever asserted that.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Omg Pat please read the full fact check and don’t just rush to comment:

        “The Senate Intelligence Committee determined that while Russia had targeted the election systems in all 50 states, there was no evidence that any votes were changed…”

        It’s literally one of the major points of the fact check Pat…

        And yes democrats did allege this back in 2016…..

        Stop it paaaaaaaaat.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    How do we know that Rat Putin didn't hack Alec's account to edit what he published in order to deny he and his nogoodniks installed their Trump POTUS puppet in 2016?

    Alec: blink twice if you are alright, 4x if Rat Putin's thugs got ahold of you.

    And did I mention it's turtles all the way down?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    I really wish Democratic partisans would let go of this talking point. Trump's 2016 victory came down to about 30,000 votes in several key districts. There's easily a dozen things Democrats could've done differently that could have erased that margin, starting with not letting Hillary Clinton railroad her way into being their presidential nominee. Focusing on Russian info ops just becomes a way to absolve themselves of all of the other things they could've and should've done.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      I will never ever ever forget Helsinki and that how still after that so many Americans still supported that madman grinning next to the murdering dictator.
      Call me a partisan if you will. It was partisanship that buried an attack on US democratic sovereignty, with rank autocratic spy-craft, tainting our most important election campaigns and saddling us with a goon who tanked us

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I agree Hillary could have done things better, but it's hard to argue with their grievances when:

      1. The Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in order to help them with their disinformation campaign to hurt Hillary and help Trump.

      2. Trump committed a crime that, had he not committed it, he most likely would not have won the election because his affairs with two porn stars would have come out publicly.

      Hillary Clinton conceded on election night and she has **never ever ever** insinuated that Trump didn't receive more votes than she in the EC states. But illegal and traitorous activity were *both* critical parts of Trump's victory.


      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Farhall

      While I agree that the talking point in re Trump is a complete load of baloney (as with many things Trump), I do believe there is one avenue where US election law is woefully inadequate.

      To this day, we do not know exactly how much money, funds or collaborators foreign actors had on influencing domestic elections. The fact that they can launder their money through PACs, or proxy-act through bot social media accounts, or a myriad of different ways to pretend to be legitimate citizens can and should be on the agenda.

      We can hold talking heads on MSNBC accountable. We should be able to do the same with this ever-present and utterly annoying "viral social media post".

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        George.Skinner

        Agreed - I think transparency in who's making political donations would be far better for the democratic process than previous efforts to limit the size of donations. Social media is harder, but one thing people need to learn is to treat anything they read online with skepticism unless you understand the sourcing, and even more skepticism if it seems like it confirms all of your assumptions.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Xaveria

    This is the thing. Do I think that Russia flooded American media spaces with propaganda in 2015/16? Absolutely I do. Do I think that helped Trump to power? Yup.

    In the same way, do I think that America flooded Ukraine with propaganda in 2013/2014 leading to the revolution? I absolutely do. We were anti Yanukovych. We were pro- pro-Westerners. For what very little it's worth, I think our efforts there were not malicious. We believed, and I think mostly correctly, that we were supporting the will of most Ukranian people for self-determination from a corrupt Russian stooge, whereas Putin believed that he was supporting Americans in their desire to see a fat, divisive, hapless incompetent in the White House. But make no mistake, we interfered in their election, and that almost certainly inspired -- or at least leant venom -- to his interference in ours.

    However, this is the thing -- we're a free society. People are allowed to spout nonsense and even lies. It is up to the listener to discern. You can't blame Putin for Trump. We are to blame for Trump.

    In the same way, the Russians and the Chinese need to stop pretending that the Ukrainian resistance is nothing more than a big CIA psy op. The Ukrainians aren't children, and they don't belong to Putin. He doesn't have the right to control how they think and what they want. If he doesn't like them being seduced by the West, maybe he should put on some negligee and bring some flowers, instead of trying to beat them into submission.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      Putin spreads weaponized lies to further his murderous reign.

      The US (with notable exceptions) encourages people to take on autocratic oppressors.

      Its not the same thing.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Xaveria

        I agree it’s not the same thing. I said so. But the Russians clearly don’t agree.

        Take half a second to re-read your post from the point of view of even a moderately patriotic Russian or Chinese person. Someone who doesn’t believe that democracy is an inherent good. It reads “Our propaganda encouraging people to overthrow their government is good, their propaganda designed to undermine our government is bad.”

        The fundamental assertion here is exactly what Mr. Riot says explicitly — it is so because our government is democratic and therefore good and their government is autocratic and therefore bad. I agree, before anyone starts calling me a fascist apologist. But we need to recognize that that’s not as universal an assumption as we think it is.

        A reasonable person from an autocratic country - say Singapore - could reasonably argue this — if foreign anti-government propaganda is wrong, then the fact that it is done by a democracy doesn’t make it right.

        I am making the argument that foreign propaganda at any time is not an objective wrong, except insofar as it is deliberately untruthful ( which is the real reason the Russian campaign was unacceptable. )

        At the end of the day, this is a clash between democracy and autocracy. That clash is a clash of ideas, and all published ideas advocating for a form of governance is by definition propaganda. Propaganda is right and necessary. That is the marketplace of ideas.

        It is important to state that clearly and proudly. Because the dangerous part of the war of ideas is obvious. First, some people really reallllly want to shut down parts of the market they don’t like. And second some people cannot handle losing. When their truthful ideas don’t win they will resort to lies, and when those don’t win they will resort to other means.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ed P

          And there is an enormous difference between trying to influence with truth and pushing people to take their power into their own hands versus trying to influence with lies, corruption, coercion, intimidation and the like.

          Again, not just coke vs pepsi. One is clearly benevolent to a much broader group, one clearly malevolent to a much broader group

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Ed P

          But there is a an inherent difference between freedom and autocracy.

          It is NOT just value judgements. Not Coke vs Pepsi. These are matters of life and death. Enormous amounts of suffering.

          From the perspective of someone deeply propagandized and oppressed, perhaps you have a point that Putin could make some hay propagandizing further against statements like mine. But that concerns me little.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Xaveria

            I agree that there is an inherent difference and that one is better than another.

            But that is still a value judgement. It’s not a trivial judgement like Coke and Pepsi; it’s a deeply serious and important judgement. We should be deeply committed to spreading that idea.

            In order to do that effectively though, we need to be recognize that that’s what we’re doing. We can’t take important ideas for granted.

            I am sorry that my original post seemed to be trying to make a moral equivalence between what we did and the Russians did. That is the opposite of what I intended, but it seems I did not express myself well. I have been having arguments with Chinese people on this subject and I think, minus the context, I did not succeed in communicating my meaning.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Yeah, here's the thing: the United States is good and the Russian regime is evil.

      We also killed Bin Laden in "cold blood". Good.

      And crazies that shoot up schools are fired upon and often killed by police. Oh look, we're shooting too. What hypocrites we are, right? Wrong.

      The Republican party is to blame for Trump, but the GOP has sanctioned the use of foreign enemies to help them win elections in their consistent defense of Trump.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Xaveria

        Pat, I haven’t slept well for a while, and maybe that’s why, but I am genuinely not following you.

        I wasn’t trying to say that the US is evil or that we are hypocrites. We are both, of course, but no more than any one else, and much much less than many others. I happen to think that, as world hegemonies go, the US has been one of the best and most benign. Benign or not, the end of that dominance is wildly dangerous. No one should be sleeping well.

        I was explaining that Putin very likely launched his propaganda campaign in 2016 at least in part because that is what he thinks we did in Ukraine in 2014. I don’t think we were wrong to do so. The warfare of ideas is legitimate and necessary — if The Ukranians like Western ideas more than eastern ones, then Putin should have done a better job selling eastern ideas.

        I would add that is half of the country prefers Russian lies and Trump’s insane drivel to what they hear from the left, then maybe the Democrats should reconsider how they sell their ideas. But I know a dead end when I see it again.

        From other conversations with you, I know that you believe that the Democrats are pure good and the Republicans are pure evil. You yourself have admitted that you believe this with a kind of religious fanaticism, and I know better than to try to argue a person from their faith. Can we at least concentrate on what we agree on? The GOP itself is hopelessly compromised and no one should vote for them again, and that Putin is actually lost in pure evil.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Unlike any country before it, the USA was founded on *principles* of the *Rights of Man*. We haven't always followed these principles perfectly, but that is what we *stand for*. We are the beacon of *good* in the world, and if we fall then *evil* takes over in the form of Russia and China. (I don't consider say climate change anywhere near as big of a threat to mankind as global tyranny for instance).

          I'm glad you clarified, because when a country does something evil and somebody replies, "but we do that too", it sounds like pure moral relativism--like the arguments I've had with leftists for years.

          If the Democrats need to improve their fight against evil, then fine. But that doesn't make the GOP any less of a threat to our country.

          And I don't consider Democrats "good", I consider the GOP an existential threat to our country and the Democrats the same party they've always been--annoying, and they do some bad things, but they not a threat to our country as a whole.

          Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    If MSNBC was available in print, you’d find it next to the cash register at Publix. No offense to Steve, of course.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    BestUsedCarSales

    Putin was just too darn busy in 2020 to do a thing though.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      You don’t think Hunter Biden really left his laptop at that Delaware computer store, do you?

      That was just their carveout, like wikileaks, to deliver the fruits of their espionage into our elections again with plausible deniability.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Russia didn't succeed because our cyber defense forces did their thing. Had they not, Russia would have probably done even more than they did in 2016.

      Collapse
Load More