🚨 Hillary Clinton recently surprised political observers by saying she would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize—if he could bring the war in Ukraine to a close without forcing Kyiv to surrender territory and while standing firmly against Vladimir Putin. Her remark was unusually direct: “I would nominate President Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize if he were the architect of ending this terrible war… if he could really stand up to Putin — something we haven’t seen, but perhaps this is the opportunity.”

The timing of Clinton’s comment has raised eyebrows, coming just as fresh investigations revisit the origins of the Russia collusion narrative—a controversy that has long been tied to her own 2016 presidential campaign. Critics argue that her remarks about honoring Trump may be an attempt to reframe history as scrutiny intensifies over the tactics used against him during that election.

Central to the controversy is the Steele dossier, a collection of unverified claims drawn from Kremlin-linked sources and covertly funded by Clinton’s campaign. The dossier was funneled through intermediaries and selectively leaked to the press to give the appearance of credibility. Though never substantiated, it played a key role in shaping the collusion narrative.

Her campaign also advanced the Alfa Bank theory, which alleged secret communications between Trump’s organization and Russia. Internal records later showed that her own experts dismissed the data as baseless, yet attorney Michael Sussmann, tied to her campaign, still presented it to the FBI. Despite knowing the evidence was flimsy, bureau leaders pursued “Crossfire Hurricane,” an investigation that involved surveillance of Trump’s campaign and later his presidency.

Intelligence documents have since revealed that Clinton approved a plan in 2016 to smear Trump with collusion allegations as a distraction from her own email scandal. The CIA even briefed President Obama about the strategy. These revelations have deepened skepticism about the origins of the investigation and raised questions about the role partisan opposition research played in federal probes.

Against this backdrop, Clinton’s sudden talk of nominating Trump for a Nobel Prize appears to some less like a gesture of bipartisan recognition and more like a strategic move. With new subpoenas and expanded probes into Russiagate, critics suggest her statement may function as a smokescreen to deflect attention from her own past controversies.