Steve King Mixed Up His Soros and His Whistleblower Conspiracy Theories

The Iowa Republican circulated disinformation in a now deleted tweet.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on Thursday probably thought he was posting pictures of the alleged whistleblower in Trump’s Ukraine scandal, when he instead posted photos of Alex Soros, the son of a liberal financier and billionaire George Soros.

“Adam Schiff said, ‘I do not know the identity of the whistleblower.’ …here are four strong clues,” King tweeted on Thursday morning, before deleting it later in the day after reporters noticed the message and pointed out his mistake. 

The image King tweeted contained four pictures of Soros’s son appearing alongside high profile Democratic politicians Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Conservatives have frequently tried to pin the elder Soros, a prominent Jewish investor and philanthropist, as a boogeyman responsible for a number of nefarious anti-Republican schemes. Although Soros has not to date played a major role in conspiracy theories espoused about the Ukraine whistleblower, that may be changing. Last night on Fox News, Joseph DiGenova, a conservative lawyer and an associate of Rudy Giuliani, claimed that Soros was directing US diplomats and FBI agents in a quest to control Ukraine, and that he’d been aided by one of the State Department officials who testified at Wednesday’s impeachment inquiry.

While King has levied attacks at George Soros in the past, it’s not likely his tweet was an attempt to rope him or his son into the Ukraine scandal—instead it seems that King fell for a right-wing hoax website’s misinformation.

It’s unclear exactly how King found the image, but the same photo collage that King posted has been circulated by two sketchy, obscure right-wing sites along with articles providing an alleged name of the whistleblower. The stories, which were posted on November 8 and 11, also appeared to conflate the alleged whistleblower with Soros.

Neither story was widely shared, but both picked up a small amount of traction in niche, right-wing internet circles on Facebook and Twitter. Some obscure right-wing bloggers and social media accounts also posted the image, also misidentifying Soros as the alleged whistleblower. One of the stories was shared by the right-wing conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi on November 11, which could have helped it make its way to King. (Neither Corsi nor a representative for King returned Mother Jones requests for comment.)

The websites which distributed the composite image of Soros were designed to appear like local news outlets—a common tactic among people seeking to spread disinformation and misinformation. The strategy was used by Russian trolls to influence American politics on social media in 2016, and has been replicated by others, including different countries and private, for-profit hyperpartisan news ad farms. 

The sites show a mix of local news from the areas where they claim to be based, interspersing stories with an aggressively pro-conservative bend.

A more extensive version of the collage of Alex Soros alongside Democratic politicians appeared to have started circulating in 2016, after Breitbart posted it as the lead image on a profile of the younger Soros. It was then posted on right-wing blogs echoing the story, before reappearing on the internet at various points between 2016 and Thursday, when King gave it a second wind.

King’s failed attempt to put a face on the whistleblower comes as GOP officials have worked to publicly confirm the identity of the whistleblower who first called attention to Trump’s request that Ukraine undertake investigations damaging to his political opponents.

Additional reporting by Dan Friedman.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate