Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Factual Issues/NPOV issues

So here's the thing. We do not know what Mueller found or did not find. We have four incomplete sentences quoted by Barr.

So we don't know what Mueller found or did not find. The article must reflect that all we have is a summary produced by an attorney general hand-picked by the president.

NPOV means that we must not take a position based on what was found or what was not found. "According to Barr," or "Barr alleges" should be placed throughout this article to reflect that fact.

Until we have seen the report, we don't know what Mueller actually concluded.

Ollie Garkey (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ollie Garkey: Just one problem, "alleges" violates WP:WEASEL, and is clearly biased against the impartiality of the Attorney General. Furthermore, with the report being made public in the coming weeks would it really make sense for Barr to lie about "no russian collusion"? The backfiring from that would be immense, especially since President Trump himself said to "make the report public". Why would Trump want that if it proved he colluded with Russia? NPOV means we must take no position on matters. We don't know the exact text of the Muller Report (and we probably won't truly see all of it until it's declassified in 2082), but we do know the four page summary by the attorney general. Furthermore, Muller recommended "no new indictments", that reads to me as him taking a position on the matter. By NPOV we can neither take a rightist, nor a leftist position. ElectroChip123 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, just because Trump says he wants to "make the report public" doesn't mean that he wants to make the report public. He could do that unilaterally, but he won't. It's much like how he said he would be happy to be interviewed by Mueller, and then had his lawyers put the kibosh on that. He says one thing publicly, and then does the exact opposite behind the scenes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Barr's "impartiality" is a farce, as proven by his statements against the investigation before he even got the job. Some sources state he was fishing for the job by letting Trump know he would be more loyal to Trump than to the investigation and rule of law. Time will tell, but his impartiality is not evident or to be expected. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I just want to point out that Rod Rosenstein, who authorized Mueller's investigation, agreed with Barr in the summary and also had access to the full Mueller report. If Barr was impartial in the summary, I doubt Rosenstein would have agreed to have his name in it. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: do you mean "If Barr wasn't impartial"? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: He said he "was happy to to be interviewed by Muller" before his lawyers advised him against it. It was an interview with the Special Council that led to Bill Clinton being charged with perjury, and Trump's lawyers wished to avoid that. Furthermore, I want to point out the brazen hypocrisy of the Democrats. When Trump ordered the Nunes memo be immediately declassified the Democrats screeched to high heaven about how we needed to protect "sources and methods". Now that the Muller report is done they want it immediately released, unredacted, to the public with no regard for "sources and methods". This only confirms that their criticism of Trump over the declassification of the Nunes memo was a political stunt, and had noting to do with actually protecting "Sources and methods". tldr: The report is 400+ pages long, chill while they take the time to redact "sources and methods". ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, that is a disingenuous comparison. The Nunes memo was a partisan hit job that did reveal sources and methods. The Mueller Report is not, and Democrats don't want the whole unredacted thing released. They want to see the whole thing. Surely they'll approve of the redactions of classified and grand jury information before it gets released to the public.– Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, The Nunes memo was no more a partisan hit job than the subsequent Shiff memo. Furthermore, to claim that the Muller report does not contain sources and methods is silly. It's an FBI report. To claim that it doesn't have sources and methods in it is frankly, ridiculous. Lastly, Barr did sit present the full (unredacted) report to congress yesterday. To claim that is what the Dems are clamoring form is disingenuous. They are showing complete disregard for "sources and methods". They want it released before redactions for sources and methods are complete. That is, as stated, hypocritical of them. "but, but, McConnell... " wanted to wait for the redactions to be complete, so he blocked the reports immediate release to the public (by denying it a vote in the senate until such time). Dems begged Trump to wait for sources and methods to be redacted, once they knew they couldn't block him from declassifying the memo (as head of state he could declare anything, even Top Secret military documents, "declassified", sans redactions). However, he waited and let the redactions take place. Now the same party that bashed Trump for starting the declassification process of the Nunes memo (which actually had its sources and methods redacted before being released to the public, contrary to what you seem to be claiming), yet now they want a 400+ page report to be released directly to the public, the day after it's completed (by Muller). You claim that "surely they'll approve of the redactions" yet none of the Dems have been saying that. If you have a RS that actually makes that case, then I'd be happy to look at it, but as of yet, your claim is merely OR. Furthermore, no one has said that they don't want it released. In fact, all McConnell said was that it can't be released right now and cited the same security reasons as I have for the delay. That is, unlike the democrats, he wants to wait for the redactions of sources and methods to be complete before releasing the memo. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123 The Schiff memo was a direct response to the Nunes memo. What was Schiff gonna do, let that partisan hit job go unanswered? Anyway, nobody is saying to release a report with confidential material in it. Unless that's what Graham and Trump are talking about doing? It doesn't have quite the same effect to say "release the report after making the proper redactions of classified material!" – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu; The Schiff memo was a direct response to the Nunes memo., yes and? Personally, I don't believe that either one was a "partisan hit job". Partisan, yes. Hit job, no. Both memos are partisan and designed to push a specific narrative, but neither one is a "hit job". Secondly, graham-congress-could-get-mueller-report-in-april <---- Graham here, is a Republican. Trump has indicated that he wants the report released ASAP, but he isn't voting to release it in full, right now, like the Democrats are. If he wanted to, he (Trump) could print off a copies of the report, unredacted, and hand them out at the next press briefing. Heck, he could post the entire thing on Wikipedia if he wanted to (probably a bad idea due to the length of the report, but he could do it). By holding off on immediately declassifying the report, he is showing his intent to let the redactions take place first. On the other hand, by voting to have it immediately released (not to Congress, to the public), the Democrats are showing their intent to subvert the redaction process. Barr has already started meeting with Congress to carry out the redaction process. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What reliable source says Dems want an unredacted version released to the public? soibangla (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said later that the House would continue to push for the report to be made public. “All I’m interested in is for them to release the full report, the full Mueller report," she told reporters Monday night at the Capitol. [emphasis mine]. That's a quote from literally 4 days after the investigation finished. How in the world would the entire report have been redacted for sources and methods in that timeline? ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nadler has threatened to issue a subpoena for the Mueller report if Barr does not release it to Congress and the public. [emphasis mine]. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, you're getting really into the weeds in what is simply a PR battle about "releasing the report" versus "settling for a summary". That's what this is a debate about. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I seem to find myself there a lot. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, there's a federal rule that says that grand jury testimony cannot be made public. I doubt anybody is looking to violate that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

Muboshgu, I did not know that, although that may be why the resolutions are "non-binding". Still, they aren't pushing fervently to give time for the redactions like they did during the memo fiasco (O/T: can one believe that was over a year ago?). It seems "unnecessary" for the Dems to make this much of a push for something that was virtually guaranteed to happen anyway (I could be wrong, but I don't know of any reports saying the White House doesn't want it released ASAP). That said, I do concede that my claim of them wanting the "unredacted" report made public was wrong, although it still seems that they don't want to allow much/enough time for those redactions to take place. They could/probably-ought-to have waited until April before voting (non-bindingly) to release it so as not to look like they are rushing the process. Doing it so quickly after the conclusion of the investigation gives off a "rush-to-release" vibe. ElectroChip123 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

They’re just going on record to make it clear that they will not allow the matter to fade into oblivion due to any acquiescence on their part soibangla (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You’re reading too much into that. Pelosi has been on Gang of Eight since forever, of course she knows classified info will be redacted from public release, with G8 seeing everything soibangla (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ollie Garkey sure, “According to Barr” done. Also took off the quotes around ‘two main’ part and just put in his words. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett cheers. Per @ElectroChip123:'s concern about the word "alleges," I have changed "explained" to "wrote," as explained can be seen to imply that Barr's description was accurate, in the same way that alleges can be seen to imply that it is inaccurate. Neither is acceptable under Wikipedia standards. "Wrote" is entirely neutral. Ollie Garkey (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ollie Garkey: That would indeed be more neutral. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Insert actual 4 page letter ?

The article Conclusions section has the actual letter announcing the end of investigation, and the article now has some talking about the 4 page summary — but the actual 4 page summary is down in External links. Shouldn't the actual 4 pages be shown at the Conclusions section ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Barr letter is the second picture at the very top of the article, after the Mueller appointment letter. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Should this question perhaps wait until the longer report comes out, and then we talk about whether rearrange to be the full report at top and Barr summary at Conclusions section ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite required due to inaccurate cited sources

The entire article and many of the citations have now been proven to be inaccurate as the light of day is being shed on the Special Counsel investigation.

Please see as an example, the following article listing several articles that are simply fake news:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/

Associated articles such as Nunes memo are also now rife with errors.

If there was absolutely no conspiracy between any American and Russia to influence the 2016 election then we must determine why there was an investigation to begin with?

The only known reason for an investigation by our Federal Government of the Trump Campaign is because the Clinton campaign paid a firm millions of dollars to fly people over to Russia to collect made up information (opposition research) on the other political party’s candidate.

This is becoming an increasingly apparent fact in light of there being no evidence of any other conspiracy or collusion. Wcmcdade (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Daily Caller is not a RS in reality, and therefore not allowed at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously wrong - one can cite Daily Caller and factually there are cites in WP to them. The BESTSOURCES and WEIGHT would tend to draw on larger publications instead, but depending on the context yes they're a RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we will not be using trash publications, and we will definitely not be using the Daily Caller[1] in this article, for anything.- MrX 🖋 13:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It should not be said as “no evidence”, because descriptions said Meuller presented information that Barr and Rosenstein considered against three legal criteria. But almost anything is considered “evidence” even if weak or indirect or conflicting or otherwise flawed, and then it gets evaluated. While apparently no instance reached Barr level of being solid and showing all three criteria, there definitely is evidence, not “no” evidence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, I am anxiously awaiting the "light of day" being shined on the Special Counsel investigation. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet. All we have so far is a three-and-a-half page letter supposedly about the report, written by somebody who was a vocal opponent of the investigation before he became Attorney General, which tells us very little. Mueller left the case of obstruction of justice up to Barr after a two year investigation. How did Barr come to the conclusion not to pursue that after two days? So, as you can now see, the sources that were true before last week are still true today. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, also, the Steele Dossier was started by funding from conservative opponents of Trump, and began after the FBI started investigating Carter Page's connections with Russia. I'm looking forward to you getting better acquainted with the facts before talking about what you think is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fact: The author of the dossier is Steele. Steele was hired by Fusion after the contract with Fusion and the Free Beacon (the Republicans) ended. Therefore, the dossier was not funded by Republicans. What was previously funded was oppo research. Go ahead and read Wiki’s own biased article that at least makes this clear. Get out of your NPR echo chamber. Try this opinion piece to begin to get Re-aquatinted with the truth: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-exposes-spy-chiefs-11553555713. Also Paige was not charged with any crime, so why would he be investigated to begin with if not for the dossier? This may help as well: https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ Wcmcdade (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, nothing about the New York Post "helps", unless you like their sports coverage or Page Six. A March Madness style bracket for who got what "wrong" about the report when we still don't know what's in the report yet? This sums up pretty well how the dossier was not the sole cause of the investigation. I misspoke about Carter Page, it was Papadopoulos that got the investigation going. Funny you decry the "NPR echo chamber". NPR is unbiased. You probably read too much Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars, or Daily Caller. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR is hardly an unbiased source. Furthermore, numerous News organizations (including CNN and MSNBC) have talked about "we got this so wrong". Even John Brennan walked back his claims saying "I was given bad information". Not judging the rest of your statement, just felt like pointing this out about "source bias". ElectroChip123 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m surprised that you are continuing to hold on to the thousands of previous articles and misinformation that Democrats and journalists have been weaving regarding the collusion fiction. You can see by this article that what appears to be happening is that we’re uncovering the greatest misuse of government power we’ve ever seen in our country. This all started with a Secretary of State who tried to hide her communications from Congress, the FBI and journalists. Then she ran for office and could not get away from the criticism of her crimes - even if she has escaped prosecution as yet. Next the President of the United States, Barack Obama ordered a counter-intelligence operation against Hilary’s opponent, the Trump campaign for baseless reasons as there is no evidence that Trump Campaign members were colluding with Russians. That very illegal and dangerous (to our democracy) investigation involved, Clapper, Brennan, Lynch and Comey with the help of extreme partisan lackeys like Ohr, Struck and Lisa Page. Now that we have the Mueller investigation concluded and there was no basis for an investigation of Trump the reckoning is beginning. Wow! This is huge. Take a look at what Lara Logan has to say about this. https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/26/lara-logan-media-coverage-robert-mueller-trump-russia-probe-fake-news Wcmcdade (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Wcmcdade, Lara Logan is a partisan hack. See Lara Logan#Benghazi report errors. I say this again: the Special Counsel investigation has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, or Obama. You right wingers have twisted yourself into knots creating a fictitious series of events where somehow Hillary Clinton has anything to do with this investigation. It started in the summer of 2016 with the FBI investigating Papadopoulos (not Page, that was my mistake). Nothing was done by Mueller that was "illegal or dangerous". Please, for the sake of your own brain, stop reading Fox News. They are lying to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow! You are citing Ken Dilanian, an actual partisan hack who admits to "collaborating" with the CIA and giving them positive coverage. But you can keep attacking a woman whose reporting is so accurate and authentic that she was sexually assaulted while covering a celebration in the misogynist country of Egypt. See Lara Logan#Reporting from Egypt and sexual assault. I'm sure condescension and misogyny are good for the brain, so I'll take your advice. Not. wumbolo ^^^ 12:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, you're calling me a misogynist because Lara Logan is a hack re: Benghazi? I didn't say or suggest anything about her sexual assault. Your condescension is not appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, further, I didn't cite "Ken Dilanian" nor have I heard of him until just now. So, what is that, some sort of strawman argument? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You cited his article in NBC two comments above. wumbolo ^^^ 18:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, I see. Well, I didn't intend to cite him, I intended to cite NBC News. My point still stands. I could find the same conclusions in an article by someone else if it's really necessary. I still have a major issue with you calling me a misogynist for criticizing Lara Logan. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well two wrongs don't make a right. I've striken my comments about the advice you gave above. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, thank you, I appreciate that. Though I still see nothing wrong in criticizing a hack like Lara Logan. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wcmcdade: - The entire article and many of the citations have now been proven to be inaccurate as the light of day is being shed on the Special Counsel investigation. Please see as an example, the following article listing several articles that are simply fake news: https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/ - Where is the fake news in this article? Please point it out specifically. starship.paint ~ KO 05:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

? The whole article is a list of 16 instances ... Though the NYPost “Meuller Madness” article of 32 fake news reporters as a bracket competition is more humorous. Let’s just accept there were fringe pieces running about and too many to list ? Markbassett (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wcmcdade: If there was absolutely no conspiracy between any American and Russia to influence the 2016 election then we must determine why there was an investigation to begin with? Because of Papadopoulos, [2] Papadopoulos, [3] Papadopoulos, [4] Papadopoulos, [5] Papadopoulos, [6] Papadopoulos, [7] Papadopoulos, [8] Papadopoulos, [9] Papadopoulos, [10] Papadopoulos, [11] and last but not least, Papadopoulos [12]. starship.paint ~ KO 05:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Don't forget Papadopoulos [13] too! starship.paint ~ KO 06:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wcmcdade:, the claims you are making here have been debunked on this page many, many times. The timeline makes it clear: the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in July 2017, because of a tip they got from the Australians that a member of the Trump team had advance knowledge of the DNC hack. Prior to that they had gotten warnings from several friendly intelligence services that Russia seemed to be trying to influence our election, but the Australia tip was what caused them to open the investigation. That was in July. That was a national security investigation unaffected by any partisan actions. They didn't even see or know about the Steele dossier until later in the fall. The lie that the Steele dossier was the reason for the investigation has been spread by some right-wing sources, but the timeline flatly disproves it. Please stop cluttering up this talk page with this stuff. Per WP:Talk page guidelines, Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wcmcdade: I strongly suggest that your POV, fueled by unreliable sources, will not prevail here. But thanks for sharing the transcripts from Hannity's last five shows. soibangla (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Can Wcmcdade identify a specific source that's inaccurate or unreliable? As best as I can tell, the reliable news media has been pretty good about not overstating the collusion allegations. R2 (bleep) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC/Semi proposed edit request

Speculation. This isn't going anywhere. O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“The special counsel’s probe revealed the Trump campaign as the most criminal political campaign in American history: no American political campaign ever has seen more of its staffers indicted, convicted, and imprisoned than Trump’s.”74.68.143.24 (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Here is one example. More could be provided: “Because even if Mueller never shows a Russia connection to Trump, the special counsel and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have already shown that Trump’s 2016 presidential bid was the most criminal campaign in the history of US politics, a collection of grifters working on the sly to advance their own financial interests at the expense of the United States.”https://www.wired.com/story/evidence-that-could-impeach-donald-trump/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.143.24 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I am not sure this is enough to put it in Wikipedias voice (ignoring the fact it supports only half your suggested edit).Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Lay off with this type of activity, which has resulted in Wikipedia becoming discredited. In fact in an upcoming lecture I will be giving I will use a projection screen to show the audience the Talk pages to describe the tactics people are using to promote false narratives, like labeling truthful sources as not reliable.Phmoreno (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC) And what about when the truth comes out about all of the Obama administration officials who are going to be referred next week for criminal investigation related to this hoax. Inspector General Horowitz's report, which is due out in less than 90 days, is expected to tell us how this whole Russia hoax started.Phmoreno (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Barr went beyond Mueller's determination that Trump was not exonerated

@MelanieN: The removed content Barr went beyond Mueller's determination that Trump was not exonerated of obstruction to effectively clear the president by writing, "The special counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” adding that he and Rosenstein “concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

is fully supported by the two provided RS:

Barr Goes Beyond Mueller in Clearing Trump on Obstruction, Drawing Scrutiny

Mueller Leaves Obstruction Question to Barr, Who Clears Trump

I recommend the material be restored soibangla (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Actually the Bloomberg story is fully in line with what I left in the article, and does not include any implied criticism of Barr. In fact it quotes several neutral legal sources saying it was reasonable for Barr to do this, based on the language of the obstruction of justice statute - which Barr himself quoted to say it would be difficult to prove all three points beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand the NYT article, although written as a news report and not labeled as opinion, is frankly POV in its language - “seized the opportunity to render a judgment”, “sure to draw scrutiny” - but can find only a single, partisan source as complaining about the decision. IMO the Times reporters went beyond their sourcing to lay out a case they wished to make, and for that reason I wouldn’t cite it as a reference. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the track records of the two NYT reporters? And when did we start vetoing RSs based on our personal opinions? And there's Legal experts question William Barr’s rationale for exonerating Trump and Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision and The decision by Barr and Rosenstein to publicly put a Trump-vindicating gloss on Mueller’s report soibangla (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the "went beyond Mueller's determination" part as unnecessary editorializing. It's also inaccurate insofar as Mueller said he did not come to a "determination" on this subject. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not POV, SYNTH or editorializing. It is fully supported by multiple reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:TRUTH. POV is determined by the grammar and sentence structure used, not reputation or sources. The idea that opinion becomes factual based on the quantity or reputation of individual(s) or publication(s) expressing it is logically unsound. It's still opinion regardless of who holds it. As editors we do not declare what is true, merely provide reference to the claim. Lexlex (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I provided four reliable sources that corroborate the edit. I see no reason to begin selectively and arbitrarily challenging multiple reliable sources now. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point: multiple sources supporting an opinion does not make it "more" true or convert it to a fact. Without cited evidence, it's still opinion. Citing more opinion does not change anything. Lexlex (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Dossier didn't start Russia investigation

The real journalists at Fox News push back against their own network's false narrative about the origins of the Russia investigation:

• Chris Wallace: Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sets Record Straight: Russia Investigation Did Not Start With Trump Dossier. ‘This will drive some of our viewers nuts,’ the ‘Fox News Sunday’ host noted. ‘The Trump investigation did not start with the FISA warrant and Carter Page and the dossier.’
• Shep Smith: Fox News Host Debunks the Myth That the Steele Dossier has been ‘Debunked’

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither of these TV hosts' articles call them journalists (though kudos to Smith for giving it the old college try). If this sort of distinction matters anymore, take note. If not, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Don’t think I see an edit proposed there for this article. Don’t think one is feasible. The Carter Page FISA warrants start (2013/2014?) or the role of Steele dossier (June-Dec 2016) in FISA warrants (Sep/Oct 2016) were before the investigation by Special Counsel began in May 2017 and was not something Meullers team did or directly used. How much a role the prior activities influenced creating or coloured the Meuller investigation or Meuller results seems mentioned in RS but isn’t a big aspect of coverage and really isn’t determinable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• RS, Trump, Nunes, Fox News, Putin....all disagree with you. They have made it abundantly clear that THEY think it has everything to do with starting the Russia investigation. I don't know why you keep trying to weasel out of this. Don't you realize we can actually SEE what you're doing? RS dictate our content, and if RS think there is a relationship between the false claims made about the dossier's (lack of any) role in the start of the Russia investigation, then we are duty bound to include such content. When you keep minimizing this, and other editors keep pushing these Trump conspiracy theories by trotting them out here, we're just going to keep responding by showing that RS debunk those theories. Even Trey Goudy did a great job of debunking Nunes's and Trump's nonsense on the subject:

There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the [Nunes] memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.

Gowdy simply lists several events, some of which preceded the dossier, which justified starting the Russia investigation. The constant pushing of conspiracy theories about the dossier has made it abundantly clear that we must document the non-role of the dossier in the start of the Russia investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References

@BullRangifer: House Intelligence committee report of April 2018, released by Republicans - page 57, [14] [15] [16] in late July 2016, the FBI opened an enterprise CI investigation into the Trump campaign following the receipt of derogatory information about foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos starship.paint ~ KO 02:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• While that’s perhaps about the Steele dossier playing a role in some earlier FBI probe, it’s obviously before and just not the Special Counsel Investigation this article is about. I still don’t see a proposed edit for this article and would recommend not making an effort to coatrack one in. In the Mueller article, I suggest stick to facts of what Mueller Investigation did or said, or Rosenstein and Barr do and say with the report. Anything else seems OFFTOPIC detours. Yes there were a lot of Opinion bits SPECULATION in the last 2 years about Steele or Papadopoulos. We’ve enough to say with facts though and do not need implausible tangles that were external to the investigation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think readers deserve a thorough historical context of how the Mueller investigation came to be, particularly now as some here are aggressively attempting to rewrite that history, in some cases to fabricate a false premise to launch criminal investigations in retaliation for what they consider to have been an "illegal" inquiry from the start. soibangla (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Mark, you seem to be a bit confused. The Mueller investigation IS the Russia investigation:

Lead of article: "The Special Counsel investigation of 2017 to 2019 (also referred to as the Mueller probe, Mueller report, Mueller investigation, and Russia investigation)"

Mueller took over an existing investigation, and it was done, in part, so that Trump would have difficulty destroying evidence. It's all the same thing, and this particular discussion is about how the dossier HAD NO ROLE (NOT "playing a role in some earlier") in the start of the Russia investigation, a subject deemed notable enough that Trump and allies are lying about it every single day, and RS are documenting the lies and debunking them with the facts. That content is in the article and must stay there. In fact, it has become so much more notable now, because of Trump's constant gaslighting of his supporters on the subject, that we need to expand on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, we have to cover the FBI 2016-2017 investigation in this article. Because it easily passes WP:GNG, yet cannot have an article on its own, because it was an investigation that passed the baton, it has no findings on its own, whatever it produced was absorbed into the Mueller investigation, we can't just separate it, and the Mueller report itself probably won't separate the 2016-2017 information. The whole thing is the Russia investigation, and it can't realistically be written into separate articles by us. starship.paint ~ KO 12:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

On March 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress regarding the special counsel's findings regarding Russian interference and obstruction of justice. Barr said that on the question of Russian interference in the election, Mueller detailed two ways in which Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump's favor, but "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." On the question of obstruction of justice, Barr said no conclusion was reached by the special counsel, noting that Mueller wrote "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Per Justice Department policy, the possible case of obstruction was sent to the attorney general and deputy attorney general for review; Barr and Rosenstein concluded by March 24, 2019, that obstruction could not be proven in a court of law.

Please include in the article how the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve the full release of the Mueller Report

On March 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress regarding the special counsel's findings regarding Russian interference and obstruction of justice. Barr said that on the question of Russian interference in the election, Mueller detailed two ways in which Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump's favor, but "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." On the question of obstruction of justice, Barr said no conclusion was reached by the special counsel, noting that Mueller wrote "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Per Justice Department policy, the possible case of obstruction was sent to the attorney general and deputy attorney general for review; Barr and Rosenstein concluded by March 24, 2019, that obstruction could not be proven in a court of law.

On April 3, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted 24-17 along party lines to approve a resolution which authorizes subpoenas of the full Mueller Report. If the US Department of Justice refuses to comply, members of the committee will ask a Judge to allow the release of the full report. The resolution also requires Barr to testify before the House Judiciary Committee before May 2, as he originally proposed.2601:447:4101:5780:9C0D:1463:23D1:744B (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sidenote - reading this I see wording flaws of the description of letter which I will try to fix

(a) ‘Barr said’ should only be “influence the election” as he did not write “in Trump’s favour”. The favour may seem semi-obvious, but describing what Barr letter says should stick to what the Barr letter said.

(b) Drop the “but”. The ‘but “did not establish”’ part seems voiced as a failure and reads as a quote of Barr speaking, when it is Barr quoting the report “[T]he investigation did not establish”.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have edited the lede to include Barr's description of Mueller's reporting of how Russia actually interfered, as it is obviously one of the primary investigative topics. starship.paint ~ KO 01:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Leaks saying Barr mischaracterized report

I don't see an encyclopedic way to add this to the article, and don't see the point in trying to stenograph leaks, e.g. there's no reason to add it prior to a couple weeks at most when the redacted version gets released. Maybe someone else feels differently, and editors of this article should at least know it's a thing now: Fandos, Nicholas; Schmidt, Michael S.; Mazzetti, Mark (3 April 2019). "Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed". The New York Times.

Although on second thought, "investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report," is pretty consequential, and noteworthy in its own right, isn't it? Anyway I'll let someone else decide. EllenCT (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Barr? Misrepresent the report? Can't be....

Seriously though, I don't think this is something we can add just yet, especially since none of the Mueller people were willing to go on record. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Welp, I already added it to the lede, so if someone thinks it should come out, I will self-revert. soibangla (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I moved it from the lead to the "conclusion" section. We already have way too much primary reporting in the lead - stuff that isn't even mentioned in the body of the article where it should go first. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, WaPo independently confirmed the same story, and the fact that the team hadn't leaked at all until now is also borderline noteworthy, so fine with me. EllenCT (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ambivalent, this is noteworthy, but we lose nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's classic WP:WEASEL to word it the way that's in there now, but unless more information about the source is revealed there's not much else to do if we want it included. I'm sure you could find "some" who would say just about anything. It's a bit reckless reporting, but that seems to be what people like to read. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Some have talked about it, others have chosen not to. WaPo has independently corroborated it. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Does not seem DUE. I note the Washington Post said a couple people disputed the characterization, plus that Kerri Kupec. Since we expect the report itself in a couple of weeks, and then will have lots of comments on the record, I doubt this is worth a mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, April 6, 2019‎ (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation should only be in the title not in the text of the article

The "(2017–2019)" parenthetical disambiguation in the title should not appear in the text of the article, as it is not actually part of the common name of this topic. The parenthetical disambiguation in the title is only there for technical reasons to disambiguate it from other topics of the same name. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Rreagan007: - how is it now? starship.paint ~ KO 01:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks good now. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. You would think this investigation would have an official name by now.- MrX 🖋 12:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It has an official name, title-cased and all. The President has publicly designated and used this label over one hundred times, quite likely more than any president has ever publicly referred to anything as something (perhaps excluding "Founding Fathers"). It's been adopted, argued and/or accepted by virtually every outlet interested in this case. Yet it isn't even listed here as a bold alias, much less the title. Only mentioned seven times in the body, like it's just some opinion from some guy on Twitter, who may be a collective hallucination in reality. Unless we're waiting for some relatively honest and open authority figure like the CIA, NSA or CFR to declassify its purposely-obtuse operational codename for this...pursuit thingy, it doesn't get more official than Witch Hunt (2017–2019). That's not to say I prefer it to this one, to be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lend me your eyes, please

Any further editor input on Talk:Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) would be appreciated. It seems that as a result of the Barr letter, many on the Right are trying to reopen the debate about the validity of counterintelligence on the Trump campaign or whatever they claim was going on. I have a busy day today IRL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that's not what that article says. That article says that the investigation into the Trump campaign was a false consipracy theory put forth and promoted by Trump and his supporters. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Which indeed it was, and apparently still is according to RS. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are saying there was not an investigation into Trump's campaign? Are you, or reliable sources, saying there was not an investigation into Trump's campaign? Mr Ernie (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Request temporary lifting of discretionary sanctions?

I would like (and you may call it a "breaching experiment" attempt if you want) to temporarily ask to remove the discretionary sanctions imposed on this article, at WP:ARCA. EllenCT (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Why? (Don't take this as an oppose) starship.paint ~ KO 11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost the same here, why (do take this as an oppose)?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to go for 24 hours on unrestricted edits before I finalize my recommendations for now. EllenCT (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That (frankly) is not really an answer, we know you want to have no restrictions, the question is why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. Just create the paragraph and post it here. When we have a consensus, it can be inserted in one edit. We already agree that there should be some form of trimming, so we're already with you on such efforts. Give it a try. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I assume you are referring to editing restrictions, and not the broader concept of discretionary sanctions. Are we sure that this article actually has editing restrictions? There doesn't seem to be a page notice which is a requirement for any restriction violation sanction.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

When I heard there would be hearings in the news,[17] I thought allowing unrestricted IP editing (including no 1RR) for a day could capture a sense of what the hearing participants and their audience who might be editors think are the most important parts. If admins think that's too much work, then never mind. EllenCT (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we make it easier for editors to edit about the hearings in real time, I think that’s a poor idea. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS O3000 (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to make a WP:SUMMARY article on the Barr testimony and use that for an unprotected, unsanctioned way to get more edits from the community, anticipating it could also be the subject of Mueller testimony? EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Spygate

Please be aware of this RfC: Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#"False conspiracy theory" in lead – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for second paragraph

Here is the current second paragraph of the intro:

For the criminal charges brought in this investigation, as of the investigation's conclusion in March 2018, 34 individuals received indictments for federal crimes. Seven of these individuals have entered guilty pleas or been convicted.[9] In August 2018, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts of financial crimes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia[10] and a month later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice in a plea bargain for his full cooperation with prosecutors.[11][12] The investigation also led to Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his discussions of sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign,[13] and was required to be a cooperating witness in the investigations.[14] Mueller further secured guilty pleas from Manafort's business partner Rick Gates, Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan,[15] former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, lobbyist W. Samuel Patten[16] and Richard Pinedo.[17] Except Van der Zwaan, all have become cooperating witnesses for investigators. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency[18] and in June 2018 added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner,[19] to whom he had passed internal campaign polling data.[20] In July 2018, 12 members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were indicted.[21] Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen were referred to the Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York.[22] Longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone was indicted on seven charges in January 2019.[23]

I propose changing it to:

As of April 2019, thirty-four individuals were indicted by Special Counsel investigators.[18] Eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including at least five Trump associates and campaign officials.[9] Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had a four year long relationship with Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak and in December 2015 had been photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin on an undisclosed trip to Russia, and who Russian intelligence agents described as an ally they could use to influence Trump,[19] pleaded guilty to making false statements about his discussions of sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign.[13][14] Sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress in response to Russian electoral interference were not imposed by Trump,[20][21] to the astonishment of some observers.[22] Mueller's proposed plea agreement for Flynn was rejected by the sentencing judge, who accused Flynn of selling out his country.[23] Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts[10] and later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of justice.[11][12] A lobbyist for Russian interests in the Ukraine for a decade,[24][25] Manafort had been released on an agreement to cooperate with prosecutors, but subsequently lied to investigators and was sentenced to over seven years in jail.[26] Mueller's team also indicted twenty-five Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency,[18] twelve members of the Russian GRU cyber-espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking,[21] and in June 2018 added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner,[19] to whom he had passed internal campaign polling data,[20] and who the investigators accused of working for Russian intelligence.[27] Also among the convicted were Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to making hush payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal for Trump in violation of campaign finance and possibly state tax laws,[28][29] and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.[22] Longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone was indicted on seven charges.[23]

I realize that is just a bit longer, but we've already cut the intro from seven paragraphs to four, and I'm trying to surface the pertinent details of the figures who have had the most substantial post-conviction events linking them to Russia, instead of swamping the reader with relatively peripheral names of go-betweens like van der Zwaan, Patten, and Pinedo.

Regarding the sanctions that Flynn discussed, I wonder whether we should talk about them; e.g. "Washington has suspended its entry ban for Russian security chiefs"[30], "the measures taken late on January 29 by the State and Treasury departments were met with disbelief by many observers, who expected asset freezes, travel bans, and other sanctions to be imposed, none of which happened,"[31] and, "the Trump administration decided not to issue new sanctions at this time against Russian politicians and oligarchs over Russian interference in the election."[32] EllenCT (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:EllenCT I got the general sense folks want para 2 shortened or eliminated, not longer. I would offer the thought that tighter wording might suffice - for example “As of April 2019, tThirty-five individuals were indicted”; and “Eight have plead guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including at least five Trump associates and campaign officials.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the intro should be a summary of the article's "most important contents," and, "stand on its own as a concise overview." The second paragraph is the only description of the actual results of the bulk of the investigation. We are supposed to, "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points." The other paragraphs don't really do any of those things. The first describes the investigation's charter, the third talks about what major players thought of it, and the fourth is only about what happened afterwards. The second paragraph needs to talk about the "most important" parts of the actual investigation, not van der Zwaan, Patten, Pinedo, and a bunch of other small fry, or what happened before, outside, and after the investigation. Anyway, I trimmed the proposal to shorten it within seven words of the current version, but I still think there should be something more about how the sanctions passed by congress weren't imposed, as above. EllenCT (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:EllenCT I was just responding to your ‘that is just a bit longer’ by highlighting that the thread “Lead too long” just above this one seemed generally looking for para 2 to be reduced or eliminated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Replying to a comment by Markbassett - there's no way the second paragraph should be removed - these are also actual concrete results of the investigation. starship.paint ~ KO 11:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Keep it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• User:Starship.paint Wrong attribution. I was partly referring to *your* input of “We can heavily trim the second paragraph.” in thread “Lead too long” just above this one. Along with “the lead still needs a good trim” (MelanieN), and “Practically the whole 2nd paragraph can go” (Soibangla). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett - I did say that, but a heavy trim isn't an elimination. Soibangla - see my comment 3 above. starship.paint ~ KO 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the Trump-Kislyak meeting? EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:EllenCT ??? That doesn’t seem part of this thread ‘Lead too long’, nor in the current or recent Lead section of Special Counsel Investigation, nor did I spot anything in the article that seemed Lead size mentioning it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

When this top-level thread was created, the intro had seven paragraphs. Now it has four, and the second one is skewed towards WP:RECENTISM instead of the importance WP:LEAD demands. EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The wordcount length and scrolled length seem much the same - I don’t think ‘Lead too long’ was looking to merge the paragraphs and shift the right side images, I think it was wanting less length by less detail, and again offer the thought that eliminating the flowery phrasing’s might do. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone think it should or should not mention the sanctions (near-unanimous from Congress) which didn't just not get imposed, but were removed for the top-three Russian intelligence agency heads -- and the reactions of observers to that? EllenCT (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty important. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Please feel free to do the whole paragraph. I'm going to give it at least another day. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope no one minds if I propose my changes, as follows:

By the conclusion of the investigation in March 2019, 34 persons had been indicted for federal crimes. Seven of these individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted in federal court. In August 2018, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of eight felony counts of fraud and bank crimes in Virginia,[10] and, in a plea bargain with prosecutors, also pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States.[11][12] Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s first National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian ambassador during the campaign,[13] and became cooperating witness during the investigations.[14] Others pleading guilty included Manafort's business partner Rick Gates, Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan,[15] Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and Richard Pinedo.[17] Most became cooperating witnesses for investigators. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency;[18] in June, he indicted Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's former business partner,[19] to whom Manafort had passed internal campaign polling data.[20] In July 2018, 12 members of the GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were also indicted.[21] Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and lobbyist W. Samuel Patten,[16] were referred to their respective United States Attorneys.[22] Finally, longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone was indicted on seven charges in January 2019.[23]

Granted, I'm not sure if the determination is that the investigation is over, but that aside, I present my proposal regarding the second paragraph. Hope all is well, everyone! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Why mention Pinedo? Although I am sure he will play prominently in histories of the age, I really don't think he deserves mention in the introduction to this article. EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't paying attention to the Pinedo bit, and I was trying to conserve as much of the original paragraph without needlessly excising too much. Of course, I'm perfectly open to removing any mention of Pinedo. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And Patten? EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Patten's a lobbyist, who's well-known for being tangentially tangled up in this, through his prosecution being referred by the SCO to the USAO-DC (which is why I removed him from his former position of prominence with the other guilty pleas and moved him with Cohen, whose case was referred to SDNY). If consensus says to remove his name, I'll do so. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Javert2113: if you had to choose between Patten and Stone? EllenCT (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My last response before bedtime. If you're asking which lobbyist should be discussed in the paragraph above, Stone, of course, given his far greater public profile; in all other matters, I don't believe this is the correct forum for such discussions. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 06:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Roger Stone, compared to Michael Flynn? Not sure. EllenCT (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I added "Sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress in response to Russian electoral interference were not imposed by Trump,[33][34] to the astonishment of some observers.[35]" and after Cohen's name, "who admitted to making hush payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal in violation of campaign finance and possibly state tax laws,[36][37]" to my proposal above. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• These things are relevant to the overall story, but this article isn't the overall story. This article is the Mueller investigation. starship.paint ~ KO 01:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller was investigating the sanctions discussion, and was the one who took Cohen to court. I have clarified that the hush payments were made "for Trump" in the proposal above. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that Flynn, because of the judge rejecting his plea deal, has now pled guilty to the same crime twice?[38] I don't understand what that article says about "waiving grand jury indictment" when he already signed a guilty plea months ago. Is this some notice-of-the-court thing that only lawyers understand? Anyway, let's do an RFC while we wait for the redacted report. EllenCT (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not just lawyers, luckily. All persons charged with felonies under federal law (including General Flynn) have the right to be indicted by a federal grand jury (Fifth Amendment stuff), and the right to be given a copy of this indictment in preparation for, well, trial. This process (that is, the trial and the indictment) is generally bypassed when one accepts a plea bargain — instead, the Government uses an information, but the defendant still must (of course) plead guilty, which is what General Flynn was doing here. So, no, he only pleaded guilty once. I hope that helped — do say something if it didn't! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC

Which version of the second paragraph from those shown above do you prefer, (1) the status quo, (2) EllenCT's, or (3) Javert2113's? 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• 2, mine - per WP:LEAD's instruction to cover the "most important" aspects. EllenCT (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I added Maria Butina at this version (along with some additional sources) because there was some confusion about whether there have been seven or eight convictions so far. And I'm taking down the RFC since nobody but me voted after five days. EllenCT (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reactions of Right for Reactions section

Well, shall the Reaction section have note of the celebration from the Right ? Somewhat as conveying it sparked declarations of ‘exoneration about collusion’ and ‘laughing over reporters now shown as fake news’ ? User:Wcmcdade thanks for the NYPost ‘Mueller Madness’ humorous and scathing review of a couple years of confident (wrong) proclamations on collusion and a dump on the NYTimes as a prominent example. But I think the response is only DUE just a line or two, and best kept to the simple facts of how they reacted.

All - so, what wording do folks think neutrally states the facts of reaction from the right ? How about closing

• “In March 2019, President Trump, conservative media, and some Republican congressmen acclaimed the results of the Meuller investigation as exoneration over allegations of collusion, and showing the media support of the narrative as fake news.”

Anyone want to offer another phrasing of the reaction of the right? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I like it. Some mention of the sort is definitely warranted and that wording accurately summarizes the right wing response. Grammatically I'm inclined to say something more like "... acclaimed the results of the Meuller investigation as an exoneration of all allegations of collusion, and as a confirmation of the media support of the narrative as fake news." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

SK8RBOI, except that that's not what the Barr letter says, but okay then. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, regardless of the content of Barr's summary, that is indeed the reaction of the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

Based on what source? R2 (bleep) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Q. I like to fit the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

It's probably WP:RECENTISM. And "Reactions" sections and articles often become cruft farms, so I hesitate based on that too. –  (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the Reactions section already exists and is extensively fleshed out, I think the risk of that is relatively low. Markbassett's wording is more concise than what is already there and would tie the right-wing criticisms together thematically. Virtually every update to this article has been a "recentism" and the fat will have to be cut later. Until then the standards should be equally upheld, and the reaction of the Right should thusly be included, unless you are prepared to prove why this specific contribution differs in quality from the rest of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the rest of the article then a reaction from the left? Because I see very few (if any) non-partisan articles and news sources cited. Wcmcdade (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Would that include noting that claims of “total exoneration” are false? soibangla (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support that, but this specific inclusion would be a response to a response and in any case should really be mentioned sooner in the article, as I'm sure it has been. However, changing the section to reflect the "Discussion" or "Media Controversy" or "Implications and Interpretations" could also work. As the section stands now it seems to me that this clarification is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. “After two years of work and 2800 subpoenas, the president has been cleared of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.” (BBC.com, Anthony Zurcher). So no, saying ‘Trump said fully exonerated’ can’t be said unambiguously labelled “false”. The prosecutorial decisions are in fact done and there is major RS in fact saying “cleared”. If one has a prominent voice (perhaps Pelosi) saying otherwise that might be quoted. But only as relating fact of statement here, there should be no editorializing judgement tacked on. I’ll try to clean out any incorrect reclama. I’d prefer simple factual statements of explicit objective events anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, it's not so simple. On the surface, it appears (and appearances can be deceiving) that he's exonerated on the conspiracy charge. In spite of plenty of evidence of collusion, Mueller has concluded that there isn't enough to reach the high bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt", IOW not prosecutable. As far as obstruction of justice, Trump is explicitly and specifically "not exonerated" (or should I put that quote from Mueller/Barr in all caps? There too is plenty of evidence, and apparently, it's so uncertain that it depends on who looks at it whether it's seen as prosecutable. If Congress does its job, we may see a trial on that charge, but I doubt they'll do it. Anyone but Trump would have been jailed for obstruction a long time ago for doing all the things he's done right in front of us. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a forum — JFG talk 22:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@BullRangifer: Your personal opinion that "anyone but Trump would have been jailed for obstruction a long time ago" is not helpful to improve the article. I could just as well say "anyone but Trump would have been exonerated a long time ago", and both hypotheticals are equally useless. — JFG talk 09:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I point you to Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby. They were convicted for doing far less. "Martha Stewart must be quite confused right now as she was prosecuted and went to prison for lying during investigation of an underlying crime that was not established." -- Mimi Rocah. Trump does get away with far more than any other known living person. His boldness blows everyone away, and if authorities don't immediately react by charging him with a crime, then they have lost their opportunity, and he continues on emboldened to do the same and more. We're watching this pattern every day. Part of the usual definition of "conspiracy" is secrecy. He does the same improper actions in public. Does that make it anymore right? No need to answer that. Just think about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer FWIW the SC is not legally capable of exonerating the subject of an investigation. It either brings charges, or fails to bring charges. The president not being exonerated does not imply there was in reality compelling evidence of collusion (but of such a sort as to be unfit to make a case); it actually means that the investigation failed to discover wrongdoing, but does not have the authority to issue a technical exoneration. Since we in the USA have a legal presumption of innocence, and the SC's investigation found no wrongdoing, it is more accurate to claim that the investigation's conclusion without the leveling of additional charges is a de facto exoneration than it is to claim the absence of a technical exoneration belies some secret "unchargeable" criminality. Markbassett is correct above SK8RBOI (talk) 05:19, April 9, 2019‎ (UTC)

That's an interesting angle/twist/reversal I've never heard, and one which I have not implied. It's actually the other way around: There is credible evidence that wrongdoing of many types was found, but not to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is our American standard for legal proof of guilt, and which is the situation described by numerous RS, and leaked from Mueller's own people (leaks from the Mueller team can be counted on one hand, so they must be taken seriously). That's the angle you'll find in RS. I'm not sure where you found your interpretation, but it's not from RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• There's no twist or reversal here, that is simply the functional nature of a federal investigator. There are no provisions for any investigator at the federal level, or any level of government to my knowledge, to issue an exoneration. Such a declaration can only be made in court (an "innocent" verdict delivered by judge or jury), or with a Presidential pardon. However, since the Mueller investigation never went so far as to even level charges at Trump, Trump cannot obtain a legal exoneration, nor does he need one. He was never formally accused and is therefore legally innocent. That is a fact independent of the opinions or conclusions arrived at by Mueller's team or the media RS's, as it is a matter of law.
• Furthermore, are we to consider leaked information to be somehow more reliable or less biased than official statements made by the Attorney General? The investigation found no collusion; irrespective of what the investigators' personal interpretations are or what the evidence can be made to appear as, the Mueller investigation did not reach the conclusion that Trump committed a legal infraction. We can investigate ad nauseam and continue to discover zero prosecutable offenses, but even then the investigators would STILL be unable to issue an exoneration, even if Trump's every single action from his birth to death were fully known and ineffably scrutinized.
• The inclusion of that language in the Mueller report was political, and meant to leave the door open for the Democrats' other ongoing investigations, which might conceivably find some evidence of criminality. The argument made by Trump/the Right isn't that other investigations would be unable to prosecute him should they find evidence of criminality (technical exoneration), the argument is that the largest, most public, and most well-funded investigation into this matter failed to yield any prosecutable results, and thusly it is reasonable to speculate that the other, smaller, contemporaneous investigations will unearth the same body of evidence and reach a similar conclusion (no charges = innocent = de facto exoneration). The source of the confusion is a semantic disagreement. Hope that clears things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SK8RBOI - That would be good for after the text about initial reactions. This thread was just for the initial reactions of the right, which seemed (a) celebration, (b) cleared of ‘collusion’, (c) showed media coverage had been fake news. The ‘cleared of obstruction’ addition seems possible too. Even the NY Post ‘Mueller Madness’ or suggestions of counter-investigations seem after that initial reaction from the right. Have anything else on the now a bit ago ‘reactions from the right’? I’d like to do any edit and close this thread before the release of the Mueller report moves it to the next stage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: The phrase "collusion delusion" comes to mind as noteworthy re:media coverage. Other than that I have nothing to add. A, B, &C all look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SK8RBOI - I have put in reactions from the right here, making some use of your suggested phrasing and cites. (I was ready to take any suggestions, but it turned out you're the only one who gave actual edit suggestions rather than general discussion.) I could not use your cite to The Hill as it is an opinion piece. Similarly, although it contained a good collection of information I could not cite the iconic NYPost opinion piece Mueller Madness: The media pundits who got it most wrong. I instead used as a third cite the straight BBC report by Anthony Zurcher mentioned in the discussion above, which in part said “After two years of work and 2800 subpoenas, the president has been cleared of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.” There is other material available -- but I did not think Trump supporters claim victory or Pence declares ‘Today is a great day for America’ as widely covered to be mentioned. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I think this thread is done. Nothing more seems likely to turn up in TALK, and lLater today begins the Barr release to Congress of the Mueller report (redacted), so I think the phase on Barr letter is basically over and we'll be into the next phase then. Presaging speculations and preliminary posturing seem to have already begun for that phase ... hmm 'second guessing and criticisms' seems a bit too predictable, will see if something more interesting comes. Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thursday 18 April 9:30am Eastern DoJ livestream

Press conference will be here. Reporters will apparently have the redacted report less than half an hour before the press conference begins, so expect a lot of spin. Vox has an article on particulars to look for. EllenCT (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops, they won't have it at all until the afternoon. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:EllenCT - it was said a couple days ago that the presser beforehand will cover the 4 classes of redaction see here. Of course it is the DOJ release so they get to set the agenda and I'll be glad if I get information about what kind of redaction classes there are -- and will not be surprised if it has a lot of spin, runs off the rails into a drama fest, or is ranted against by Congress. Congress will get their own chance to set agenda (and insert PR, run off rails, and be ranted against) when they do hearings sometime later this year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we put this thing to bed now? It's over. There was nothing there. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the press conference was content-free. The redacted CD-ROMs should be to Congress by 11am Eastern, and several congresspeople have announced they will be publishing them, so we should have the pre-cleared section summaries in a few hours. I can't wait to see why Flynn was offered time served. EllenCT (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The report

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Related documents: https://www.justice.gov/sco

Enjoy! EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanx on one copy on p 49:

"Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office"

If you found any sources 4 Q: "Is five symbol for US or SU 5 star? Do Meuller suggest they hacked during hour 6.

New York Times: How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s Findings

[39] Have a go at this if you want. I'm done with this article for now. I'm also posting this at William Barr and Mueller Report so CTRL-F "How Barr’s Excerpts" over there before you start so you see if someone's already done some work. Or see Talk 1 and Talk 2. starship.paint ~ KO 08:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead too long

The [lead section of the article is way too long and goes into too much detail. Most of this should be discussed in the body. I don't have the subject matter expertise to do this properly myself, though. WP:MOSLEAD says that as a rule of thumb, a lead section shouldn't be more than four well-composed paragraphs, and this article has six. --Slashme (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree. I was just about to comment that this is one of the problems with this article, and that it derives from the way the article has been built: whenever someone wanted to add the latest news or information, they added it to the lead instead of the appropriate section of the article. The result is that we have a lot of sourced information in the lead that isn't even mentioned in the body of the report. I have moved some of the most recent such additions, but the lead still needs a good trim, with detail being moved to the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Practically the whole 2nd paragraph can go soibangla (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My rule of thumb for a good lead: "If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd disagree about subheadings; some of us are very liberal in subdividing sections into multiple subsections. IMO it is the main section that deserves a mention. In any case, such things should get a "mention" in the lead. Not a full detailed exposition with references, as is the case with too much of our lead now. That's the result of a story based on ongoing news: every time something new happens, people add it to the lead instead of the appropriate section or subsection. It is up to us, who are trying to edit the article as a whole, to make it coherent and compliant with WP style, to fix that. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree. Common sense must be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• We can heavily trim the second paragraph. First two sentences are okay. Next we describe -> Manafort found guilty on eight felony counts of financial crimes and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the United States. Gates also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, as well as making false statements. Flynn, Cohen, Papa, Zwaan also pleaded guilty to making false statements. Pinedo pleaded guilty to financial fraud. <- Rest were Russians, not sure how that will be phrased. starship.paint ~ KO 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind taking out the names who aren't explained and replacing them with their numeric headcount, but I would prefer we say a little bit more about Flynn, e.g. from [40], [41], [42], and [43], and make it clear that Kilimnik, to whom Manafort admitted passing internal campaign polling data, is a suspected Russian intelligence officer per the Mueller team,[44] and that Manafort had been working for Russian interests in Ukraine for about a decade.[45][46] EllenCT (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: I don't see the current need to elaborate more on anyone at the moment, in the lede regarding those charged. When the actual Mueller report comes out, RS will determine who the notable players are. Maybe Flynn is the biggest fish, or maybe he isn't, right now we don't know enough. starship.paint ~ KO 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any reasons that kind of background information isn't appropriate for the lead? How about including that the judge sentencing Flynn rejected Mueller's plea deal and told him that he had sold his country out?[47] EllenCT (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: - because for Flynn (I'm not arguing about the Russians), the only concrete thing that happened to him as of right now, is being charged and pleading guilty to lying. Nothing else. No charge of treason. Plus the reports that the Mueller investigation has no further sealed indictments. Hence my wait and see approach, if the actual Mueller report identifies him as a big player, reliable sources will report it and so will we. starship.paint ~ KO 23:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The judge telling Mueller that he won't allow the plea deal is pretty concrete, and nothing we are going to wait to see is going to change it. Similarly for the other stuff about Flynn and Manafort. Why shouldn't the introduction readers know that Mueller accused Kilimnik of being a Russian intelligence operative? Or that Manafort had been repping Russian interests in the Ukraine for a decade? EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: - Could you explain which of these are relevant to the key thrusts of the investigation - (1) Russian interference (2) Trump associates alleged conspiracy with Russians (3) alleged obstruction of justice? starship.paint ~ KO 04:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

They are all (1) and (2). It wasn't just any prosecutors who had Flynn's plea deal rejected, it was Mueller's. It wasn't just any agency accusing Kilimnik of being a Russian operative, it was Mueller's team. EllenCT (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the lead sentence to not suggest Russia or Russians were ever subject to United States law enforcement. Also added "criminal investigation" to the part that actually involves American police, court and prison. Hope that's OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I moved the Mueller report to the end of the sentence. [48] starship.paint ~ KO 01:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: as you can see, there was already a talk page requesting changes to the exact section where I made them. I (obviously) agree that the lead is too long and added in changes that were made in an attempt to address this issue for the "charges" section of the lead, some of which were already touched upon in the talk page here. I made these changes so that the section would be condensed as requested, added details on people who were not originally there like Rick Gates, removed unnecessary (for example, Flynn meeting a group of Russians at a 2015 dinner has nothing to do with his charges of lying to the FBI in 2017), misleading information (the judge walked back and apologized for his comments about Flynn selling out his country), or false (Maria Butina was not charged in relation to the Special Counsel investigation and the article used to cite eight people having been found or plead guilty doesn't include her for a reason and should in fact be seven to reflect that. Additionally, Michael Flynn's communications with the Russian Ambassador happened during the transition, not the campaign. The suggestion that it happened during the campaign led to a well known and walked back media frenzy that resulted in the reporter of that story effectively being fired. ) and has the section focus specifically on who was charged with what. It makes no sense and is completely misleading to talk about Kiliminik being given polling data when he wasn't charged with anything related to that and then ignore/not mention that the special counsel charged him with obstruction of justice related to Manafort's case. Similarly, while Michael Cohen was indeed charged with the crimes listed, the Special Counsel only charged him with lying to congress while the SDNY charged him with the other currently discussed crimes in the current version. SDNY charges should not be in a lead about the Special Counsel investigation when the Special Counsel investigation charges are ignored. If one wishes to mention that Mueller handed off that investigation in the lead, then there should also be additional information about Greg Craig and the other 12 unknown cases he also handed off. If you took a specific issue with the factual information I changed, please let me know and we can discuss it here. Currently, at the bare minimum, because of the changes just reversed by my previous change, the article now contains false information about Maria Butina's charges being part of the Special Counsel investigation and that Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador during the campaign as opposed to the transition. Wander0fstars (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

@Wander0fstars: you are quite right that "during the campaign" should be removed. Most of the changes you don't like were discussed in the next section below. As for the facts about Flynn, Kilimnik, and Cohen that you want removed, note that WP:LEAD instructs to "establish context" in the introductory section. Also the secondary news sources have been reporting on the specifics of the Manafort-Kilimnik polling data transfer, e.g.[49] As for Gates, Craig, and the other less important indictees, WP:LEAD also says to focus on the "most important" and not reiterate all the lesser details of the body. I am happy to add this source on Butina. EllenCT (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Thank you for the clarification on the need to include further context. As you may be able to tell, I am new to using Wikipedia and appreciate the additional information. The only point I would really try and contend further is that I would still disagree with Butina being mentioned in the lead as the Axios article I provided lists the cases involving the Special Counsel, hers isn't there, and in the financial investigations section of the article, it states that Butina was charged "by the national security unit of the Justice Department" arguably creating some confusion. I will give the next section a look over and see if I have further comment to provide there. I appreciate the changes that you put in and thank you again for the assistance and clarification! Wander0fstars (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I added a clarification about Butina. EllenCT (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Grand jury testimony (and/or notable witnesses) list/table

The section "grand jury testimony", covering subpoenas and witness interviews, would be more convenient to draw information from if it were in table form. Almost all of the information already in the text could be included within column headings such as

• Name
• Role/Description
• Date of SCO/FBI interview
• Date of grand jury subpoena
• Date of grand jury interview
• Date the grand jury subpoena became publicly known (could be before or after the actual interview)

I believe some witnesses were asked to come back for additional testimony and/or interviews; those instances can be separate entries or listed together changing the headings to say "Date(s)" instead of "Date" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.195.206 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I made a table to use, but everytime I added it here, it ended up at the bottom of the next section and that section disappeared from view. It can be recovered from the history, tweaked, and used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Here:

Here is a basic table to start with.
Name Role/Description SCO/FBI interview Grand jury subpoena Grand jury interview Grand jury subpoena became publicly known Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref Full name + ref

You left out the vertical bar before the closing brace. EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

How to handle Mueller Report revelations

Here are some Mueller Report surprises we don't really cover yet, at least in the intro:

1. Trump campaign destroyed communications.[50]
2. Trump asked for loyalty from Comey, contrary to Trump's public statements.[51]
3. Trump asked Comey to halt investigation of Flynn, contrary to Trump's public statements.[52]  Done
4. Trump asked Don McGahn to fire Mueller, contrary to Trump's public statements, and repeatedly asked him to deny it.[53]  Done
5. Richard Burr passed information about the FBI investigation to Don McGahn.[54]
6. Sarah Sanders lied about "countless" FBI agents who had lost confidence in Comey.[55]
7. Trump himself said he had advance knowledge of Wikileaks releases.[56]  Done
8. K.T. McFarland asked everyone at Mar-a-Lago what to do about sanctions on Russia, then lied to the media saying she hadn't.[57]
9. Julian Assange knew the hacked emails were from the Russian military, not Seth Rich.[58]
10. Roger Stone directly communicated with Guccifer 2.0.[59]  Done

I'm not sure those things all belong in the intro, but some of them certainly do, and I'd like other editor's opinions on the "most important" as per WP:LEAD. I'm thinking 4, 3, 7, and maybe 1 and 10 should be in the intro. EllenCT (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Since we should only include findings that have been mentioned in RS, let's start this as a "Findings" section, and later add a few of the most notable ones in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added the four of them marked "done," mostly as short clauses. We might want this Kushner-Dmitriev U.S.-Russia reconciliation plan thing, too, but probably not in the intro. EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not exactly many surprises in the “surprises” here. As for content — just remember... Things should go into the article in due WEIGHT, and that includes coverage or posturing of right ‘Cleared of collusion, Cleared of obstruction’, ‘proven to be witch-hunt’, etcetera, just as much as distortions from the left. Things go into the head as summary of the body, so should not be a detailed list or be in head unless it’s already in the body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

not sure I really like the idea of a huge list of findings. I do not think it adds anything.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There's also Barr and Mueller on trading pardons for false testimony which is difficult to summarize but kind of important. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking through the "revelations" and "takeaways" articles in the press (e.g., [60] and [61]) and the only things I think we're really missing from the slew of those are (1) Mueller's unsatisfied request for an in-person interview of Trump, (2) how the widely criticized ("Russiagate") press reports got almost everything right, and (3) the distribution of dates in the footnotes implying that Mueller was ordered to stop work; i.e., "3/19/19" occurs in ten footnotes, many of which describe an ongoing inquiry, but that is the last such date in the report, which was concluded three days later. I think for those things we should probably wait for Mueller's congressional testimony, but probably not for the pardons-for-perjury offers. EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - Paul^T+/_C 19:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If and when, it can be hosted as enwiki media per WP:NFCC #s 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. EllenCT (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Searchable PDFs for copy/paste via OCR now available

The officially redacted report is not searchable, nor can you copy/paste from it.

But at least two sources have done OCR on the text:

• https://www.dropbox.com/s/6oazscptx6gxs48/report_ocr.pdf?dl=0
• https://drive.google.com/file/d/12RQ-cQYQvwNMFLBKUinclRjjbct5Iuaf/view

They both look pretty good to me, offhand, and should help a lot with getting accurate quotes and finding appropriate context. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the hell do they lock the PDFs? soibangla (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one:

• https://www.scribd.com/document/406730119/Mueller-Report#from_embed

BullRangifer (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We should add whichever of these is best to the external links section.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my understanding is that the scribd.com version was created by Cory Booker's staff: https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1118918000630013953 . I would prefer a more neutral source from someplace like the Washington Post (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html from the NYT or https://archive.org/details/muellerreport from archive.org), but given we don't have sourcing information at all for the other two versions listed above, perhaps that is a better one to list? Also, I believe the google drive version is currently hosted at commons (for now, until the deletion discussion closes and the file is removed) here: File:MuellerReport-SearchablePDF-20190418.pdf. See also: Talk:Mueller Report#Searchable PDF of Mueller report. - Paul^T+/_C 12:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The Media Bias Chart and how it rates sources

If you're interested in fact checking and evaluation of sources for accuracy and bias, check out both of these links. This happens to be the best media bias chart I know of:

"Most people don’t visit 40 sites about one story to compare bias and quality, but that’s one of the things we do here, so we hope it helps you get a better sense of the universe of reporting."

"Junk news (by which we mean anything falling in the hyper-partisan (-18 to +18) and beyond categories, and anything below 40 on our quality scale) mostly serves to satisfy people’s craving to be right and confirm their existing beliefs."

• The Mueller Report Headlines Across the Spectrum: Illustrating How Junk News Keeps Us In Parallel Universes
• Introduction to the Media Bias Chart

I like to regularly check the chart to ensure I only use the best sources and keep track of which are good for facts and which are good for opinions, noting that it's important to check both the left and right sides of the spectrum for how their bias is related to the facts. It's pretty fascinating. Have fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wow the New York Post. "TRUMP CLEAN. No crimes committed. Dem hoax destroyed" starship.paint ~ KO 08:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, like Fox News, it's owned by the Murdoch's News Corporation, and it's never a RS here. Of course Trump is very cozy with it, just as he is with the National Enquirer, Fox News, and Infowars. He favors terrible sources, and by labeling RS as "fake news", he gets his followers and editors to stay in a filter bubble, use those sources, and attack RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Both of those are RS in appropriate context, just like say CNN or Washington Post is RS in appropriate context. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I remember from the consensus at RSN, the New York Post is almost never considered a reliable source suitable for anything except its own opinions, such as those expressed by contributors in their opinion editorials. I'm not sure why you're comparing it to CNN and the Washington Post, both of which have won some of the most prestigious awards in journalism (especially the latter, which has won nearly 50 Pulitzers and several Peabody Awards). Honestly, likening the New York Post to the Washington Post is like saying a Chick Tract and the Summa Theologica are equally valuable to theologians. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I just visited RSN and at least the top 500 hits seem OK with the NY Post. The RS evaluation for them is supposed to be unbiased just like CNN or Washington Post or BBC or any other source and judged in context of the topic, and based on criteria and not as a universal blanket. An award in something else like Pulitzer for comics is not a Support here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Crossfire Hurricane is now its own article

It used to redirect here, created by User:BullRangifer. I've now created a separate article, all are free to weigh in at Operation Crossfire Hurricane. starship.paint ~ KO 14:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)