We've all seen this on social media, I'm sure: an article, tweet, or post about Trump's cavalier dismissal of receiving information from foreign governments or agents, and someone inevitably replies "But Hillary's campaign got help from a foreigner - Christopher Steele!!1!1!!'"

What's the best way to deflate that line of thinking? By pointing out that Steele is British, so he doesn't represent a hostile foreign government? By saying that Steele was paid, first by Republicans and then by Democrats, and that's not the same as foreigners offering information in return for something later on? By saying that Steele was an intelligence agent who had investigated many things in the past, and he didn't have his own agenda?

I know that the hardcore Trumpers won't listen to reason, but we have to push back, lest that line enters the popular consciousness as just another "both sides do it" alternative fact.....