Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Missing section about dossier-related conspiracy theories

Need simplification
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Rebooting this. Let's discuss it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the monumental effort you put in there. The outcome is in my opinion more suited to a political blog than to the encyclopedia. To meet our editorial standards, it should be considerably shorter (let's say 80%), and written from a more neutral standpoint. Let me know if you wish to work in that direction. — JFG talk 18:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Are there any specific parts to work on? You may not know this, but when I create content like this (whole articles or large sections), I search all the RS I can find and then try to let them tell their story. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC) What JFG said. Exactly. This is way, way too long - it's virtually an article in itself - and it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. It's good as an essay but way TMI for this article. If you want to move it to a userspace draft, maybe I could help you trim it down to an appropriate entry for this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Okay. I have pinged you and am hatting this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Cell signal puts Cohen outside Prague around time of purported Russian meeting

Definitely too early to use this, but let's keep an eye on how this develops:

• Cell signal puts Cohen outside Prague around time of purported Russian meeting

Sources

A mobile phone traced to President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen briefly sent signals ricocheting off cell towers in the Prague area in late summer 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, leaving an electronic record to support claims that Cohen met secretly there with Russian officials, four people with knowledge of the matter say.

During the same period of late August or early September, electronic eavesdropping by an Eastern European intelligence agency picked up a conversation among Russians, one of whom remarked that Cohen was in Prague, two people familiar with the incident said.

Currently, on this topic, we have this content:

In April 2018, McClatchy reported that the Special Counsel had evidence that Michael Cohen had secretly visited Prague in the late summer of 2016, as reported by Steele, and that Mueller's investigators had "traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany", a claim which The Spectator reported was "backed up by one intelligence source in London". In August 2018, BBC correspondent Paul Wood wrote: "I have spoken to one intelligence source who says Mueller is examining 'electronic records' that would place Cohen in Prague."

Sources

Could this be the "electronic records"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Welp, I didn't see this before I went ahead and added it. IMO there is sufficient "critical mass" to all this to warrant this addition, but revert if you see fit. Cheers soibangla (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

At this point I think any reliable source that uses anonymous briefings (probably from intelligence services) should be disregarded. This is probably just a re-run of the Muhammad Atta Prague connection prior to 9/11, or Luke Harding's plant of the fake story of Manafort's meetings with Assange. Shtove (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I concur with including it, but it must be sourced to McClatchy since no other news organization has confirmed it. Also, I am going to remove the sentence from McClatchy suggesting this is evidence of collusion, which amounts to editorial commentary. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, editorial commentary by Wikipedia editors is not allowed, but attributed and properly sourced commentary is definitely allowed. This quote explains the relevance and significance of this report from McClatchy, so it serves a very useful purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that many other RS have commented on this, we would use such a comment from one of them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

What would you suggest? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The deleted wording isn't bad, but there might be other, and better, discussions of the possible implications. Worded properly, it would be a good addition. I'm on the road, so don't always have good opportunities to edit right now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Who are the “many other”? Get the largest RS and just follow the WEIGHT of what they say, don’t do RS creative writing... and please include the appropriate caveats and avoid any speculative or crystal ball bits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Cohen testified yesterday in the House Oversight Committee that he had never been in Prague (CNN source here). Mr Ernie (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dossier

Fusion GPS was NEVER hired by “a Republican.” The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion to get oppp on Trump. The WFB is owned by Bill Kristol, a well know Anti-Trump person. He is NOT GOP!! I don’t know HOW this blogger could have missed that info!! Terib3294 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Terib3294, we go by what reliable sources say on the matter. Also, what blogger are you referring to? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You really need to read the The Washington Free Beacon article. Even just the lead. Kristol has nothing to do with it. Singer, a conservative, was behind the Beacon's hiring of Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump and the other GOP presidential candidates, but the Beacon's work had nothing to do with the dossier, which came later. Our article here makes that clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What about the Article in Washington Times in which Steele is alleged to have stated he was hired by Perkins Coie to find information used to contest election

Quoted from below article:

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.

“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.”

The Democrats never filed a challenge, but Mr. Steele’s answer suggested that was one option inside the Clinton camp, which funded Mr. Steele’s research along with the Democratic National Committee.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/12/christopher-steele-hillary-clinton-was-preparing-t/

I have yet to see this article disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:BC11:FE44:F4C2:8DA5:E387:1AA6 (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A statement paraphrasing Steele's quote should be in the lede. Te purpose of ht dossier is more important lede material than some of the dossier's origin.Phmoreno (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That would make sense indeed. — JFG ^talk 13:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, this testimony was long after-the-fact. During the time Steele was collecting his evidence, he did not know that Perkins Coie, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, or the DNC were involved. All he knew was that his London firm was hired by Fusion GPS and "a law firm" to answer this basic question: 'Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?". He did not know the identities of the ultimate clients or any real details about their motives. His later speculations should be seen in that light. If secondary RS deal with that (and the Washington Times is an extremely biased and unreliable source pushing conspiracy theories for Trump, Putin, and the GOP), there might be some reason to include this speculation, but it's been ignored because it lacks weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This is correct. Steele was simply reciting facts that came to public light long after he did the work. He did not say he knew HRC/DNC was the ultimate destination of the dossier while he was doing his work. The not-so-clever sleight of hand by WashTimes is duly noted. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics" soibangla (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times is citing the primary source, so taken together the references are rock solid.Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I firmly disagree. The primary source appears to be some sort of legal document submitted to a British court, and nowhere is it clear that "Mr. Steele wrote" any of the words in the document. We can afford to wait for less partisan, more trustworthy sources to weigh in on the subject. If no other sources discuss the material in similar terms to the Washington Times, then that would be a good sign that their analysis is poor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• "What about the Article in Washington Times..." is almost always going to be a non-starter. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Primary source: Reason for Steele dossier to challenge election results.

There is a primary source for Steele's comments. See Section 4.

As per WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Given that these are claims about Steele and other living persons' activities, we should use extreme caution before attempting to analyze and interpret primary sources ourselves in this matter. We should instead rely on independent, secondary reliable source analysis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, describing this material as coming from "Christopher Steele" is not verifiable; I am not an expert on British court documents, but it doesn't appear to be directly in Steele's words, rather "legalese." This is yet another reason why we should avoid using primary sources here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times article said Steele wrote the passage about the purpose of the dossier being to challenge the results of the election. So there is both a primary and a secondary source, plus other news outlets referenced the story.Phmoreno (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with above. "The Washington Times article said..." is a cue to be cautious since it's generally an unreliable source, so it's better to avoid it altogether.

I have made this a subsection, as it's on the same topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Closed: Failed request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please change the line The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence report to The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a debunked private intelligence report Thanks, 188.129.143.42 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Three points: The request must be uncontroversial. There must exist a consensus for the requested version. It's false. It is not debunked at all. Most of the major allegations are proven beyond a doubt. Some other allegations are uncertain, and a couple (as asserted by Steele himself) may well prove to be untrue, but aren't yet proven false. We just don't know. On all counts, this request fails. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Page's alleged meeting with Sechin

In this section we don't back up the dossier allegation that Page met with Sechin. The original justification for this approach escapes me. Can anyone enlighten me? There is a Yahoo! News source which claims that Page did meet with Sechin. What's the deal here? User:MelanieN, do you remember this? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Scratch that. Now I remember that the source was Steele, so a circular ref. We can't do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Special Counsel section needs to be updated

According to AG Barr, the Special Counsel investigation "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election." We need to update the SC section with this new evidence. Additionally, the "The FBI's Russia investigation" section needs a few major updates. Specifically, John Brennan's quote in the first paragraph is false - the SC determined there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia. It is a bit troubling that this guy ran the CIA and whiffed so badly on the collusion claims, which he proudly spread around cable news. The last paragraph where Steele claims Russia had Trump over a barrel must also be false, per the SC investigation results. This article really is bad, non-neutral, and composed of a lot of fake news, and reads more like a conspiracy theory now that the results are out. The hard part about this is that the RS were quite complicit with pushing this false narrative. And they pushed it hard, for years. How can anyone report credibly about these events moving forward? Mr Ernie (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a good analysis by Matt Taibbi about this whole mess. In that piece he likens the Steele Dossier to Ahmed Chalabi's efforts the Iraqi WMD "screwup." Another good point made by Taibbi is that RS covered any possible hint of verification, and refused to talk about anything that came up empty, citing a effort by WaPo journalist Greg Miller and others who traveled to Prague. The article quotes Miller, stating “We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there,” he said, “and came away empty.” Taibbi goes on to write "One assumes if Miller found Cohen’s name in a hotel ledger, it would have been on page 1 of the Post. The converse didn’t get a mention in Miller’s own paper. He only told the story during a discussion aired by C-SPAN about a new book he’d published. Only The Daily Caller and a few conservative blogs picked it up." This is disingenuous work by RS. Here is another telling section from Taibbi's piece, quoting journalist Michael Isikoff, who had relied on the Steele Dossier in part for this story, on John Ziegler's podcast:

Isikoff: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, you know, we have not seen the evidence to support them. And in fact there is good grounds to think some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven, and are likely false.
Ziegler: That’s...
Isikoff: I think it’s a mixed record at best at this point, things could change, Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes this calculation. But based on the public record at this point I have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been borne out.
Ziegler: That’s interesting to hear you say that, Michael because as I’m sure you know, your book was kind of used to validate the pee tape, for lack of a better term.
Isikoff: Yeah. I think we had some evidence in there of an event that may have inspired the pee tape and that was the visit that Trump made with a number of characters who later showed up in Moscow, specifically Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to this raunchy Las Vegas nightclub where one of the regular acts was a skit called “Hot For Teacher” in which dancers posing as college Co-Ed’s urinated – or simulated urinating on their professor. Which struck me as an odd coincidence at best. I think, you know, it is not implausible that event may have inspired...
Ziegler: An urban legend?
Isikoff: ...allegations that appeared in the Steele dossier.

There's a lot to go through here, and a lot of corrections that need to be made. The Taibbi piece and this piece by Glenn Greenwald should be required reading to those who blindly accept the RS as gospel for contentious political matters. The last time it happened the USA invaded Iraq - it almost seems like RS would have us invade Russia, if these "bombshells" were all true. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Or we could stick to reputable mainstream sources like were supposed to and leave the Monday morning quarterbacking to the talking heads on Fox "News".- MrX 🖋 12:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda the point. The "reputable mainstream sources" have been wrong time and time again with this story. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

RS have been fine. The claims made about what RS have said by non-RS are something else. O3000 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall view of this article

I do not want to step on anyone's toes here, but this is a horribly written article. It bears little resemblance to an encyclopedia article and reads more like an exhaustive, unedited newspaper article. More specifically, it reads as if it is a series of newspaper articles that might be published over the course of several days, but instead was published all at once in a manner that is unwieldy. To rewrite this article and bring it into the standards of an encyclopedia article would be a huge undertaking and would draw the ire of many editors here. I don't have the time nor the knowledge of this subject to attack this article, but I encourage those who do to do so. I would be happy to contribute to its improvement once it is brought more into line with a proper encyclopedia article. Please understand I mean no disrespect to anyone who has already contributed to this article, nor to its author. It is a difficult subject and one that is changing daily. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be like typical encyclopedia articles. We document what RS say, so see it in that light. If you find any specific errors, please mention them and let's work together to fix it. That's a good approach with any controversial changes. Otherwise, if you find specific grammatical or other errors, just fix them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It currently conflicts with some info on the Steele page Kodi Bobo (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Kodi Bobo, please be more specific so we can fix it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• As described here, for example, some claims are true, others are still unproven. But Trump still attacks McCain over this [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Steele apparently used internet searches and a no longer running function of CNN (iReport) to "validate" a portion of his Dossier. I think we need to revisit the claim in the lead Overall, some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated, others remain unverified and, according to a December 2018 Lawfare retrospective, "none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven." Some parts of the dossier may require access to classified information for verification. in light of this revelation. Specifically, the line about none of the dossier being disproven. The burden of proof is typically that claims are not considered true until they are proven. For example, A key claim of the dossier is that Cohen conducted a meeting in Prague. There is, so far, no proof this ever occurred, and it was flatly denied by Cohen several times, the most lately under oath in his recent testimony. If there was ever a time for Cohen to support the Russian collusion claims, it was during that testimony. In fact, his testimony seemed to go the other way. Also, what makes Clapper's opinion in the lead DUE? That guy has his own credibility problems. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In the denials section, the paragraph under Michael Cohen starting with "According to a Czech intelligence source..." should probably be removed as pure speculation for how Cohen could have gotten to Prague. There's a million ways he could have done that. Also, the second sentence in the the Donald Trump denial section is sourced to a blog. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Cohen's credibility about Prague is a bit shakey since he lied at least twice about it. We are still in the dark about whether he was there. I suspect Mueller already knows the identities of the three colleagues who allegedly accompanied him. We just don't know, and the article makes that clear. We can only document what RS say and how they say it. They allege it and Cohen denies it. That satisfies the BLP requirement for public persons.

The iCNN matter is interesting but changes nothing. Plenty of other, much more reliable sources, were used. It was about the Webzilla matter, which, using other methods of evidence, has been proven to be a true allegation. It was indeed used by hackers to hack the DNC and Podesta. The allegation about Gubarev's personal involvement was not examined at all in the defamation trial and is still an unanswered question.

The Chait source isn't some private blog. He's a subject expert. I have added other sources which also back up the fact that Trump repeatedly lied (in different ways and totally unnecessarily, even when not asked about the matter) when he claimed he didn't overnight in Moscow. Why lie about it? That is always considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Trump is never a reliable source: "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." Zurawik

Clapper is very due and an infinitely more RS than Trump. His statements in RS are perfectly good content. He is in harmony with all known evidence, and in harmony with all those who know the evidence which isn't revealed yet. All the CIA and FBI leading officials have spoken out and made it clear they consider Trump a witting or unwitting Russian asset and a direct threat to American security. They are extremely concerned that he has access to classified intelligence and that he keeps his discussions with Putin secret, even from his own staff.

Any statements about things that aren't proven fact are worded in such a way as to make that clear. If you think there is any problem there, please point out the exact wording and we can improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Clapper's view is biased and does not belong in the lead. According to this article, Clapper admits he discussed the dossier with CNN and possibly other journalists in 2017, contradicting an earlier statement where he "flatly denied" leakings contents of the Dossier. How many times does this guy have to lie, misremember, or carry about on cable news before we stop giving weight to what he says? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If what Clapper says in that statement were false or misleading, I'd have no problem with not mentioning him in the lead, but he's right, and, as one of the top intelligence officials, he's in a position to know more than we do about it. He has no reason to lie about the fact that "more and more" of the dossier has been validated over time. That's pretty well-established fact. There is a major claim, which even Steele admits, that may end up proving wrong, but which is not proven one way or the other. So far we don't know whether the prostitutes offered to Trump ended up in his hotel room (yet why would he unnecessarily lie about it several times?). Even his bodyguard couldn't help him with a good alibi. We also don't know whether Cohen was in Prague paying off hackers (yet he also lied about it). Odd behavior for innocent people. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Impact of Mueller Report and unique issues to address moving forward discussion...

On Monday, March 25, 2019, I came across a group of tweets written by the investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson that specifically discuss various Wikipedia pages and addresses inaccuracies as well as the questionable use of sources. One particular page she noted was the Trump-Russia dossier page. She pointed out a source used, Lawfare, which she asserted is an activist blog. I am unfamiliar with Lawfare and cannot provide an opinion on her “activist” claim but it does appear to be a blog and would typically not be considered a valid or reliable source in my opinion.

Attkisson asserts that in her opinion there are “various propagandists” serving as Wikipedia editors. I have no opinion one way or the other but she does in my opinion make a valid point in regards to the accuracy of the aforementioned page. With what has been reported thus far on the Mueller Report (no collusion), it would appear to invalidate a myriad of media sources, direct sources etc used in regards to nearly every page on the collusion topic. As another example illustrates with a direct quote from James Clapper (in regards to the dossier being widely verified) that now appears to likely be false. Mr. Steele, the purported author of the dossier has also admitted in a British court lawsuit that he sourced material in the dossier from a random CNN discussion page that contained various theories/opinions. We still need to see as much of the report as possible but I believe it is safe to say, based on no charges being proffered, that it’s possible and likely probable that a number of sources are completely false. I have concern that the integrity of Wikipedia can be and likely will be negatively impacted by these developments. I would recommend a systematic review on the subject. Personally I will make no edits as this will take extensive review by highly experienced editors and need to be updated as further information comes available. Considering the large volume of patently false or highly misleading source material, I would recommend caution be used in utilizing a source even if the same information is found in multiple reports or the source is traditionally reliable. The purpose of this discussion is to make all involved aware that the dynamics of public information on this topic is very fluid and not always reliable. In my opinion a discussion followed by proper action is required. Thoughts? Havoc1649 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't say as I'm interested in what someone on Sinclair tweeted or castings of aspersions. If someone has a specific suggestion, such are welcome. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Attkisson has pointed out accurately that Lawfare is an activist blog owned by a friend of Comey and purpose of the blog is to attack Trump. It is a partisan unreliable source. It should not be quoted in a Wikipedia article as if it a fact. These facts are presented by a Attkisson who is a reliable source and who is way more trustworthy than Lawfare. Also, Lawfare has not provided any evidence to support its so-called "conclusion" it has merely jumped to a conclusion (a conclusion made by a partisan, activist blog) and it presented on Wikipedia as if it is fact.CharlesShirley (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, according to our WIkipedia page on Lawfare, it has GW Bush and Obama personnel writing for it, and has had coverage picked up by Trump in a tweet. That doesn't sound like it's hopelessly biased. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources makes no mention of it. What evidence do you have that it is a "partisan unreliable source"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t, I’m not familiar enough with Lawfare to form an opinion on if it’s left right or center. That’s the assertion made by the journalist Sharyl Attkisson. From why I see it appears to be a mix of news and opinion. Guidelines suggest blogs may be used based on what but needs to be carefully examined and particularly checked for issues like feedback loop. An example of what may be used is a technical blog written by experts. In this particular case the citation used is false based upon now known/released information. Havoc1649 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Havoc1649. Also, just because a blog has Republicans writing for it does not eliminate the claim that it is an "activist" blog, which is the claim made by Attkisson. Another huge fact that is being ignored here is the Lawfare is the only source that is claiming that nothing in the so-called "Trump dossier" has been disproven. If it is the only source that it making this claim and it does have an activist background (even if it is not "hopelessly biased") then Wikipedia should not be presenting is Lawfare's opinion as if it fact. And finally there is the finding of the Mueller Report (which is a much stronger source than Lawfare) which, even if it did not exonerate Trump it sure did not indict him or find little if anything in the "Trump dossier" to be true.CharlesShirley (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, well then allow me to use this opportunity to point out that Sharyl Attkisson is not herself what I would call a reliable source.[2][3][4] Also, we don't know if the Mueller Report supports or disproves any claims made by the Steele dossier. All we have to go by at this point is a three-and-a-half page letter written by an AG who had criticized the probe in his audition for the job prior to being nominated.– Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu: None of the articles you cited has anything to do with the points she is making. Yes, she has made mistakes or made incorrect claims, but all sources and reliable or not make mistakes. And we have to take into consideration the weight of each source. None of those article speak to the issues raised about this Wikipedia article. The issue raised is that Lawfare is blog put together by an activist for the specific purpose to attack Trump--so we need to take that into consideration when we weight what Lawfare says. Now, the claim that nothing in the "Trump dossier" has been disproven is a claim only made by Lawfare and it is presented in Wikipedia as if it is fact. It is not fact, it is opinion. Lawfare has not presented a detailed outline of each and every claim made in the Trump dossier and provided evidence to support each and every point in the Trump dossier. Lawfare has not done that. All they have done is made a grandiose claim, without supporting evidence, and then an editor of Wikipedia placed it in this article without context and presented as if Lawfare unsupported conclusion is fact, which at this time it cannot be treated that way. If there were other reliable sources that were making such a grandiose and far flung claim then maybe Wikipedia could present Lawfare's opinion in that manner. Even Jim Comey has never said that the Trump dossier claims have never been disproven. No one has said that other than the opinion piece of Lawfare. Opinion pieces should not be the source to support a fact claim.CharlesShirley (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple RS in the article make the same claim. Now if you have RS which actually show that specific claims are proven false, we might be able to include them. That's a falsifiable request for evidence from RS that a claim is absolutely false. We know that a number of claims are unproven, but that's not the same as proven false. In the article, unproven claims are identified as such, and all the allegations are identified as such. If you find some that aren't, please point them out so we can fix that. Your help would be appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, since you keep making the same fallacious argument below, I point you to my comment above. Multiple sources in the article make the same claim, not just Lawfare, who are subject experts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

This page needs to be edited to reflect the findings of the Mueller investigation, which has completely debunked it. 67.143.160.191 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Four points:

1. A request must be very specific, so provide exact wording and sourcing.
2. The request must be uncontroversial. That usually requires discussion on this talk page and acceptance from other editors (next point).
3. There must exist a consensus for the requested content change, IOW it is no longer a controversial suggestion.
4. The allegation that the findings have "completely debunked it" is false. It is not debunked at all. Most of the major allegations are proven beyond a doubt. The Russians did interfere in the election to help Trump, and many of his aides were in contact with Russians and lied about it. Some allegations are uncertain, and a couple (as asserted by Steele himself) may well prove to be untrue, but aren't yet proven false. We just don't know.

On all counts, this request fails. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What does the Muller report say about the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Very good question. Let's deal with that in a separate section. See below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

On recent information

Is a shame that in light of the recent information, depositions, particularly the use of the Dossier by FBI to obtain FISA warrants, and conclusions of the Russia investigation exonerating President Trump of collusion, this article still prominently displays paragraphs like these, which raises serious questions about political bias in Wikipedia:

"The Trump administration, Fox News, and congressional Republicans have falsely[20][21] claimed that the launch of U.S. intelligence community probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election were based mostly on Steele's dossier." - if they were not based mostly on this, then ON WHAT were they based? Facts, sources?

"In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper stated that "more and more" of the dossier had been validated over time.[25] Overall, some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,[26] others remain unverified and, according to a December 2018 Lawfare retrospective, "none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven."[27] Some parts of the dossier may require access to classified information for verification" - WHICH allegations in the Dossier "had been validated"?! Sources? And since when is Wikipedia relying on statements like "none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven"?!!!! 'Prove that you are innocent' is the new standard?!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.114.153 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump wasn't "exonerated". Parts of the dossier have been verified, and other parts haven't, but no part has been proven false. The Special Counsel investigation article makes clear that the FBI was investigating this without the dossier prior to the 2016 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, regarding no part has been proven false how can you prove that Cohen never went to Prague, or that the pee incident never happened? The burden of proof is on Steele to prove those claims. Cohen has claimed multiple times that he was never in Prague, and there's zero evidence that he was there. There is also zero evidence that the pee tape happened. When can we start calling these "claims" what they are, conspiracy theories. There's not a single shred of evidence for many of the dossier's claims. Yet you, and many other editors, blindly accept them as gospel. A team of WaPo journalists went to Prague to find the "truth" and came away with nothing. The Russians provided Steele with many of these salacious claims. Those guys have been playing games since the very beginning, and the Steele Dossier was just one of them. It played a key role in the ratcheting up of the Russia collusion investigation, and sowed an immeasurable amount of discord in the country. I hope someone can compel Steele to come forward and reveal how he created this Dossier so we can get to the truth. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM And don't delete my comments. O3000 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. This is the exact place to raise these issues. This article repeats the opinion of Lawfare as if it is fact when it is just as opinion. To discuss why that information is presented as it is is the exact reason for this page, to make this article a better article. The article is clearly flawed right now and its needs to be fixed. The claim that nothing in the dossier has been "disproven" is an opinion (a conspiracy theory, if you will) and if it is going to be presented then it needs to be presented in the correct manner, in a neutral point of view. Right now, it is not and we need to talk about it and this discussion needs to continue.CharlesShirley (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, find me one thing in the dossier that has been disproven and I'll retract my statement. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu: You keep missing the point of the claim. It is not my job to "disprove" the document. It is job of the person who wrote it, Christopher Steele. Steele has refused to stand behind his own document. He has forced into a court of law in the United Kingdom and he refused to say the document is trustworthy. This is fact. This has been reported over and over. This article quotes Lawfare and only Lawfare, saying none of it has been "disproven". Basically all Lawfare is saying is, to put it another way, is that "We can't prove any of it, but you can't disprove it either." Then this Wikipedia article treats that lame statement as if it is fact. They have not gone through the document item and item and proved any of the items. They have just made a statement that it is not "disproven" and then a Wikipedia editor has decided that this one article's opinion should be treated as fact, which it is not.CharlesShirley (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, since you keep making the same fallacious argument here as you did above, I point you to my comment above. Multiple sources in the article make the same claim, not just Lawfare, who are subject experts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It is your opinion that Lawfare are "subject experts".-- CharlesShirley (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, just calling my valid comment "fallacious" does not make them so.-- CharlesShirley (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to avoid any confusion, your claim (that Lawfare is the only source in the article claiming that nothing has been disproven or proven false (or words to that effect)) is actually fallacious. There are several other sources which make such a claim, so Lawfare is not the only one. It's not a "prove a negative" type of statement.

It's a statement of fact which is easily falsified. Can you provide RS which prove that a serious allegation (not the typos in the dossier) in the dossier has been proven false? Has anyone done that? Please provide it and we'll see if it should be included. Lawfare and the other sources which make that claim do so based on the fact that, at the time they said it, no one had done so. I still don't know of anyone who has. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tons of RS have called the dossier "fabricated" and "unverified" but this article does not provide them any space and the Lawfare thing is just an opinion because their premise is "nothing is unproven", which is logically backwards and not a positive defense (One cannot prove a negative) and this article treats Lawfare's logical fallacy opinion as a fact.-- CharlesShirley (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got a typo there ("nothing is unproven"). Lawfare claims "nothing is disproven". Unproven and disproven are very different things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of people label the dossier false, fake, and even worse, and those statements are in the article. There are at least two reasons for doing so: (1) We document what RS say, and such denials and labelings are found in RS, so we have included them. (2) BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we document negative, false, and even libelous claims which appear in multiple RS. Now read carefully...part of PUBLICFIGURE is the requirement to include denials. That is my inclusion in the BLP policy. Someone who is libeled deserves to have their denial here. We have done that.

Trump gets his denials included, and all his false labelings as well. If there is one thing that is absolutely false, it's Trump's allegation that the dossier is "fake". No, it's very serious investigative counterintelligence opposition work using intelligence agency type methods. What Steele found alarmed him so much he turned it over to the FBI, because he and several foreign intelligence agencies were finding reports that Trump campaign people were secretly discussing campaign strategy with Russian agents, and there was a strong suspicion that Trump might be a Russian asset. That's serious business, and that's also why McCain turned over what he got to the FBI. It was his patriotic duty, and Lindsey Graham revealed today that he told McCain to turn over the dossier to the FBI, and he said that McCain did the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC) (revised BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC))

Do you have any RS that supports your claim that nothing in the doc has been proved? O3000 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, there is, I believe, evidence that Cohen's cell phone pinged a tower in Prague. That's my understanding about what's publicly known about the Cohen/Prague element. As for the pee tape, we may never know whether or not that bit of kompromat does exist or doesn't. But, the fact that many things in the document have been proven true and nothing has been proven false does suggest the whole document may be credible. We don't know 100% for sure, but we do know that nothing has been disproven from it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes here's the evidence of the cell signal, from the source - "four people with knowledge of the matter say." The source goes on to say that the information was "shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller..." This is, at best, extremely thin. Why can't we name these people? Did these guys stay anonymous because the evidence was garbage? Why would this be a secret? If this was true it was be an absolute (actual) bombshell. I hope that this information from Mueller's report is shared. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, yes I very much want the whole report to be released as well. Then maybe we'd get more information on the Cohen/Prague thing, the pee tape, and any other allegations that have yet to be publicly corroborated or refuted. Until then, we know what we know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

All we can do is to document what RS say. If they are allegations, then we identify them as such. We don't take an allegation and state it is proven fact. We write what the RS say. If you see a problem here, help us out. Propose specific wording changes, with RS. That's what we can use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The alleged pee tape is in the realm of the unproven. We do not know if it's true, and we may never. Steele himself stated (read the article) that the pee tape claim is about 50-50%. He has his doubts about it. What's weird is that Trump, without reason, and totally unnecessarily, lied in several different ways about it (read the article). That caused Comey to change his mind (read the article) from initially a doubter of the claim, to a "maybe it did happen" view on the subject, and Comey is no amateur. Innocent people don't lie, and police and intelligence officials know that unforced lies usually are a sign of consciousness of guilt. A very odd situation. If Trump would just be honest for at least five minutes, we'd be much more likely to cut him some slack, but that's not the job of this article. We just document the allegations, the fallout, the people involved, the coverage in RS, the false claims made about the dossier and Steele, etc.

If you want changes, you need to get extremely specific and provide RS. Deal with specific and small issues. We can deal with that and then improve the article. We want to get it right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer: One of the claims in the dossier is that Trump colluded with Russia to affect the election. Mueller states that there was no collusion.-- CharlesShirley (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer: It was not "counterintelligence" work. It was plain, old fashioned campaign opposition research. It was not produced by a intelligence agency. It was not produced by the CIA, MI5, the NSA or any number of existing intelligence agencies throughout the world. So it was not "counterintelligence work". It was paid for and it was created for the express reason to find negative facts or information that could be used by Trump's political opponents. It was not designed to analyze the national security risks to the U.S. or the U.K. or any other country. It was paid for by Trump political opponents to find and exploit to weaken Trump as a candidate. Just because they labeled the document "intelligence" does not make intelligence, and definitely not "counterintelligence". It was opposition research only. You can name a duck a cow all you want but just calling a cow a duck does not make the duck a cow. That is what you are doing here. Now, you have been pounding the table on the notion that Lawfare's opinion should presented as fact, when Lawfare's opinion is far from the truth. The dossier is absolutely wrong. There is a section entitled, "PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FURTHER INDICATIONS OF EXTENSIVE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE KREMLIN". This section states: "Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source B, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." This claim of the dossier has been investigated by Mueller's team for over 2 years and he has concluded that there was no conspiracy. To continue to quote Lawfare's opinion as fact is wrong and it needs to be edited to put in correct context that it is merely Lawfare's opinion and not a fact. The fact is that the dossier has been disproven by Mueller's team. Now, keep in mind that Mueller's team was not a bunch of Republican attorneys but was made up of mostly Democrats and that team of mostly Democrats investigated for years and came to the conclusion that the Trump-Russia dossier is incorrect, as at least as it made a claim about Trump and Russia. Also, there is absolutely no comparison between the two sources of information. One, Lawfare, is a legal blog that was started by an activist with an agenda to promote and the other is a team of FBI officers who spent two years with the best investigation tools available to them and they found the dossier to be wrong.CharlesShirley (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I got sloppy there and have revised it. It wasn't typical "counterintelligence" work, but was opposition research using intelligence agency type methods. Those are the methods Steele uses and had such success with in his career during and after his work for MI6. Keep in mind that he didn't know he was working for the DNC or Clinton campaign. He only knew he was working for a lawyer. He had no contact with the lawyer, DNC, or Clinton campaign.

You say the "dossier has been disproven by the Mueller team". No, it hasn't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You write about "PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FURTHER INDICATIONS OF..." That's not part of this article. We only deal with some of the dossier's allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what your point of your comment is. This article is about the Trump-Russia dossier, all of it. I quoted directly from the Trump-Russia dossier, the part where the dossier claims that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia. The Mueller Report specifically investigated that claim and found it to be untrue and therefore disproven. Now we need to edit the article to reflect this fact.- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We have done that here. We document the existence of some unverified (not disproven) claims made in the dossier about conspiracy, most notably only those which have been written about in multiple RS. We also document the conclusion of the Mueller report on that matter. Problem solved. We've done our duty. This isn't about "truth", but about documenting what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, after a tip from Alexander Downer about his encounter with Papadopolous, as even the Nunes memo confirmed. The FBI has been well aware of Russian disinformation since forever, so they do not blindly accept a doc like the dossier, they endeavor to independently confirm it, and at least in part, as is publicly known, they did. This refutes the repeated assertion that the dossier is “100% fake,” and that the FBI knew that, but still used it as the basis for the Page warrant (he had been tapped in 2014). And has been noted, raw intel being even 70% verified is considered a very good hit rate by intel folks. So if the full Mueller report is released, and it shows Cohen was not in Prague, that still won’t make the dossier 100% fake, but the McClatchy reporters may need to find another line of work. What Steele says about it isn’t really important; it’s important to what extent the FBI verified it. As it stands right now, the burden of proof rests on those who insist it’s 100% fake, as there has been no RS reporting that any of it is fake. Instead, they ignore that at least some of it has been verified, which doesn’t help their argument. You can’t claim “there’s not a single shred of evidence for many of the dossier's claims,” you can only claim that evidence has not been made public, because so far the people in a position to know haven’t talked publicly about it. soibangla (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Did the Muller investigation find the dossier was false or factually inaccurate? What does it say about the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's deal with that in it's own section below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What does the Muller report say about the dossier?

Did the Muller investigation find the dossier was false or factually inaccurate? What does it say about the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, so far, we don't know. All we know about the Mueller investigation's conclusions are contained in the Barr letter, and even then it's possible that the Barr letter is little more than spin on the Mueller conclusions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was of course asking those who those who say it debunks the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You ask an important question, so we need to keep our eyes open for what RS reveal about this. We know that the allegations in the dossier have been examined in the course of the investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We know that certain parts of the dossier have been verified. We know that other parts have not been confirmed or denied. We know of no portion of the dossier that has been discredited. The Mueller Report may contain details that will expand upon our current understanding of the dossier. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

One of several burning questions in the aftermath of the Barr letter. R2 (bleep) 18:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We do know, from what Barr has said, that Mueller's report seems to contradict ONE main allegation in the dossier. It's obvious nonsense to claim that it "debunks" the entire dossier. We wait with bated breath to discover what it really says. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I wait with bated breath for a mention of Sergei Skripal. Shtove 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, which one? I'm not aware. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It "contradicts" (not "debunks") the dossier allegation of conspiracy. What really happened is still unknown. The dossier's main allegation of Russian interference to help Trump remains a proven fact.

Here's an attempted illustration of the situation. A friend (a dossier source you can't name) tells you (Steele) they were visiting an uncle (a known Russian agent) on a certain day and quietly listened at the door as he told a known friend (a Trump campaigner alleged to be involved in suspicious activity) to "bury the loot in the park, beside the swings." (Later, the police can prove that your friend (they can't identify your friend in their surveillance video) and that known third person (Trump's campaigner) were indeed in that house with the uncle on that date. (House, date, occupants...all accurate.) Why was a Trump campaigner with a Russian agent on that date? It's a proven fact they were together then and there, but the campaigner tells conflicting stories about what they were doing, and is caught changing their story about the meeting.

This looks bad, so you (Steele) do the right thing and immediately go to the police (FBI) with that information. They say they don't know of any crime committed by the uncle's friend. They then go and dig up the park and find the loot from a robbery, one which they knew about but didn't know was committed by the uncle and their friend, until now.

The problem is that your friend is the only "witness", and he can't be found, ergo no one can connect the uncle to the crime, unless you identify your friend, whom you know will be killed if you do so, because the police have a mole who reports to these criminals. The evidence won't stand up in court. Therefore the police cannot, and do not, charge the uncle of a crime ("no collusion"), but they do place him under surveillance, because this isn't the first time he has been known to hang around with known criminals. The crime did occur. That much we know for certain.

Now, any reasonable person who hears this story (who was not an ally of your uncle and their friend, and thus would defend them, no matter what crime they might commit, such as shooting someone on Fifth Avenue) would lend you (Steele) and your friend (the unnamed source) a lot of credence, because they knew, before anyone else, that a crime had been committed, knew where the loot was buried, and knew who was involved. How else could they know without being good sources?

The crime was committed. Proven fact. Steele says that a source revealed that certain persons (he names in the dossier) planned that crime and stood behind it. Any logical person would connect the dots. Intelligence agencies who checked out some of the dossier's claims found some of the information to be accurate. This secret information was found to be accurate, so this increased the dossier's credence in their eyes, even while they remained skeptical of the ONE salacious claim, a very small part of the dossier. Most of the claims are not salacious. These sources had advanced knowledge of crimes. They should be trusted, at least to some degree.

Trump supporters refuse to give any credence to the dossier, even though many of its allegations are proven true. They wouldn't even believe anything in the dossier if the name of the source was given, and a recheck of the information proved the story beyond a shadow of a doubt. (The source gets killed if this happens, and that reliable source of information no longer exists.)

I'm not certain if my illustration is entirely accurate, but you get the gist of it. The trustworthiness of a source is not dependent on their identity, but on their advanced knowledge of events later proven to be true.

Page's actions are largely analogous to the story above. We can't prove that the exact words in the dossier about what actually happened in those meetings between Page and Rosneft officials were spoken, but all external events tend to back up that the story in the dossier is very likely true: The GOP platform did indeed get changed; Manafort was indeed paid $12.7 million; Rosneft was indeed liquidated and 19.5% was transferred to a secret Cayman Islands account; Trump did indeed try, as one of his very first actions, to lift the sanctions, he has kept trying, and recently lifted the sanctions on Deripaska; and Page did lie about it all and kept changing his story, and finally, under oath, partially affirmed it. All of this is public record in RS.

Here's the dilemma: The dossier describes the backstory. Should we trust that story? Logical people would tend to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Again you are drifting into forum territory with this wall of text. Wikipedia is not the right place for writing at length about your personal analysis. — JFG ^talk 00:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Until the Muller report is released there can only be speculation about what, if anything, was confirmed. However, it is very doubtful that the dossier's main claim against the Trump campaign, that Michael Cohen went to Prague to pay the Russian hacker, is not proven. Besides, this claim is absurd. Payment today is made in bitcoin and before that by wire transfer.Phmoreno (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, or, the shady hacker wanted to be paid in cash. That is also possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

No hacker would take cash because serial numbers can be recorded and bills can be secretly marked in ways undetectable to anyone without the detection technology.Phmoreno (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL! That thinking only works when the criminal suspects they are being paid by the police. What we do know about the hacking is that the hackers used Bitcoin. Otherwise, cash would be the least traceable method of payment. No paper trail. In the world of crime, cash is still best. There is nothing implausible with them being paid with cash. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if this is true, it does not "debunk" the rest of the dossier. But is it the main claim, or just one of the many claims?Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of Trump's divisive track record

The dossier contains three closely-related allegations which we mention:

• That Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests. (Dossier, pp. 1–2)
• That Trump was a "divisive" and "anti-Establishment" candidate, as well as "a pragmatist with whom they could do business". That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected. (Dossier, p. 29)
• That a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country. (Dossier, pp. 28–29)

Trump's track record shows that the Russians must be very satisfied with his election, as that's what he does, and Putin did admit that he wanted Trump to win. Of all the allegations made in the dossier which have been confirmed, (1) the Russian interference to help Trump and (2) his divisive actions which threaten alliances, weaken democracy, and strengthen Russia, are the ones most clearly shown to be accurate.

So here's my question: Should we add something about this to the section on "Veracity of certain allegations"? Can we find enough RS, which tie his clearly divisive nature and track record with the allegations made in the dossier, to justify doing so? He more than satisfies all the elements in those allegations. Pinging MelanieN, Starship.paint, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, JFG, and Zefr. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• So you're saying, because Putin didn't like Ukraine-related sanctions, and Trump is a divisive figure, both kind-of-obvious statements made in the dossier, we should give special emphasis to those facts and make inferences between them? Sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Especially as Trump hasn't lifted a finger on Ukraine, and has signed off on Congress-imposed further rounds of sanctions. — JFG ^talk 15:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Also, when you say that "Trump's track record" includes "divisive actions which threaten alliances", I'm not sure whether you're alluding to NATO. In the final analysis, Trump's antics have reinforced NATO by pushing several members to boost their defense spending. And Putin really dislikes that, as demonstrated by a quick glance to RT's continuous harping about NATO overreach. — JFG ^talk 15:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I started this section. SYNTH is exactly what I want to avoid. Many eyes, and all that. Maybe others have found some RS about this?

He has been very divisive, attacking and alienating our allies and praising and helping our enemies in many nations. This has occurred to the point that our allies are reluctant to share intelligence with our intelligence agencies because it can then get in Trump's hands and he shares it with Putin. Trump is notoriously careless about national security and has shared classified info, even endangering the lives of our sources.

His actions on NATO have been inconsistent, likely because he is forced, against his will, to actually do things that don't make him look entirely bad, or completely a pawn of Putin's. These are face-saving moves of temporary and insignificant importance. The backlash against his actions is not to be credited to him. This happens in spite of him, not because he wants it, and that's what I'm talking about.

Regarding sanctions, before he was elected, immediately after Page returned from Russia, he was open about desiring to lift the sanctions. One of his very first actions after becoming president was to attempt to lift the sanctions, and he was rebuffed very strongly. He has discovered that he doesn't always get his will, even with the GOP. Again, this failure is not to his credit. It's not what he wants, and that's what I'm talking about. He has continued to try to lift the sanctions and has recently lifted the sanctions on Deripaska. These sanctions interfere with the businesses of his oligarch friends, Putin, and his own financial interests. Trump's own dealings with these people are illegal because of the sanctions.

I'm sure you've noticed the media coverage of his divisiveness internationally and here in America. We have never seen a president who actively tried to divide his own nation. He has disrupted domestic and international relations, and the only ones which have benefited are Trump's businesses and Putin's interests. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks like an awful lot of mind-reading about Trump's "real intentions". He keeps saying "I'm the toughest on Russia" while also stating that "I wish we could work with Russia". Nothing to infer from all that. — JFG ^talk 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Trump's businesses have not benefited from anything. His estimated net worth has dropped from $4.5 to 3.1 billion after his election, and has remained in this ballpark since. — JFG ^talk 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• No strong feelings from me about this. Do what you like if you’ve found the reliable sources. starship.paint ~ KO 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm putting this out here to spur all of us to keep our eyes open for RS which discuss this. It's easy for one person to miss it, but together we might find something. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer: does impress somewhat as WP:SYNTH. What content do you propose adding? Perhaps a draft here with RS would clarify and allow clearer assessment. Also, is there more to develop about the Rosneft connection explained further here connecting the 2017 19.5% share of Rosneft to Qatari shell companies with brokerage funds via Deutsche Bank intended to finance Trump, his campaign, and possibly individuals with some $277 M? Only discussion here and in the Page section. May be more synthesis, but does connect to "follow the money" when assessing Trump's motivations and track record. --Zefr (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, we want to avoid SYNTH. We all need to keep our eyes open for RS about this.

What you share is very interesting. It's public record that shortly after the election part of Rosneft was sold off and 19.5% was transferred through a series of shady transactions, some of them illegal and only possible because of Putin's help, ending up in a Cayman Islands account. All public record. What has happened with that money? Why did it end up there? Yes, we need more RS about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

When we find such RS lets discus it, I would rather not discus divisive hyperthiticals.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources for the Dossier

Is there any information as to where Steele got information regarding many of the Dossier's claims? Is there any information out there whether or not Steele paid Russian sources, or other sources for this information? I'm having a hard time searching RS for anything related to that. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Under this section, paragraph beginning "Simpson has..." is information about Steele's long-standing contacts in Russia: unpaid contacts called "collectors" (several of whom were government officials able to verify one another's assertions), as also described in the Mayer report (search for "collectors"). In the Issikof/Corn book, Russian Roulette, there are a couple of pages devoted to Steele's collectors, who of course are never named. In essence, the dossier evolved from Steele's interviews of his secret Russian insiders. For the article - although it would be nice to expand on these sources - it is impossible to describe them more completely, as they are deep background. The Russian insider "collectors" are analogous for the Steele dossier as Deep Throat was to the Woodward-Bernstein reporting of the Watergate scandal. --Zefr (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we cover this in the article, but if you find more, please help develop this subject. Some sources were witting, while others were unwitting (overheard conversations, etc.) Steele acknowledged that it was possible some information could have been planted disinformation, which is likely why he stated that the pee tape allegation might have a 50% chance of being true. What raised it to more than that for James Comey, who originally doubted it could be true, was that Trump, unprovoked, lied in several different ways about it, which caused Comey to change his mind and believe it could well be true. We just don't know. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The most intriguing speculation is that Sergei Skripal wrote the earlier parts of the dossier. The Daily Telegraph confirmed that Skripal visited Estonia in the month after Trump's nomination, and it's widely known that he's linked to Steele through Pablo Millar. Plus I believe Patrick Armstrong is of the view that some of the dossier is written in KGB style, whatever that means. Shtove 19:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, conspiracy theories without evidence are indeed "intriguing", and outside what we do here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's speculation, not conspiracy theory, since it strings together known facts with plenty of RS evidence, but without being probative. Clearly it can't be part of the article for now. Shtove 15:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty much the essence of any conspiracy theory. They are usually based on many real and verifiable "dots" of information/events, placed into a "connecting" pattern showing a "picture" of relationships, but those relationships reflect the thinking of the author, and not proven relationships. In fact, those "connections" and the "picture" are often contrary to proven facts.

That's when we classify the speculations as conspiracy theories. Good investigators and journalists do not move and connect the "dots" in ways that are not factual. The dots remain where they are proven to be found, and not moved so they can create a picture more to the liking of the conspiracy theorist author, nor are there any connecting lines (which create a picture found in the mind of the author) drawn between dots which really are not related. Those who believe in conspiracy theories are accepting the picture drawn by the author as factual, and since the dots, and some of the lines, are factual, they believe that all the connecting lines are also factual, when many of them are not. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of "connecting the dots", here's an interesting article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Really? Just more tiresome spin. Shtove 17:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In what way? Is there anything counterfactual there? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Bongino's book

His book of conspiracy theories was added to the Further reading section by Markbassett, then deleted by Starship.paint, and now restored by JFG, with an edit summary that implies there is no lower limit for what we include here.

Frankly, I'm amazed it survived so long, because it's classic conspiracy theory junk. I'm removing it again. We must have higher standards for inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to omit a best selling book from further reading because of its content. If it relevant to the article subject, and barring any consensus that establishes an inclusion threshold, I think it should be listed.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Many books by kooks are bestsellers because there’s plenty of kooks in America. Do rules of reliable sources come into play here? soibangla (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't. It's really a matter of local consensus.- MrX 🖋 19:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• WP:ELNO point 2 specifically requires that we evaluate its content. Also, the only real argument people seem to be giving for inclusion (and the one given for originally adding it) was that "we need a source on the right", which is WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Bongino’s “The attempted sabotage of Donald J. Trump” is a top-rank Amazon book specific and wholly about this topic, is contemporary, and suits MOS:FURTHER. Per WP:Further Reading, it would be good for the reading to show some balance and diversity. This one is arguably a match for Luke Harding’s pop book on the left, who’s also not wonderful as RS. And this seemed best choice available. Unless you prefer “The Russia Hoax” by Jarrett, which seemed another candidate but is only partly on the dossier, Bongino’s “Exonerated” which seems like it would be too late, “The Plot to Destroy Trump” by Malloch or something else, I think this should go back in as best available example. More than one would seem too many, none is absurd, and this seems the best big right-wing book on the topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The Malloch book would be relevant as well. It doesn't matter what individual editors think of a particular book or its author. I personally believe Harding is full of shit, but I would never argue against his inclusion and citing, simply because he brings a relevant point of view on the subject matter. — JFG ^talk 01:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Malloch is an involved party who travels in dubious company, Harding is not. I read major chunks of Jarrett’s book, it is rife with transparently brazen lies. His endnotes sources would never pass muster here. Bongino is an absolute clown, as credible as Hannity. From Special Counsel article:

NBC News reported on March 30, 2018, that Ted Malloch, a London-based American professor and author who worked with the Trump campaign, had been detained and questioned by the FBI two days earlier as he arrived at Boston Logan Airport after a flight from London. He was served with a subpoena to appear for questioning by Mueller's investigators on April 13, and presented with a warrant to have his phone seized and searched. Malloch told NBC in an email that FBI agents asked him a variety of questions, including about Roger Stone, author Jerome Corsi, and WikiLeaks. CNN reported that Malloch has written a forthcoming book alleging a "deep state" within the United States government fabricated the Steele dossier to destroy Trump.

soibangla (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So because Mulloch was once questioned by the FBI, his opinion is worthless? Everybody who ever supported the Trump campaign was questioned by Mueller, he left no stone unturned. Let people read various books and make up their own mind about their credibility. — JFG ^talk 05:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at his BLP. Yet another grifter. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to figure this out, and I'm happy to hear various understandings of the relevant policy. It seems to me that Bongino fails Balanced aspect of the "Further reading". We're not talking about differences of opinion, but about counterfactual conspiracy theories. What he writes is diametrically opposed to what we'd allow here. It is not based on RS. I'm on his mailing list and get notifications several times a day, and if RS say something, he says the opposite and spins what's true into a conspiracy theory that ALWAYS defends Trump. He's fishy as can be. There has to be a lowest common denominator for what's allowed in the Further reading section, and he is far below whatever that is. He wallows around where Hannity and Limbaugh love to dwell. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately book authors do not have to abide by Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. There would not be many books left. Let Harding and Bongino say what they wish, and if their writings are relevant to the theme, they can be mentioned in the "Further reading" section. It's not up to us Wikipedians to pass judgment on a book's content or its author's credibility. There are plenty of books on UFOs most of them full of crap and speculation, still if they are relevant and popular books, we must mention them. — JFG ^talk 05:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, got it. So we have no lower limit. Completely false books are allowed. Let's change that policy to make note that no accuracy or reliability is required of a book to be included: "There is no lowest common denominator for inclusion. Anything, no matter how unreliable and deceptive is allowed." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoa! That's an essay. The actual policy does have higher standards: "Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links."

Per WP:ELNO we would never allow Bongino's book. OTOH, if the book had an article here, we could include it, just as we could include it in a See also section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:ELNO that forbids linking to a Google books summary of a book, within a citation template. If you believe otherwise, please indicate which number (1-19) you are referring to. Even if it were a problem, the link could be removed while the book entry remains.- MrX 🖋 15:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Number two (and also number one): "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." Bongino's book fails. We would only allow it in an article here about the book, and "to a limited extent in" an article about his conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The link is to Google's book summary. In what way do you find that summary to be misleading? ELNO#1 doesn't apply.- MrX 🖋 17:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that is an easy way out. Therefore, technically, as long as we use a Google Books summary, we can literally link to anything. Got it. Let's make sure it's clear in our policies that there are no lower limits. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that. All we are doing is saying "here's a book for for possible further reading on the subject". You've put me into the awkward position of defending a book that may very well be trash. If you would like to propose some uniform inclusion criteria for further reading on this article, that's fine. But I'm opposed to anything that looks like censoring material that we don't agree with. (I hope) our readers are smart enough to do that for themselves.- MrX 🖋 19:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX, this has nothing to do with censorship or whether we agree with the book or not. It's about recommending a book which offers nothing factual about the subject. It's not just a matter of opinion or different POV they should look at, because it supplements the subject with good and accurate information we can't cover here.

We're literally pointing people down an unmarked, dark, forest road which WILL end up with them driving off a cliff. They WILL be misled. They will NOT find any useful information which leaves them better informed. Worst of all, WIKIPEDIA recommended they read it. That's a disservice. "See also", "Further reading", and "External links" are all supposed to be a service to people, something that doesn't leave them worse off. Whether we agree with the source or not, we should at least be able to sign on the dotted line that we recommended something that will leave readers BETTER informed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're saying "here's a book for further reading on the subject", then we have to evaluate its content (and it plainly fails WP:ELNO point 2.) What you seem to be trying to argue is "here's a Google Books page that you can read for further information on the subject; we provide this Google Books page specifically and exclusively for its own content, and not for any hypothetical content in any book it might mention" (since if we were providing the book as an external link, it would plainly fail WP:ELNO point) - but in that case it's not usable as an external link because the Google Books page, itself, provides no useful information (it does not even mention the dossier.) All it does is note the existence of a book that has no value to readers per WP:ELNO point 2 and per its unusability for further reading (which would be the appropriate place to mention a book, if it were usable.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Google is a third party source for the book's existence. Perhaps there are better links that could be used, but the fact remains that it doesn't even have to be linked. An ISBN number would be sufficient for verifiability purposes.- MrX 🖋 19:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, but "verify that this book exists" isn't what an external link is for. The purpose is to provide a useful resource, which is defined by the terms set in WP:ELNO (and which this book fails.) If you think that it passes the criteria for further reading, it could be listed as that (though I don't think it does), but it seems absurd to list a Google Books website, say that the real content worth having here is the book's, then, when people point out that the book clearly doesn't pass WP:ELNO turn around and try to argue that the book's content don't have to pass WP:ELNO because the real content we're linking is the Google Books page. Plainly either we're including it as an external link for the book's content (in which case ELNO applies), or for the Google Books page on its own (which clearly isn't a useful resource for readers.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• If the link only qualifies as a Google Books summary, then it's not providing any useful information - the Google Books page doesn't even mention the dossier, and in fact contains almost no information at all. If we're linking because of the content, we have to evaluate it, and it clearly fails WP:ELNO point 2 (ie. "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" - the exception doesn't apply because this article isn't about the viewpoint, but about the dossier itself.) But we are specifically required to pass judgement on an external link's content (and the fact that everyone who wants to include it is trying to argue otherwise is, I think, a tacit admission that it does not pass the standard set by WP:ELNO's second point.) The only other argument people are giving is "we need conservative voices to balance out the liberal ones", which is both WP:FALSEBALANCE and is clearly the wrong approach - if there are other unusable sources there, we can remove them. But this one is clearly not a useful resource for readers. (I would argue that even if you're insistent on pushing for WP:FALSEBALANCE this is a bad WP:EL; as a breathless compilation of unverifiable conspiracy theories, it does a terrible job of representing that hypothetical right-wing point of view to readers.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• So don't link to Google books. Use this instead.[5] Frankly, I don't care if we include or exclude the book, as long as it's for the right reasons. - MrX 🖋 19:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• That has the same problem. What useful information is contained on that page that makes it a valuable external link? What does a reader gain by perusing it? If the goal is to direct readers to the book, then we need to either provide an external link to the book's content, or list it as further reading rather than as an external link; and in either case it would have to pass the restrictions on such references, which it does not. Your argument seems to be that we can avoid having to satisfy those restrictions by directing users to a page that does nothing but mention that a book exists, with no other meaningful content. My point is that that argument is patiently absurd. Either bite the bullet and turn the book into further reading (accepting the quixotic burden of defending it on those grounds) or remove it; but external links to Google Books aren't a backdoor around the content restrictions on external links or further reading. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about this:

Bongino, Dan (October 9, 2018). Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump. Post Hill Press. ISBN 978-1642930986.

It's not an external link per se. It's a citation that happens to contain a URL for verification that a book with that title by that author exists. We do the same thing for the second book by Harding. It's not to provide "useful information" beyond basic verification. Furthermore, it conforms to the basic guidelines of MOS:FURTHER.- MrX 🖋 20:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is just naming the major best seller on the topic from the right, like a big book from the left is listed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

How does this book relate to the Trump–Russia dossier, as it doesn't appear to be a general reference on the topic? Wouldn't it be better as a reference describing its context? From what I can tell it is notable mainly due Trump Sr. pushing it by tweet, and is just an element in the Trumposphere echo chamber. ([6], "The books Trump wants you to read", Trump’s Book Club: A President Who Doesn’t Read Promotes the Books That Promote Him, and Spygate: How Right-Wing Media Creates a Conspiracy Theory Out of Thin Air) X1\ (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My example idea has since been deleted. X1\ (talk) 23:44, 11 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)

Should we bump this up?

Seeing as Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation, what do folks think about putting this right up top as the second paragraph in the lede, to supplant the last sentence of paragraph 3 in the lede:

Contrary to repeated assertions by President Donald Trump and many of his supporters, the dossier was not the impetus for the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.

with these refs:

Dossier Not What ‘Started All of This’ (new today)

Trump says the Steele dossier "was responsible for starting" Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia

But it's already been established by the House Intelligence Committee that the Russia investigation began after the FBI learned that another campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, had been approached by a Russian agent

How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt

Despite what Trump and like-minded politicians have said, sources told ABC News the “dossier” was plainly not the initial basis for the federal investigation

George Papadopoulos — who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about those contacts — "triggered" the opening of the investigation, the Nunes memo says

soibangla (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I haven't clicked on any of the links... do any of them say that Trump and supporters claim the dossier started the SC investigation, and here's how it's false? Because if it's in the RS, then we can do it. But if it's only from us using unrelated sources, it runs into a WP:SYNTH issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In order: a GOP congressman, Trump, “The Trump camp,” “Trump and other politicians,” “Trump and like-minded politicians,” “some Republicans,” and with the Vox link at top, Fox News, have asserted the dossier triggered the 2016 FBI investigation, and each source debunks it soibangla (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking this deserves its own subsection in the "Reactions" section. There we can better document how Trump, Fox News, Hannity, Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Paul Ryan, Matt Gaetz, The Federalist, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kellyanne Conway have pushed this lie. (possibly others) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This makes sense. This has become one of Trump's major lies, one of the very blatant type, and the fact he keeps telling the lie with louder and louder voice makes it a very notable one, and myriad RS are debunking it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Yes as it is one of the major objections.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as described by RS given the many lies about this matter. In fact I think we should mention info on George Papa started it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dossier didn't start Russia investigation

• FactCheck.org feels compelled to debunk the lies: The Russia investigation started "more than seven weeks" before the FBI received the dossier. This article names a number of people who lie about this, and also some who resist the lies, including Trey Goudy. Both the Papadopoulos' contacts and June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting were before the FBI got the first dossier memo. No one disputes that the dossier allegations later became part of the investigation (and possibly many of them got ignored), but the dossier did not start it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Trump and Sean Hannity are at best "very confused about how the Russia investigation began" Philip Bump writes. "At worst, they're purposely deceiving the public" writes Brian Stelter in his newsletter when commenting about Bump's article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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 16:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nunes memo [7] The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok starship.paint ~ KO 03:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Republicans' House Intelligence Committee report - page 57, [8] [9] [10] [11] 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 03:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RICO investigations

Main article: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Starship.paint, I'm not familiar with the phrase "enterprise CI investigation". Is that the same as a "criminal enterprise" counterintelligence investigation? Is this about the investigations of Trump's businesses, which are being investigated in the same way that organized crime businesses are investigated, considering that he operates in the same way? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: - I was not familiar either (and I'm not American). But, I did a Google search and found The Attorney General's guidelines for domestic FBI operations states that the distinctive characteristic of enterprise investigations is that they concern groups or organizations that may be involved in the most serious criminal or national security threats to the public I strongly caution about thinking this is related to Trump's businesses. This investigation is about the Trump campaign only. starship.paint ~ KO 00:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting. I automatically associated that type of investigation with the ones going on with his businesses (because those are RICO investigations, so no need for the caution), but, if this applies to his campaign, that is, in some ways, even more serious. Wow! But then, why should we be surprised? He has taken his normal ways of doing "business" right into the campaign, public relations, dealings with media, foreign affairs, and the White House, so nothing should surprise us.

BTW,that source can be appended as a ref to the words "enterprise investigations". I suspect it's the "national security" aspect which is most relevant to the campaign, but that also applies to the White House operations, as we can see with the 25 people who got security clearances over the objections of trained, non-partisan, professionals. National security isn't a matter of interest to this administration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that you have cleared that up, I have created this as a subsection, as a RICO investigation is a well-known (in America) type of investigation normally reserved for organized crime. There are a number of RS and other sources dealing with this and Trump, especially about the investigations into his business affairs by State Attorneys Generals:

• New Trump Probe Looks a Lot Like a RICO Investigation. "The crimes reportedly under investigation—money laundering, fraud, conspiracy—could amount to a criminal enterprise. That’s how my team of prosecutors put away Detroit’s mayor." by Barbara McQuade, February 8, 2019
• Why The Trump Organization Now Risks Being Charged As A Criminal Enterprise. by Steve Denning, March 6, 2019
• Trump Investigations and the RICO vs Conspiracy Puzzle. by Dwight Holton, March 14, 2019
• Archived: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES ON GENERAL CRIMES, RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE AND DOMESTIC SECURITY/TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS

What I find more interesting in the context of this article is that the Russia investigation started in July 2016 was also opened as a RICO investigation, according to the FBI's definition of "enterprise investigation" in your source. Can we find more sources about that? Adding content (about the 2016 investigation) only based on a definition would be a type of original research we can't do, but if we can find RS making the connection, then we can add it.

OTOH, the investigations in New York and Virginia are spinoffs based on evidence uncovered in the Russia investigation, so there is a direct connection. They are just extensions of the Russia investigation largely created so that Trump couldn't pardon himself, his family, and his accomplices. Mueller could have prosecuted them himself, but he exploited the fact that some of these alleged crimes were committed in those states.

When dealing with RICO and their usual use, this tweet from Preet Bharara is very apropos. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus to make this change, with the seven refs I provided? soibangla (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect we've already done this, but, by all means, develop it and use the good sources you have. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This is false information and should not be allowed to be on this post. Please do some due diligence on this post. Thank you! One who seeks the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1QuriousGirl (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

FBI Payments?

As of now, the article quotes Glenn Simpson stating that no payments from the FBI were made to Steele. I found this story from Aug 2018 by NBC news - link - stating that there were in fact payments from the FBI to Steele. Trump has also now recently tweeted that there were 11 payments made by the FBI to Steele. Does the article need to be updated to reflect this information? The problem is that I'm having a hard time finding anything about the "11 payments" in RS. It appears that Judicial Watch has filed an FOI request for more details about this. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that our article does say he may have received reimbursements, and this might well be what the article is talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In the beginning, there was some confusion about this, with many RS offering conflicting accounts. In the end, things seem to have been clarified. Here's what we have:

Simpson testified that "Steele wasn't paid by the FBI, but was possibly reimbursed for a trip to Rome to meet with FBI officials." According to Mayer, Steele "did request compensation for travelling to Rome, but he never received any."

If there is more about this in RS (and Trump and Judicial Watch are not RSes), it would be nice to get it, so any help would be appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I linked an NBC news story stating there were payments from the FBI to Steele. The article states "The heavily redacted records show FBI payments to Steele as a Confidential Human Source (CHS) over an unknown period." Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Being paid and receiving payments may not mean the same thing. That is why travel expenses are not (in many jurisdictions) considered part of earnings.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, good point. That NBC article seems to be talking about Steele's well-known role as an informant before the dossier:

• "The heavily redacted records show FBI payments to Steele as a Confidential Human Source (CHS) over an unknown period. They also show that Steele told the FBI he had informed a third party he was acting as a CHS for the bureau, and that the FBI determined Steele had been a source for an online article.... Because of the redactions, it is not possible to tell when payments to Steele began, but it has previously been reported that he assisted the FBI with past investigations, including a probe of corruption in international soccer."

So, yes, he was paid by the FBI, but not in connection with the dossier. That is what's relevant here.

We could summarize this and maybe include something like this in the article:

• "Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid informant for the FBI."

I believe there are other sources about this, and that they might justify more precise language. Let's look for them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources