”Russian hoax” eller ”Russian collusion”? : En kritisk diskursanalys kring utredningen av den ryska inblandningen i USA:s presidentval 2016

Sammanfattning: The aim of this study is to analyse "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Inerference In The 2016 Presidential Election", or the "Mueller report", and William Barr's summary of the same report by using poststructural critical discourse analysis. This critical analysis aims to examine how their potrayal differ and to analyse what impact that might have had on the political discource surrounding the US Presidency, Russia and the US election. In conclusion they differ quite a bit. While the Mueller report show supstantial evidence of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump, William Barr found that the report completely exonerated him. Attorney General William Barr's summary of the report was the first summary of the report to reach the public. Perhaps his description of the report had an impact on the decision whether to impede Donald Trump after the report came out. What impact did the Mueller report and Barr's summary of the same have on the political discource surrounding the legitimacy of the US election and the US presidency?