Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Bloat

In the section “The FBI’s Russia investigation” we devote a whole large paragraph to one person’s (Andrew McCarthy’s) opinion on a single point (why the FBI wiretapped Page) and other people’s even more detailed disagreement with his opinion. Does ANY of that belong here? If so, can we trim it by about 90%? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can be reduced to just the first and last sentences. OK, kidding. Kinda. No, seriously. soibangla (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point. We can start working on that. I've noted it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving here for now. Let's get this pared down. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In July 2018, after the FBI released redacted FISA court documents related to Carter Page, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote his opinion in National Review, an opinion that is disputed. He wrote that the documents show that the FBI's probable cause finding that Trump campaign adviser Page conspired with Russian government to influence the 2016 election was based on the dossier. McCarthy said that even though each of the four surveillance applications claimed that the FBI had "verified" Steele's information, the bureau did not confirm the allegations independent of Steele. He also said that if the allegations had been corroborated, "the bureau would not be suffering in silence" and if the FBI and Justice Department had solid evidence to verify the dossier's allegations, which were based on multiple hearsay, they "would have used that evidence as their probable cause showing against Page". Former federal prosecutors Barbara McQuade, Daniel S. Goldman, and Mimi Rocah said that McCarthy argued on Fox News and in his column that: "(1) the so-called Steele dossier was 'the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation'; (2) the FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele's work; and (3) the FBI did not 'verify' the factual allegations contained in the dossier." After quickly dismissing the first two arguments as unsupported, they turned their attention to the third point, explaining that such verification is not always possible, and that if every detail of an accusation must first be proven before an application for surveillance can be submitted, then much police work would never happen. They argue that hearsay evidence is allowable as part of a FISA submission. In this case, they assert that the "FBI would've been derelict not to use Steele dossier for the Carter Page FISA warrant". All the FBI had to prove was "probable cause", not the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt": the "FISA application simply provided evidence that there was probable cause to believe that Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power and may have, or may be about to, commit violations of criminal law." McCarthy and others have also failed to note that Page had been subject to FISA surveillance since at least 2014, long before the existence of the dossier.

Sources

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

A very interesting article:

• The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I added to the lead, replacing a badly outdated source for the statement that parts of the dossier are unverified. I also included an accurate, attributed summation of that source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing section about dossier-related conspiracy theories

The dossier's existence as a central focus of criticism by conspiracy theorists and Trump's defenders has created a huge amount of coverage, largely in unreliable sources, but this has also been thoroughly documented in myriad very RS, and is thus fair game. I have watched this subject for over a year now, and realized there was a significant hole in our coverage, and that is a failure on our part to document the "sum of all human knowledge" (Jimbo Wales) on this subject. I have therefore prepared such a section, and herewith present it for improvement.

I prepared this as a subsection for the Reactions section. It's been a neglected subject, in spite of the obvious fact that nearly every mention of the dossier is either a neutral mention, a supportive and/or analytical comment about the alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy, or framed as some form of Trump/GOP/Russian conspiracy theory against it. It was easy to find many RS to document this, and it's time we added it to the article. It should also be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

== [[Trump–Russia dossier#Reactions|Reactions]] ==

Possible headings

"Conspiracy theories involving dossier" or "Competing narratives about dossier"

This is a lead for the whole section.

The Steele dossier has both friends and foes who react for or against the dossier. Therefore we often encounter two competing narratives about it, and they describe two main types of Trump–Russia "conspiracies" whenever the dossier is discussed. One conspiracy is the alleged Trump–Russia conspiracy involving the Trump campaign, as described in the dossier, and the other "conspiracies" are various right-wing conspiracy theories designed to deny that alleged conspiracy and undermine the dossier and investigations. Those conspiracy theories mention the dossier, and sometimes the surveillance of Carter Page, as fundamental components. Without those components the conspiracy theories fall apart as defenses of the Trump campaign, and the Nunes memo shows that the Russia investigation would still be underway without the dossier or that surveillance.

Dossier investigation of alleged Trump–Russia conspiracy

The first reaction is held by those siding with the investigators of the conspiracy alleged in the dossier. They tend to consider the dossier a serious work worthy of investigation. They also believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not follow its leads, and that Mueller has "an obligation to examine it". Those who believe Steele consider him a hero and a whistleblower who tried to warn about the Kremlin's meddling in the election, and people who distrust him consider him a "hired gun" and a "villain" used to attack Trump.

The dossier alleges that there was a years-long and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Trump campaign and Russian officials for the purposes of harming Clinton's electoral chances and swaying the election in Trump's favor. It also alleges: that Putin possesses kompromat about Trump's alleged "large bribes and kickbacks" and "perverted sexual acts" and is blackmailing him with it; that the Russians have assured Trump that the kompromat will not be used against him on condition that Trump's campaign continues to cooperate with them; that Russia would interfere in the election to harm Clinton's chances and help Trump win; that the help was partially conditioned on Trump ignoring or downplaying Russian aggression in Ukraine, and then lifting the Magnitsky Act and Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia after his election, for which he would be richly rewarded with a 19 per cent (privatised) stake (about $11 billion) in Rosneft.

Pro-Trump conspiracy theories

The second reaction is held by those siding with the alleged conspirators, who are the leadership and others in the Trump campaign. It's an attitude also held by Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump. They all respond with counterattacks and real conspiracy theories about the origins, backers, and intentions of the dossier.

Trump and his supporters have counterattacked with what Natasha Bertrand describes as a "war on the FBI" and media, using a "deep state" conspiracy theory which alleges that his foes—Clinton, the DNC, Steele, the FBI, and intelligence agencies—conspired with Russia to undermine his election and presidency. The theory's purpose is to undermine the dossier and his foes, thus interfering with investigations into his alleged conspiracy with Russia. Trump has even suggested, as described by Chris Cillizza, that "the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators".

Trump's conspiracy theory is broad, coming in many formulations, and alleges that "the whole Russia thing" is a "witch hunt", a "hoax", and a "deep state conspiracy". It alleges that Russia was behind Steele's dossier, and that Clinton, with the help of an alleged "deep state" conspiracy involving the FBI and intelligence agencies, is trying to "overturn the election result". This theory has been described by Abigail Tracy as a "conspiracy theory born out of the far-right fringe", a "counter-narrative that has grown... from a conspiratorial whisper on the far-right fringe into the official position of Trumpworld." Trump's false "Spygate" conspiracy theory is part of this counter-narrative.

In January 2018, Trump tweeted his conspiracy theory about the dossier and Clinton: "Disproven and paid for by Democrats 'Dossier used to spy on Trump Campaign. Did FBI use Intel tool to influence the Election?' @foxandfriends Did Dems or Clinton also pay Russians? Where are hidden and smashed DNC servers? Where are Crooked Hillary Emails? What a mess!"

In August 2018, Trump approvingly tweeted a version of the conspiracy theory formulated by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch: "You had Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party try to hide the fact that they gave money to GPS Fusion to create a Dossier which was used by their allies in the Obama Administration to convince a Court misleadingly, by all accounts, to spy on the Trump Team."

Sarah Huckabee Sanders has worded it this way: "There is clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election." Tracy has noted that Sanders' "real collusion scandal" isn't "particularly elegant: if the Democrats were working with the Russians, via Steele, to tarnish Trump, they probably should have leaked the dossier before the election", but that it still, even after the election, serves the purpose of "discrediting special counsel Robert Mueller".

John McCain's role in getting and handing over the dossier to the FBI for further investigation has also become part of these conspiracy theories. McCain wrote that he was accused of acting as a "double agent for Russia" and that he "acted out of jealousy" that Trump won the election.

Another conspiracy theory related to the dossier is the "Trump-Comey briefing conspiracy theory", alluding to the January 6, 2017, briefing Comey and Clapper gave to Trump about the dossier. Its development has been traced by Matt Ford in his New Republic article "Anatomy of a Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory". It alleges that "the FBI colluded with CNN to damage the president". It started with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Then conservative media and personalities picked it up and ran with it, in this order: The Federalist, Ari Fleischer, Donald Trump Jr., The Washington Times, and Townhall.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Comey and the FBI, claiming they were part of a conspiracy to undermine Trump's candidacy and presidency. Schoenfeld has described how, rather than harming Trump, Comey and the FBI actually harmed Clinton:

"If Comey and the upper echelons of the FBI were part of a conspiracy to kneecap the Trump campaign, they would have to rank as the most hapless conspirators since the Watergate burglars were caught red-handed and quite possibly the most hapless conspirators of all time. If Comey knee-capped anyone during the campaign, it would be Hillary Clinton."

Summary and differences of narratives

BBC correspondent Paul Wood has summarized the two "conspiracies":

"There are two Trump-Russia 'conspiracies'. In one, the US President is bought or blackmailed by the Kremlin. In the other, the FBI and the intelligence agencies — the 'deep state' — commit a monstrous abuse of power to try to overturn the election result. The first conspiracy is described in the 'dossier' written by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele; the second, in a series of memos and leaks over the past week, from Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump."

Gabriel Schoenfeld has compared the two competing narratives about Russian interference in his article "A Tale of Two Narratives". He calls the first narrative the "standard narrative". It is about the Russian interferance in the 2016 election, as described by the intelligence community and the dossier. The "alternative narrative" is Trump's "defensive assertion" claiming that the "Mueller investigation is fraudulent". Trump claims there was "no collusion" between him and the Russians, but that there was collusion "between Hillary, the Democrats and Russia". Schoenfeld states that the "pro-Trump narrative flips the standard version on its head", and that the "Steele dossier lies at the center of the alternative narrative." He further states that "Two narratives may be in competition with one another. But... one of those narratives has been constructed by dispassionate reason on the basis of established facts, and one of them is a paranoid fantasy generated in the service of a disreputable cause."

Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, co-founders of Fusion GPS, have written that "The Republicans have….used their subpoena powers to harass administration critics, undermine the Justice Department's inquiry into the Trump campaign's possible collaboration with Russia in 2016 and help the president's lawyers create an alternative narrative."

The distinction between the two sides is explained by Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, who views Steele's investigative project favorably, as opposed to the actions of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016:

"The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."

One side discovered a possible international criminal conspiracy and took all its findings to the FBI for further investigation. The other side kept a meeting about lifting the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia secret for more than a year, and then kept changing its story when the meeting was discovered. National security expert Juliette Kayyem explained that "testimony shows the Trump team 'did not tell the FBI; they did not alert anyone; they did not say 'no' to offers of information from Russian operatives. We don't have to look for conspiracies anymore. This is a campaign that knew it was meeting with people who had compromised information about Hillary Clinton, and those people were Russians."

Investigations and attempts to undermine them

There are two main investigations into Trump–Russia matters that are targeted by the counterattacks and conspiracy theories: one deals with the proven Russian interference in the election to aid Trump, and the other is Mueller's Special Counsel investigation into the alleged conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Trump's response has been to undermine and interfere with these investigations by siding with Putin and Russian intelligence agencies and attacking American intelligence agencies, Mueller, and the FBI, actions which, after the Helsinki Summit, were termed "treasonous" by former CIA Director John O. Brennan. Greg Miller, journalist and National Security Correspondent for The Washington Post, sees an "irony" in how Trump views Putin and Mueller: "President Trump appears to view the ex-KGB chief as an ally and the ex-director of the FBI as an adversary."

Trump is aided in his undermining efforts by GOP Congress members like Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Paul Ryan, and Matt Gaetz. Tracy has mentioned others who help spread this "far-right fringe" "counter-narrative" to undermine the dossier and other investigations: Fox News, The Federalist, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, and Sebastian Gorka. Sean Hannity and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, a strong Trump defender and "anti-Mueller ally", also push anti-dossier conspiracy theories.

While referring to the FISA wiretap application, Trump tweeted that the dossier was "a Clinton Campaign document". His claim was fact checked by the AP, with CBS News reporting: "It's also not correct to call the Steele dossier a 'Clinton Campaign document'.... But Clinton's closest aides said they didn't learn about the research until after the election, which is probable considering they never raised the allegations publicly." Mayer has stated that "the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until [the dossier] was in the press."

Failure of conspiracy theories

Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has stated: "To impeach Steele's dossier is to impeach Mueller's investigation... It's to recast the focus back on Hillary", with the Republicans' aim to "create a false narrative saying this is all a political witch hunt". Jane Mayer tied his view directly to the Nunes memo, a report "purporting to show that the real conspiracy revolved around Hillary Clinton", falsely alleging that Clinton "colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." The claim was debunked by Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, who explained that Clinton wasn't involved in Steele's work, nor did she work with Russian sources. He gave Nunes "four Pinocchios" for his false statements. The conservative Weekly Standard wrote that Nunes' conspiracy "theory is utterly bunk" and that "Devin Nunes [has] spun a crazy conspiracy narrative".

The Nunes memo has undermined Nunes' own conspiracy theory, as well as allied conspiracy theories that are based on the same false assertions about the roles of the dossier and the surveillance of Carter Page. Contrary to the Nunes memo's conspiratorial assertion that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo actually confirmed the investigation began because of a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, thus undermining "the right's Trump-Russia conspiracy theory". Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the DNI has stated that "the dossier 'played absolutely no role' in the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. 'That assessment... was based entirely on other sources and analysis'." The Democrats have asserted that the Nunes memo "shows the Russia investigation would be underway with or without the surveillance of Page, and—more critically—even if the government had never seen the dossier of information about Trump that was compiled by Christopher Steele."

References

NOTE: Missing refs are already used in the main article. The ones you see are new finds. When this is added to the article, there should be no problem.

Sources

Discussion

I'd like to move forward with installing this content, but would like discussion first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Doubts about dossier

Re: Michael Cohen's Prague visit: WAPO reporters: “We’ve talked to sources at the FBI and the CIA and elsewhere — they don’t believe that ever happened.” The Daily CallerPhmoreno (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You've been informed before not to use or read The Daily Caller. It's extremely unreliable. Why do you continue to do it? If you do it privately, we can't stop you, but here you're violating our rules dictating that we only use RS.

Otherwise, stop and think about what you've just done. The very source you're quoting (easy to find) reports something that might be (we can't trust The Daily Caller to takes things in context) factual (Miller's opinion), and yet you ignore the title and content of his book, which is also mentioned there: "The Apprentice: Trump, Russia, and the Subversion of American Democracy."

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, has changed his tune on this charge in the dossier. He has previously expressed his belief that the dossier is largely accurate.[1]

So what if that one detail in the dossier may not be confirmed? (Even Steele estimated it's 70-90% accurate, not 100%.) That doesn't deter Miller from writing a whole book which totally undermines all your defenses of Trump. Your POV cherry picking isn't very impressive or honest. If you stuck with RS you wouldn't have this problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If its the WAPO, why use the Daily Caller and not the WAPO?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that's so true. The Daily Caller often cites its mainstream sources, so they should be checked for context. If that's good, then there is a possibility the mainstream source can be used. It's like going to the dung heap to look for the pearl, but occasionally works.

Because of due weight concerns, that method often fails, because the fringe sources are taking some factual tidbit out of context to fit in their biased and deceptive narrative. They cherry pick like crazy and ignore the big picture, as was done above. When put in context, the tidbit doesn't have the weight to be worth mentioning. In the process of searching fringe sources for those pearls, one's mind becomes warped, so it's really a bad idea. Just use RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

New developments. Cohen may have lost his alibi about Prague. In fact, he offered two alibis: that he was in Los Angeles and in Capri:

"According to what is known publicly, whether Cohen traveled to Prague has not been disproven, and so far, Mueller has been silent on the question. But if he lied about his alibi, the scales just tipped in the direction of the allegation being true."[2]

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a Steele dossier if the U.S intelligence agencies and the FBI were already suspicious of Trump-Russia ties?

Why is there a Steele dossier if the U.S intelligence agencies and the FBI were already suspicious of Trump-Russia ties? What could Steele do that our agencies could not do even better and why? And isn't it a miraculous coincidence that the dossier was started just after Bill Priestep traveled to London in May 2016. I think the answer is obvious.Phmoreno (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The explanation is simple, and doesn't need any conspiracy theories. They largely worked independent of each other. You need to read, and believe, this article. Study its RS.

The DNC and Clinton campaign were approached by Fusion GPS to see if they would take over the existing opposition research, first started by Republicans. That's when Steele became involved, without their knowledge (they found out much later). Simpson had already learned enough to suspect there were shady Trump dealings with Russia, so he turned to his old pal Steele, who had the skills and connections to get more information, and he got more than he expected or bargained for. What he discovered made him very concerned about a Russian attack on the election. He did the right thing and went straight to the FBI, unlike the Trump campaign, who welcomed Putin's help and lied about it. Therefore the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comey testified that when he was fired the dossier was still unverified.Phmoreno (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a whole lot has changed since then! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Nunes stated that the counterintelligence investigation was started with "no official intelligence". As many have said, the dossier was the "insurance policy".Phmoreno (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's Nunes, a known fixer for Trump who violated many rules. He's a very unreliable source. Even his own report disproved his conspiracy theory. Also, instead of actually investigating, he covered up for Trump. In fact, the exact wording is he "buried evidence".

The dossier could never be an insurance policy, no matter what some speculate. At the time even the FBI was a bit standoffish about it. They depended on other, more solid, evidence from other sources, and since that evidence also confirmed many things in the dossier, that gave it more credence in their eyes. That too has changed. Most in the intelligence community now believe most of the dossier on its own merits. Regardless, the types of accusations in the dossier must be investigated, so that has happened, and continues. Those 17+ investigations are completely justified. You should read the article referenced in the section above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Steele admitted in the British defamation case that the purpose of the dossier was to give the Democrats something to challenge the results of the election with. There is nothing to indicate that most of the dossier is anything other than fiction.Phmoreno (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Come back when you've read the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Published Spygate conspiracy

Someone has already developed an infographic on the anti-Trump conspiracy that may contain some useful talking points.Phmoreno (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but we base our content on RS. Trump's false "Spygate" conspiracy theory is part of the Trump/GOP/Putin counterfactual narrative. Putin just loves that The Epoch Times (not to be confused with Epoch Times) is doing his work. Note that such a source isn't even allowed in the article about the Spygate conspiracy theory. Don't confuse Trump shooting himself in the foot and RS documenting it for some fictive "anti-Trump conspiracy". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The pro-Trump (pro-Russia, anti-America) bias of the source is clearly revealed here: "Spy Traps. In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia,..." The source turns a legitimate use of agents to gather evidence into "an effort to put forth evidence". Keep in mind that none of this would have (1) happened or (2) succeeded in finding evidence if the Trump campaign didn't provide that evidence by myriad, very secret, meetings between 14+ Trump associates and family members with Russians for no legitimate purposes. That secrecy and lying gave the Russians "hard kompromat" over them. They became blackmailable from then on.

From the beginning, several knew they were helping the Russians interfere in the election, and they accepted and aided that interference, rather than going directly to the FBI with their knowledge of this attack on American democracy. Then, when questioned by the FBI and media, they provided massive and obvious public evidence of their "consciousness of guilt"[3][4][5] by repeatedly lying about it. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them lied again and again. Innocent people don't act that way. Only dishonest ones act this way.

A much better source to explain what's happening is Forbes, a right-wing source, which connects the dots properly: Mueller Exposes Putin's Hold Over Trump. Putin has hard kompromat on Trump in dozens of ways, besides the alleged pee tapes. They aren't even necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The Epoch Times is the official name of Epoch Times, and the article mentioned here was indeed published by this Chinese-American media group. See https://www.theepochtimes.com/about-us. I have restored[6] the redirect that you altered on 17 November.[7] — JFG ^talk 21:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

JFG, thanks for the correction. This leaves things in a confusing state of affairs, since the redirect should be the title of the article. Would you mind getting that fixed? This also makes clear, also from seeing many other articles on that website, that it's a purveyor of fringe ideas and conspiracy theories. Too bad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the redirect should be the title of the article"? — JFG ^talk 02:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If the name of the site is The Epoch Times, then the article should be at The Epoch Times, not at Epoch Times, which should be the redirect. The correct title and the redirect are switched. For example, New York Times is a redirect which takes you to the correct title The New York Times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. From article history, the name was changed in November 2015 without a discussion.[8] I have opened a move request to switch it back. — JFG ^talk 07:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Joseph diGenova describes Spygate: The True Story of Collusion by Jeff Carlson (referenced subject of this Talk) as a "beautiful outline" with "a compendium of information" calling it "the single best piece of writing on the conspiracy to frame Donald Trump". DiGenova also recommends reading judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the FISA court's opinion about FISA abuse including illegal unmasking and leaking. Phmoreno 04:08, December 28, 2018‎ (UTC)

References

Neither source is a RS, and neither is diGenova (his article clearly describes him as a conspiracy theorist). He's a Trump apologist. The Spygate (conspiracy theory) article clearly tells you it's a Trump conspiracy theory, "With no actual supporting evidence produced, the May 2018 allegations have been widely described as blatantly false." Stop reading trash. You cannot trust anything from Trump or his defenders.

Nobody is trying to frame Trump. He shoots himself in the foot (with every breath), and it's being documented. That is not a frame up. That's evidence of his wrongdoing. He was never known as an honest businessman, and he has brought his normal way of doing things into the WH. When someone lies and commits crimes, they get busted. They are not being framed. It's that simple. Everyone around him, who does his every wish and acts on his commands, is getting indicted and some going to prison. The net is closing in on him. He is being saved for last. That's how these things work. The evidence must be rock solid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Dossier Funding

since the free beacon didn't fund steele as steele was contracted after they stopped paying fusion gps they have nothing to do with the steel dossier. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The project was conducted in two phases. Steele was indeed not brought in until after the second phase began, but that first phase was funded by the Washington Free Beacon, and that's important enough for the lead.[9] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

We've had this discussion several times, often because of confusion by the public, even Comey making statements which, taken out of context, seem confusing. We have therefore chosen to clear up any confusion here, as the only logical place to do it. We have done that by including mentions of the Beacon opposition research as a prehistory to the dossier. That prehistory is always made by RS in connection with the dossier, so it's on-topic to discuss it here.

If you'll read more carefully, we have clear language in place to clear up any confusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing section about dossier-related conspiracy theories

Restoring this.

The dossier's existence as a central focus of criticism by conspiracy theorists and Trump's defenders has created a huge amount of coverage, largely in unreliable sources, but this has also been thoroughly documented in myriad very RS, and is thus fair game. I have watched this subject for over a year now, and realized there was a significant hole in our coverage, and that is a failure on our part to document the "sum of all human knowledge" (Jimbo Wales) on this subject. I have therefore prepared such a section, and herewith present it for improvement.

I prepared this as a subsection for the Reactions section. It's been a neglected subject, in spite of the obvious fact that nearly every mention of the dossier is either a neutral mention, a supportive and/or analytical comment about the alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy, or framed as some form of Trump/GOP/Russian conspiracy theory against it. It was easy to find many RS to document this, and it's time we added it to the article. It should also be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

== [[Trump–Russia dossier#Reactions|Reactions]] ==

Possible headings

"Conspiracy theories involving dossier" or "Competing narratives about dossier"

This is a lead for the whole section.

The Steele dossier has both friends and foes who react for or against the dossier. Therefore we often encounter two competing narratives about it, and they describe two main types of Trump–Russia "conspiracies" whenever the dossier is discussed. One conspiracy is the alleged Trump–Russia conspiracy involving the Trump campaign, as described in the dossier, and the other "conspiracies" are various right-wing conspiracy theories designed to deny that alleged conspiracy and undermine the dossier and investigations. Those conspiracy theories mention the dossier, and sometimes the surveillance of Carter Page, as fundamental components. Without those components the conspiracy theories fall apart as defenses of the Trump campaign, and the Nunes memo shows that the Russia investigation would still be underway without the dossier or that surveillance.

Dossier investigation of alleged Trump–Russia conspiracy

The first reaction is held by those siding with the investigators of the conspiracy alleged in the dossier. They tend to consider the dossier a serious work worthy of investigation. They also believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not follow its leads, and that Mueller has "an obligation to examine it". Those who believe Steele consider him a hero and a whistleblower who tried to warn about the Kremlin's meddling in the election, and people who distrust him consider him a "hired gun" and a "villain" used to attack Trump.

The dossier alleges that there was a years-long and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Trump campaign and Russian officials for the purposes of harming Clinton's electoral chances and swaying the election in Trump's favor. It also alleges: that Putin possesses kompromat about Trump's alleged "large bribes and kickbacks" and "perverted sexual acts" and is blackmailing him with it; that the Russians have assured Trump that the kompromat will not be used against him on condition that Trump's campaign continues to cooperate with them; that Russia would interfere in the election to harm Clinton's chances and help Trump win; that the help was partially conditioned on Trump ignoring or downplaying Russian aggression in Ukraine, and then lifting the Magnitsky Act and Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia after his election, for which he would be richly rewarded with a 19 per cent (privatised) stake (about $11 billion) in Rosneft.

Pro-Trump conspiracy theories

The second reaction is held by those siding with the alleged conspirators, who are the leadership and others in the Trump campaign. It's an attitude also held by Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump. They all respond with counterattacks and real conspiracy theories about the origins, backers, and intentions of the dossier.

Trump and his supporters have counterattacked with what Natasha Bertrand describes as a "war on the FBI" and media, using a "deep state" conspiracy theory which alleges that his foes—Clinton, the DNC, Steele, the FBI, and intelligence agencies—conspired with Russia to undermine his election and presidency. The theory's purpose is to undermine the dossier and his foes, thus interfering with investigations into his alleged conspiracy with Russia. Trump has even suggested, as described by Chris Cillizza, that "the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators".

Trump's conspiracy theory is broad, coming in many formulations, and alleges that "the whole Russia thing" is a "witch hunt", a "hoax", and a "deep state conspiracy". It alleges that Russia was behind Steele's dossier, and that Clinton, with the help of an alleged "deep state" conspiracy involving the FBI and intelligence agencies, is trying to "overturn the election result". This theory has been described by Abigail Tracy as a "conspiracy theory born out of the far-right fringe", a "counter-narrative that has grown... from a conspiratorial whisper on the far-right fringe into the official position of Trumpworld." Trump's false "Spygate" conspiracy theory is part of this counter-narrative.

In January 2018, Trump tweeted his conspiracy theory about the dossier and Clinton: "Disproven and paid for by Democrats 'Dossier used to spy on Trump Campaign. Did FBI use Intel tool to influence the Election?' @foxandfriends Did Dems or Clinton also pay Russians? Where are hidden and smashed DNC servers? Where are Crooked Hillary Emails? What a mess!"

In August 2018, Trump approvingly tweeted a version of the conspiracy theory formulated by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch: "You had Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party try to hide the fact that they gave money to GPS Fusion to create a Dossier which was used by their allies in the Obama Administration to convince a Court misleadingly, by all accounts, to spy on the Trump Team."

Sarah Huckabee Sanders has worded it this way: "There is clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election." Tracy has noted that Sanders' "real collusion scandal" isn't "particularly elegant: if the Democrats were working with the Russians, via Steele, to tarnish Trump, they probably should have leaked the dossier before the election", but that it still, even after the election, serves the purpose of "discrediting special counsel Robert Mueller".

John McCain's role in getting and handing over the dossier to the FBI for further investigation has also become part of these conspiracy theories. McCain wrote that he was accused of acting as a "double agent for Russia" and that he "acted out of jealousy" that Trump won the election.

Another conspiracy theory related to the dossier is the "Trump-Comey briefing conspiracy theory", alluding to the January 6, 2017, briefing Comey and Clapper gave to Trump about the dossier. Its development has been traced by Matt Ford in his New Republic article "Anatomy of a Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory". It alleges that "the FBI colluded with CNN to damage the president". It started with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Then conservative media and personalities picked it up and ran with it, in this order: The Federalist, Ari Fleischer, Donald Trump Jr., The Washington Times, and Townhall.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Comey and the FBI, claiming they were part of a conspiracy to undermine Trump's candidacy and presidency. Schoenfeld has described how, rather than harming Trump, Comey and the FBI actually harmed Clinton:

"If Comey and the upper echelons of the FBI were part of a conspiracy to kneecap the Trump campaign, they would have to rank as the most hapless conspirators since the Watergate burglars were caught red-handed and quite possibly the most hapless conspirators of all time. If Comey knee-capped anyone during the campaign, it would be Hillary Clinton."

Summary and differences of narratives

BBC correspondent Paul Wood has summarized the two "conspiracies":

"There are two Trump-Russia 'conspiracies'. In one, the US President is bought or blackmailed by the Kremlin. In the other, the FBI and the intelligence agencies — the 'deep state' — commit a monstrous abuse of power to try to overturn the election result. The first conspiracy is described in the 'dossier' written by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele; the second, in a series of memos and leaks over the past week, from Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump."

Gabriel Schoenfeld has compared the two competing narratives about Russian interference in his article "A Tale of Two Narratives". He calls the first narrative the "standard narrative". It is about the Russian interferance in the 2016 election, as described by the intelligence community and the dossier. The "alternative narrative" is Trump's "defensive assertion" claiming that the "Mueller investigation is fraudulent". Trump claims there was "no collusion" between him and the Russians, but that there was collusion "between Hillary, the Democrats and Russia". Schoenfeld states that the "pro-Trump narrative flips the standard version on its head", and that the "Steele dossier lies at the center of the alternative narrative." He further states that "Two narratives may be in competition with one another. But... one of those narratives has been constructed by dispassionate reason on the basis of established facts, and one of them is a paranoid fantasy generated in the service of a disreputable cause."

Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, co-founders of Fusion GPS, have written that "The Republicans have….used their subpoena powers to harass administration critics, undermine the Justice Department's inquiry into the Trump campaign's possible collaboration with Russia in 2016 and help the president's lawyers create an alternative narrative."

The distinction between the two sides is explained by Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, who views Steele's investigative project favorably, as opposed to the actions of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016:

"The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."

One side discovered a possible international criminal conspiracy and took all its findings to the FBI for further investigation. The other side kept a meeting about lifting the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia secret for more than a year, and then kept changing its story when the meeting was discovered. National security expert Juliette Kayyem explained that "testimony shows the Trump team 'did not tell the FBI; they did not alert anyone; they did not say 'no' to offers of information from Russian operatives. We don't have to look for conspiracies anymore. This is a campaign that knew it was meeting with people who had compromised information about Hillary Clinton, and those people were Russians."

Investigations and attempts to undermine them

There are two main investigations into Trump–Russia matters that are targeted by the counterattacks and conspiracy theories: one deals with the proven Russian interference in the election to aid Trump, and the other is Mueller's Special Counsel investigation into the alleged conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Trump's response has been to undermine and interfere with these investigations by siding with Putin and Russian intelligence agencies and attacking American intelligence agencies, Mueller, and the FBI, actions which, after the Helsinki Summit, were termed "treasonous" by former CIA Director John O. Brennan. Greg Miller, journalist and National Security Correspondent for The Washington Post, sees an "irony" in how Trump views Putin and Mueller: "President Trump appears to view the ex-KGB chief as an ally and the ex-director of the FBI as an adversary."

Trump is aided in his undermining efforts by GOP Congress members like Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Paul Ryan, and Matt Gaetz. Tracy has mentioned others who help spread this "far-right fringe" "counter-narrative" to undermine the dossier and other investigations: Fox News, The Federalist, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, and Sebastian Gorka. Sean Hannity and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, a strong Trump defender and "anti-Mueller ally", also push anti-dossier conspiracy theories.

While referring to the FISA wiretap application, Trump tweeted that the dossier was "a Clinton Campaign document". His claim was fact checked by the AP, with CBS News reporting: "It's also not correct to call the Steele dossier a 'Clinton Campaign document'.... But Clinton's closest aides said they didn't learn about the research until after the election, which is probable considering they never raised the allegations publicly." Mayer has stated that "the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until [the dossier] was in the press."

Failure of conspiracy theories

Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has stated: "To impeach Steele's dossier is to impeach Mueller's investigation... It's to recast the focus back on Hillary", with the Republicans' aim to "create a false narrative saying this is all a political witch hunt". Jane Mayer tied his view directly to the Nunes memo, a report "purporting to show that the real conspiracy revolved around Hillary Clinton", falsely alleging that Clinton "colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." The claim was debunked by Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, who explained that Clinton wasn't involved in Steele's work, nor did she work with Russian sources. He gave Nunes "four Pinocchios" for his false statements. The conservative Weekly Standard wrote that Nunes' conspiracy "theory is utterly bunk" and that "Devin Nunes [has] spun a crazy conspiracy narrative".

The Nunes memo has undermined Nunes' own conspiracy theory, as well as allied conspiracy theories that are based on the same false assertions about the roles of the dossier and the surveillance of Carter Page. Contrary to the Nunes memo's conspiratorial assertion that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo actually confirmed the investigation began because of a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, thus undermining "the right's Trump-Russia conspiracy theory". Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the DNI has stated that "the dossier 'played absolutely no role' in the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. 'That assessment... was based entirely on other sources and analysis'." The Democrats have asserted that the Nunes memo "shows the Russia investigation would be underway with or without the surveillance of Page, and—more critically—even if the government had never seen the dossier of information about Trump that was compiled by Christopher Steele."

References

NOTE: Missing refs are already used in the main article. The ones you see are new finds. When this is added to the article, there should be no problem.

Sources

Discussion

I'd like to move forward with installing this content, but would like discussion first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Christopher Steele's Testimony

I added: In court testimony relating to a defamation lawsuit, Christopher Steel wrote that Fusion GPS was hired to provide [Perkins Coie] with “legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the validity of the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.” He added that this was so that “parties such as the [DNC] and HFACC Inc. would be legally entitled to challenge [the election’s] outcome”.

This is not controversial nor does it imply anything. It is a statement of facts. The Washington times and the Hill are both RS's. In addition, this is HIS own words! How is Christopher Steele not reliable? I have to respectfully disagree with this being taken out. It adds evidence to the heading "What the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Christopher Steele knew! There is no opinion, no observation, no conclusions, just he said! Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because it comes from an opinion article does not make it unreliable or untrue. I am just stating what happened and the information that was obtained. The Washington Times broke the story! The Hill also reported it too and they are definitely reliable. I did not reference or add anything that provides the author's opinion of this information. There are many statements in this wikipedia article that come from opinion articles. By the way, this testimony was in a court declaration and as a result what he says is subject to penalty of perjury. Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a RS for politics. They are extremely partisan and consistently defend Trump and run dubious stories which favor his conspiracy theories. Steele's testimony is a primary source, so secondary RS quoting it must be used. Can you find this in RS, such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, ABC, NBC, AP, and Reuters? If it's worth including, they will have covered it. If they don't, then it's just another example of The Washington Times pushing a pro-Trump, anti-Steele, fringe theory. If RS are used, and their perspective is followed, then this may well be useful content. Give it a try. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

O.k, But The Hill must be a reliable source then because it is being used as sources #23,44,68,261,264,267, and 310 in the current article that i'm reading Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, In the Biased or Opinionated Sources section, it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The information I am adding is a purely neutral, non-biased fact stated by the subject in question which has been cited for whatever purposes of their opinion. His/Her opinion is not in any way included in my addition. Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bias is one thing, being unreliable is another. Does the Washington Times quote Steele out of context? They have an agenda which causes them to often do that sort of thing. That's why they, and some opinion to be unreliable. Just asking. I'm just suspicious. Is this in context or not? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out which sources are used for which content. That isn't clear, because you have placed them both at the end, rather than each one immediately after the word(s) or phrases from them. It appears that both quotes are from the Times. Why is the Hill source used? (BTW, it's important to include that, per the source, they never filed a legal challenge of the results.) --BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In court testimony relating to a defamation lawsuit, Christopher Steel wrote that Fusion GPS was hired to provide [Perkins Coie] with “legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the validity of the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.” He added that this was so that “parties such as the [DNC] and HFACC Inc. would be legally entitled to challenge [the election’s] outcome”.

Sources

Okay, I see now that some of the content is identical in both sources. The Hill opinion source is therefore unnecessary, and since it is so biased, and in some respects misleading, it would be best to not use it.

Now we just need to find the content used in the Times source in a different and more RS. When I search for this content, I only find it used in four unreliable sources (Washington Times, Townhall, RedState, and the inaccurate opinion piece in The Hill).

If other editors are willing to allow use of The Washington Times in this instance, I may not oppose, as long as the fact that the wording includes that they never used the information to challenge the election results (which also makes it rather moot to even mention this... That's why only fringe sources mention it. They still like to stir the conspiracy pot.). Let's see what MelanieN says. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to pick and choose which specific Hill editors are reliable and which ones aren't. Otherwise, anyone can just pick and choose what authors they agree with or don't agree and deem them as reliable or unreliable. Yes, it is an opinion piece and so is the WT piece. But, as per the rules of Wikipedia that I cited above in regard to biased/opinionated sources, I think that my factual, neutral statement falls well within the guidelines of Wikipedia’s rules. What if those sources were to be extremely anti-trump? Would that make the actual quote itself unreliable?. No. Everyone knows that the New York times and the Washington Post absolutely hate trump, but would a quote or fact referenced in their opinion pieces to support an argument be unreliable? Not necessarily. Only the statements and comments about that fact but not the fact itself. I really think that this quote is really important to mention. You are right that these newspapers do have an agenda but the quote is the quote. I don’t think my addition even presents one side or the other to be honest. It just adds to the information about what the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Christopher Steele knew from the perspective of Christopher Steele himself, not from some right-wing commentator. The fact that four other newspapers all cite that from the WT article makes it more reliable than if only the WT reported it. Those four sources are not necessarily unreliable, they just have a different viewpoint than you. If the quote was made up or even given out of context, then they would all be exposed to potential legal action and/or would have to retract the quote, especially considering the power and notoriety of the parties being mentioned. Perhaps by putting it on Wikipedia for thousands of people to see it, someone can completely refute these claims and force those right-wing newspapers to retract their stories. Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions, when cited, should usually be attributed to the author. We haven't even discussed that. We don't include opinions without such attribution, especially in Wikipedia's voice.

When it comes to some sources and some authors, we do distinguish between those known to be RS, and those known to engage in conspiracy theories or other dubious practices. When we know that, we tend to avoid them. It's really that simple. If they say counterfactual things, we don't use them as a source, except in an article about themselves. Then we use their statements to document their views, even if those views are false.

Whether a source is pro- or anti-Trump does not determine it's accuracy or whether it is a RS. If it is factual, then it's a RS, regardless of viewpoint, but in the current situation, that usually means that those which defend Trump's falsehoods are obviously not acting as reliable sources. At some other time in history, with another president, it might be the opposite for the same publication. Those which document Trump shooting himself in the foot are RS, and those defending and covering-up for Trump are not. I hope that's not too hard a concept for you to understand.

You write: "The fact that four other newspapers all cite that from the WT article makes it more reliable than if only the WT reported it." Actually, the opposite is the case. When only unreliable sources try to make a mountain out of a molehill, their collective disinformation efforts do not make them more reliable or it even better to report the story. On the contrary, we should stay even further away from it. "The plural of anecdote is not data." Just because Trump follows this false tactic, the repetition of a lie or inaccurate information does not make it true. We don't reward unreliable sources here.

You also write: "It just adds to the information about what the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Christopher Steele knew from the perspective of Christopher Steele himself." We already do that. What each part of the equation knew was incomplete, and while it was going on, there were walls erected which kept some from knowing what the others were doing. What Steele said long afterward in testimony may or may not shed some light on that. Now I'd like to know from you, what does the information you'd like to add really do? In what way does it show what "Steele knew" from his perspective? If there is some neutral way to accurately use this information, I'd like to figure out how. If it's just an addition which doesn't really add anything we don't already cover, then we leave it out. So, what does it add? I'm very open to using it if it really adds something. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please respond to my last question. What does it add? Please respond so we can get moving again. I'd really like to see if we can use what you're proposing. We just need to do it properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this: The conservative website, The Washington Times, obtained records of sworn testimony in a defamation lawsuit against Christopher steel. In it, they claim that in part of his testimony, Steele said that Fusion GPS was hired to provide [Perkins Coie] with “legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the validity of the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.” Steele added that this was so that “parties such as the [DNC] and HFACC Inc. would be legally entitled to challenge [the election’s] outcome.” Despite Steele’s claims, Democratic party has yet to file such a challenge against the election’s results.

I think that this addresses your concern of the source’s bias by telling the readers that it is conservative source. It also addresses your concern about the context because I say that it is only part of his testimony. I also add that part about how the democrats haven't challenged it. Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your answer above before dealing with this.

BTW, it is Perkins Coie, a law firm, which would provide legal advice, not Fusion GPS. You've got it backward. Here's from the Times source: "In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election." Perkins Coie was acting very wisely and doing the logical and necessary thing under the circumstances. They would have been negligent if they hadn't done what they did. There is nothing suspect or odious in their actions. As far as Steele goes, he was clueless at the time about Perkins Coie, as they were about him. There was a high wall between them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The British court filing is a reliable source for this material. It is Exhibit 2 in the DC court filing. Page 2 of Exhibit 2 reads:

4. Is it Orbis’ case that Fusion’s client needed the information contained in

Memorandum 112:

• (a) For the purposes of prospective legal proceedings?
• (b) For the purposes of obtaining legal advice?
• (c) For the purpose of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Response: (b) and (c). Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie LIP. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as “Hillary for America”) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election. In turn, that may have resulted in legal proceedings within the meaning of limb (a) above, but the immediate needs of Fusion’s clients fell within limbs (b) and (c).

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
O.K. First of all, I’m not sure what you mean by Trump’s ”falsehoods,” you will have to be more specific. Second, when you say those sources are known to engage in conspiracy theories or dubious practices, that’s your opinion. And even so, I am not taking any opinion as facts from those articles. Based on WP:RSP The Washington times is considered “generally reliable” depending on the context and the Hills is considered reliable. Because my additions were sourced from opinion pieces, I took that into account in the WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources guidelines. Third, Let's look at your statements - “Those which document Trump shooting himself in the foot are RS, and those defending and covering-up for Trump are not.”. Really? So when a newspaper defends something trump did they are automatically unreliable? Give me a break. Whether you think a newspaper is “covering up” Trump is your opinion and opinions do not make a source reliable or unreliable like you said before. Even if you do think that it's irrelevant. Fourth, “Those which defend Trump's falsehoods are obviously not acting as reliable sources.” So only when a newspaper attacks trump they are reliable? This about sums up how biased and unreasonable you're being and that you cannot possibly accept neutral facts that in any way don't support any pre-conceived narrative that you may have. You don’t even try to be at least a little bit objective with this information. I think you are the one having trouble understanding that. Johnpetrucci730 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Okay, let me answer each point: By "falsehood" I mean false statements which have been shown by fact checkers to be contrary to established facts. That's pretty simple. A clear lie is easy to debunk, and Trump spouts falsehoods all the time, more than any other public person fact checkers have ever encountered. This is all public record, documented in myriad RS. It's not opinion. It's not my opinion. It's proven fact. Those sources often publish false information. That's why we avoid using them here. You write: "So when a newspaper defends something trump did they are automatically unreliable?" Yes, if what he did was wrong and they defend it. Read what I wrote again. If Trump makes a mistake or tells a lie, and a newspaper documents it accurately, it is acting as a RS. Other sources which either refuse to report it or defend his lies are obviously not acting as RS. OTOH, if they defend him from a false accusation, they are acting properly, but not if they are defending his lies. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Would you consider ANY source which defends a politician telling an obvious lie to be a RS? What if they do it consistently, no matter what types of lies he tells, or how often? Those sources do that. (Fox News, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Daily Caller, Breitbart, InfoWars, Russia Today, Sputnik, etc, all do that.) They defend Trump, no matter what. When they defend a clearly false statement, they are "covering up" for him. That's not an opinion. That's simple logic. Same problem. Do you really consider any source which refuses to attack his lies to be a RS? It appears so. That's not right. Newspapers should expose lies, especially when it's the President who is telling them. Those sources which defend those proven lies are not RS. Again, that's not opinion. It's simple logic. BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Title

Wouldn't "Steele Dossier" be a better title? The focus is Trump and his relation to Russia, but that's not all. It talks about Jill Stein and others, plus it talks about Trump's relationship with other nations, not just Russia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that the title was created before Steele was identified, thus it's a legacy title. Also all the media now call it the "Steele Dossier". Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention on written works is to use the author name and add the year if the author has multiples publication.Phmoreno (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Steele dossier is a very commonly used description. I don't recall the original thinking behind our current title, but a discussion is worth having. Maybe the archives should be searched. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

From the archives:

• Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_5#Requested_move_13_November_2017
• Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#Requested_move_10_January_2018
• Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#Requested_move_15_January_2018
• Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_7

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Page view statistics:

• Trump–Russia dossier

• Steele dossier

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth re-looking at this from time to time.

• A Google search shows that Reliable Sources have not settled on a universally agreed-upon title. At this point a rough Google count: “Steele dossier” 760,000, “Trump-Russia dossier” 143,000, “Trump dossier” 1,000,000 (not always as a name for the dossier, sometimes just because the words fell together in a sentence).
• In a more focused analysis I find that “Trump-Russia dossier” is still in use by many sources, particularly in headlines.[10] Examples here include The Hill, The Guardian, CBS News, and the Washington Post
• Publications calling it the Steele dossier [11] include The Hill, Lawfare, Vox, and Washington Post
• Publications calling it the Trump dossier [12] include New York Times (back in 2017), New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Politico

So it is not true that "all the media" are saying Steele dossier. If it was, of course we would change our title to reflect that usage. Interestingly, there is no consistency of usage even within the same publication. The Hill uses all three forms and even a fourth, the "anti-Trump dossier". My conclusion: Steele dossier is not yet universal enough to cause a change in our title. Also, the page views shown by BR suggest that the current title is working well, with far more views for Trump-Russia dossier than for Steele dossier (currently a redirect). -- MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Google Trends clearly shows a switch from "Trump dossier" in 2017 to "Steele dossier" in 2018 after Steele was identified and named more frequently by sources.[13] "Russia dossier" and "Trump–Russia dossier" have negligible search interest. I would sponsor a move request. — JFG ^talk 23:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• ”Steele report” is bbc.com usage, and more grammatically correct — a report is written by someone, a dossier is written about someone. So the ‘Steele report’ is a Trump dossier. But for the title... I think usage is not to prefer any so leave it as is for now.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Trump–Russia dossier → Steele dossier – See #Title thread above. Google Trends clearly shows a switch from "Trump dossier" in 2017[14] to "Steele dossier" in 2018[15] after Steele was identified and named more frequently by sources. "Russia dossier" and "Trump–Russia dossier" have negligible search interest. The common name has settled on Steele dossier, and we should follow suit. — JFG ^talk 07:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons and research I laid out above. Both names are still in use, and the name "Steele dossier" has NOT been definitively settled on by Reliable Sources. Also, the Steele dossier redirect here gets very few page views; clearly the current title is working. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You have it backwards. Steele dossier gets more hits then Trump-Russia dossier by a decent margen.[16] PackMecEng (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Edit: Never mind I have it completely wrong, I used the wrong link page.[17] Sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least at the present time. I'm not completely averse to the idea, but search results aren't so clear. When one uses quotation marks, the search results are very limited, likely because it's mostly Wikipedia editors searching for such a specific title. Without the quotation marks or dash, it's a whole different ball game. Titles here can use the author name or be descriptive of the article contents. This one is a very precise description and works quite well. I'm not sure if this type of title is allowed, but Steele's Trump–Russia dossier would also work (there are other Trump–Russia dossiers, just not as notable). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be unnecessary disambiguation, since there is only one Steele dossier. (Are there really other Trump-Russia dossiers??) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

There are other Trump-Russia dossiers. There is the one by Brennan and another by Cody Shearer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

?? I'm not aware of any Brennan dossier, and coverage of "the Shearer memo" seems to have been fleeting (Guardian, New Yorker), except for the likes of Hannity. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just clarifying it for MelanieN. Brennan kept a personal (and no doubt highly classified) dossier as evidence started piling up. Shearer's hasn't gotten much steam, and it's largely similar to this dossier. I am not particularly interested in any articles here for that, unless RS start to give it more attention, which is unlikely. It might be worth mention, but not a full article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Totally neutral on this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: the name "Trump–Russia dossier" is pithy and self-explanatory. Most people would not know who Steele is if it weren't for the Trump & Russia connection. If there were multiple topics worthy of the title "Trump–Russia dossier" (Trump–Russia dossier 2?) and Steele had one dossier of significance, I'd opt for renaming this THE Steele dossier. I'd be okay with the suggestion of "Steele's Trump–Russia dossier" as a compromise. Either way, redirects and/or disambiguation pages would be needed. X1\ (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "Trump–Russia Steele dossier" title could preserve more title continuity. X1\ (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME - I have never heard it referred to as anything other than "Steele dossier", and, as BullRangifer points out, their are other dossiers. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and per reality. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelanieN's reasoning. The current title tips the scales on recognizability.- MrX 🖋 13:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support More precise title that appears to be more common with recent sources. It also reads better in general, while identifying its source and properly attributing it to the person who made it up. I will note that most sources do use not Trump-Russia dossier in general Steele dossier is used more. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelanieN, X1 (Most people would not know who Steele is if it weren't for the Trump & Russia connection?), and my own reasoning a year ago in a previous requested move: A few years from now, who among the general public is going to remember the person who compiled the dossier? But most people who were around and at least semi-conscious in 2017/2018 will instantly know what is meant by Trump-Russia dossier. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What about the other two dossiers on the subject? PackMecEng (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

See my above response to BullRangifer. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The naming decision should not be based on personal speculation about what people may remember several years from now. Please look at current sources, most of which have converged on "Steele dossier". — JFG ^talk 18:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you call "personal speculation" I call "my reasons," or rather one of them since I mentioned more than one. Adding another reason for opposing the move: The dossier is not about Steele, as "Steele dossier" would suggest. Merriam-Webster defines dossier as "a file containing detailed records on a particular person or subject," Macmillan as "a set of documents about a person or situation." Personally, I don't agree with your reasoning that the common name has settled on Steele dossier which appears to be based on spikes and valleys on a chart of Google search words. The spike on any given day is caused by what the general Google-searching public has seen or heard on news and social media on that particular day. Anyway, what's the rush? The investigations are ongoing and - or so I heard on some media outlets - results may be announced any day/week/month now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN. As far as I can tell, "Steele dossier" is only used in right wing circles (Gateway Pundit et al). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah look at all these right wing sources that use Steele dossier. [18][19][20][21] PackMecEng (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, the recent sources quoted by PackMecEng are The Washington Post, Vox and The Hill. Not right-wing. (Irony is not an efficient way to make a point.) — JFG ^talk 18:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is used by all types of sources. The ones on the right likely choose it for two reasons: it protectively buries mention of any Trump-Russia connection and highlights Steele, who is the object of their hatred. Much as I'd like to think that isn't a factor among some editors, I'm not naive enough to not realize that such thinking may be at work here. We've seen plenty of that thinking all along.

I favor the current title because it identifies the subject matter clearly, and our conventions favor titles which describe the article contents, unless the author happens to be well-known, and Steele is only known for this dossier. Only those who already know this subject matter know that, so for title purposes his name is practically worthless. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are just now engaging in the practices you seem to be denouncing. Please do not speculate on the motives of editors, and please do not let your personal feelings of what is "right" or "worthless" override the choice of designation in most current sources. — JFG ^talk 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• No change. “Steele report” used by bbc.com is technically better since a report is written by someone, but a dossier is about someone. I’d prefer no change for stability though, as there seems not an overwhelming predominance of COMMONNAME and the awkward title is not that horrible. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.