Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

There’s always an old Trump tweet: Russian indictment edition

“The Russia hoax continues,” Trump grumped when Facebook turned over ads to investigators. ... About that.

As unpredictable as the Trump era has often been, there is one truth upon which we can rely: Somewhere in the archives of the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is an old tweet that corresponds perfectly to the latest news.

On Friday, the Department of Justice announced indictments against the Russian company known as the Internet Research Agency and 13 Russian individuals, accusing them of conspiring to meddle in the 2016 presidential election to attack Hillary Clinton and boost Trump through social media posts, the organization of US rallies, and online ads. Lo and behold, there is a tweet — from September 22, 2017 — implying that attention to “ads on Facebook” was part of the “Russia hoax”:

Obviously, Trump has spent plenty of time fulminating about the investigations into Russian election interference, calling it “fake news.” But usually, he’s confined his denials to the idea that there was deliberate “collusion” between Russia and the Trump campaign. Friday’s indictment doesn’t contradict that; it says repeatedly that any contacts between Trump operatives and Russians named in the indictment were “unwitting.”

But the September tweet is different.

On September 15, 2017, reports broke that Facebook had turned over ads bought by Russian entities during the 2016 campaign to special counsel Robert Mueller. On September 21, after congressional investigators asked Facebook for the ads, Facebook sent them to Congress too. And on the early morning of September 22, Trump decried the move, calling it part of the “Russia hoax” — Trump shorthand for the “Russia-collusion narrative (which) is a hoax.”

In fact, the indictment makes it damn clear that the “ads on Facebook” Trump was referring to in September were not part of some “deep state” hoax to make it look like Russia meddled in the election. They were, in fact, part of a hoax perpetrated by Russia to meddle in the election.

The indictment says that the Internet Research Agency started buying Facebook ads for fraudulent social media accounts in or around 2015. But it identifies several specific occasions on which Facebook ads were bought to help Trump in the general election, whether by attacking Hillary Clinton:

Or organizing pro-Trump rallies in New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida:

Screenshot of document via Department of Justice
Screenshot of document via Department of Justice
Screenshot of document via Department of Justice

President Trump has not, as of this writing, tweeted about the indictments. He doesn’t have to. His September 2017 tweet already says everything it needs to about his heedless insistence not just that there was no deliberate collusion between his campaign and the Russian government, but that there was no Russian meddling in the election at all.

More in Politics

Politics
The war in Iran isn’t ending — it’s becoming something newThe war in Iran isn’t ending — it’s becoming something new
Politics

Why this conflict is so hard to end.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
The lucky few who can apply for tariff refundsThe lucky few who can apply for tariff refunds
Politics

The Trump administration launched its tariff refund portal. Will the refunds really happen?

By Andrew Prokop
Podcasts
Pete Hegseth’s spiritual leader explains his radical faithPete Hegseth’s spiritual leader explains his radical faith
Podcast
Podcasts

The Christian nationalist pastor swaying the Trump administration discusses Trump, Iran, and the pope.

By Jolie Myers and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track youThe Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you
Politics

Chatrie v. United States asks what limits the Constitution places on the surveillance state in an age of cellphones.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
Israel’s critics are winning the battle for the Democratic PartyIsrael’s critics are winning the battle for the Democratic Party
Politics

Democratic voters turned against Israel. Now their politicians are following.

By Andrew Prokop
America, Actually
Rubén Gallego on why he defended Eric Swalwell — and why he regrets it nowRubén Gallego on why he defended Eric Swalwell — and why he regrets it now
America, Actually

An interview with the senator Swalwell called his “best friend.”

By Astead Herndon