Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have Trump and Clinton publicly responded to claims of kompromat from Russia?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and cast allegations of Russian kompromat and related probes as hoaxes or political attacks, at times saying his comments inviting Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails were “jest” and framing investigations as partisan [1] [2]. Hillary Clinton and her campaign treated Russian targeting of her emails as a national-security issue and criticized Trump’s public invitation to Russia; Clinton’s team has also been linked in reporting to paying for opposition research (the Steele dossier) that later became controversial [3] [4].
1. “Invite, then deny”: how Trump publicly framed the Russia/kompromat story
Trump publicly asked Russia to “find the 30,000 emails” missing from Clinton’s server in July 2016, a remark his campaign later described as sarcasm and Trump himself later told Special Counsel Mueller it was “in jest,” while he and his allies more broadly have characterized allegations of Russian ties or kompromat as a political “sideshow” or hoax [1] [2] [5]. Across years of coverage he has also tweeted and promoted narratives blaming Clinton’s campaign for promoting discredited Russia claims and has urged investigations into Clinton-related matters, framing scrutiny of his own conduct as partisan attacks [6] [7].
2. Clinton’s response: national-security alarm and scrutiny of Russian targeting
After Trump’s public call for Russia to search for emails, the Clinton campaign said the matter had become “a national security issue” because U.S. authorities tied Russian actors to targeting Clinton-related accounts on or around the same day [3]. Clinton’s team and some Democratic officials emphasized the seriousness of foreign cyberactivity against a U.S. campaign and treated the episode as evidence of a broader Russian influence operation [3].
3. The Steele dossier and competing narratives about who sought kompromat
The Steele dossier — paid for in part by the Clinton campaign and the DNC through Fusion GPS — alleged Russia sought to cultivate ties and possessed kompromat; this dossier became a focal point for dispute because critics said parts were unverified and senators and prosecutors later released material questioning aspects of its origins and reliability [4] [8]. Trump used that funding connection to allege Clinton “bought” the dossier and accused her of colluding with Russia to smear him, a framing pushed by some conservative outlets and Trump allies [6] [8].
4. Putin, the Kremlin’s denial, and media uncertainty about actual kompromat files
Western reporting has sometimes claimed Russian intelligence has recordings or other kompromat on both Trump and Clinton; Newsweek reported unnamed intelligence sources saying the Kremlin held audio/video material though it could not confirm compromising content, while the Kremlin publicly dismissed dossier claims as “pulp fiction,” denying it collected kompromat on either figure [9] [10]. Those divergent accounts highlight that public claims about specific kompromat holdings have mixed sourcing and remain disputed.
5. Legal and investigative aftermath: probes, rebuttals and political weaponization
Special Counsel and other investigators documented Russian targeting of Democratic accounts and probed possible contacts between Trump associates and Russians; at the same time, later reviews and declassified documents (and partisan commentary) have been used by opponents to argue both that Clinton’s campaign engaged in an effort to tie Trump to Russia and that Russia interfered to aid Trump — competing conclusions that each side cites to support its narrative [3] [8]. Trump has repeatedly said inquiries into his campaign’s Russia ties were politically motivated; Clinton has pointed to hacking and targeting as a coordinated foreign interference effort [2] [3].
6. Why reporting still leaves questions open
Major elements remain contested in the public record: the Steele dossier’s provenance and accuracy, what — if any — concrete kompromat the Kremlin actually possesses on either Trump or Clinton, and the full extent to which campaigns used or were affected by opposition research and foreign operations [4] [9] [8]. Some sources allege recorded material exists, others (including the Kremlin) deny it, and official probes documented cyberattacks but did not establish that kompromat changed the 2016 outcome [9] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers
Trump’s public responses have been to minimize, mock, or recharacterize kompromat allegations as jokes or partisan hoaxes, while Clinton’s camp treated Russian targeting as a national-security problem and has been criticized for paying for opposition research that fed into the controversy [2] [3] [4]. Available reporting shows sharp partisan disagreement about motives and facts; definitive public proof of specific kompromat holdings is not established in the cited coverage [9] [10].
Limitations: available sources in this packet do not include complete primary documents or final adjudications that resolve disputed claims; they offer competing accounts and cited denials that leave key factual questions unresolved [4] [9] [8].