How does the unsubstantiated story of Russiagate continue to be propagated? This article highlights the misreporting of a key event by two news organizations that presented "initial allegations" in the DNC complaint as "findings" by a judge in his Opinion and Order.

::::::::

Many people still believe, as a "believed fact," that the Russian Federation hacked into the Democratic National Committee's (DNC's) computer system and helped Trump steal the 2016 election. Even though three years of investigations have not provided any basis for these allegations Russiagate, as a "believed fact," is still a prevalent meme.

To get a better understanding of how this meme is still perpetuated, we only need to review the July 30^th New York Times article announcing the dismissal of the DNC suit. In the article, "Democrats' Lawsuit Alleging Trump-Russia Conspiracy Is Dismissed,"by Sharon LaFraniere, we see:

WASHINGTON A federal judge in Manhattan on Monday dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee that had accused President Trump's 2016 campaign, WikiLeaks and Russia of illegally conspiring to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential run.

The Russian government was clearly "the primary wrongdoer" for hacking into Democratic computers and funneling purloined documents to WikiLeaks to disseminate, found Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. But as a foreign sovereign, he wrote, Russia was immune from any liability.

Restating the highlighted sentence and replacing the word "found" with the synonym "legally determined," we have the following declarative statement which says: Judge John G. Koeltl legally determined that the Russian government was clearly "the primary wrongdoer."

Both versions of the statement are incorrect and shows how the misleading propagation of the DNC's Russiagate narrative persists.

NY Times Investigative Reporter

To better understand the propagation, the credentials of the author of the NY Times article should be a relevant. Mischaracterization by novice reporters may be excusable, but misstatements of facts should have been corrected by knowledgeable editors. Sharon LaFraniere is not a novice reporter rather she has received a Pulitzer Prize for her Russiagate investigations. Her bio on the NY Times website begins with:

Sharon LaFraniere is an investigative reporter at The New York Times and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for national reporting on Donald Trump's connections with Russia.

With an extensive background of investigating the plaintiffs and defendants in this case, it is reasonable to expect that the author would have neither inserted a misleading frame into the discussion nor left out the most important part of the frame that provides context to the words that Judge John G. Koeltl "found" in his decision.

The NY Times is not alone in the perpetuation of the erroneous frame about Russiagate. The Associated Press, which claims to be "The definitive source for news," similarly misconstrued the words of Judge John G. Koeltl in an article, "Judge rejects Democrats case against Trump 2016 campaign," by Larry Neumeister.

"U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl said Russia was "undoubtably" the primary wrongdoer in the alleged criminal enterprise, but the country can't be sued in U.S. courts except in special circumstances not present in this case."

The Erroneous, Misleading Frame

But the frame applied to Judge John G. Koeltl's finding was wrong and is misleading because the sourced statement was a contained in a "motion to dismiss." In deciding a motion to dismiss the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor.

What was represented in the NY Times article as the Judge's finding was actually a restatement of the DNC's allegation not the Judge's "finding." A motion to dismiss does not weigh the facts of the case that would be presented at trial it only reviews issues of jurisdiction and the applicability of the legal arguments raised in the Complaint.

In the motion to dismiss, the statements from which the NY Times extracted the words are correctly qualified as allegations. In reading the NY Times article, this central, critical point is absent is their declarative statement. From the Opinion and Order the original statement can be seen.

"The action arises out of the alleged actions of the Russian Federation in unlawfully hacking into the DNC's computers in connection with the 2016 presidential elections and thereafter distributing stolen materials from those computers."

The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtedly the Russian Federation, the first named defendant in the case." [pp 1 and 2 of 81]

A "Motion to Dismiss"

The rules under which a motion to dismiss is evaluated is presented and discussed in the opening paragraphs of the Opinion and Order.

"In deciding a motion to dismiss ", the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." While courts should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.

In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider documents of which judicial notice may be taken. A court may also consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint as well as documents the plaintiff either had in the plaintiff's possession or had knowledge of and upon which the plaintiff relied in bringing suit.

The following facts are taken from the Second Amended Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss. [pp 4 and 5 of 81]"

It is easy to assume that these misleading articles, misinforming the public, are not simply errors.

Authors Website: http://www.scientistsfor911truth.com/wayne-h-coste

Authors Bio:

Licensed Professional Engineer dealing with energy issues. Active in promoting the ethics of the engineering profession.