The Russia Inquiry: Confirmation Bias

Table of Content

Looking at the Russia Inquiry from all points of view has given me an interesting perspective of the world, it has shown me the meanings of hatred, support, and love in this world. In 2016, I awoke politically as a supporter of then-candidate Trump, his brash style of leadership seeming like a nice changeup in the wake of a President who I saw as an individual with the power to change anything but not having the will to do so.

In addition to this, his business mindset, being a private citizen, and his personal kindness and generosity derived from stories, accounts, and awards from different communities led me to believe him a good-willed individual. Following the 2016 election, the opposite of all this was apparent in the coverage of him from most media sources as well as Hollywood and from politicians. The absolute toxicity following this man around in everything he did pique my interest and interested me in how this had happened to the man I saw at the start of the campaign.

This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay
“Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate
128 writers

ready to help you now

Get original paper

Without paying upfront

What I found was that an elaborate snare had entrapped this President cutting down his ability to act in the manners in which he is constitutionally and congressionally approved. A president whose policies are cut down by the Supreme Court is one thing but a president with what seems like the whole of DOJ, FBI, Media, the Democrat Party and part of the Republican Party working against him seems like a whole other animal.

Where Did The Russia Inquiry Start?

It appears that through texts between FBI counsel and the Head of Counter-Intelligence at the FBI it began with a spying and intelligence gathering campaign called Crossfire Hurricane in late 2015 through 2016 and resulted in an FBI investigation into President Donald J. Trump. Following advice from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the President fired FBI director for mishandling the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Following this firing outrage was spread that because he fired the director he must have been trying to obstruct the investigation into himself. With this in mind, it was suggested that the attorney general appoint a special counsel to the department of justice to continue the investigation unaffected the president. Introduced to this case is a seasoned prosecutor and Former Director of the FBI Robert S Mueller III, a Republican who served as director of the FBI with honor for both a Republican and Democrat president even earning a congressional extension to his tenure as FBI director. With high profile prosecutions and captures of men like Manuel Noriega, John Gotti, and James ‘Whitey’ Bulger, it’s easy to see why he was chosen to be a “non-partisan” choice to investigate the president.

So What?

Why does any of this matter, a man with a record of serving the country in the military and law enforcement liked by many people in Washington is appointed to investigate whether there was any collusion with Russia in the 2016 election? It’s not the man that matters all or what he’s doing, it’s the name attached to the man. This is one part of the public perception hit-piece against Donald Trump one of many pieces that are put together to form the monstrous narrative that Donald J Trump worked hand-in-hand with Russia to win the 2016 election

The ‘Pieces’ Of The Puzzle

So what do you need in order to successfully smear a person as high-profile and difficult as the President in order to remove him from office by shame or impeachment? First off, you need to remove any goodness to the name of the person in question. You can do this a couple of ways depending on the connections you have.

You need to give it a basis if you find an old lawsuit or many of them describing any kind of discrimination that can give you a base regardless of the truth of the suit or how it ended. Next, you need a mouthpiece. If you have access to community leaders you can get together a group of people to put out that the person a racist, homophobe or xenophobe based on the accusations they’ve received from the lawsuits.

Now that you have a small movement, you can work your way through media and social media and spread it like a fire that the person is who you say they are. You can even use their words out of context or not how they intended them as proof that they are who you say they are. This is an example of confirmation bias and how many would defend their accusation that Donald Trump is a racist. Now that this person is labeled as a racist any accusation is instantly more believable the more high-profile the accusation the more believable. A successful smear job is only the first piece of this puzzle.

The next piece is an investigation, the basis of which, in the case of Donald Trump, can be found in a dossier, created by his opponents and leaked by a political rival. Once you have the basis for an investigation, you need a high-profile name to give it that extra credibility. This name is found in Robert Swan Mueller III, in the case of Donald Trump.

Given the previous smear job’s success, the ability to label the individual you intend on investigating to the public as guilty is easy and with absolute credibility granted to it by the name attached to the investigation, you can move forward however you please.

So How Does This Result In An Impeachment?

So you have a public against the individual and investigation in search of crimes and an accusation that seems credible enough, what more do you need? Well in order to change the people and Congress’ mind about whether or not to remove the president, you need to give them a credible reason as to what the president did illegally. If you can’t find a crime then you need to make one up and substantiate it without outside evidence.

First, you need to show that the individual is corrupt and the easiest way to go about this by showing who they surround themselves with to be corrupt. Aesop once said, “A man is known by the company he keeps.” So, if you are able to convict their company, then they will be known as the person that surrounds themselves with criminals, and the closer the crime can be to the individual the more weight it holds in the public eye.

Back to the investigation, with the unfettered ability to investigate whatever you want you are able to find crimes in anything. Trump’s circle would be the first stop for the investigation and it doesn’t matter what you find as long as its criminal. So tax records, lying to the FBI or Congress, identity fraud, campaign finance violations, whatever you can get to get a conviction.

With a convictable offense, you can slap on some more difficult to prove offenses like conspiracy, election fraud, foreign agent status and so on and offer deals to remove all of the other offenses and take a simple plea deal with the easy to prove the offense. This way you get multiple charged offenses that stick with the individual even though they are only convicted of something like lying to the FBI, which is easy to prove. Now, you have bad company around the individual charge with all sorts of conspiracy and fraud charges and conviction labels on all of them.

Individually, these accusations would mean nothing. President Obama had told Medvedev, Russian leader, that he would “have more flexibility after the election.” Does that imply any guilt of crimes with Russia? No, it’s weird and very suspicious but no guilt. Obama also had individuals around him investigated/convicted. David Petraeus was convicted of mishandling classified information and Hillary Clinton was investigated for year because of her carelessness with classified information and endangering the lives of American diplomats and John Brennan went uncharged but perjured himself before congress ass well.

Was Obama guilty of anything? Well the only thing he was guilty of was keeping bad company no crimes. Individual things do not imply guilt, however when you mash them together to prove a theory you are confirming your theories with information that otherwise wouldn’t amount to anything is confirmation bias. The Russia Inquiry is a prime example of how dangerous this can be and how it can take down anyone includes a sitting president.

Cite this page

The Russia Inquiry: Confirmation Bias. (2021, Sep 23). Retrieved from

Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront