Talk:Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"What happened to the Trump counterintelligence investigation? House investigators don't know."

This may be of relevance here:

• What happened to the Trump counterintelligence investigation? House investigators don't know.

BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• What a mess. Thanks Bull. starship.paint (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, skipping what Schiff is peddling or the implicit promo for his subpeonas as being legitimate, it would have had to be Rosenstein who was the "DOJ" that authorized Comey to tell Congress that, but there was no statement that Trump was then investigated - Comey said his campaign, notably not speaking of the President. Contemporaneous we have reports the President was frustrated Comey did not say he wass not under investigation, and in the available dismissla letter mentions that he had been assured three times -- but would not say that publicly. (Perhaps he'd learned from the Hillary investigations.) There are reports that both a CounterIntel group was rolled under Mueller and that an Obstruction of Justice investigation on Trump (after Comey's firing) was rolled under Mueller -- and one hopes the proper paperwork was done under Comey & just after -- but all we have seems to be the Rosenstein letter initial creation of Muellers group, nothing about increases in scope of the effort. Questions could also be answered by ODNI - maybe what the FBI gave for their intelligence report is the involvement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources

2016 Presidential Election Investigation Fast Facts

This has dates for the start of several investigations and a nice timeline:

• 2016 Presidential Election Investigation Fast Facts. Updated May 2, 2019, CNN Library

BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Less-redacted report

User:Ahrtoodeetoo - per your delete comment on not RS, I have a replacement cite about the less-redacted report from Politico, a larger publication at least. Is that satisfactory for RS now ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of that paragraph in the first place, so I'm going to delete it outright. The release and redaction history of the Mueller Report aren't sufficiently relevant to Crossfire Hurricane. R2 (bleep) 00:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, it would help if you provided that Politico source, your proposed addition, and then which wordings in the source justify your addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer ok, though it is OBE now Ahrtoodeetoo wiped that section. It was “The following week, a version without redactions other than Grand Jury material was made available to Congressional leaders to view in a secure setting.” And cite to here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comey telling Trump that he wasn't under investigation

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Thanks for your improvements on the new section. I see that you want to improve the neutrality of the description of the objection that Comey says a member of his team raised. I'm definitely open to that--it's certainly hard to write this sort of content neutrally. However, your solution was to make the description of his testimony more general, which loses some of the most interesting detail, it seems to me. What would you think about just directly quoting Comey a bit more? Here's something like what I have in mind:

He later testified that the FBI leadership had discussed the assurance in advance, and that one member of the team had raised concerns about it. Specifically, Comey said, this member of the team felt that although "it was technically true [that] we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then-President-elect Trump" nevertheless because of the scope of the investigation, Trump's "behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work."

What do you think of this? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Source: NPR R2 (bleep) 18:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm against including this detail without secondary sources that highlight it. The problem is that we'd be picking one detail out of a larger block quote because an editor found it interesting. We shouldn't do that. Remember that this was the opinion of a single member of the FBI leadership team. R2 (bleep) 17:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you mean by "highlight" it. The NPR piece quotes it, and thus highlights that little bit of his very long testimony. What would highlighting it look like if not that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see sources that discuss it, or at least describe it in their own words. R2 (bleep) 18:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just not following. The NPR report I used is such a source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a matter of deciding what level of detail on this material is encyclopedic, and which specific details are sufficiently noteworthy. I found two other reliable sources that cover this material, both with less detail than the NPR source:

• NY Times: Though Mr. Comey told Mr. Trump three times that he was not under investigation, he said others at the F.B.I. had argued against offering that assurance. Because the F.B.I. was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, one official argued, Mr. Trump’s activity would necessarily be scrutinized. Nevertheless, Mr. Comey said, “I thought it was fair to say what was literally true: There is not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump.”
• WaPo: If Comey hadn't been FBI director, Trump might have never received assurance, privately or publicly, that he wasn't under investigation. Comey testified Thursday that it was a controversial decision among senior FBI leadership to tell the president he wasn't under investigation. But Comey ultimately decided to oblige if the president asked. “I thought it was fair to say what was literally true,” Comey said. “There was not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump, and I decided in the moment to say it, given the nature of our conversation.”

I lean toward summarizing the indidividual's concern at the level of detail provided by the WaPo source, just because we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. But I could also support a consensus to summarize at the NY Times' level of detail. R2 (bleep) 18:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this argument makes more sense to me. Here are some other sources:

• BBC: Mr Comey revealed that there was a debate within the FBI over whether to give the president any such assurances, given that the investigation covered the Trump presidential campaign and Mr Trump was the candidate. According to Mr Comey, one FBI leader insisted that Mr Trump's "behaviour, his conduct, will fall within the scope of that work". Mr Comey decided to tell the president anyway.
• WSJ: Mr. Comey sheds some light on internal discussions at the FBI about whether or not to tell Mr. Trump that he was not himself the subject of a counter-intelligence investigation. He said one member of the FBI leadership team was concerned about doing that, because the FBI was looking at potential coordination between the campaign and Russia. “It was president-elect Trump’s campaign, inevitably his behavior will fall within the scope of that work,” Mr. Comey said the unnamed official argued. “I disagreed,” Mr. Comey said, “I thought it was fair to say what was literally true.”
• NY Mag: This source quotes Comey so extensively, and goes into great detail on this matter, that it is too much to quote here; have a look at the link. The piece isn't marked as opinion, but it seems clear to me that it is opinion, or "news analysis" (which I basically think is the same thing). But I think that opinion pieces can be used to establish due weight.
• Newsweek: ...top bureau officials debated what to tell Trump about the progress of their multiple investigations into contacts between Russian intelligence and the president-elect's associates. “One of the members of the [FBI] leadership team had a view that, although it was technically true [that] we did not have a counter-intelligence file case open on then-President-elect Trump...his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work.”
• Chicago TribuneComey testified that not everyone on his FBI team agreed he should. Comey did not name the dissenter, but The Washington Post has learned it was FBI General Counsel James Baker. Comey testified that the member of his leadership team said that although it was true at the moment that Trump was not under investigation, it was possible that could change. "His concern was, because we're looking at the potential - again, that's the subject of the investigation - coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was President Trump - President-elect Trump's campaign, this person's view was, inevitably, his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work," Comey said. "And so he was reluctant to make the statement that I made," Comey said. Baker's views didn't change, even as Comey told Trump a second and third time that he was not being investigated. "His view was still that it ... could be misleading, because the nature of the investigation was such that it might well touch - obviously, it would touch the campaign, and the person at the head of the campaign would be the candidate. And so that was his view throughout," Comey said.

My own take is that WaPo is going into far less detail than the other seven sources we've got here. And it also seems to me that my proposal in the text box above is a pretty reasonable representation of these seven RS, taken collectively. If anything, it doesn't give enough detail. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Good finds. In light of these, I'm not sure what level of detail we should include. We should definitely identify the dissenter per the ChiTri source. R2 (bleep) 20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should include the dissenter's name. Here's a revised proposal (without references yet):

He later testified that the FBI leadership had discussed the assurance in advance, and that one member of the team--later revealed to be FBI General Counsel James Baker--had raised concerns about it. Specifically, according to Comey's testimony, Baker felt that although "it was technically true [that] we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then-President-elect Trump" nevertheless because of the scope of the investigation, Trump's "behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work."

Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems they did the best they could under the circumstances. Investigators must not reveal to a suspect that they are under investigation, so following the "technically true" letter of the law was their best option. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If there's a proposal about content in this last comment, I'm not sure what it is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• We could use some input on this issue from other editors. R2 (bleep) 16:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Strzok texts

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I don't understand the rationale for dropping the words of the texts. I think we should let them speak for themselves, just as they do in many multiples of RS news reports. The text of your edit whitewashes what he said. "Could be interpreted" makes it sound as if his opposition to Trump was way less clear than it actually was. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we also make clear his opposition to Clinton? Didn't think so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have RS relating to Crossfire Hurricane, which state that Strzok opposed Clinton (you know, the candidate he wanted to win 100,000,000 to 0), and connect that in some way to the topic of the article, then of course we should include that. But you don't have such RS, obviously, so what are you talking about? What we do have is many RS sources saying that Strzok was pulled off of the investigation because of these texts. That's obviously relevant to CH, and its transition to the Mueller investigation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Same rationale as the discussion immediately above: WP:NOTNEWS. Our job is to summarize the reliable news sources, not to mimic them. There is a particular neutrality challenge here because Strzok's texts have received a tremendous amount of attention from Trump and his supporters. On top of that there may be a BLP issue here because I believe Strzok's texts were intended to be private. I don't know the full story of how the texts were made public, but I want to stress that this is a secondary issue. My main reasons for trimming were WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPV. R2 (bleep) 20:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The texts have been broadly quoted, verbatim, in RS. Do you deny this? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't. Please review WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It's often forgotten that just because something appears in a reliable source, doesn't mean that it must automatically be added to Wikipedia. Verifiability is only a minimum requirement. R2 (bleep) 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously an important part of the story: the texts that led to the leader of the investigation being pulled from the investigation and placed in the HR department. I'm obviously not making the mistake of thinking that every little verifiable detail needs to be added. Any reasonable person would regard this detail as important. The current language is absurdly POV. I don't have time right now, but I'll be back. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Because the Strzok texts played a role in his demotion and dismissal, and because they were heavily covered (on both sides), mentioning them is due. Maybe quoting one or two that were most discussed, no more. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Radio silence....can other editors please weigh in on this issue? R2 (bleep) 16:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report in the LEAD

If the Mueller report is in the lead it can also include this. "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." (# 4) DN (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC) [1]

Informant

The article is not clear about the informant working for the FBI who made contact with Papadopolous and Cage. See this NY times article for details.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC).

add Josh Campbell's book to Further reading?

add Josh Campbell's book Crossfire Hurricane: Inside Donald Trump's War on the FBI to Further reading? X1\ (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Y X1\ (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

IG Report

I just made some edits to this part; I'm open to fiddling with the wording that I added. But I want to say that I'm not really in favor of including this material yet. I think we should just wait for the report to come out. We're way out on a limb, citing reports of anonymous sources that are saying what they expect based on a brief they received on an incomplete draft of the report. Not encyclopedia material, in my view, though of course it will obviously be important once the report is out. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The NYT, WaPo and WSJ all concurrently and independently reported this content. It is unlikely they all got it wrong, and we're cool as long as we clearly state they reported it. Consequently, I find the multiple qualifiers you added to the paragraph to be unnecessarily gratuitous. soibangla (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the accuracy of their reports. All they reported is that some anonymous sources said what they expected based on a briefing about an incomplete draft. What I'm questioning is whether this report is of any encyclopedic value, and I think we should wait. In any case, we certainly want to include qualifiers that the NYT and WaPo repeatedly include, and that's all I tried to do. The sentence you added about 'conspiracy' is already in the text (a different formulation, a few lines down). Feel free to revise as you prefer, but we probably don't want that info twice like that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As DOJ is 16 days from releasing the 700+ page report, at this point they are engaged in little more than proofreading for grammar and typos. The substance is now locked down, which is why they briefed reporters for three prominent broadsheets on the substance, and those papers simultaneously reported the substance in depth and breadth yesterday afternoon. It is exceedingly unlikely the report will materially deviate from what DOJ deliberately briefed reporters on background yesterday. The edit contains only major findings, and a dedicated article on the report will undoubtedly be created by December 9 to cover all the details. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that say these things? Or is this just your opinion? Because the anonymous sources themselves urged caution as the report is not yet complete, and the NYT saw fit to report this, so I think we should go with what the NYT and these sources say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course they must include that CYA disclaimer, but prior reporting showed the final step of having interviewees review the draft for any final tweaks was done a few weeks ago, and Barr's security review was done before that. It's done, that's why the reporters got a major briefing yesterday, and there's no way they all would've reported in that degree of depth and breadth without high confidence about what they had been told, and by whom. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, were is any of this in sources? Reporters weren't briefed; they were leaked to, by unnamed sources that say they were briefed on an unfinished draft. That's what the source says, that's what we know, and unless you have sources that say what you're saying, then we can't assume you're right.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it seem like a "leak" when NYT, WaPo and WSJ all reported their stories in depth and breadth within about an hour of each other late yesterday? Nah, they all got a major briefing on background. Because the report is done. soibangla (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, sources please. The provided reports state that the anonymous sources warned that the report is not complete; if you have sources contradicting that, definitely provide them. We're apparently not going to agree. I've made my case for waiting, but I'll leave it in unless others speak up in favor of removing it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Mifsud etc.

Soibangla, reverting to your version without discussing it here circumvents the normal BRD process. I will not engage in an edit war. But I cannot tell what you're talking about in your edit summary in your revert. So I request that you self-revert to the version from before, and then discuss the matter here to gain consensus. I see the Post report saying that Mifsud was not a US asset. I think that fact is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand your reasoning, from your edit summary:

The allegation has been that Mifsud was working with some western intelligence agency; this report denies only that Durham can provide evidence that Mifsud was a US asset. But nobody ever claimed that he was a US asset specifically

You state, "nobody ever claimed that [Mifsud] was a US asset," but Papadopoulos asserts the CIA, specifically, "weaponized" Mifsud to entrap him, and others have echoed variations of that claim. But Italian and Australian — and now American — intel deny any involvement, leaving only Britain as a possible "suspect." The report is not limited to, as you state, "denies only that Durham can provide evidence," it also includes "several American intelligence agencies." Are you saying that because the edit does not encompass all Western intel agencies, it shouldn't address any of them? If so, I strongly disagree, and maybe a better approach would've been to modify the edit rather than remove it entirely, especially since your rationale contains factual errors. soibangla (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

So you're going to go ahead with your circumvention of the BRD process? Understood and noted.

The whole quote from Papadopolous was that Mifsud is “an Italian intelligence asset who the CIA weaponized”. So Papadopoulous specifically says that he was an Italian asset, not a US asset. Thus, you have not provided an example that contradicts my edit summary. Meanwhile, your source says he was not a US asset. If you want to accurately reflect the source, that's what the text based on that source should say. But I think that claim is undue, since it doesn't contradict what anyone is saying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The rationale for your reversion contained factual errors, hence the reversion was objectively unwarranted. Thus, you have not provided an example that contradicts my edit summary is also demonstrably false. As I previously suggested, maybe modify the edit rather than provoke a reaction by fully reverting it on the basis of factual errors. The latter could be interpreted as non-collaborative and not in good faith. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What was that factual error again? Your example did not show that I had erred, as I explained. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not rehashing what I've already clearly explained. I suggest you modify the edit if you still have a problem with it. soibangla (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring like you; I want it like I already had it. You said that Papadopolous had claimed that Mifsud was US intel. But, in the quote you provided, he did not claim this, and in fact explicitly claimed that Mifsud was with Italian intelligence. You have not responded to this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Papadop claimed CIA weaponized Mifsud. They say they were not involved. You're splitting hairs on the word "asset." I also explained that Italy denied involvement with Mifsud. Your edit summary falsely asserted this report denies only that Durham can provide evidence which you have not addressed. I have suggested you modify the edit. You decline. soibangla (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not declining anything. I'm trying to Discuss this with you to come to a consensus, which is the step that comes after the Revert I did. But you instead edit warred your version back in, and are now being disruptive in this discussion. I am not splitting hairs. It is clear from the full quote that Papadopolous thought that Mifsud was an Italian asset as opposed to a US asset. So it's not a case of someone who thought he was a US asset, but was instead a foreign western intel asset. Fair point about my edit summary not taking note that US intel also directly denied that he was an asset. But the basic point of my edit--that the report is undue and does not deal with the matter of Mifsud's relationship with western intelligence--stands unchallenged, and is unaltered by the fact that US intel denies he was an asset. My proposal, since I think that the report is undue, is to leave it out of the article. That's the version I had before you edit warred back to your version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have more than adequately explained that your reversion was objectively based on false premises. You are splitting hairs and hung up on semantics if you maintain that the CIA weaponizing Mifsud doesn't mean he was a CIA asset. I have repeatedly attempted to compromise with you by encouraging you to modify the edit, to rectify the factual errors you asserted to fully revert it. You continue to decline. I don't know what else to say to you. soibangla (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Too far Left

This article takes a liberal bent, as if President Trump were guilty of all he's accused of by the Left. After John Durham's report, this article might look silly if it doesn't take a more honest look at this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmember777 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Contested revert

Context: This revert -- Valjean (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This revert restores material not in the source, specifically the unsourced speculation that Halper was "the" CHS involved in these three meetings, and the speculation "likely Clovis". The wording I added on the Papadopolous meeting was a bit confusing. I meant that during this CHS interview, he did not make a suggestion of the relevant sort. Whether he made the suggestion before had been alleged, and the FBI CHS(s) tried to get him to do it in their meeting with them, but were unable to get him to do it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have tweaked it a bit to remove ambiguity, but have not restored Halper's or Clovis's names, even though that is the context in the whole section, and we have the Spygate article about it. We can add other sources to nail that down, but I don't have the time right now.

Currently, because the contextual thread of the section has been broken, it can now appear that the IG Report is talking about a different CHS and three different campaign members, but it is still talking about the same people. That is no longer clear and should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I see that it has been revised again, leaving it even worse. -- Valjean (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The FFG was Downer, the Australian. That information comes from other sources. The IG Report just doesn't use names very much, and we have to supply them to avoid total confusion, as now reigns. This article is very good about this.

Although not a RS, this is also interesting. -- Valjean (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Valjean: I am going to give you a chance to strike your attempt to speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions. As for the content, go ahead and find appropriate sources for the previously unsourced claims that I removed and we can put them back in. Good luck finding sources, I can't find one that doesn't require WP:SYNTH to get to your conclusions. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Okay, it's stricken.

Now, take a look at the content from before your edits and then look at what's there now. Does that look like a logical narrative at all? No, it's a mess. I'm not saying it couldn't have been improved, but tagging and discussing would have been better than such radical changes. Now a lot of knowns have been transformed into unknowns.

It would be better to restore the original version and just add {{cn}} tags, and we could just add the necessary sources for the sake of those who hadn't read what was immediately before and not realized it was all talking about the same subject. Even right-wing sources make those connections. We have the whole Spygate article about Halper's three contacts, and that's what this is about. -- Valjean (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

More diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Valjean: You struck your speculation about my competence, but then you repeated it! I'll give you another chance: strike your repetition of your attempt to speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Since you don't seem to understand the difference, I'll strike that too. -- Valjean (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Okay, I have deleted it, per agreement. I'll be more careful in the future. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's start to examine this and figure out what needs to be sourced better. Let's get at the reason for such radical edits to the existing and long-standing content:

Retired American professor Stefan Halper, an FBI CHS (the IG Report labels him "Source 2"), had meetings with three campaign members: Page, Clovis, and Papadopoulos. All of that is an undeniable fact. All sources, both reliable and unreliable are agreed on that, so we don't need better sourcing for any of it. (Whether other CHS had any contacts with them is another subject. We know that another CHS also contacted Page.)

1. The first meeting, in August 2016, was a consensually recorded meeting with Carter Page.
2. The second meeting, in September 2016, was with "a high-level official in the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation." Sam Clovis was co-chair of the Trump campaign, and we know that Halper contacted him. They discussed China, and never Russia. The WSJ makes the connection between "Source 2", Halper, and Clovis. Other sources that do it are The Federalist, The Washington Examiner, Empty Wheel, Sara Carter, and The Epoch Times, all very unreliable sources. The Telegraph also discusses the meetings.
3. The third meeting, in September 2016, was with Papadopoulos.

Shinealittlelight, is it point 2 that bothers you? -- Valjean (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Mr Downer - who's identity is thinly concealed throughout the report as a "friendly foreign government", or "FFG", source - clocks up no fewer than 144 mentions in the Horowitz report." -- Valjean (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The IG Report has this about Papadopoulos's denials (mentioned eight times) and covered in two whole sections:

Section E. Papadopoulos's Denials to an FBI CHS in September 2016, p. 166 (and Section A, p. 232)

Footnote 470. "As described in Chapters Five and Seven, none of the Carter Page FISA applications advised the FISC of Papadopoulos's denials to Source 2 that the Trump campaign had any involvement in the release of DNC emails by Wikileaks."

The FBI did not consider his denials as truthful: "the Crossfire Hurricane team's assessment was that the Papadopoulos denial was a rehearsed response," p. 167

Footnote 307. "After reviewing a draft of this report, Case Agent 1 told the QIG that he and the team discounted Papadopoulos's denials for several reasons, but that, in hindsight, he now realizes that those denials, and the team's assessment of those denials, should have been shared with QI "in order for [QI] to make the determination whether [those denials] should be in the application." p.167

Valjean (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

My problem with the original language is simple. We don't have any RS saying that, when the IG report talks about these three meetings, it is talking about Halper et al. We need RS actually interpreting the IG report as suggested, otherwise it's just our interpretation, which, however plausible--and I'm not denying that there's some degree of plausibility in this interpretation--is OR/SYNTH. I have looked for sources, and I cannot find any that don't require synthesis on our part. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. How about we use the WSJ and The Telegraph as sources? They are both considered RS, make the connection between Halper/Source 2/IG Report/Clovis and, although the WSJ is an opinion article, it seems uncontroversial and usable as an attributed source. How about that solution?

We should also add the source about Downer as the FFG source. -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph piece does not talk about the Horowitz report, so I don't see how it can help us verify your interpretation of that report without synthesis. Perhaps you can identify the specific place where you think that story tells us that the three meetings mentioned (on pp. 79-80) in the report involved Halper and no other CHS. I don't see it. As for the opinion piece from the WSJ, yes it does say that the report gives "enough clues" about Source 2 to identify him as Halper, I'm not sure that's definitive, it's an opinion piece, and anyway another step is needed, since the report doesn't say source 2 was the CHS involved in those meetings. Or, if you think it does say that, tell me where, because I don't see it. This is all too shaky in my view. We just don't have sources that verify your view. An alternative would be to drop all this out of the article on the grounds that it's too hard to tell, given how cagey Horowitz is about using names, what the heck happened, at least just based on the report itself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph describes the IG Report as a "watchdog review" and uses language from the IG Report ("Source 2"): "The FBI has never confirmed that Prof Halper was an informant. However details about the use of “source 2” recently published as part of that watchdog review into the probe make clear he is the person involved." "Sam Clovis, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page all told the Telegraph how they agreed to meet Stefan Halper, who taught political science, during the campaign thinking he was just an academic." -- Valjean (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

WSJ: "The report also extensively details how “Source 2”—about whom enough clues are given to identify him as longtime paid FBI informant Stefan Halper"

The IG Report obviously and repeatedly deals with the use of "an FBI CHS" (as in "one" CHS) to talk with those three campaign members. We know that Halper did that. Whether other CHS talked with any of them is another subject and does not affect this fact. We do know that another CHS also spoke to Carter Page at some point in time. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Longstanding version before the contested changes:

The 2019 Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation contained additional details about Halper's contacts with these three campaign members. The report describes him as "an FBI CHS" and notes that "the Crossfire Hurricane team conducted three CHS [confidential human source] operations prior to the team's initial receipt of Steele's reporting on September 9, 2016. All three CHS operations were with individuals who were still with the Trump campaign."

The first meeting, in August 2016, was a consensually recorded meeting with Carter Page.

The second meeting, in September 2016, was with "a high-level official in the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation", likely Clovis. It too was a "consensually recorded meeting" and was "about Papadopoulos and Carter Page". "Little information" was received by Halper.

The third meeting, in September 2016, was with Papadopoulos.

The only thing there that really needed changing (why a "cn" tag would have been best) was to provide a source for Clovis, and we can do that now. Some later changes can be retained. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. The sources you've provided support the following claims:

1. The person named as "source 2" in the report is Halper.
2. Clovis, Papadopoulos, and Page have all confirmed that they met with Halper.

That's it. But this falls well short of the claims that I removed. For one thing, we have no source stating that there was a single CHS involved in the three meetings mentioned on pp. 79-80 of the report. The report itself does not say this, and does not say anything which entails it. We also have no idea whether the meetings mentioned on those pages are the same meetings as the one confirmed by Clovis, Papadopoulos, and Page. Finally, we have no idea what role if any "source 2" played in those meetings. The report and the RS you've provided make no claims about this. So, in short, the claims I removed are inferences you're drawing, not statements taken from any RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I'd see them as reasonable inferences, since other RS do the synthesis for us. They tell us that the IG Report is describing Halper's contacts with those three campaign members. Do you know of any other options or theories? I haven't even seen unreliable sources propose a different narrative. This is the one some of them describe. If there are RS that contradict this narrative, please share them with us.

The "role" of the CHS is a red herring and not relevant for this discussion. Even if we knew nothing about their role, we could still edit and add this content. We do know they were working for and reporting to the FBI, so that was their role. Page 316 explains how Halper/"Source 2" "provided additional information [to the FBI agents] about the role of a foreign policy advisor in a presidential campaign."

That other CHSes were used by the FBI is also a fact, but also not relevant to this discussion, as we're discussing the contacts between Halper and those three campaign members, contacts which they all confirmed. See a new section below, where I'll ask you a question. "Information from the IG Report about Halper and his meetings with three campaign members" -- Valjean (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No, RS do not do the synthesis for us. RS provide the two points I listed above. The rest is your synthesis. If you disagree, instead of posting such a long analysis, which is very hard to respond to point-by-point, can you please provide a quote from RS explicitly stating (not implying in your opinion, or making likely, but explicitly stating) that the meetings on pp. 79-80 of the report were with Halper (and no other CHS), and that the "high-level official" listed there was Clovis? I have yet to see any such RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that if you want to leave the IG report out of it and just report what other sources have said, that might be ok with me. It's the unsupported interpretation of the IG report that I think is contrary to WP:SYNTH.Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let me start by reading pp. 79-80, and get their context by reading the pages before them in that section. On p. 78 is Footnote 196: "As described in Chapter Ten, early in the investigation, the Crossfire Hurricane team discovered that they had an existing FBI CHS who had previously interacted with three of the named subjects of the investigation."

So immediately we're pointed to Chapter Ten (as examined in the section below), which deals largely with "Source 2"/Halper, that one existing FBI CHS who had previous contact with Page, Manafort, and Flynn: "Case Agent 1 told the OIG that "quite honestly ... we kind of stumbled upon [Source 2] knowing these folks." He said that it was "serendipitous" and that the Crossfire Hurricane team "couldn't believe [their] luck" that Source 2 had contacts with three of their four subjects, including Carter Page." p. 315 (The four subjects were Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. See p. 2)

The three CHS operations described on p. 79-80 are the same ones described in Chapter Ten, which I cover in the section below. Chapter Ten calls that CHS "Source 2" and has a whole section about "Source 2" and his contacts with the three campaign members (Page, "high level" official, and Papadopoulos). Page 79 says: "As summarized in Chapter Ten, the Crossfire Hurricane team conducted three CHS operations prior to the team's initial receipt of Steele's reporting on September 19, 2016. All three CHS operations were with individuals who were still with the Trump campaign." So obviously the "high-level official" is the same in both cases. Clovis is never named in the IG Report, but always described as that "high-level official..." It is other RS which tell us that the "high-level official" is Clovis. I have already provided several sources above which do that, and two of them are RS. I provide three below, all of which you would consider RS.

1. CNN describes Clovis telling about meeting "the professor" (Halper is a retired professor), "the confidential source" (Source 2/Halper). Clovis says about the CHS: "(He) had met with Carter Page, he used that as the bona fides to get an appointment with me," Clovis said, "and then I think he used my meeting as a bona fides to get a meeting with George Papadopoulos."[[2] Chapter Ten tells us that Carter Page had recommended that Source 2 meet with the "high level official", and Source 2/Halper did that in less than a month as the second of the three meetings (Page, Clovis, and Papadopoulos). This meeting with Clovis produced no useful information. Clovis describes exactly the "three CHS operations were with individuals who were still with the Trump campaign." mentioned on p. 79 of the IG Report (which was written later).
2. "Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December report showed the FBI concealed significant information provided by confidential human source Stefan Halper — known as “Source 2." Halper, 75, a Virginia resident and Cambridge professor, worked as an FBI informant in 2016 and had discussions with at least three Trump campaign members: Papadopoulos, Page, and Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis."[3]
3. "The report also extensively details how “Source 2”—about whom enough clues are given to identify him as longtime paid FBI informant Stefan Halper—repeatedly wore a wire while pretending to befriend Mr. Page, fellow Trump volunteer George Papadopoulos, and Trump campaign official Sam Clovis—all at the FBI’s express behest."[4]

Shinealittlelight, is that enough to establish Clovis as the "high level" official mentioned in the IG Report? -- Valjean (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Naturally, when introducing the name of Clovis, we'd use RS, and state that they identify him as the "high level" campaign official mentioned in the IG Report. We do not do the synthesis. We let the RS do that. -- Valjean (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"After the FBI brought Halper into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the 70-something-year-old operative met with and secretly recorded Carter Page, another Trump foreign policy adviser, on Aug. 20, 2016, according to the IG report. He met Sam Clovis, a Trump campaign official, on Aug. 30, 2016, but did not record that conversation."[5]

"We know from Horowitz’s report that the FBI tasked Halper, identified solely as Source 2, to target Page, campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and a high-level Trump campaign member, Sam Clovis."[6]

"The FBI agents told Horowitz’s team that “couldn’t believe [their] luck.” Halper’s handler said it was during that time that he learned that his source, Halper, also knew Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort. The FBI source also asked Halper to target George Papadopolous and Sam Clovis, a senior campaign aide at the time."[7]

That's three more sources (considered unreliable here, but you'll likely like them). -- Valjean (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, to clear up any doubt about which CHS contacted the "high level" official, Chapter Ten tells us it was "Source 2". The IG Report tells us this "high level" official was only contacted once:

"As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation." p. xvi

So multiple CHSes contacted Page and Papadopoulos "during and after" they were with the campaign, and one contacted the "high level" official. Clovis himself says that Halper contacted him, and Clovis was that "high level" person. Clovis also says that Halper had contacted Page before him and contacted Papadopoulos after him.

"The team also discussed with Source 2 plans regarding Papadopoulos. As discussed below, Source 2 ultimately met with three members of the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI-Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and a high-level campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation-and the FBI consensually monitored Source 2's conversations with each of these individuals." pp. 316-317

CONCLUSION: "Source 2" met with all three of them; Halper was "Source 2"; the "high-level official" was Sam Clovis, who, as vice chairman of the Trump campaign, was "a high-level official in the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation." -- Valjean (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I see we have more commentary here about how I will "probably like" sources that are considered unreliable, and it says that in the edit summary as well. Please stop, once again. I am not the topic.

It looks like a lot of synthesis to me. On closer look, yes, your synthesis is plausible, and it's plausibly true that the three "operations" mentioned on pp. 79-80 were meetings that involved Halper (and others? we still don't know; I'm not sure when the meeting that involved the mysterious figure "Turk" is supposed to fit into this timeline). But to conclude this requires some assumptions, and requires synthesis with other RS that do not say this, but which identify "source 2" as Halper. All too SYNTHy in my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not doing any improper synthesis here, IOW arriving at conclusions contrary to the sources. The RS themselves do the synthesis, and that's why we can use them to state these things. That's how it works here.

As for Ms Turk, the NY Times article we already use describes how and why she was sent to accompany Halper at two meetings with Papadopoulos. As for the timing, we know that the "third CHS operation" took place "On September 15, 2016....Papadopoulos met for brunch with Source 2" and later that same day. pp. 330-331.

The NY Times article says this: "When Mr. Papadopoulos arrived in London on Sept. 15, he received a text message from Ms. Turk. She invited him for drinks.... The day after meeting Ms. Turk, Mr. Papadopoulos met briefly with Mr. Halper at a private London club, and Ms. Turk joined them. The two men agreed to meet again, arranging a drink at the Sofitel hotel in London’s posh West End." ("On the evening of September 15, 2016, Source 2 and Papadopoulos met for pre-dinner drinks and further discussion." p. 331.)

Papadopoulos appears to get the dates mixed up, but September 15 is still central, as that is the date the IG Report and all other RS say that Halper/Source 2 met twice with Papadopoulos. From Papadopoulos's wording, it appears that Ms Turk may have met with him before he met with Halper and her together on September 15. Whatever the case, that's a secondary matter. That Source 2 met twice with Papadopoulos on that date is pretty firm, and Ms Turk accompanied Halper at both meetings. -- Valjean (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is not about saying something contrary to the sources, but rather about weaving together lots of information from different sources to construct an analysis not found in any of them. That's exactly what the proposed content does. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I just removed some content I thought was WP:SYNTH. I'm amenable to the suggestion that the whole paragraph should be dropped, since it may be that the IG report itself is too opaque to relate it to the other content without engaging in SYNTH. In fact, I'm leaning that way. There is a concern, I think, that the current version of the article is misleading. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You just removed content found in the IG Report. You should use cn tags and discuss first. -- Valjean (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I'll let you explain in the section below: "Please explain this edit". -- Valjean (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The IG Report is VERY detailed and a very notable and RS, so not using it would be absurd. It just takes some study to understand it. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but certain sections and topics are easy to follow. It just takes some time. When you find something from it that you don't understand or think is wrong, don't edit the content. Instead, use "cn" tags and discuss it here so we can explain it for you and give you the IG Report page numbers where that information is covered. If there really is an error, then together, right here, we can figure out a way to improve it. All these deletions are making a mess of the article and were unnecessary. Collaborative editing is better and less disruptive than solo editing. -- Valjean (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Information from the IG Report about Halper and his meetings with three campaign members

"As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation." p. xvi

So multiple CHSes contacted Page and Papadopoulos "during and after" they were with the campaign, and one contacted the "high level" official. Halper contacted Clovis once, and Clovis was that "high level" person.

"As summarized in Chapter Ten, the Crossfire Hurricane team conducted three CHS operations prior to the team's initial receipt of Steele's reporting on September 19, 2016. All three CHS operations were with individuals who were still with the Trump campaign." p. 79

Here the focus of the IG Report narrows to only the "three CHS operations prior to...." with three campaign individuals, and while "the individuals...were still with the Trump campaign". That focus is important to maintain when reading the IG Report. This is not about the generalized, multiple different CHS, contacts with Page and Papadopoulos over a long time, but focuses on a specific and short time period, and it focuses on how one FBI CHS (Halper) contacted those three men. Chapter Ten, after page 313, is focused on "Source 2".

1. "The first [CHS operation] was a consensually recorded meeting in August 2016 between Carter Page and an FBI CHS." p. 79 (More precisely "August 20, 2016" p. 317)

There were other meetings between Page and Halper before and after this one:

In July 2016, Page approached Halper first, not Halper, as a CHS, approaching Page first. Halper had never met Page. Later came the August meeting with Halper acting as an FBI CHS.

"Source 2 explained that, in mid-July 2016, Carter Page attended a three-day conference, during which Page had approached Source 2 and asked Source 2 to be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign." There is a lot more about how he refused, and why that was good. That offer makes sense, as Halper (like Manafort) was a very experienced political operative in several "campaigns since the early 1970s". "All of the FBI witnesses we interviewed said that they would not have used Source 2 for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation if Source 2 had actually wanted to join the Trump campaign." p. 315

On October 17, 2016 (p. 320) a third meeting was held between Page and Halper/Source 2.

By this time, the media was talking about Manafort's and Page's Russia contacts, so he was defensive and cautious. This was also after Page had left the campaign and four days before the FBI got the first FISA warrant. The first two warrants were later deemed improper because certain statements (false/misleading denials by suspects) were not included, but Page had said enough incriminating things, especially revealing his knowledge of the "October surprise", to justify the next two FISA warrants. His revealing "that 'the Russians' may be giving him an 'open checkbook' to fund a foreign policy think tank" (p. 320) "to operate...basically as a propaganda machine" (p. 323) did not make them less suspicious. They wondered if it was "part of a quid pro quo" p. 322. It brought the FBI "closer to believing that Carter Page may actually be acting as an agent of a foreign power." p. 322

Page was cautious, but still managed to goof enough to reveal he was not as disconnected from the campaign as he tried to imply. He revealed he was definitely "in the loop" of the whole planning and contacts between the Trump campaign, Russians, and especially WikiLeaks, but we don't know how much he knew. "[I]t seemed like that he knew of something" (p. 319) which he was not revealing. "[T]he Crossfire Hurricane team viewed Page's responses to questions as 'less than forthright' and Case Agent 3 described Page as not 'as forthcoming as he could have been'." p. 319 "Page was 'pretty guarded' in talking to Source 2." p. 320 "Page seemed kind of evasive." p. 320 Page's evasive statements were not included in the FISA applications, which was a mistake.

On December 15, 2016 there was another meeting between Page and Source 2.

On January 25, 2017 there was another meeting between Page and Source 2.

There were five meetings between Page and Halper, the last four of which were with Halper acting as an FBI CHS.

2. "The second CHS operation took place in September 2016, between an FBI CHS and a high-level official in the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation." p. 80 (That fits Clovis, as he was co-chair of the campaign. Other RS say that official was Clovis.)

Clovis revealed he was contacted, and he's the only one who fits that description. The WSJ says it was Source 2/Halper who contacted all three, which includes Clovis. The IG Report makes clear that the "high level" person/Clovis was only approached ONCE by any FBI CHS, which means it had to be Halper who did it, and it had to have been Clovis. Fortunately, we don't have to use that simple logic (reasonable inferences) to arrive at those conclusions, because RS do it for us. Halper contacted Clovis once, and Clovis was that "high level" person.

In his August 20 meeting with Source 2, Page brought up Clovis, here described in the IG Report as "a high-level campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation": "Page responded that it was 'unfortunate' that Source 2 had not yet gotten to meet a high-level campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation, and Source 2 responded that Source 2 was available whenever that high-level campaign official 'wants to chat.' Later in the meeting, Source 2 told Page that Source 2 would like to meet with the high-level campaign official..." pp. 318-319

3. "The third CHS operation took place in September 2016, and involved Papadopoulos." p. 80 "On September 15, 2016, Papadopoulos met for brunch with Source 2", and later that same day they had an evening meeting. pp. 330-331

What do we know about Halper?

He is a retired professor and had been a CHS since 2008 (first likely with the CIA, and later with the FBI). The IG Report describes him as "Source 2". He was also the one who triggered Trump's first (and false) Spygate accusations: A right-wing source describes it this way: "When Halper’s role as an FBI informant was leaked to the media in May 2018, it led to accusations from Trump and Republicans that the Obama administration used Halper to spy on the Trump campaign, dubbed 'Spygate'."[8]

"Source 2 had been affiliated with national political campaigns since the early 1970s." p. 314 (That describes Halper.) Halper already knew Manafort and Flynn (p. 315) and "had known Manafort for decades". p. 317

Page's role here is interesting. Who was playing whom? Who was feeding him information only Russian intelligence would know?:

1. He took the first contact with Halper back in July 2016.
2. He suggested Halper meet with Clovis, and Halper did meet with Clovis after meeting with Page.
3. He extended an invitation for Halper to join the campaign.
4. He possibly mentions Fusion GPS and Steele without naming them.

The FBI is suspicious of Page, and his history with Russian intelligence is telling. After answering FBI questions in 2013(?) (technically making him a CHS!), he told/warned Russian intelligence agents that his meetings with them were known by the FBI (not something a loyal FBI CHS would do). He has always maintained contact with Russians and Russian intelligence and has long expressed anti-American and pro-Russian/Putin views. He adores Putin. That makes him very interesting to the FBI.

It appears that Page may have been aware of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele by this time: "Page also mentioned to Source 2 'very deep off the record' that the Clinton campaign had 'hired investigators to come after me, including some in London,' and that Page had 'very good sources ... [and knew] the names of the investigators as well'." p. 322. Were his "very good sources" Russian intelligence, or someone in league with them? Mother Jones published their story on October 31, 2016, two weeks after this meeting.

On page 322, Page confirms that "our team" (Trump campaign) was involved in the policy changes at the Republican National Convention. That is about how they softened their position on Russian aggression in Ukraine, something the Steele dossier describes as a Putin demand which Trump obeyed, in exchange for Russian campaign help, described in the Steele dossier as a quid pro quo. The dossier mentions further financial incentives connected to the lifting of the Ukraine-related sanctions in the form of a 19% stake in Rosneft as part of this quid pro quo, and Rosneft did indeed undergo a break up a few days after Trump's win (Carter Page traveled to Moscow exactly at that time), with 19.5% peeled off and disappearing through a maze of legal and illegal bank and shell company transactions. The last location of those funds reported by RS was the Cayman Islands, reportedly held by a friend of Trump. We have no idea whether Trump has ever, or will ever, receive those funds, as he has been blocked from lifting all of the sanctions, only some of them.

So, Shinealittlelight, does all this shed enough more light on the meetings between Halper, Page, Clovis, and Papadopoulos to help you understand the narrative described by RS and the IG Report? -- Valjean (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Break

@Valjean and Shinealittlelight: - very long argument you guys have had here, and I'm not going to pretend that I've read everything. I have two points regarding the changes in the article text [9]. (1) if the IG report doesn't explicitly name Halper as a source, then we can't say that the IG report did so. If another source names Halper as a source in the IG report, we can report that. Example: Associated Press reported that Source 146 in the IG report is Halper. (2) I'm seeing in the above changes to the article that the only reference is the IG report. Are there any reliable sources also reporting on the same material to establish that it is actually significant? If the IG report itself as a source were enough to qualify as significant, that means the whole report can go into Wikipedia - which doesn't make sense. starship.paint (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "reliable sources ... reporting on the same material". There are reliable sources stating that "source 2" is Halper, and there are reliable sources saying that Halper met with Clovis, Pap, and Page. In my view, that falls short of what the removed content claimed about the report. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: ...? starship.paint (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Starship, why what RS say about the IG Report isn't acceptable is beyond me. For some reason that's being called a SYNTH violation, and below, content from the IG Report itself is being called a SYNTH violation and removed from the article. I don't get it, but I'm working on a revised version, with other sources, to make it clearer, although I doubt that even that will work. Something very strange is going on here. -- Valjean (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: - I look forward to seeing your revised version. I must say that I believe we should avoid reasonable inferences. Also, I hope that the sources, for this section, are from after the IG report came out in December 2019. starship.paint (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We let RS make those inferences. There are times when it's obvious that independent RS are referring to the same thing, but with different words, and there is no other possibility than they are indeed talking about the same thing. When that situation is obvious to reasonable minds, we can put them together and let readers decide if there is a connection. It just has to be done properly. If not done right, then it's all wrong!

Right now we need to settle what's in the section below, and then we have a weekend, so I don't know how much time I will have, what with all this staying at home and all. Thank god for the internet and Netflix in these trying times. So far we're healthy here, so I'm not going to try injecting any disinfectant, but if I get sick, then, of course, we can trust Trump's infinite wisdom, so I'll give it a try before talking to any of those evil MDs and experts he so rightfully scorns.... -- Valjean (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Second operation with "high-level" official was only one meeting

Starship.paint, you left this edit summary:

• (wording on second operation, not explicit that it was a one-day thing)

I consider this information to be a bit awkward to handle, but the existing wording did not imply anything, so I don't see any need for the change. The IG Report is clear that there was only one meeting between the "high-level" official (Clovis) and any CHS, and that the one meeting was with "Source 2" (Halper). Oddly, no one has asked me for my evidence, even though I have made this point several times above:

• "Only the second operation with the "high-level" official was only one meeting, and only with Source 2. That high-level official met with no other CHSes. The IG Report makes that plain."
• "The IG Report tells us about the second operation, that it was a "high-level" official who met only once with only one CHS, identified by the IG Report as "Source 2"."
• Starship.paint even says this: "For the second operation, there is only mention of one meeting."

The evidence is twofold:

1. From the IG Report:

• "e. Source 2's Meeting on September 1, 2016 with a High-Level Trump Campaign Official Who Was Not a Subject of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" p. 326 (That mentions one meeting, and no other meetings are mentioned, so this is part of the indication, but standing on its own it's not enough.) The language used is "a meeting", "their meeting", "this meeting", "the meeting", "the September 1, 2016 meeting".
• "Thereafter, the Crossfire Hurricane team used more intrusive techniques, including CHSs to interact and consensually record multiple conversations with Page and Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were working for the Trump campaign, as well as on one occasion with a high- level Trump campaign official" p. iv (underlining added)
• "The Use of Confidential Sources (Other Than Steele) and Undercover Employees. As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation." p. xvi (underlining added)
• "During the meeting between a CHS and the high-level Trump campaign official" p. xvi
• "Overall, we determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs and UCEs during the 2016 presidential campaign, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and an interaction with a high-level Trump campaign official" p. 400 (underlining added)
• "conversations between CHSs and Page and Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and a conversation with a high-level Trump campaign official." p. 407 (underlining added)

The wordings used about this meeting are consistently singular throughout the whole IG Report: "a meeting", "the meeting", "the conversation", "an interaction". Assuming or implying that there was more than one meeting is pure OR. That door should be shut.

2. From Clovis himself:

• He has described his one meeting with Halper, and he has never mentioned more than one meeting or any other CHSes.

That's why I believe the IG Report is consistent in asserting that Clovis met only one time with only one CHS, and that one meeting was with Halper. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Valjean: - I agree with this analysis of yours. Though I must say, why is it that you have to explain this? It should be the secondary sources doing that job. Again, we need the sources to tell us what parts are important. starship.paint (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Starship, I only explained it because a different narrative, based on unknown sources, was being alluded to, before your edit summary, as a reason for not using the IG Report, and only the actual facts would be sufficient to stop us from disappearing down the rabbit hole. When a topic is broached, it suddenly becomes fair game, so to speak. If a counterfactual narrative hadn't been broached, I wouldn't have gone there. That's why I went in-depth to show what actually happened, and to demonstrate that the IG Report does contain some really interesting facts. Lots of people are confused and vulnerable to conspiracy theories because they don't understand these things. You may or may not realize this, but our long discussions here are really a spill-over related to the endless discussions last year at the Spygate article, where other narratives, again based on unknown sources (well, we knew they came from unreliable sources), were constantly being thrown at us as reasons for not writing the article the way it should be written. The conspiracy theories were being proposed as the correct version of what actually happened! That was a long and time-wasting mess, and I hope we can avoid that here. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Valjean: I could not care less about the narratives. Our job is to reflect the sources accurately. I merely seek not to mislead. starship.paint (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Of course. We're on the same page. -- Valjean (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Valjean: as an aside, I would ask that you refrain from personal commentary, one recent example being Oddly, no one has asked me for my evidence. I get it, some things are clearer to you than to others. However, you can't expect everyone to act the way you wish, because everyone behaves differently. I ask that you understand the latitude in responses. Further up above, Something very strange is going on here, can be easily seen as an insinuation. Right above, Lots of people are confused and vulnerable to conspiracy theories because they don't understand these things. can also be seen as an insinuation, and I'm not sure if that was worth mentioning, because frankly, I would know that already, right? starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please explain this edit

Shinealittlelight, please explain this edit. What is wrong with those words you removed or changed?:

1. Removed: Chapter Ten states these meetings were with FBI CHS "Source 2".
2. Changed: "on August 20, 2016" to "in August 2016"
3. Changed: "on September 15, 2016" to "in September 2016"
4. Changed: "During this later meeting with "Source 2"" to "During this later meeting with the FBI confidential human source"

All that information is directly from the IG Report, but your edit summary says "partial revert removing WP:SYNTH material". What's up? -- Valjean (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what I've already said. I think the removed content amounts to Valjean's analysis of the information in the report scattered across pp. 79-80 and chapter 10, and further supported by additional sourcing. Although I don't claim that Valjean's analysis of the report is implausible, I think it does not belong in the article per WP:SYNTH. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, so you won't explain why words directly from the IG Report are unacceptable to you, and you again call them a SYNTH violation, without any explanation. Yet, without understanding these things, you dare to edit the article. How can that be? What is going on? This is very strange. Do I really have to explain this to you? I've already provided the information above, with page numbers, but you can't be bothered to read it. Sigh. -- Valjean (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There are several parts of the IG Report I could quote from, so let's see if you'll accept this and not call it a SYNTH violation. The Conclusions related to the points at the opening of this thread are marked clearly. (Underlining added):

From Chapter Ten (starts p. 305): (This subject is also covered elsewhere in the IG Report.)

"B. CHS and UCE Involvement in Crossfire Hurricane" p. 313

Then comes a large section about Source 2's contacts with the three campaign members.

"1. Source 2" p. 313 heading.

"a. Crossfire Hurricane Team's Initial Meeting with Source 2 on August 11, 2016" p. 314

"b. Internal FBI Discussions Concerning Source 2 and the Trump Campaign" p. 315

"c. Follow-up Crossfire Hurricane Team Meeting with Source 2 on August 12, 2016" p. 316

"d. Source 2's Meetings with Carter Page" p. 317

"(1) August 20, 2016" p. 317

"The first consensually monitored meeting between Source 2 and Carter Page took place on August 20, 2016." p. 317

• CONCLUSION: "on August 20, 2016" is correct.

"(2) October 17, 2016" p. 320

"The second consensually monitored meeting between Source 2 and Carter Page took place on October 17, 2016" p. 320

"(3) December 15, 2016" p. 323

"The third consensually monitored meeting between Source 2 and Carter Page took place on December 15, 2016" p. 323

"(4) January 25, 2017" p. 325

"The final consensually monitored meeting between Source 2 and Carter Page took place on January 25, 2017." p. 325

"e. Source 2's Meeting on September 1, 2016 with a High-Level Trump Campaign Official Who Was Not a Subject of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" p. 326

"f. Source 2's Meetings with George Papadopoulos" Heading on p. 329

"(1) September 15, 2016 Brunch Meeting with Source 2 and Papadopoulos" Heading on p. 330

"On September 15, 2016, Papadopoulos met for brunch with Source 2 and to discuss the project." p. 330

"(2) September 15, 2016 Evening Meeting with Source 2 and Papadopoulos" Heading on p. 331

"On the evening of September 15, 2016, Source 2 and Papadopoulos met for pre-dinner drinks and further discussion." p. 331

• CONCLUSION: "Chapter Ten states these meetings were with FBI CHS "Source 2"." It's right there in many of the headings. It is correct.
• CONCLUSION: "on September 15, 2016" is correct.
• CONCLUSION: "During this later meeting with "Source 2"" is correct. It wasn't just any other CHS. It was "Source 2".

So Shinealittlelight, is quoting directly from the IG Report a SYNTH violation? Why did you make the changes that you did? Why didn't you AGF that the editors who added that material likely knew more than you did, add "cn" tags, and start a discussion to figure it out? Why mess up the article? This is really embarrassing and a huge waste of my time. I'm pinging User:Starship.paint to serve as a witness. If I got this wrong, I'm sure both of you will straighten me out, and I'll thank you for it. -- Valjean (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Valjean: - how was the third meeting, on September 15, 2016 when there are three CHS operations prior to the team's initial receipt of Steele's reporting on September 9, 2016? That's just chronologically wrong. starship.paint (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Okay, so someone introduced an error, Steele's reporting was received on September 19, not 9. starship.paint (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Good catch! I see that I introduced that typo back in January. -- Valjean (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reading through the material, I agree that the dates and the meetings are corroborated in the report. I have edited the text as follows [10] starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"... All three CHS operations were with individuals who were still with the Trump campaign." Chapter Ten of the report describes three such meetings before September 19, 2016. The first meeting, on August 20, 2016, was between the FBI's "Source 2", and Carter Page. The second meeting, on September 1, 2016, was between "Source 2" and "a high-level official in the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation." It produced "little information from the high-level official." According to Crossfire Hurricane case agents, the third meeting, on September 15, 2016, was between "Source 2" and Papadopoulos ...

I continue to have questions, though, if that paragraph is WP:DUE - where is the reliable source coverage? Also, why is it even placed there, and not at Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)#2019 Justice Department Inspector General report? starship.paint (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the article. Your questions are legitimate. I suspect it's in that section because the use of CHS is the topic, unlike in the other section you mention. Also, Halper's interactions with those three campaign members is what triggered Trump's false Spygate accusations, so myriad RS have discussed it. Other CHS actions have received little attention because we don't know much about them. Azra Turk's participation as Halper's "aide" got a little bit of attention.

I suspect the whole section could be reworked for better flow. I'm focusing more attention on it now and considering what to do. I see it as due because the IG Report is such a significant and reliable source of detailed information about the whole CH investigation, so it would be odd to ignore it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: you have written that chapter 10 describes three such meetings between source 2 and members of the Trump campaign before September 19. But I don't see that. What I see is that chapter 10 describes at least five meetings (and never says "three meetings" at all) between source 2 and members of the Trump campaign. One was in mid-June, prior to source 2's first meeting with the CH team; it is described on p. 315. And then there were not one but two meetings between source 2 and Pap, both on September 15, described on pp. 330-331. So that is five meetings described in chapter 10, not three. Of course the earlier passage on pp. 79-80 referred to three "operations", and calls one of those operations a "meeting", but in all honestly I can't tell what they're talking about, and I find the report to be unclear on these matters. Were these "operations" complete on 9/19? If so, why were there several additional meetings, after 9/19, and why were these subsequent meetings not part of the same "operation"? If not, why should we describe the "operations" as "before" 9/19? I don't think we should be interpreting the report to this degree. I'm also unclear on whether each of these meetings "between" source 2 and various individuals involved any other FBI CHSs, but our current wording at least implies that source 2 was the only CHS involved in the meetings. Do we know that to be true? This is an inappropriate use of the report in my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The "meetings" wording has been there for a long time, but can be confusing, so I have changed it to the more accurate "operations" wording used by the IG Report. -- Valjean (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Only the second operation with the "high-level" official was only one meeting, and only with Source 2. That high-level official met with no other CHSes. The IG Report makes that plain. There were multiple meetings with Page and Papadopoulos. We don't mention Azra Turk's participation on September 15, 2016, but she did accompany Halper as his "aide". Feel free to ask about anything else you "don't see". We'll try to help you understand it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: So now we have a version referring to three such operations before September 19. So the operations were complete by that date, may or may not have included other agents (though our wording clearly implies it was just source 2), and the operations did not include the additional meetings between source 2 and the same individuals (Page and Pap)? All seems like our interpretation to me, and an inappropriate use of the report. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We now also have a quote from the report referring to FFG officials (note the plural here), and then we have added That FFG ... official was Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Another interpretation, this one containing a number agreement problem. And the source provided does not say that all FFG officials mentioned in the report are Downer, but only that Downer is referred to as an FFG official throughout. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Instead of assuming anything, how about asking me for clarification.

The three operations were with "Source 2". We know that the third operation included Azra Turk on September 15, 2016.

The IG Report tells us about the second operation, that it was a "high-level" official who met only once with only one CHS, identified by the IG Report as "Source 2".

Mentioning "Source 2" does not exclude the possibility that other CHS were involved in those three operations, although there is no indication there were any others than Turk. It would be OR speculation to say otherwise.

There were other contacts by other CHS with Page and Papadopoulos outside of those three operations, but we know little about that. These three operations were significant enough for a large section about "Source 2", and it was precisely these three operations which triggered the original Spygate allegations by Trump. That happened because the media discovered Halper's involvement in the three operations, and Trump reacted to those media reports with a lot of random claims without evidence. Later, he and others added more accusations, but the original Spygate accusations were only about Halper.

FFG is used in both singular ("a", "an", "the") and plural versions about the same meeting with Papadopoulos in May. The "number" disagreement is odd, although sometimes it's about officials who later discussed the meeting. If you have more information and a better suggestion, we might use it. If RS tell us there were others who met Papadopoulos in May, we can add that. I know of no RS that say there were three or more people at that meeting. All RS tell us Papadopoulos met with Downer in May at that fateful London meeting with drinks, where he drunkenly revealed (information from Mifsud) that proved the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of Russian help in the form of stolen emails, information they were keeping from the FBI. That the campaign knew this was the bit of evidence the FBI needed to legally open the CH investigation. They had a lot of other evidence that made them suspicious, but needed this, and they promptly opened the investigation. -- Valjean (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now tweaked the FFG wording to meet your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No. First, the new version now just repeats the claim that Downer and Papadopoulos met in May, but without relating that to the topic of the paragraph, the IG report. There's no need to repeat this, since it already occurs above, if you're not connecting it to the IG report, which of course we can't do. Second, you say here that May 10 is when they met, when above we have May 6 as the date. I see that there's actually confusion about this, and that in fact our NYT source does not name either date. The Mueller report apparently says May 6, and Papadopoulos has apparently said that it's May 10 instead. See this AP report. Third, it is my view that this paragraph should probably be dropped altogether. But if we're going to keep it, I think we need to make it clear that, as far as the IG report is concerned, it isn't clear how many CHSs were involved in each meeting, and it isn't clear how many FFG officials were involved in the passages in question. So far, that's not clear, and we are strongly implying that there was one CHS and one FFG official. That's not good enough, especially since even Valjean agrees that the number agreement issue is "odd". This is my point: the IG report is in these respects hard to interpret, and we should not be going on a limb like this. Finally, my concerns about counting "operations" are still unaddressed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Shinealittlelight:
  1. What I see is that chapter 10 describes at least five meetings (and never says "three meetings" at all) between source 2 and members of the Trump campaign. - you're right. However, the June 2016 meeting was not part of Crossfire Hurricane. Therefore, only four meetings were described. The September 15 dual meetings are a singular operation: Priestap signed the formal authorization for the operation on September 15, 2016, the day the operation concluded.
  2. Were these "operations" complete on 9/19? - for the first operation, Source 2 continues to meet Page, so that may be incomplete. For the second operation, there is only mention of one meeting. For the third, it is explicitly noted that the operation concluded.
  3. I'm also unclear on whether each of these meetings "between" source 2 and various individuals involved any other FBI CHSs ... it isn't clear how many CHSs were involved in each meeting - are we not mirroring the language used in the report? Or are we deviating from it? The first consensually monitored meeting between Source 2 and Carter Page took place on August 20, 2016 ... Source 2 succeeded in arranging a meeting with the high-level Trump campaign official on September 1, 2016, and their meeting was consensually monitored by the Crossfire Hurricane team ... On September 15, 2016, Papadopoulos met for brunch with Source 2 ... On the evening of September 15, 2016, Source 2 and Papadopoulos met ...
  4. I'd like to settle the CHS parts before the FFG... starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to first point. the current version quotes the report as saying the Crossfire Hurricane team conducted three CHS operations prior to the team's initial receipt of Steele's reporting on September 19, 2016. Your first point here is that the June 2019 meeting was not part of Crossfire Hurricane. But that's not relevant, it seems to me. The question is whether the June meeting was conducted by a member of the Crossfire Hurricane team. And although I suppose you will admit that source 2 was a part of that team, and that source 2 conducted the June meeting, you will interpret that because source 2 was not a member of the team when the June meeting occurred, this must not be what the quote from pp. 79-80 is referring to. If so, that is your interpretation. Not implausible, perhaps, but we shouldn't be going out on a limb like this: the report is unclear on this matter, so why are we trying to clarify it?

Reply to second point. I am precisely bothered by your statement, with which I agree, that the first operation may be incomplete as of 9/19. If that's so, then it is again unclear what the pp. 79-80 quote is referring to when it talks of operations that were prior to 9/19. As it stands, we quote that part, then we say that chapter 10 describes three operations which began before September 19, 2016. Obviously we thereby imply that (i) these three operations were the ones mentioned on pp. 79-80, and we also imply that (ii) what the report meant by "conducted ... prior to" is "began before". I don't know what justifies us in interpreting this report like this. My view is that it is unclear, and that we should not be interpreting. You also say there is only mention of one meeting about what you call the second operation. But this is to say that you're interpreting (on what basis?) the report as saying that this "operation" concluded after that one meeting by its silence on the matter. Again, what's the basis for this interpretation? Why should we be theorizing about what it means?

Third point. This is a good point. I agree that the report is unclear on this, and that it implies that there were no other CHS at the meetings. In one case, Valjean seems to think we know that this implication is false. I'm not sure how to handle the fact that the report itself is unclear on this. I don't think we want to mirror unclear language, though, do we?Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Shinealittlelight:
• Reply to first point: it is clear to me that in June 2016, Source 2 wasn't part of Crossfire Hurricane. Case Agent 1 is the handler of Source 2 (pg 313: was handled by Case Agent 1 from 2011 through 2016). Case Agent 1 only joined the Crossfire Hurricane team in early August 2016 (pg 314). Source 2's involvement in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation arose out of Case Agent l's pre-existing relationship with Source 2. Crossfire Hurricane Team met with Source 2 on August 11, 2016.
• Reply to second point: it is clear to me that when the report says conducted three CHS operations prior to ... September 19, it simply means that there were three going on before September 19. It doesn't mean that there are zero operations after September 19. In response to your other feedback, I have changed the article text to The second operation included a meeting on September 1, 2016, between...
• Reply to third point: how to handle it, is state It is not mentioned by the report if other sources or undercover agents were involved in these meetings, which I already included. starship.paint (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Right, so exactly as I predicted, you're saying that you are able to interpret and clarify the report by appealing to what you think it simply means, both on Halper's June meeting and on the interpretation of how to count the operations. Both interpretations go beyond what the text explicitly says. I agree that source 2 wasn't part of the team in June, but there's still a true reading of the claim that a CH team member had a meeting in June: namely, that a person who was later on the team had an earlier meeting. Like if I say that the 45th president grew up in Queens. "Oh, that's not what it means" you'll say. Well, I'm glad it's so clear to you. Also, I agree that it doesn't mean that there were zero operations after 9/19. But that doesn't entail that what it does mean is that there were three operations that began before September 19. I think it might mean that there were three operations that concluded before 9/19. But the truth is, I just think it isn't clear what it means, and we shouldn't interpret it where it isn't clear. That's my view, and has been my view. Sounds like you don't agree. Ok, I can live with that. I appreciate your getting involved, and I think you improved the text we started with. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And now, Starship.paint, Valjean has excised your fix for the third point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, yes, I removed this one sentence as OR: "The report does not say whether other sources or undercover agents were involved in these meetings." I have to sadly confess that it was only a tweak of wording I had originally added, and it was incorrect of me to have done so in the first place. The tweak didn't make things better. The location of the sentence made it apply to all three operations. The IG Report makes it very clear that multiple CH sources and undercover agents were involved in multiple meetings, with the exception of the second operation, which was only one meeting with only one agent. See the section below. -- Valjean (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, the sequence of events is important. There was no Operation Crossfire investigation before July 31, 2016, so the totally chance encounter in June between Halper and Carter Page could not have been part of it. In mid-July 2016, Page approached Halper first, not Halper, as a CHS, approaching Page first. Halper was not actively working as an FBI CHS at the time and had never met Page. Later came the August meeting with Halper acting as an FBI CHS. -- Valjean (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Shinealittlelight:, about counting operations: The IG Report is talking about three CHS operations here, all using Source 2, "As summarized in Chapter Ten" p. 79. The number of operations, as explained above, is not the same as the number of meetings. Halper met Page several times, Clovis only once, and Papadopoulos several times. The exact numbers of meetings and their dates are above. The IG Report is not opaque about this. It's not hard to interpret this part. -- Valjean (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - if you believe that three operations concluded by September 19, then logically, these three operations must have started before September 19. Where is the disagreement then? starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I say it's unclear what the report means when it says that there were three operations "conducted...prior to" 9/19. You disagree: you think it means that there were three operations that began before 9/19. This (among other assumptions) guides you in constructing an interpretation of the relationship between pp. 79-80 and chapter 10. I say: don't make these assumptions, don't interpret the report in this way. Let other sources interpret the report on these issues. In practice, though, we end up in the same place, because although we disagree about whether we can interpret the report for the reader, you want the same sources I'm asking for to demonstrate due weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: first point, the relationship between pp. 79-80 and chapter 10 is clearly stated in the report on pg. 79 - Chapter 10 summarized the three operations. Are you doubting that? Second point, you posit that it is unclear whether the operations only started before September 19, or whether they actually ended before September 19. However, if they were to have ended before September 19, they would also have to have started before September 19. Therefore, no matter when the operations ended, Wikipedia does not introduce any misleading information by stating that there were three operations which started before September 19. starship.paint (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Reply 1 Sure, fine, the report says that 10 summarizes three operations, and no I have not doubted that at all. Second reply, I agree with what you wrote here: the operations would have to begin before Sept 19 for sure. I don't claim that saying so is explicitly misleading. What I claim is that the current version implies that this is all the report meant by saying that the operations were "prior to" 9/19, a fact that involves interpretation on our part that goes beyond the text, which is in my view objectively unclear. This interpretation on our part now becomes the basis for saying which "operations" the report is referring to on pp. 79, which meetings are included in which "operations", how many people--specifically how many CHSs--were involved in each, and so on for the other points I've raised. You have settled on an interpretation that involves saying nothing known to be false, and merely implying things that are in my view a SYNTH. For example, implying that 'prior to' means 'started before' and implying that the three operations you mentioned in the text you wrote are the three operations mentioned on 79-80, and perhaps other things. So my objection is not that you have said something false or even misleading. My objection is that you've implied things not in the report, based on your own interpretation and analysis of what the report means. And I regard that as a synth problem. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, Starship alludes to an important point above: "the relationship between pp. 79-80 and chapter 10 is clearly stated in the report on pg. 79 - Chapter 10 summarized the three operations." The IG report repeats/duplicates content at different locations in the same document, and the Mueller Report does the same thing. They repeat themselves. I guess that is just their way of writing reports. In this case, the three operations mentioned on pg. 79 are the same three operations mentioned in Chapter Ten. It's about the same three campaign members and their meetings with "Source 2".

When one just takes the wording on pg. 79 at face value, it is telling us there is an equivalence/parallelism, so it's OR to think they are talking about different things. The exact same wordings are even used in those different parts, and sometimes, even though some wordings aren't exactly the same in the two parts of the report, they are still talking about the same things. When one sees them as equivalent/parallel parts of the IG report, we don't need to "interpret". Suddenly the IG report is much less complicated. -- Valjean (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: - where are the relevant parts for The IG Report makes it very clear that multiple CH sources and undercover agents were involved in multiple meetings - specifically, the meetings before September 19, 2019? starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Chapter Ten of the report describes three operations which began before September 19, 2016. They involved the confidential human source labelled as "Source 2" in the report. It is not mentioned by the report if other sources or undercover agents were involved in these meetings. The first operation involved a meeting on August 20, 2016, between "Source 2" and Carter Page (subsequently, after Page left the Trump campaign, "Source 2" continued to meet Page from October 2016 to January 2017).

starship.paint (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Starship. This may be what you seek:

"As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation." p. xvi

Chapter Ten does mention other meetings than the ones with Source 2, using other FBI CHS. It also mentions a "Source 3". There might be others. Halper was not the only CHS used by the Hurricane team. He just happened to be the most controversial one who got the most press because of leaks and Trump labeling him a "spy". He seems to have done the most work too. He gets a full 20 pages. There was also Azra Turk, who accompanied Halper at one or both of the meetings on September 15, 2016.

Here is from the Table of Contents:

IV. Use of CHSs and UCEs in the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation . . . . . . . 312

A. No CHSs and UCEs Used Prior to the Opening of the Crossfire

Hurricane Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

B. CHS and UCE Involvement in Crossfire Hurricane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

1. Source 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

2. Source 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

B. Other CHSs Who Were Not Tasked As Part of Crossfire Hurricane . . 336

That last "B." (rather than "C.") seems to be a typo in the report. -- Valjean (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Valjean: - could you include the secondary sources that establish WP:DUE for the material on CHS? starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Starship, the section already uses several RS other than the IG Report. The subject is fundamental to the whole Crossfire Hurricane operation, so it can't be ignored or moved to another article. The Spygate article does deal with it, but from a conspiracy theory angle, not from a factual angle. Here we deal with what actually happened, not from Trump's false conspiracy theory angle. There are obviously numerous other RS we could add if necessary, as Halper's actions, and the use of CHS by the FBI Operation Crossfire Hurricane team, was very controversial, at least to those who side with Trump and Russia.

I can't think of any other subject in the article that has greater due weight, as that was what the operation was about, and everything else sprang out of that surveillance. There's more on this in my sandbox: User:Valjean/Surveillance of Trump associates. The subject deserves its own article. -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I do not accept your explanation that the section already uses several RS other than the IG Report. We need to include sources highlighting / discussing these specific parts of the report. These cannot be sources published before the report's contents are known. I firmly believe that it is WP:UNDUE, and reflects editorial bias, for Wikipedia to present this information without other supporting sources. As such, I have removed the content [11], without prejudice to a restoration with other supporting sources highlighting these parts of the report. starship.paint (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Starship, I didn't realize you were talking about the last part of the section. I thought you meant the whole section, which does contain, as you put it, "secondary sources that establish WP:DUE for the material on CHS". I understand now what you mean. You want secondary RS which do comment on the IG Report and CHS, right? That's reasonable, but the due weight of the subject is already established with the RS we already use in that section, so there was no need to remove the content while we were still discussing it.

The topic of the section is the use of CHS by the Crossfire Hurricane team, and that subject is very DUE and existed long before the IG Report, which is just another RS which adds more information to an already DUE topic. Topics must be DUE, but sources do not have to be DUE, just reliable, and the IG Report is definitely reliable for facts, but not interpretation, hence our discussions to "get it right". I'm working on a version which would incorporate secondary RS to accompany the IG Report. Does that make more sense to you? -- Valjean (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I did give you two chances to add the sources, which in your confusion, you did not. Yes, I want secondary RS which do comment on the IG Report and CHS, specifically the parts of the report that you wish to highlight. Please do incorporate those sources. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

ODNI released 53 Schiff transcripts

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/features/2753-53-hpsci-transcripts 91.76.22.132 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

May 15 revert

Please explain this revert. I spent a lot of time on these edits, and I don't see why they're being reverted with no explanation at all. @Starship.paint:, @Valjean:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinealittlelight (talk • contribs)

A quick response (I'll get back with you later). Your first edit was problematic, as noted in my edit summary, and I suspected that there might be similar problems with some of the other edits, but I didn't have time to deal with them then. I did notice some improvements mixed in, so don't get too disheartened. Those parts will be restored. See you later. -- Valjean (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The current text of that part is

When Halper's activities were reported by Andrew C. McCarthy in a May 12, 2018, National Review article, Donald Trump reacted by accusing the Obama administration of planting a "spy" in his campaign, thus launching the Spygate conspiracy theory.

The source is supposed to be this Hill piece. But this source does not use the word 'react' or a synonym. And it does not use 'Spygate' or a synonym. What it says is that Trump tweeted the allegation about spying and that his tweet was "in reference to" that report. Any more than that is not in the source. In fact, the source specifically notes that this is not the first time Trump made an allegation of spying, so it's very odd that we would appeal to this piece in support of the claim that this tweet "launched" anything. I will restore my edits if I don't hear from you soon, but I'm happy to wait a bit. I don't want an edit war, of course, but in my view if an editor is not ready to discuss, that editor should not revert. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Where in the Hill source does it "specifically notes that this is not the first time Trump made an allegation of spying"? Which words should I look for?

In the Spygate article, we document the development of Trump's spygate conspiracy theory, from using the word "spy" to using the word "spygate": Spygate (conspiracy theory)#Trump and his allies' allegations. McCarthy's article is pivotal, and Trump is specifically reacting to it, as his words reference it as the reason he's tweeting about the subject. Using the word "react" is quite reasonable. That's how it started, and then it got a life of its own and has exploded with more variations. -- Valjean (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Starship.paint -- Valjean (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I just got the ping. Hold on. starship.paint (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hill piece says This is not the first time that the Obama administration has been accused of spying on the Trump campaign. Last year, Trump accused the former president of wiretapping Trump Tower shortly before the 2016 election. We should not care what other articles on Wikipedia say. The source provided here does not support the text currently in the article, including the term 'react'. If you have an appropriate source, propose it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The Trump Tower accusations are a different matter and widely separated by time and circumstance. (Wiretapping Trump Tower and embedding an informant in Trump's campaign would be very different things, neither of which have ever been proven.) This was inspired by McCarthy's article, which revealed something previously unknown. Using the word "reacted", or a synonym is justified by Trump's own words. I point to the other article because it already has Trump's tweets nicely arranged. -- Valjean (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, three points:

1. [12] you wrote This content was developed collaboratively and you didn't participate. Now use the talk page. I don't know if you informed Shinealittlelight, and if you didn't, perhaps you could have responded more nicely. starship.paint (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Have you restored all the parts that were improvements? Otherwise I can't tell what's really problematic.
3. I can see how the contested text over McCarthy fails verification. Yes, it will need to be improved.

starship.paint (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Good points:

1. You're right.
2. Not yet. I do sleep and do other things.
3. Improvement is always welcome, so let's figure out how to do that. See my reply to Shinealight. Trump's own words justify "reacted" or a synonym. It needs to be clear that Trump is reacting/responding/whatever to McCarthy's article. That McCarthy is a well-known conspiracy mongerer and totally unreliable source is another matter we shouldn't include in this connection, unless some RS does that.

Valjean (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There are RS which tie Trump's reactions to McCarthy's article (and him watching Fox & Friends, which immediately preceded his tweet, and they are his favorite source of (mis)information), and some call it the start of the Spygate allegations in one way or another. Here are a few (search them for the words "McCarthy", "informant", and also "spy"): GQ, Vox, Time, PBS, The Observer. We should be able to get something from them (attributed) to give the historic/motivational context for his tweet(s). -- Valjean (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint:, does this cn tag refer to the last few words of the sentence? ("thus launching the Spygate conspiracy theory"). How do you think that sentence should be worded? -- Valjean (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I have gone through Shine's changes and restored most of them. -- Valjean (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valjean - the following bolded parts in that sentence are unverified, well, you just have to find the sources. When Halper's activities were reported by Andrew C. McCarthy in a May 12, 2018, National Review article, Donald Trump reacted by accusing the Obama administration of planting a "spy" in his campaign, thus launching the Spygate conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight - "the president tweeted in reference to a National Review report" --> "reacted". starship.paint (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:, ah, I see what you mean. Basically, you're proposing we can't use what we know from other RS and apply it there. That means each element has to be written in the present tense of the time it was written, as if we don't know anything, and ignoring the fact we have just established, using RS, that McCarthy's "informant" was Halper. I think(?) I understand you. It's awkward, but not unheard of, as a means to avoid SYNTH issues.

Adding other sources to the sentence could be used to justify the current wording. The RS are used right before. BTW, does anyone seriously doubt he was talking about Halper, the unnamed informant?

So what's easiest? We can do this:

1. "Halper" can be replaced with "informant" from the source.
2. Why do you highlight the date? That's the date of McCarthy's article, and Trump is referencing and quoting from that article.
3. We can drop "thus launching the Spygate conspiracy theory." That fact is established by myriad other sources, but that's not the main topic in this section of the article.

Please post your proposed version here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been very disruptive. Most of my edit has now been restored. No explanation for why most of it was taken out for a few days. The actual changes that Valjean has now made (aside from minor changes) are these:

1. He dropped the quote about Halper that I included in the Schmidt/Marzetti 5/2 NYT reference, namely Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper.
2. He added McCarthy's name to the sentence that currently fails verification.
3. He dropped my sentence But The New York Times reports that, according to an anonymous former federal law enforcement official, that contact was a coincidence. The previous sentence stated that the contact was coincidental, so this did need to be edited. But the NYT report attributes the claim to the anonymous former official, and so we should too.
4. He restored a Vox source that seemed to me to make no connection to the sentence in which it occurs. The sentence is about how Halper met with Papadopoulos; the supplied quote from the Vox source says nothing about this, but only says why Papadopoulos was important in the investigation. Is a different quote intended or what?

Can you please explain these changes, Valjean? And, in the future, let's not revert improvements, ok? @Starship.paint: if you don't see the difference between 'in reference to' and 'reacted to', then you should have no objection to my using 'in reference to' instead of 'reacted to'. Right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - well if you can word it such that the sentence makes sense and has no grammar errors, I'd suppose "in reference to" would be fine, or "referenced". starship.paint (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

By referencing it, he shows he's reacting to it. It seems to mean the same thing, but if you both think it's better, then I have no objection to "referenced" in some form, unless there is some subtle difference I'm missing. Knowing their history at the Spygate article, I suspect that Shine may see a subtle difference, and I'd appreciate seeing it explained. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I and my "history" (whatever that means) are not the topic here. Once again (and again, and again, and again), please refrain from commentary and innuendo about me, and please let's focus on content. I want the wording in the text to reflect what the sources actually say. That's it. The terms are obviously not equivalent. You can react to a report without referencing that report, and you can reference a report without reacting to it. Let's stick to sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let me reply to each point:

1. That was an inadvertent deletion as the full source was used more than once, so while trying to fix that it got deleted. It is now restored. Thanks for pointing that out.
2. To which sentence are you referring where I "added McCarthy's name"? Please place the full sentence below so I can see it.
3. I have restored the attribution and trimmed unnecessary content. Your original edit duplicated mention of the "coincidental" wording, which is why I worked on it.
4. The Vox source is used more than once, and the quote applies to one of those uses.

I hope that explains it. I understand your frustration, as I've been in your shoes many times, so I have learned to make controversial or complex edits in small bites. When I forget, it happens to me. When the edit summary covers everything that happened, misunderstandings can be avoided, and that can rarely happen with large, complex, or controversial edits. When too much happens in a series of edits, it is common practice to revert back to the status quo and then collaboratively work on it on the talk page. That's what we're doing. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The only remaining issue that I see is that that the Vox source has a quote that is irrelevant to the text. I don't know policy on this, but it seems to me that it makes sense not to name a source when a quote is included if that name is going to be repeated where the quote is not relevant. This seems to be what has happened here. On reviewing the Vox source, the only relevant quote seems to be this: Halper also met with a third Trump foreign policy adviser, Sam Clovis; according to Clovis, they discussed China policy, not Russia. It’s not clear if this meeting was also at the FBI’s behest, or if what they discussed was relayed back to the FBI. This hardly supports the details in the text, and I'm not really in favor of using a partisan source like Vox where it isn't really needed, so I would still recommend that we drop it, since we already have sufficient sourcing for the claim that Halper met Clovis on the day and time mentioned in the text. But if we are going to keep this source here, we don't want the confusing quote in it, and that should at least get fixed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fox & Friends mention?

There is something we don't mention, but what some sources do mention, and that is that the tweet came immediately after (or during?) a Fox & Friends episode, and Trump is a big fan of that show, among the other 4-6 hours of TV he watches every day. He is known to "tweet while watching" and to make big and important foreign and domestic policy decisions based on what he has just heard them say. Fox News and Fox & Friends often dictate national policies. I don't recall if McCarthy was on that episode, or if they referenced him. Mention of this would be in addition to what we're talking about above and have no effect on it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. Is there a content proposal or a source proposal here? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a content proposal put forward to get the collaborative input from other editors. Is it worth mentioning in this article? -- Valjean (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that Trump's TV watching is generally relevant to the topic of the article, but I need to see the specific source and wording being proposed. Feel free to either make a WP:BOLD edit or propose a source and wording here. I can't tell what the proposal is so far. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: - your question cannot be answered without seeing the sources. starship.paint (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Turk and the "Third operation"

@Starship.paint: @Valjean: So I guess Turk's meetings with Papadopoulos and "several other campaign aids" without Halper were part of the third operation? What's the source for this? I continue to regard this whole section's attempt to define the boundaries of the three operations as WP:OR. This is one more example of that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight:, unless I'm reading this wrong, you took a very simple statement (The New York Times said Halper accompanied Turk "in one of her meetings" with Papadopoulos.) and expanded it to (The New York Times said that Halper accompanied Turk "in one of her meetings" with Papadopoulos, and that she met with Papadopoulos and "several other campaign aids" on separate occasions.), which includes the wording ("several other campaign aids"), which I could not find in the Times source. After some other searches, I located the quote, which is "other campaign aides".

Here's the NYTimes source:

"Mr. Horowitz has focused among other things on the activities of Mr. Halper, who accompanied Ms. Turk in one of her meetings with Mr. Papadopoulos and also met with him and other campaign aides separately. The bureau might also have seen Ms. Turk’s role as essential for protecting Mr. Halper’s identity as an informant if prosecutors ever needed court testimony about their activities." (bold added)

That seems to apply to Halper and not to Turk, as the subject of the sentence is Halper, not Turk, so read it this way: "and [Halper] also met with him [Papadopoulos] and other campaign aides separately."

I hope I have parsed that correctly.

AFAIK, she is never mentioned in any other connection than the meeting(s) with Papadopoulos, whereas Halper does meet with "other campaign aides separately" (Page and Clovis).

The boundaries (three operations) are straight from the IG report, so no OR at all. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I see; I agree that I misread it. I think I was misled by the fact that it says "one of her meetings with Mr. Papadopoulos". Doesn't that mean that there were other meetings with her? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

NYT seems to indicate that Turk met Papa more than once, yes. starship.paint (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Shine, I totally understand how that can happen. It's an easy mistake to make, and I've done it many times. As I recall, various sources describe Turk's role and add different details. It does appear that she met with Papadopoulos more than once. Here are the possibilities: she did it twice on Sept. 15, or only once on that date, and another time on another date. She may have done it once without Halper being along. Exactly what happened is something I'm still unsure about, but we know she was there, posing as Halper's assistant. If we can figure it out, we could add it, or we could just leave it as is, a bit vague on all the possible details. -- Valjean (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with it as is. I do find it weird how the NYT put it. Sorry for the error. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Add info that DOJ stripped FBI from their ability to investigate presidential campaigns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7HqJtY08OQ and other sources. Information about FISC stripping DOJ and FBI officials involed in this spying from asking FISA warrants. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am positive it is correct article. "Investigations Into 2020 Candidates Must Be Cleared by Top Justice Dept. Officials" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/barr-2020-investigations.html 91.76.22.132 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What part of that article applies to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation? -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)