Talk:Carter Page

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

Carter Page previously worked with the Clinton Administration transition team in 1992-1993 while serving as a Research Fellow on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Capitol Hill. During his Fellowship, HASC Chairman Les Aspin was selected by President Clinton as the Secretary of Defense in December 1992. From May 1993 – December 1994, Carter went on to serve as the Arms Control Action Officer for Counterproliferation Policy in the Nuclear Affairs and International Negotiations Branch of the Navy Staff in the Pentagon.

Source of above: Monday, November 24, 2008, Presidential Administration Transitions: Public Service during Periods of Change106020 Link: http://bgia.bard.edu/speakerseries/archive/?year=2008 70.177.2.93 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source. That Bard source isn't one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence, but in Carter Page's 2017 Congressional hearing testimony -- Carter Page November 2, 2017 HPSCI Testimony -- He mentions working for Aspin and the House Armed Services Committee when he was a Trident Scholar in the 1992-93 time frame. He doesn't mention the George Bush/Bill Clinton 1992-1993 transition. It seems to me that if it was true, it's the kind of thing he'd have brought up to establish that he's not an overly partisan pro-Trump ideologue.

Billmckern (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We already have that he worked for Aspin and the Armed Services Committee. It's sourced to McClatchy, which is a reliable source. The rest of it requires another reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Embarrassing fact Carter Page was Clinton's surveillance buddy since 1992!

• Carter Page Worked With the Clinton Transition Team in 1992, Was an FBI Mole in 2013, And Then Suddenly Became a Russian Agent in 2016? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.207.40 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• We don't use unreliable sources here, or traffic in conspiracy theories. When multiple RS document this, try again. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Carter Page's Previous Work with the FBI

The article goes directly to Mr. Page's involvement with the Trump campaign, from a broad overview of him. What is not covered is his previous involvement with the FBI in the case of the Russian agent. Victor Podobnyy was one of three Russians charged with espionage as the result of FBI investigations begun in 2013. The Boston Globe provides some background here.

The above article includes this link to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York where the guilty plea of Evgeny Buryakov is announced.

This was also covered in a New York Times article: "Russian Spy's Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump".

This seems like important information for his bio, information that has been widely reported in Reliable Sources, and actually informs our understanding of the more recent controversy. There are conflicting allegations about his role, beyond the FBI interview which is mentioned in all three references above. Some say he was an FBI asset cooperating to make the case, some say he was "on the radar" of the FBI as a possible Russian agent. Both views seem speculative, based on the reliable information we have now, all we can say for sure is that he was involved in the case, and gave the FBI information that was used to convict the Russians.

I realize this is a controversial topic, so I wanted to get the opinion of others before making any changes to the article.

ZeroXero (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Although we don't use that particular Boston Globe source, the content is already covered in the "Foreign policy and links to Russia" section. Do you want to add to it, or you saying you want to include the story to the lead section? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Sperry Real Clear Investigations article

As this article currently reads it amounts to a violation of a biography of a living person. It needs to be fixed soon.Phmoreno (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. That's not a RS.

2. In what sense is there a violation? Get specific...exactly which words? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Without reliable sources and specifics this would seem to be an example of WP:CRYBLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

FBI allegations in lede?

I have removed this from the lede:

The FBI believes Page conspired with the Russian government and perhaps with individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Sources

This is of course covered in the article. It is based on a mention in the FISA warrant application, which also includes many other "beliefs" on the part of the FBI. But he hasn't actually been charged with anything, so I think it is inappropriate for the lede. Particularly since it accuses him of "collusion" - a red-hot topic which has so far not been officially alleged by the special counsel investigation or any other legal source, or specified in this or any other article AFAIK. Open to discussion of course, but I think we are getting beyond the current state of the evidence if we put this in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I support removal, but for a slightly different reason. The fact that Page hasn't been charged is irrelevant to me. These are still hugely noteworthy allegations and fall squarely into WP:PUBLICFIGURE. However if we talk about the allegations, then we also need to talk about the FISA warrant, and if we talk about the FISA warrant, then we need to talk about the Republican memo, the Steele dossier, and the Trump tweets, and we start getting into a whole messy recentism paragraph. My inclination is to leave it all out. I suspect this stuff will get sorted out in due time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

findings?

1 intro to article states "Page was a focus of the " a focus is a geometric term, a circle and a ellipis has a focus, foci - there is no documentation he was the focus of investigation, he was one element. 2 "the Justice Department determined the last two were not valid" the justice department is run by a partisan politician. their determination of valid or not valid is not a COURT determination of guilt or innocence. it is/was their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:105:38F4:788D:14D0:2B43:68CD (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hatchet job much?

Sheesh. I don't know much about Carter Page, but I'm not a fan, but I just came across this article and it is over the top. Why don't we just write in bolded all caps CARTER PAGE IS A BLACKGUARD 200 times and be done with it. If Carter Page has been convicted of crimes and stuff, that'd be important stuff to talk about. I'm not seeing any convictions or jail time. I am seeing a whole lot of gossip, allegations, and badmouthing. The article is very clearly designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Carter Page is bad news. This is not supposed to be how we roll. International business and politics is not pattycake. It's a brutal business. So what. It's our job to describe the players dispassionately (and, if they're alive, err on the side of being kind), not lead the reader by the nose to conclusions.

Keep in mind that the person is alive and has a reputation to protect, for chrissakes. Lots of people have enemies, and most people in public life have been called "idiot" or "wacko" by somebody. It's not something we generally report. I'm wondering if a (very understandable and probably justified) anomousity to Mr Page is in play here. Editors need to honestly examine themselves to make sure this

Concrete suggestions? I have none at this time. There's... a lot to unpack here. I note above that a request to change ""and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by a U.S. official" to "and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by an unnamed U.S. official" (emphasis added to show the addition (which is true), not in the original request), was turned down (!), which obviously this is not a route we want to be going down. (The source is Yahoo News (oooh) and the person claiming to have heard this is the author of Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.) Jesus H. Christ. If a bad thing is alleged (by a person with an political ideology to have been said about a living person by an anonymous person, we do not elide the fact the fact that the person is anonymous (if we reported it at all, which we should not). This is WP:BLP 101. We need to fix this. I have stuff on my plate. But I'll be back, and hopefully this can all be done cooperatively. We all want the same thing, right? Herostratus (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The writers involved are Michael Isikoff and David Corn, both seasoned and reputable journalists, both of whose work broke significant news in this matter. The change you cited that was rejected may have been so because it altered a direct quote from Isikoff’s piece. soibangla (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

David Corn writes for The Nation. I like The Nation -- I read it regularly, and subscribed to the print edition for many years. That, however, has nothing to do with anything. The Nation gets the same treatment as National Review: it's an extremely poor source, and writers closely associated with are liable to suspicion of being ideologues and polemicists. That they're ideologues and polemicists that I personally agree with, so what. Herostratus (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Herostratus, you nearly proved Godwin's law there, but I see you went with Mussolini instead of Hitler. Everything in this article should be written neutrally and with reliable sourcing. That doesn't mean some bad content hasn't slipped through unnoticed. If you can provide at least one concrete example, we can address it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is a joke, a humorous observation. It's not intended to be taken seriously and has little relation to actual reality. As to concrete examples, I will presently -- I'm just laying the groundwork here, now. Herostratus (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Correction: I thought you said Blackshirts, but looking again I see you said Blackguard, and I don't know which one you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would you, having corrected your reading of the word, not know what I mean. Herostratus (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing Joe di Genova as an authority?

@Terrorist96: Includes commentary from Joe di Genova, cited in the Washington Examiner, in which di Genova argues that the four FISA warrants the FBI obtained to surveil Page were illegal. Leaving out the question of whether di Genova or the Washington Examiner is a valid source - I'd argue that they'd support anything Trump did - the fact is that di Genova in his capacity as an attorney advised Trump on the Russia-Trump campaign issue to which Page is connected. Given that fact, I don't believe there's any way his commentary can be considered relevant or reliable. T-96 disagres. Anyone else want to offer an opinion? Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. I feel as though your assertion that they'd support anything Trump did to be original research and even if true, on its own that is not sufficient to exclude cited and attributed information. I would agree with you if the assertions were stated in Wiki Voice but that is not the case here. Additionally, @Adoring nanny: has provided passive support for inclusion with this edit that improves my edit to account for WP:WTW.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: My argument is pretty simple. di Genova advised Trump on the Trump-Russia issue and opined that Trump is awesome and did nothing wrong. Therefore di Genova shouldn't be cited as a credible source in support of a position that di Genova previously publicized. At a minimum, I think if di Genova is cited as an authority that the warrants were illegal, then another source ought to be cited indicating that they were legal.

Billmckern (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have such a source?Terrorist96 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: A former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, diGenova publicly pushed a conspiracy theory in January that the FBI and Justice Department officials were attempting to frame Trump with a "false crime" in the Russia investigation. The former US attorney, Joseph diGenova, has accused former FBI director James Comey of being a "dirty cop" and a "political assassin." He also characterized the Russia investigation as part of the FBI's attempt to "frame" Trump with "a false Russian conspiracy that never existed." "Di Genova is known as a fierce defender of Trump who has used frequent guest appearances on Fox News to advance far-out conspiracy theories that the FBI is trying to frame the president."

Please note that these examples are from before di Genova made his comments about the Page FISA warrants being illegal. di Genova already had an opinion on this subject a year and a half ago, and his wife and he advised Trump as attorneys before Trump decided not to hire them.

Billmckern (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it would need to be more recent and not WP:SYNTH. None of those mention "Carter Page" or "warrant", etc.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: Victoria Toensing, Joe diGenova on Carter Page's lawsuit against the DNC.

Toensing and di Genova were saying a year ago that the FISA warrants on Carter Page were illegal. They're wrong, but they keep on saying it.

Respectfully, you've essentially got di Genova as an authoritative legal figure confirming the (incorrect) opinion that di Genova the Trump backer has held all along. That can't be right.

Billmckern (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If it can't be right, then I'm sure we can find some other reliable sources that dispute that claim. But as of right now it's an attributed claim, not stated as fact. So even if it's wrong, it doesn't mean it has to be excluded; we would just need to provide different views, if any.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: See how you like the version I came up with. I pointed out that diGenova has consistently claimed the warrants were obtained illegally, going back to last year. I also included the counterargument, with references.

Billmckern (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Intelligence asset?

In his dealings with the Russians, was Page actually a U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, from 2008 to 2013. Then the FBI got a FISA wiretap on him in 2013 or 2014, evidently because they had concerns he had switched sides. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a section on the Horowitz Report finding and Page's response. Please feel free to review and see if it's acceptable.

Billmckern (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report

Very interesting article:

• Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report

BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Their conclusions don’t account for not telling the Trump team they had a possible Russian spy in their midst, which is SOP from what I understand. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Carter Page as CIA asset

Do you have more RS describing Page's contacts with the FBI? We know that he answered questions when approached by the FBI, thus making him a "confidential human source" (CHS) and an operational contact. That does not make him some special type of informant or person who worked for the FBI. We also know that he was warned by the FBI that Russian intelligence was trying to use him, and yet he ignored them and increased his pro-Russian and anti-American activities. He continued to have contacts with Russian spies and engage in very suspicious activities, thus justifying FBI surveillance activities. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look above you’ll notice a discussion where other editors have already described Page as an actual U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We'll be able to resolve this faster if you'd just respond to the question BullRangifer asked you. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer’s question isn’t relevant. This has nothing to do with Page’s contacts with the FBI. However, if you want RS for Page being a CIA operational contact, you only have to look above to other editors discussing Page as a ‘U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset’. And, something that I should have noticed before my lede edits, there is RS about Page’s CIA connections in the ‘Horowitz Report findings’ section of the article. One is nytimes.com and another is justice.gov. If you don’t mind I’ll re-edit my addition to the lede using those two citations. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Several editors have given you guidance to enable your contributions to be seriously considered, and you appear not to be following up on the policies and modes of interaction they offer. You really need to start paying attention. Nobody is trying to ignore or reject your views out of hand, but if you violate basic policies and guidelines -- especially after explicit guidance to the contrary -- things are not likely to go well for you. The American Politics articles especially require collaboration and careful sourcing and balance of the available references. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Also don't insinuate smears of the Bidens into articles where the context does not concern them. Like this SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you shouldn’t fault me for WP:BOLD. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

BOLD is fine when one first comes to an article and sees the need to improve the article. After that, if any other editors show signs that the edit is unapproved or controversial, BOLD no longer applies. Then caution is recommended. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

An "asset" is a generic term. Carter is a CIA "asset", a CHS (confidential human source). Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian FSB "asset". The term can refer to witting or unwitting. It doesn't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.

It doesn't belong in the lead. If Carter Page were an FBI double agent, that would deserve mention in the lead, but he's neither an agent or double agent. He's always been a suspect who maintained contact with Russian agents.

Let's take a look at this:

[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) Bolding added

Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition to the lead of the article, with an explanatory edit summary. The New York Times source also did not use the words "operational contact", thus failing verification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I take issue with this sentence from the article's last paragraph: "However, he also stated in a Senate hearing that he could not rule out political bias as a potential motivation."

First, there are four citations provided, and they're all bare -- NBC, NPR, The Hill, and CBS.

Second, three of the four citations do not say what the contributor of that sentence says they say. Only the CBS story mentions political bias in this context.

Third, As indicated in the article, Horowitz didn't say he could not rule out political bias. What Horowitz said was that he didn't know whether political bias was a motivation, but that he didn't find any evidence that there was. That's a very precise statement which I don't think is in line with the relevant sentence from the Wikipedia article. I haven't made an edit to that sentence or deleted it because updates to this article are frequently a source of friction. But I wanted to get my observations on record so that if others agree, maybe we can build a consensus on how to proceed.

Billmckern (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

FISA Warrants

The final sentence needs an edit. As noted in https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/30/fbi-says-wiretap-applications-contained-minor-errors/5551226002/ - in 29 reviewed warrants, only 2 material errors were found.

The 4 Carter Page warrants had 17 material errors.

TheRightSizer (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of collusion with Russia

The Mueller investigation did not find evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government. No direct evidence, no indirect evidence, no circumstantial evidence. They had suspicions, and Page had connections (some of them not fully explained to date) with Russians, but no coordination was ever shown. To say (or imply) otherwise, in the biography of a living person, you would need an exceptional source explicitly saying that. None of the current sources in the article do that Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet of banned editor NoCal100.

@Trying to reconnect: This is demonstrably false. There was a lot of circumstantial and indirect evidence, as the sources indicate. Saying no "direct" evidence is accurate. Saying "no evidence" is not. In addition to that, as the sources make clear, Page was not completely forthcoming with investigators, which hindered their ability to assess what he had done and how much evidence there was. Those are hardly the actions of an innocent person.

Additional sources which make clear that if there was no "direct" evidence, there was indirect and circumstantial evidence include --

Harding, Luke (February 3, 2018). "Why Carter Page Was Worth Watching". Politico. Arlington, VA. There's plenty of evidence that the former Trump campaign adviser, for all his quirks, was on suspiciously good terms with Russia

Mueller, Robert S. III (March 2019). "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). Justice.gov. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. pp. 98–101. The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page's activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained.

Helderman, Rosalind S. (February 2, 2018). "Memo points to FBI's sustained interest in Carter Page, ex-adviser to Trump". The Washington Post. Washington, DC. Late last year, Page provided vague and at times contradictory answers about the December 2016 trip to Russia under intense questioning from the House Intelligence Committee.

Billmckern (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote, there is certainly evidence that he had connections with Russians, and not all of it is fully explained, which is what these sources support. That gave raise to the suspicions, which led to his investigation. But that is not evidence, direct or otherwise, that he coordinated Trump campaign activities with Russia. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article body's relevant section quotes directly and accurately from the report itself- "The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election".- we should not use a weasel worded phrase to imply otherwise. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: I absolutely agree that there was no direct evidence, But to suggest that there was no evidence is just incorrect. For example, providing vague and contradictory answers are indirect evidence, because if he could give concise and precise answers that exonerated him, he would. So saying "no direct evidence" isn't weasel wording, it's an accurate description of the information that is known.

Billmckern (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, providing vague and contradictory answers is not evidence of any coordination, and the Mueller report explicitly says so, as quoted in the article, that no such coordination was found. For all we know he did not give clear answers to avoid reveling a sexual encounter, or tax evasion or shady business deals or whatever other private affair he wanted to hide. But to claim or imply that providing vague and contradictory answers is indirect evidence of collusion to influence the election requires a source, not a Wikipedia editor's opinion. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And just to clarify a couple of things: Page didn't need to "exonerate" himself - For one, he was not charged with anything, and more importantly, we live in a democracy with rule of law (Admittedly the actions of the FBI in this case make this statement somewhat doubtful), and it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the up to accused to prove their innocence or exonerate themselves. This elementary concept seems to be something many people forget. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this whole thread a straw man? Where, in this article, is Page accused, in Wikipedia's voice, of colluding or coordinating with Russia? -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement 'the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government' implies that indirect or circumstantial evidence was found. And as the above discussion and related edit summaries show, that is exactly the desired implication intended by those who want to keep the word "direct" in the lead (unsupported by any of the sources). Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: @Valjean: I agree that the prosecution has to prove guilt. They can do that with direct, indirect, or circumstantial evidence. But the burden of proof for a trial isn't a universal standard. People can and do make judgments about the likelihood that someone did or didn't do something, is or isn't guilty all the time.

In this situation, there might not have been enough evidence to indict Page, but the fact that he was not forthcoming during interviews with investigators is certainly something they can take into account when assessing the likelihood that he was involved in something illegal. Presumably, if he wasn't guilty, he'd be forthcoming. Failing to be forthcoming is indirect evidence of consciousness of guilt. That may not be enough to indict someone, but it's certainly enough to make a judgment about whether what he did was honest and aboveboard.

I continue to maintain that saying there was no direct evidence that Page coordinated between Russia and the Trump campaign is an accurate description of the information as it is known.

Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You, as an individual, can make whatever judgments about the likelihood that someone did or didn't do something that you like. But to put that in Wikipedia's voice in that person's biography, you need a reliable source explicitly saying so. Your judgement is not enough. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: That's not my judgment alone. It's the description contained in the reliable sources which are cited in the article. I'm sorry that these facts don't align with your argument. But that doesn't turn them into non-facts.

Billmckern (talk)

None of the sources in the use the terminology " the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government" , so yes, it is only your judgement, or interpretation, of what they actually say. Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We need a resolution to this matter, so maybe the wording can be tweaked. It currently says "the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government." The word in question is "direct". I have just removed one of the sources, an AP reprint of an unreliable source, The Washington Times. That leaves the statement in the lead with two sources to back it up. Here's what I have gleaned that's relevant:

• CNN quotes the Mueller report: "However, "the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." Also: "The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page's activities in Russia-as described in his emails with the Campaign-were not fully explained."
• Politico about Mueller report: "But the investigators also said they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Page had been acting as a foreign agent."

"coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government" is not the same as "coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The first is about the campaign's activities and has a shadow of truth to it, in that the campaign gave their blessings to Page's efforts, and Page informed the campaign about his activities. The latter is about Russian efforts, and no evidence of coordination by Page was found in their incomplete investigation.

Cooperation, welcoming, and invitation by Trump and the campaign with the Russian interference was indeed proven, but two words ("conspiracy" and "coordination") were not proven, the last likely because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation, and now we know that Rosenstein actually secretly shut down the investigation completely, long before all questions about Trump's Russian involvement were cleared up. That is a slightly different matter, as here we're concentrating solely on Carter Page.

Here's what we're left with:

The Mueller report was not able to obtain evidence that would fully explain all of Page's activities in Moscow. There was reasonable doubt that Page was acting as a foreign agent, and that question is still open. In the end, the Mueller "investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."

Can we boil that down? We need to include the aspects of doubt, while also including the final, unfinished, status of their investigation of Page. Looking at all the evidence and coming to a conclusion is not the same as making a statement based on clearly incomplete knowledge. To be able to "establish" Page did not coordinate and to not be able to "establish" coordination are two very different things. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and needs to be written conservatively. We can't imply that there was indirect evidence that he '"coordinated with the Russian government " when the sources do not say that (and in fact, explicitly say the opposite, e.g. the CNN source: "the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.") The simple solution is to remove the word "direct" from the lead as it is not supported by either of the two remaining sources. The more detailed description of what the Mueller report found, including the fact that Page's activities in Moscow were not fully explained, and that he gave inconsistent testimony, should be included in the section about the Mueller report. Trying to reconnect (talk)

@Trying to reconnect: @Valjean: And this is the problem. It's simply not accurate to say there was "no evidence" Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government. It IS accurate to say there's no "direct evidence" that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government.

Page's trips to Russia after notifying Trump campaign leadership that he was going is evidence. The blessing of the Trump campaign leaders for his trip is evidence. Lewandowski's less than truthful initial answers about his knowledge of Page's activities is evidence. Page's reports back to Trump campaign leadership upon his return from Russia are evidence. Page's dissembling about whether he had gone to Russia, who he had seen and talked to, and what they had talked about is evidence. It may not have been direct evidence sufficient to sustain an indictment or produce a guilty verdict in a trial, but that's at least in part because Page's dissembling actively prevented the evidence from being developed. And this is only a partial list of the evidence. So to say there's "no evidence" isn't right.

If the hangup is on the phrase "no direct evidence", fine. Anything that indicates that there was evidence, but not evidence sufficient to produce indictment and conviction would be an accurate characterization. But "no evidence" would be a complete mischaracterization.

Does one of you want to take a try at coming up with a different but still accurate characterization, or do you want me to try?

Billmckern (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again , if you want to say there was indirect or circumstantial evidence of coordination, you need to find a reliable source that says that, not your personal analysis of what constitutes such evidence. The accurate characterization is that no evidence was found - that's what the Mueller report says, as quoted in the article. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: @Valjean: Trying, I've gone as far as I'm willing to go here. You claim there's "no evidence". I'm saying the phrase "no direct evidence" is more accurate and I've explained why. Here's one more attempt to convince you:

• "The Senate report nonetheless endorsed the F.B.I.’s decision to investigate Mr. Page. "Page's previous ties to Russian intelligence officers, coupled with his Russian travel, justified the F.B.I.'s initial concerns about Page," it said."

That's a pretty clear example of indirect or circumstantial evidence, I think. I've asked you to come up with an acceptable alternative. You're not budging. If you won't work to find an alternative, I see nothing more to be gained by this conversation. Maybe someone else will be able to successfully mediate.

Billmckern (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that is an example of his suspicious behavior that led to the decision to investigate, as the sources say. You can't substitute your personal analysis for what reliable sources say, anywhere in Wikipedia, and doubly so in a BLP. I've given you an alternative - remove the word "direct" (which is not supported by the sources) from the lead, and describe in detail the suspicious behavior that led to the investigation and the inconsistent testimony given to the investigators, in the relevant section. The current lead version, as edited by User:Atsme, is ok with me. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: @Valjean: @Atsme: Trying, I give up. You're wrong and unreasonable and we're clearly not going to get anywhere. I surrender. Do what you want, as incorrect as it is.

Billmckern (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is going to need some serious updating as more information is released from Durham. There's no rush. I knew this was coming, and waited patiently for the past...uhm, 4 years or so...knowing all the work that will be involved in getting this, and related articles right. For example, WaPo states: Although Steele’s allegations were not relied on as a basis to open the investigation into Trump’s campaign, they were used to justify secret surveillance on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, later found the court applications for that surveillance were riddled with serious errors and omissions. And there's more yet to come. Tomorrow's another day. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: As you can see from previous comments, I should have known better than to take another at this article. I hate getting into arguments, but I occasionally I can't help it. On Wikipedia I do much better working on historical topics than current events. Generally, people with a point of view to push are much less likely to argue over history than what's in the news right now.

Billmckern (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

But was it a witch hunt? The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee released its final report on 2016 Russian election interference in August 2020, finding that despite problems with the FISA warrant requests used to surveil him, the FBI was justified in its counterintelligence concerns about Page. Or is this? Mark Warner, ranking member of Senate Intel, dismissed Durham’s investigation as “a fishing expedition,” he told me. “I will be very surprised if Durham finds anything new.” Meanwhile, we may soon discover what's in Barr's redactions. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that we're trying to cover two slightly different topics with that one sentence, so I think we should fix this one by replacing it with "The Muller "investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."" Then we can write a different sentence to cover the suspicions, problems, and other issues caused by the lies told by Page and the campaign about his activities and the inability/failures of investigators to get more evidence. -- Valjean (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, your interpretation of what "might have happened" is speculation, and it doesn't belong in this BLP, especially in light of this information. What also concerns me is that Yahoo News is cited in this article, and I think it should be replaced ASAP. Editors need to strictly adhere to BLP policy and maintain a high level of sensitivity, especially now. And for the record, my hands are clean. I have not been editing this article except that one correction in lead about him being exonerated. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your restoration of Yahoo News is puzzling (especially in light of your comment), as it reprints almost anything, and in this case an unreliable source that I had just deleted and explained in my edit summary. You even removed the two RS and kept the unreliable one. I'm sure you didn't intend that. It's an easy mistake to make. Sensitive BLP matters often require multiple RS, so 2-3 refs is normal, and sometimes required, by our BLP rules. -- Valjean (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that this lawsuit by Page against Yahoo will meet the same fate as his previous suit. RS have documented why suspicions about Page were warranted and justified investigation. He could not be "activated" as an asset by the CIA, but they did interview him, thus technically making him a "contact". He then warned his Russian intelligence contacts that they were being watched by American intelligence. Not good. -- Valjean (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

W/o voicing an opinion on the quality of sources (for now) , your last revert is your 2nd in less than 24 hours and violated the restrictions on editing this article. You should undo it, or be subject to discretionary sanctions. Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

See section below. -- Valjean (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The Michael Isikoff exclusive in Yahoo News is what got Page fired by why Page left the campaign that day, with Jason Miller immediately asserting, “He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period.” soibangla (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, if you look at reliable sources instead of Fox News, you find that (a) the same claims against the same people already got tossed in New York and (b) it wasn't until August 2020 that we really found out that Page was just a random grifter, after detailed investigation by the SSCI. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to trust what you believe to be the perfect news sources. I look for corroborating information and weigh it against the primary sources before I put my neck on the chopping block or say anything with confidence. I learned a long time ago that crow and hat taste like hell. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing in violation of sanctions

Copied here from User_talk:Valjean#Editing_in_violation_of_sanctions by Valjean. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Trying to reconnect (talk · contribs) blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs). 23:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As you surely noticed when you performed your last revert on Carter Page, that page is subject to editing restriction s- You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. You have made 2 such edits - please undo your last one, or risk sanctions. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reconnect, am I missing something here? I see that Atsme made a revert and I reverted her. That's the one revert I'm allowed. She apparently didn't notice my previous edit summary which explained why that source should not be used. My previous edits were not reverts but normal editing. -- Valjean (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's one revert, and your previous one was your original removal of the AP source, here Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That was not a typical revert, but an article improvement edit. -- Valjean (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Everyone thinks their edits improve the article , but it was a revert, nonetheless. Please undo it. Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In what way was it a revert? BTW, this conversation should be happening at the article's talk page so other's can have some input. I'll respect consensus. I'll copy this whole thread there so you can reply there. -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How was it NOT a revert? some editor, (we can dig up exactly who it was) put in the AP/Wash Times source into the article - how else would it be there? You removed that source, thereby undoing their action. WP:3RR says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. " Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If it was a recent edit, you'd have a point. Otherwise, nearly all deletions and many tweaks, even of 15+ years old content, could be considered reverts, and that would be a ridiculous situation. Was it recent? -- Valjean (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no reference in the definition of a revert I gave you (which is from the WP:3RR policy ) to the revert having to be of a "recent" edit. Trying to reconnect (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Mystery solved. That was added on April 23, 2019. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

QUESTION FOR EVERYONE....

In the context of DS sanctions, what is considered a "revert"? I always thought it applied to "recent" content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Technically WP:REVERT On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. Self-reversion is the act of reverting your own edits. Reverting does not always involve the use of the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion. In practice? Eh who knows. PackMecEng (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The formal definition of a "revert" in WP:3RR doesn't specify a time frame, but as a matter of practice—and speaking as an admin who has enforced these policies for more than a decade—it is generally understood that reverts apply to content that is actively being edited. Obviously, "active editing" is subjective, but modifying content added 1.5 years ago would fall well outside most admins' definitions of a revert. (Otherwise, nearly every edit would formally constitute a "revert"). More to the point, I don't know that it's worth your time to continue arguing with an obvious NoCal100 sockpuppet, but that's up to you. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, who is the obvious sockpuppet of NoCal100? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume they are making an accusation again Trying to reconnect. It would be wise for them to either file a SPI or strike their aspersion. Since accusations of sockpuppetry are personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can also point out obvious socks and help deal with them, instead of just accusing and obstructing those of us who do. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I once tried to draw attention to sock activity back in 2017 because a suspected sock was edit warring & being disruptive. I was unfamiliar with SPI so I took it to 3RR. Much to my surprise, instead of getting help from an admin, I got my posterior reamed,^[stretch] and was threatened with a t-ban for (as I was told) ridiculously hinting there was sock activity. I was told it was a waste of constructive editors' time & patience. ^{One turned out to be a sock but a year or so later.} Sorry, but the best I could do to help you in this instance was to ask who you suspected, and then I could've taken it to a CU's TP for further instructions, but you never responded to my question. We don't dare accuse another editor of being a sock the way you did because we'd be t-banned, so I hope you understand the hesitance - it certainly was not obstruction as you alleged. Kudos for a job well done! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@MastCell: Thanks! I appreciate you taking my advice. Please do keep it in mind for the future! PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ec Pinging User:Acroterion, User:Muboshgu, User:MelanieN, User:JzG, User:MastCell. -- Valjean (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I also view a revert as removing a recent edit, not deleting long standing content. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is confusing. I went to Bradv for further clarification, and this is one of his replies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you accuse me of edit warring after just one revert on this article [1]? Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, you removed a cited source without discussion - a long standing source based on what has been surmised above, and I believe that means you were supposed to get consensus first - and then you reverted my edit within the 24 hr time frame. That is clearly a violation of DS, 1RR. Why not simply revert what you did and no harm done? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I was performing minor edits and discovered that there were three sources for the content being discussed on the talk page. That's normally fine with me, especially for sensitive BLP allegations, but the AP was just copying a Washington Times unreliable source, so I removed it as it was neither necessary, added nothing reliable not covered by the other sources, and just added spin that supported counterfactual narratives. Then you reverted me (your "one" allowed revert) and even deleted the two reliable sources, leaving only the unreliable one. There was also an unfinished ongoing discussion, so for all those reasons I reverted you, as explained in my edit summary. That was my "one" allowed revert. -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me reiterate what I wrote above. I will abide by the consensus interpretation. I have no intention of edit warring or violating DS sanctions. This is a true disagreement about interpretation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Saying the Washington Times was not reliable is a pretty statement. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Times and Washington Examiner are two fringe sources often confused with The Washington Post. They consistently blend false narratives, denials of facts, and lots of spin with sometimes good investigations, and it takes a good knowledge of the mainstream RS narratives and facts to see through that mess, hence it's best to avoid them altogether. -- Valjean (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme You omitted the "uncontroversial" between pretty and statement, but I agree: it is a pretty uncontroversial statement. There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations., from WP:RSP. It's a tabloid. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was funny as hell, wasn't it? Disruptions and RL keep getting in my way! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Food for thought... Both of those sources are rated as more accurate and less extreme than Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

But worse than the Daily Heil. Regardless: tabloid crap. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Horowitz report in the lead

Currently the lead mentions that two FISA warrants were found to be invalid. That is the first and only time FISA warrants are mentioned.

There is nothing about the Horowitz report that vindicated Page, a well documented part of Page's life. It would be totally undue to omit any mention of Horowitz report from the lead. I'm going to add a couple of sentences to the lead, but the lead may need more refinement. Politrukki (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done [2] Politrukki (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"to conceal", a BLP violation

This reversion restored the "to conceal" language, but is that correct? Is there any evidence that "concealment" was Clinesmith's intent (as he included all the paperwork which confirmed that Page had been a CIA source), because that word does imply bad faith intent, not just what happened because of the change. The body of the article uses this language: "intentionally altered an interagency email to exclude from the FISA warrant application that Page was a CIA source from 2008 to 2013."

None of the wording we use is ideal, and none of the sources use the words "conceal" or "exclude". I contend that "to conceal" is a BLP-violating accusation in Wikipedia's voice. I believe we should use different wording in both instances that simply describes what happened, without judging intent. -- Valjean (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Doctored, fine. Sources say so (per below). Conceal, I think the better words would be "intentionally omitted" or "intentionally removed".:

1. "had changed or withheld significant information used to build its application to surveil Page"[3]
2. "Horowitz concluded that while there was no evidence of political bias, the FBI’s original application to wiretap Page and its three subsequent renewal requests contained errors and omissions, including failing to inform the court that Page had served as a source for another U.S. intelligence agency. Horowitz found that a former low-level FBI attorney also doctored an email that claimed the opposite - saying that Page in fact was not a source for the other agency, which Reuters has since identified as the CIA.
3. "Among the most damning findings in the report was that an FBI lawyer had retroactively altered an email to make it look as though Page was not a source for the CIA, when in fact the agency had told the FBI as early as August 2016 that it had a previous relationship with Page."[4]

New Source:

1. "By inserting the words “not a source” into the OGA Liaison’s email, the defendant fabricated support for the false notion that Individual # 1 had not acted as a source for the OGA."[5]

There are likely lots more sources with the near conclusion of Clinesmiths case that we could use to identify better wording. Koncorde (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, that's good stuff. I think that source is good as it quotes Durham in context and provides the exact words that were inserted, therefore we have no need to be vague. Using that source, we can get a better sentence:

1. Original: According to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email to conceal that Page was a source for the Central Intelligence Agency.
2. Revised: According to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source", thus falsely implying that Page had not been a source for the Central Intelligence Agency.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove "thus" and it's even better, and "implied" is a bit weak for actually outright saying Page was "not a source". I would go for "this change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the CIA" which is about as compressed as I could make it without bringing more of Clinesmiths case into this. Koncorde (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's really good. So it would look like this?

• According to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Koncorde, is that right? Another thing is the source. Lawfare (below) is a better source than Law & Crime, as the latter is a much more biased source, so I suggest we use it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

* According to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the Central Intelligence Agency., yes this covers the meat of it as detached as we can be. Any more and we're adding value judgements on the meaning of certain words in certain contexts which most RS don't cover (and not necessarily clear to lay readers). Koncorde (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Let's use that wording, but with the Lawfare source. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's more on the subject from some real experts (Barbara McQuade and Chuck Rosenberg), which shows how Clinesmisth's "email was literally true," but violated the spirit of what should have happened. The terms "source", "asset", "recruited asset", "operational source", and "operational contact" are important, as Page was an "operational contact", not a "source":

According to the charging document, Clinesmith doctored an email to an FBI colleague, adding the words “not a source” to explain Page’s relationship with the CIA. While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source. Even though the altered email was accurate—Page was not a source—Clinesmith’s representation of the language of the email itself was false. This alteration was material because it tended to diminish Page’s relationship with the CIA, which may have provided an innocent explanation for his otherwise suspicious contacts with Russians. Bolding added

"Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. Page could not be used for "operational use" or "tasking". He only answered questions.

"Asset" and "source" are generic terms. Carter has been described as a CIA "source", a CHS (confidential human source). The terms can refer to witting or unwitting. They don't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.

Let's take a look at this:

[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) Bolding added

Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a question. Do we have the wording of the original email? I'm wondering if Clinesmith added the word "not" to "was a source", or added "not a source" to something else. It has always been my impression that he added one word, but now I'm not sure. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have seen it, but can't remember where. Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not to be used as a source in the article, but in the sentencing memo SCO says "defendant had altered the email by adding the words 'and not a source', thus making it appear that the OGA Liaison had written that Individual #1 was 'not a source' for the OGA".[6] (page 7) Politrukki (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. See changes. -- Valjean (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I'm okay with alternatives, but "conceal" is not a BLP violation. It was my reasonable paraphrase, and based on facts. An FBI agent doctored an email by adding "not a source". That was a false statement and effectively concealed the fact that Page was a CIA source. The agent also made similarly false statements in instant messages. I never claimed to know what the agent's intention was. One editor said "Clinesmith did not believe he had been a CIA asset". How do they know what Clinesmith believed? Did they hear it from the horse's mouth? (Speaking of pet peeves, if Clinesmith owns any pets, maybe The Daily Beast's favourite pet psychic could drill into Clinesmith's mind.) Anyway, Durham prosecutors did not find Clinesmith's explanations credible.

Currently the lead says according to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the Central Intelligence Agency. That's essentially the same what I wrote before, just with more details. If that's what is wanted, I'm okay with that. The sourcing is not great though: Lawfare is a blog. It mainly publishes opinion pieces, but doesn't have one editorial voice (the blog is pretty consistently partisan, but sometimes publishes opinions from opposing positions), hence its opinions should be attributed to individuals on the by-line. I don't see any reason to use an opinion source when there is no shortage of better mainstream sources. Politrukki (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My objection was to the phrase "to conceal", not just the word "conceal". The "to" creates intent, but we're beyond that now. There was no intent to deceive, but rather divergent understandings of the word "source". Many of the terms have general, generic, meanings, and also very specific meanings within the CIA and FBI. Some use the word in its general meaning, whereas Clinesmith understood "source" to mean an "activated operational contact", a "recruited asset", and Page was never "activated" or "recruited". He was never assigned any job to gather and report information back to the CIA, IOW he didn't really "work for" the CIA. He was only questioned and answered the questions. That's all. He hobnobbed with Russian spies, and the CIA wanted to know more about what happened. "While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included [hence no attempt to deceive] the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source."

The Lawfare source accompanies other sources. It is an expert blog we consider a RS, and Barbara McQuade and Chuck Rosenberg are about as good as they get for sources about this matter. They were intimately involved. The divergence in understanding is explained here, and how Clinesmith was correct, yet the result was wrong. He shouldn't have done what he did. They fault him more for adding the words as if they were another person's words. They do not accuse him of being deceptive or inaccurate. They actually say he was accurate ("literally true"). Here's the full quote:

According to the charging document, Clinesmith doctored an email to an FBI colleague, adding the words “not a source” to explain Page’s relationship with the CIA. While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source. Even though the altered email was accurate—Page was not a source—Clinesmith’s representation of the language of the email itself was false. This alteration was material because it tended to diminish Page’s relationship with the CIA, which may have provided an innocent explanation for his otherwise suspicious contacts with Russians. Bolding added

The idea of attribution is certainly worth looking at. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

You keep repeating the same passage over and over. To what end? Do you understand that there are conflicting opinions and "no intent to deceive" is an opinion, not a fact?

• The Washington Post national security columnist David Ignatius said "The FBI official apparently lied because he wanted to avoid a 'terrible footnote' in the latest FISA renewal, admitting the embarrassing fact that the bureau had overlooked the CIA's relationship with Page in previous filings, according to Horowitz's narrative."[7]
• Politico writes, "[Clinesmith's lawyers say] he believed he was conveying accurate information even if it was improperly added to another official's email ... the prosecution argues that Clinesmith's change to the email may not have been driven by haste or personal convenience, but by his revulsion for Trump ... 'It is plausible that his strong political views and/or personal dislike of the current President made him more willing to engage in the fraudulent and unethical conduct to which he has pled guilty', prosecutors wrote."[8]

To be clear, by saying "[Lawfare blog's] opinions should be attributed to individuals" I was not endorsing using Lawfare opinion pieces in this article, nor was I saying that it should not be used – except in the lead.

Nuance about "operational contact" should not be in the lead, but it may be covered shortly in the body. Again, if it's covered, Lawfare opinion pieces are not needed when there are better sources available: The Associated Press, The Financial Times. Politrukki (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware there are conflicting opinions, as your Politico source shows, that there was no intent to deceive. I provided the Lawfare source because it is written by subject matter experts several paygrades above Ignatius and others who have expressed their opinions. McQuade and Rosenberg aren't just expressing loose opinions, but are parsing what happened correctly, but we don't have to go into so much detail.

I see that some IP has made some changes, and I'm not sure what to make of them. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed citing “unlawful spying.”

A suit from Carter Page alleges a series of omissions and errors made by FBI and Justice Department officials of Obama administration. Page sues over Russia probe surveillance. https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-carter-page-russia-bfc0f495647e70faa2b5dc2749562132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.76.63 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Judge's full quote

User:Politrukki, why did you delete the rest of the judge's quote here? Yodabyte also deleted that part. "Wrongdoing" is not an illegal "actionable claim", so the fact that Page engages in vexatious lawsuits comes to mind, even though we don't state it. Maybe that's why his lawsuits get dismissed or lost?!

That brings us to your deletion of the mention of the latest lawsuit from the lead, possibly the most notable one. Now there is no mention of his lawsuits at all in the lead, and that violates our rules for leads, since that's a notable part of the article. We need some mention in the lead, and don't need to say anymore than this:

"Page has filed four lawsuits, three of which have been dismissed and one which he lost."

So that's two issues that need fixing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Because there seemed to be redundant content. If that is not case, would you care to explain? Also, why are implying that this lawsuit was vexatious? If you read Politico, it said "The judge ... said the claims of misconduct and knowing falsehoods in the process of surveilling Page were 'troubling.' However, she said they simply didn't meet the standards for a civil suit ... Friedrich left open the possibility that Page could file a future suit to demand corrections of errors he asserted are present in the 2019 inspector general report, but she said that the energy analyst needed to pursue the issue directly with that office first before going to court.

With regards to mentioning all lawsuits in the lead, I generally wouldn't oppose the proposal at this juncture. If the summary is accurate. I don't know much about these cases, but my understanding is that there is enough coverage to warrant a short mention in the lead. However, the text should say who were sued, preferably without naming all names, and what was alleged (defamation or other violations). Politrukki (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "redundant". What wording is redundant?

If I were writing content, I wouldn't say vexatious without a source. The suits seem to be frivolous (a less inflammatory word? ), as a lawyer shouldn't file suits for non-criminal issues. They just get dismissed, and that's what's happened with three of them. Maybe they were filed for discovery purposes? I don't know.

I just think the topic of the lawsuits deserves mention in the lead, not any detailed specifics on each one. That's why my suggestion is so short. At least three are defamation lawsuits. I don't recall what the fourth was for. In two cases, the judge ruled (and Page admitted) that what was written about him and his Russian contacts was actually true. It's odd that he thought he could get away with denying the truth in court. His enemies spoke the truth and he was forced to admit they were right. He should have stayed silent and not filed those lawsuits. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have full access to this source. I was wondering why I couldn't find the quote "the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications" in the court decisions (primary source). I incorrectly assumed that when you added the text, you had properly cited the source, and that you quoted the judge (though I was wondering why I can't find the quote in the decision). I now understand that you quoted law360.com without proper attribution. I will self-revert this and remove the law360.com content until we can decide if and how that source should be cited.

In theory, something like According to a summary by law360.com, the judge found "the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications" would suffice for attribution, but the sentence a) only covers one aspect of Page's claims, b) seems a bit clunky. Let me re-emphasise that I haven't seen the source in full.

I will also need to notify Yodabyte of this discussion. Politrukki (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Politrukki. By removing cookies I got access. Here's the complete summary from the source:

DC Judge Tosses Ex-Trump Aide's FBI Surveillance Suit

A D.C. federal judge has tossed former Trump 2016 campaign adviser Carter Page's lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI and former top officials in relation to the FBI's surveillance of him as part of its Russian election interference probe, finding the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications.[9]

That was what the legal experts at Law360 considered important enough for their summary. I placed it in quotes and cited the source. That is usually enough attribution for such a simple statement from legal experts. If it still adds some good context, feel free to improve and restore it. Sorry for creating confusion. BTW, please ping me in the future. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: that's a summary, not the full article? I see the text you quoted, but it ends with an ellipsis and a button that says, to read the full article, I should log in. Let's not get stuck to this one source more than is necessary, but could you briefly summarise the rest? At least please tell whether the content significantly differs from Politico. Katie Buehler, the author, is a journalist who writes about courts. If you claim that Buehler is a "legal expert" and you argue for something like giving Buehler special prominence as a legal expert, please explain how legal expertise has been established.

The majority of Wikipedia text is, or should be, written by paraphrasing. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text kind of discourages the type quotation I considered clunky: "Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. ... Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language." [emphasis added] The same guideline says "Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author", but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Attribution indicates that attribution is not always required.

In many occasions it can be difficult to determine whether retaining the original wording is important or not. Paraphrasing can also be really hard, because one needs to capture the full meaning of the relevant content while avoiding close paraphrasing.

With regard to pinging, I will ping you now, but I'm not going ping anyone every single time I reply them – because I would consider that dumb – and even if I tried to do so, many times I would just forget. I myself have disabled notifications for all mentions because I find repeated pinging annoying. If someone needs my immediate attention, they should contact me on my user talk page. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Question: has Page filed two or three defamation suits? Are "Against Yahoo! News and HuffPost" and "Against Oath Inc. (Verizon Media)" separate cases?

I have tagged the lead with {{explain}} per my previous comments. Moreover, Page is not a lawyer, so filing lawsuits comes as a surprise to a reader. Politrukki (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Page's lawyers have filed four five lawsuits, three four of which are defamation cases. Feel free to improve the content. In 2022, Carter Page earned an LLM (cum laude) from Fordham University School of Law. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

All sources in "Against Yahoo! News and HuffPost" section are paywalled and I'm only able to see portions of their contents, but from what I can see, they seem to cover the same topic that is under "Against Oath Inc. (Verizon Media)" – same judge an all. Yahoo News (Isikoff) and HuffPost belong to Oath. Page filed a defamation suit in Delaware Superior Court and appealed to Delaware Supreme Court. An original suit and an appeal to it should be considered one case. Please recheck the sources and compare their reporting and dates.

In this edit I fixed a dead link with this source, but you reverted my edit. Please correct. The AP article is dated February 14 or 15 (depends on the time zone) and says the ruling was given "last week". Our bio says "The judge dismissed the suit on February 14, 2021", which is likely wrong. Politrukki (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! I have fixed that deadlink by restoring your source.

We need the dismissal by Judge Craig Karsnitz. The date of this publication is February 11, 2021, which is indeed "last week" from February 14, 2021. I suspect they reported that the same day. I have located the actual dismissal suit, and the dismissal (at App. 97) is dated February 11, 2021. Problem solved.

In the process of searching for more info on that, I found ANOTHER! dismissal of that suit on March 20, 2018, by judge LORNA G. SCHOFIELD. How many suits did Page file? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the latest case (that you call the fourth), our article's current version doesn't fully capture what the case was about and I don't have access to some paywalled sources that might be relevant.

The case was was multi-faceted, and about surveillance claims, not defamation. Some of Page's claims were dismissed because of the statute of limitations, some because there was no remedy for possible violations. Some claims about Horowitz's investigation were dismissed because Page hadn't exhausted other options; before the OIG's report was published, Page wanted to view and amend the OIG report. According to the ruling, Page failed to ask amendment to the report after its release.

At least in this suit Page was represented by a lawyer, in this case Leslie McAdoo Gordon's firm. I'd suggest you refrain from giving legal advice to Page and providing personal commentary that's not pertinent to improving Wikipedia. Politrukki (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Politrukki, what's this about? "I'd suggest you refrain from giving legal advice to Page and providing personal commentary that's not pertinent to improving Wikipedia." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep inserting your commentary that is irrelevant for resolving disputes, e.g. "vexatious lawsuits ... suits seem to be frivolous ... a lawyer shouldn't file suits for non-criminal issues". Not a huge deal in this case, but it's better for all to focus on the topic. Politrukki (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Carter Page's lawsuits (five!?)

When I look at the following (from the Steele dossier article), I notice that the first part contains two cases, so there are apparently five cases. I have previously left a message at some legal project's page here and sought help to improve this type of content, but haven't gotten any response. I am not a lawyer, even though my appeal was once used, nearly word for word by the judge in a case, in their decision to throw out a case against a large number of defendants. Apparently, my logic proved, without any need for other evidence, that the litigant was lying and the case was frivolous and malicious litigation. I still don't understand all the details of this type of stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please refactor your comments: the talk page now shows multiple subsections without signature. Place the copied content in a collapse box or something.

"Against DNC and Perkins Coie. Filed by Carter Page" section seems to cover to separate cases, which would get us to three defamation cases and four cases in total. Politrukki (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Against DNC and Perkins Coie. Filed by Carter Page

In October 2018, Carter Page sued the DNC, Perkins Coie, and two Perkins Coie partners, for defamation. The lawsuit was dismissed on January 31, 2019. Page said he intended to appeal the decision.

On January 30, 2020, Page filed another defamation lawsuit (Case: 1:20-cv-00671, Filed: 01/30/20) against the DNC and Perkins Coie, naming Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann as defendants. The suit was dismissed. Page then appealed the lower court's dismissal to the Supreme Court. In January 2022, it declined to review the defamation lawsuit.

Against Oath Inc. (Yahoo! News and HuffPost). Filed by Carter Page

On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles that described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true.

Page's suit targeted Oath for 11 articles, especially one written by Michael Isikoff and published by Yahoo! News in September 2016. The judge dismissed the suit on February 11, 2021, noting that "Page's arguments regarding Isikoff's description of the dossier and Steele were 'either sophistry or political spin'." He also said that Page "failed to allege actual malice by any of the authors, and that the three articles written by HuffPost employees were true". Page was represented by attorneys John Pierce and L. Lin Wood, who was denied permission to represent Page because of his actions in the attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in favor of President Donald Trump.

In January 2022, Page lost an effort to revive the defamation case over Isikoff's article. Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said "the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, 'at a minimum,' conveyed a true 'gist,' even if it included some 'minor' or 'irrelevant' incorrect statements." Bloomberg Law reported that "The court dismissed as far-fetched Page's theories about a conspiracy among interconnected media and political figures to tarnish Trump by concocting the Russia investigation from thin air."

On May 16, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a defamation suit filed by Page.

Against USA, DOJ, FBI, and several officials. Filed by Carter Page

On November 27, 2020, Page filed a $75 million suit against the United States, DOJ, FBI, and several former leading officials for the "defendants' multiple violations of his Constitutional and other legal rights in connection with unlawful surveillance and investigation of him by the United States Government." The defendants included James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Joe Pientka III, Stephen Soma, and Brian J. Auten.

The suit was dismissed on September 1, 2022, by United States district court judge Dabney L. Friedrich, who wrote:

To the extent these allegations are true, there is little question that many individual defendants, as well as the agency as a whole, engaged in wrongdoing. Even so, Page has brought no actionable claim against any individual defendant or against the United States.

References

These should be combined

These are currently treated as separate, but they are apparently the same (Oath Inc. owns Yahoo! News and HuffPost). The dismissal is the same date, same judge, etc.

• Against Yahoo! News and HuffPost. Filed by Carter Page
• Against Oath Inc. (Verizon Media). Filed by Carter Page

I'll start working on that, so please wait to edit that area of the article -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now they are combined. This affects the number of suits. Since we are uncertain about how many suits Carter Page has filed, we should probably avoid mentioning an exact number and just say "Page has filed and lost several lawsuits, most for defamation." How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)