The Krasnov Cover-Up: How Snopes Fell for Kremlin Spin

Dear Amelia Clarke and Jack Izzo,

Your Snopes piece, What to Know About the Rumor Trump Was Recruited by KGB in 1987, didn’t just miss the mark — it created a ripple effect of lazy journalism that’s now polluting credible discourse. Thanks to your half-baked reporting, you didn’t just mislead France 24 — you managed to drag Professor Darin Gerdes down with you. What started as a bungled fact-check has now snowballed into a perfect example of how bad reporting mutates into accepted truth.

PHOTO: Professor Darin Gerdes, YouTube Channel Host

Let’s break down the mess you made.

First, you relied on Daniyar Ashimbayev, a pro-Russian “historian,” as your key source — without bothering to inform readers that Ashimbayev has a track record of pushing Kremlin-aligned narratives. Ashimbayev’s absurd “timeline discrepancy” — pointing to Mussayev’s move from the KGB to the MVD in 1986 — was nothing more than a cheap sleight of hand. Trump’s 1987 Moscow visit — the very trip Mussayev cited — has been widely documented. The actual timeline fits. But instead of exploring that, you let Ashimbayev muddy the waters with his bureaucratic trivia, twisting Mussayev’s career shift into a supposed “gotcha” moment.

PHOTO: Daniyar Ashimbayev, pro-Russian “historian”.

It’s as if you caught someone claiming they were in a car accident on I-95 and “debunked” it by pointing out they also drove on Route 1 earlier that day. It's nonsense — and you swallowed it whole.

Worse still, you ignored ample evidence that could have complicated your narrative — namely the long history of Soviet attempts to court Trump. As Luke Harding, Yuri Shvets, and others have shown, the KGB had its eyes on Trump in the 1980s — and Soviet intelligence absolutely had a history of courting influential Western businessmen. Mussayev’s claim isn’t just plausible — it fits a known pattern. But instead of grappling with that, you treated Mussayev like a lunatic conspiracy theorist while cozying up to a Kremlin apologist because his version was easier to sell.

And here’s where your failure metastasized.

Your lazy reporting became the foundation for France 24’s equally lazy “Truth or Fake” segment. Catalina Marchand de Abreu dragged a giant red ‘X’ across Mussayev’s post like she was stamping out a roach — smugly dismissing a serious allegation without an ounce of critical thought. She parroted your flawed conclusions, waved around Ashimbayev’s “timeline discrepancy” as if it were undeniable proof, and — worst of all — dragged Mark, the one voice of reason in the segment, down with her. Mark had the good sense to point out Trump’s alignment with Putin’s foreign policy and the broader concerns about Russian influence, but Catalina breezed past those points like she was fast-forwarding through commercials.

But the real damage came when your reporting wormed its way into Professor Darin Gerdes’ commentary. Gerdes, a figure who normally champions critical thinking, ended up regurgitating your mess like a student cramming the wrong answers before an exam. His video — intended as a calming dose of reason — leaned heavily on your flawed Snopes piece and the deleted Daily Beast article to dismiss Mussayev’s claims. Gerdes, who should have been skeptical of Snopes’ overconfidence, instead treated your botched fact-check as a definitive conclusion.

The irony is staggering: Gerdes lectured his viewers about the dangers of misinformation while blindly trusting your own half-baked conclusions. He scoffed at Mussayev’s background, ignoring the reality that defectors like Mussayev have historically been among the most valuable sources of intelligence — and sometimes the only ones willing to tell uncomfortable truths. Instead of recognizing that nuance, Gerdes leaned on your shoddy reporting to dismiss Mussayev outright. His smug reminders to “stop and hear yourself” felt less like genuine caution and more like an academic version of Catalina’s red ‘X’ — smug, condescending, and designed to shut down curiosity rather than encourage critical thinking.

By the time Gerdes finished his lecture, it was clear your reporting hadn’t just misled the public. It had convinced people like Gerdes — who should have known better — to stop asking questions.

And that’s the most unfortunate part of this whole debacle. Mussayev’s claim may or may not be true — but thanks to your reckless reporting, too many journalists, academics, and commentators have decided the case is closed.You didn’t just fail at your job — you made sure other people stopped doing theirs too.

Sincerely,
Closer to the Edge

---