A key talking point in the theory that Donald Trump and the Russians conspired in the 2016 election is the allegation that last summer, during the Republican convention, the Trump campaign changed the GOP platform to weaken its stance on Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

It's been cited many, many times. The only problem is, it's all wrong.

The wildest expression of the theory came, as it often does, from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who told viewers on March 8 that "something weird" happened to the GOP platform on "that Ukraine and Russia thing" when the Trump team "jumped right up on that and they insisted that that plank only, that one, had to be taken out, that language could not stand."

Maddow's charge echoed what Democrats have long been saying about the issue. "Donald Trump changed the Republican platform to become what some experts would regard as pro-Russian," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told ABC on July 24 of last year. Some journalists, including those less fevered than Maddow, joined in to report the so-called weakening as an accepted fact. National Public Radio, for example, explained "how the Trump campaign weakened the Republican platform on aid to Ukraine."

Much of the reporting and commentary appears to spring from a single story, published in the Washington Post on July 18, 2016, with the headline "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine." The piece reported that the Trump team "orchestrated a set of events" to change the platform in a pro-Russian direction.

Missing from all the talk is what the Republican platform actually said before it was allegedly "gutted" by Trump. What did the original draft of the platform say about Russia and Ukraine? Was it, in fact, changed? If so, how?

As it turns out, a look at the original draft of the platform — which has never been released publicly — shows that it always had tough language on Russian aggression in Ukraine. And not only did that language stay in the final platform — nothing was taken out — it was actually strengthened, not weakened, as a result of events at the convention.

The controversy is over a chapter in the original platform headlined "America Resurgent." The original draft discussed Russia and Ukraine in two parts of the chapter. The first passage warned of "a resurgent Russia occupying parts of Ukraine and threatening neighbors from the Baltic to the Caucasus."

The second passage was more expansive and began by noting a desire to maintain a friendship with "the people of Russia." But better relations are made more difficult, the draft said, by "the continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin":

Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

That wasn't exactly a pro-Russia or pro-Putin statement. And it stayed in the final Republican platform.

Not only that, the later, final platform contained a few additional words on Russia and Ukraine that weren't in the original draft. To the first passage cited above, after "from the Baltic to the Caucasus," the GOP platform committee added this:

We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.

That wasn't exactly pro-Russian, either. The bottom line: The original GOP draft platform contained reasonably tough language on Russia, and the amendment process added tougher language on Russia.

So how did the Trump-gutted-the-GOP-platform narrative get started?

It appears it was unwittingly set in motion by a single Republican delegate, a Texas woman long active in GOP politics named Diana Denman, who proposed to add a couple of paragraphs to the original platform's position on Ukraine.

In 1998, Denman traveled to Ukraine as an international observer for that country's parliamentary elections. Prior to that she had made several trips to the old Soviet Union. "I have kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a telephone talk Friday. "So when I drafted the plank, I tried to be very thoughtful and to address the problems that they have had and are still having."

Denman, one of 100 state delegates on the platform committee and one of about 20 on the subcommittee working on the national security part of the platform, wanted tougher language on Ukraine. She proposed this amendment:

Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a "Europe whole and free" is being severely tested by Russia's ongoing military aggression in Ukraine. Launched in 2014, Moscow's offensive constitutes the first attempt since the end of World War II to change by force the sovereign boundaries in Europe. Ukraine's government and people have shown a remarkable resolve to resist Russian pressure, including by mobilizing a military force that, together with European sanctions, has successfully thwarted further advances by the Russian military and its surrogates.

The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle, and in their efforts to strengthen the rule of law, forge a free market economy, and expand democratic governance. We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption.

The first thing to note is that Denman's amendment, had it been added to the platform at the length she proposed it, would have given Ukraine an outsized presence in the platform. Besides, Denman's first paragraph basically repeated points that were already in the platform. So it seems highly unlikely that Denman's amendment would have been added to the platform in its entirety.

But the core of Denman's addition was in the second paragraph, in which she sought to add support of sanctions and "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine. While many Republicans support lethal aid, it would also be entirely reasonable not to include it — to leave an explicit commitment out of a platform that had already promised to "not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine or elsewhere."

When Denman proposed her amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss the changes.

The end result was that at the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the first paragraph of Denman's amendment altogether. They took out the reference to "lethal defensive weapons" from the second paragraph. But they approved her statement of support for maintaining, and possibly increasing, sanctions against Russia, and, in the place of lethal aid, substituted a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine" and to work more closely with NATO. Here again is the final language that was added to the platform as a result of Denman's amendment:

We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.

There was never a subcommittee vote on the change. People in the room, speaking anonymously, estimate that perhaps a handful of delegates supported Denman, another small group opposed, and a larger number were neutral, and happy with the compromise. There was no revolt.

"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document.

By the way, in our conversation, Denman stressed her support of Donald Trump. She came to the convention a Ted Cruz delegate bound to vote for the Texas senator on the first ballot. But when Trump wrapped up the nomination, Denman told me, she supported him, contributed to him, and voted for him. And she supports him today.

"We move on," Denman said. "We go forward."

Not long after the platform subcommittee meeting, the Post's "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine" story was published, and a new conventional wisdom began to form: The Trump team, doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin, gutted the GOP platform's position on behalf of Russia.

That is precisely the opposite of what happened. In the end, the platform, already fairly strong on the Russia-Ukraine issue, was strengthened, not weakened, as a result of the subcommittee meeting. The Trump campaign agreed to a platform condemning Kremlin belligerence, calling for continued, and perhaps increased, sanctions against Russia, for the full restoration of Ukrainian territory, for refusing to accept "any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine or elsewhere," and pledging to aid Ukraine's armed forces.

The bottom line is that almost nothing in the Trump-weakened-the-GOP-platform narrative is as it seems. Whatever the full story of Trump and Russia in the 2016 campaign turns out to be, it will only be revealed by examining what actually happened, not by repeating talking points.