Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title

Maybe title of page could change to reflect more than just 2016 campaign itself.

Feel free to move it, just leave a redirect behind as you go.

Thanks for work on this sub article  ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The title should simply be Links between Donald Trump and Russian officials. Linking is associative, so DT is linked to his associates and if they are linked to Russian officials... and bobs your uncle. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Whether there are or are not direct links between Trump and Russian officials is the 64-thousand-dollar question, but so far there is no evidence to support it - except for his bromance with Putin (I hope that got included) so we shouldn't really say it in Wikipedia's voice. At this point it's all about the people around him, or people who used to be around him (see this - full disclosure, this is satire and not actual news). On the other hand, I'm not happy with "Russian officials", because not all the contacts were with Russian officials. Some, like Flynn's speech to the RT banquet in Moscow, were with Russia itself. Some, like Manafort's Ukraine connection or Flynn's Turkey connection, were with Russia-connected but not actually Russian people. I would suggest Links between Donald Trump associates and Russia. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we know there are longstanding links between Trump and Russia and even between Trump and Russian officials, so I think that if any part of this needs to be qualified it would be the time of the links and perhaps the nature or subject of the links. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials current title as chosen by JFG seems okay. Sagecandor (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The Atlantic: "links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
2. San Francisco Chronicle: "links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
3. ABC News: "links between Trump associates and Russian officials"

• So, yes, there are many reliable sources using the exact same phrase as the title of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Friend of a Friend

I am not at all sure that listing people who have no connection with Donny other then liking him should be included. The Supporters section should be deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Prince is the brother of Trump's pick for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos
2. He was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign
3. appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon.
4. The Seychelles meeting took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community.
5. U.S. officials said that the FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting.
6. Trump administration commented officially on the reporting.

More than just "friend of a friend". Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is all synthases, we need RS to make the link.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

RS do make the links. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Two RS do, which brings us into the territory of Undue, and even one of those in essence disputes the story.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The relationship to Trump was widely reported and discussed. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. It's way more than two. Sagecandor (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael R. Caputo

Michael R. Caputo

New article, might have sourced info you wish to use to add to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony about news article

Footnotes 15 and 19 cite a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example:

“ Easley, Jonathan. "Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was." ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, NYT evidently stands by its story: [1]. GAB^gab 01:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORT, please don't use this section, but go to the existing discussion here:

• Talk:Donald Trump#Comey testimony about news article

The result of that discussion can be applied here as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That discussion is informative but it does not dictate what happens here, especially since the NYT article is used in different ways and for different purposes in the two articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that what happens elsewhere doesn't "dictate" what happens here, but, as regards the questioned accuracy of the article, some things from that discussion will apply everywhere that source is used or not used at Wikipedia, because WP:RS applies everywhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

See also section

The Plot to Hack America devotes an entire book chapter to the subject of this article.

Therefore, it is relevant in the See also section. Sagecandor (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've reverted my own edit, per good faith attempt at talk page discussion about it. [2] Sagecandor (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The question to answer is: "Is it tangentially related to the subject?" ("...might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.") If so, it can be placed in the "See also" section. Period. Does that help? If it fits that description, I'd be happy to add it for you. I can understand your COI situation. Been there many times.

If anyone has any objections, I'd like to see policy-based arguments which trump the guideline which I quote above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If the book devotes an entire chapter to this article, the appropriate thing to do would be to quote from the book in the article text and link it from there. Much preferable to "see also". --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good option. If it has lots of detail and documentation, it would also qualify as an external link. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree here with BullRangifer. Sagecandor (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

I thinks this [3] by @JFG: should be reverted. rationale is: 1. Comey testified that he wasn't under investigation at the time. Since that time, WP:RS have stated he is under investigation for obstruction of justice. The edit confuses the issue. Moreover, if the point is to make an encyclopedia article, the fact that he wasn't under personnel investigation when they spoke is WP:UNDUE. 2. The fusion GPS material is WP:UNDUE for the article. Casprings (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. The Comey testimony was quickly contradicted and is no longer relevant.172.56.15.44 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Who "quickly contradicted" the Comey testimony? Sources? I don't recall anything like this. — JFG ^talk 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump was lambasted for declaring that Comey had told him three times he was not under investigation. Many sources expected Comey to testify against Trump on this point, so that Comey's written confirmation of Trump's assertions came as a surprise; this needs to be conveyed in the article. Subsequently, Trump was accused of obstructing justice, and reports are conflicting on whether he is actually under personal investigation on this count by Mueller's team. If anything, the sentence mentioning this investigation should be expanded to include assertions by Trump's lawyer that he has not been notified of any investigation. — JFG ^talk 15:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed the Fusion GPS story, but it is clearly related to the subject of this article, especially in the section called "Steele dossier". Wording could be improved and expanded. — JFG ^talk 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the current version of the lede is inaccurate and NPOV. It just says it has been "confirmed" that Trump is under investigation when it should say "reported", and it leaves out out the previous heavily reported debate about what Comey said. I thought this was the best recent version of that final paragraph in the lede:

On June 8, 2017, James Comey testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Trump was not personally under investigation by the FBI over Russia ties during Comey's tenure.[6][7] However, Trump later came under investigation for potential obstruction of justice in relation to Comey's dismissal.[8]

I would propose restoring this version. As for the "Fusion GPS" story, it has no place in this article about links between Trump associates and Russians - despite fervent but minimally reported attempts by Trump's partisans to link the subjects, via a kind of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon process --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've partially reverted the edit warring IPs—all three of which ([4], [5], [6]) geolocate to the same area in Texas and are obviously being operated by the same person (who may not even be pretending to be more than a single contributor, as far as I can tell). As MelanieN and JFG note, the IP's assertion—repeated by Casprings—that "it was confirmed that Trump himself was being investigated by the FBI for potential obstruction of justice" is garbled and inaccurate: There has been no definitive "confirmation," while the actual allegation was that Special Counsel Mueller, rather than the FBI, may have initiated such a probe. (Later reports suggested that Mueller's team was engaged only in preliminary analysis and that no final decision had been made.) However, I have not restored the Fusion GPS material or Comey's testimony, as both are arguably a bit far removed from the subject of Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and I do not feel terribly strongly about said content either way. Finally, I am disappointed that Casprings simultaneously tag-team edit warred with this unnamed IP user and filed a baseless AE report against JFG over the latter's "violation" of the 1RR Casprings incorrectly stated was in force at this article. If Casprings was concerned about 1RR violations, shouldn't he have admonished them both? (Perhaps Casprings merely assumed without skepticism that the three IPs were in fact three separate users, but even in that scenario he would still be wrong—and, in my book, owe JFG an apology.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

George Papadopoulos

New person to add, per recent WaPo story. Some biographical details here. 172.56.38.119 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Added, though it probably could be improved a bit. ^Falling_Gravity 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey (J.D.) Gordon

Another Trump campaign adviser, included in several news lists of Trump/Russia associations (eg. WaPo, CNN). Sources:

• USA Today
• ABC News
• The Independent
• Rolling Stone
• Business Insider
• Politico

172.56.39.247 (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Rex Tillerson

Does anyone else think the material about Tillerson is being taken slightly out of context here? He was not a supporter of Trump during the campaign and is not a known target of Russia-related investigations. Leading Russia critics in the Senate said they were satisfied with his views regarding Russia and supported his confirmation. I think the material in the current version of the article is highly relevant, but should it be couched in some additional contextual language? 83.110.16.179 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible Russian link with Cohen

Trump attorney Michael Cohen allegedly got about $500,000 from Russian oligarch, Stormy Daniels' lawyer claims.[7]. Considering the source, I wouldn't add it yet. Although I heard there is a second source. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

CNN reported on May 8, 2018 that Mueller's investigators had asked Vekselberg about hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Michael Cohen through the American affiliate of Vekselberg's Russian company, Renova Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present) soibangla (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and balance

This article is not about Clinton. Please stay on topic. This is WP:NOTAFORUM

Shouldn't we add the links between various democrats and the aforementioned Russians as well? It's not like Obama or the Clinton's hadn't met with Sergei Lavrov or Sergey Kislyak also. Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov with the "reset" button Clinton presented to Lavrov in March, 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehvan (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Did Obama or Clinton meet with Kislyak before taking their offices in 2009 to discuss, among other things, a secret encrypted backchannel to circumvent official channels that the Trump administration would control within days? Did Obama invite Lavrov and Kislyak into the Oval Office, bar the American press from the room, then tell the Russians top secret info that could put the life of a covert Israeli agent in danger? Just askin’ is all. soibangla (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Stone / Podesta leak

@Volunteer Marek: You have twice restored some text which does not look verified by the cited source. The first restored text[8] was: a hacking incident now broadly understood to have been a significant contributing factor to Trump's 2016 election victory against then-expected winner Hillary Clinton. First of all, I don't think it's very important to mention here (in the Roger Stone section) that the Podesta leak was a key factor in Trump's election –– that's speculation, as were a myriad other factors in this presidential race. Second, if you want to affirm this in wikivoice, can you find a source that actually makes the case?

Then your second version of the text[9] merely says that the Podesta hack was conducted in order to help Trump: a hacking incident now broadly understood to have been done with the purpose of aiding Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Well, that may be true, but again how is it relevant to this section about Roger Stone, and about the subject of the article? That would only make sense if Stone was accused of playing a role in the hack, and that hasn't happened afaik. Besides, once again, the cited source does not say that. Could you kindly self-revert, or exhibit a rationale to include this text here, and a source that supports the assertion? — JFG ^talk 18:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

No answer. Accordingly I have removed the part of the text that is not supported by the cited source.[10] — JFG ^talk 06:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Submitted for your approval...

I propose adding this as paragraph #2 of the Overview section, but I thought I'd run it for consensus first because the funding source is clearly liberal, although they cite reliable sources (hover over red dates here)

Through January 2019, The Moscow Project — an initiative of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund — had documented 101 contacts between sixteen Trump associates and Russia-linked individuals during the Trump campaign or transition.

soibangla (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I support it. They are all sourced and the number of 101 contacts is a neat summary of contacts mentioned in the article. Skinnytony1 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unless there are objections, I'll go ahead and add this tomorrow. soibangla (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede needs updating

… and my editing skills are too rusty! I haven't completed anything but very minor edits for several years now, so I'm going to ask regular contributors to this article or topic area to do the necessary. Specifically, the lede currently includes this final paragraph

On March 22, 2019, the special counsel concluded their investigation and submitted their final report. On March 24, 2019, Attorney General William Barr sent a four-page letter summarizing the final report to the heads and ranking members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees which stated that Mueller "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

I've never received any sanction or editing restrictions of any kind on Wikipedia, btw. Thanks, all. 172.58.41.183 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, actually: felt comfortable enough updating the paragraph by copying relevant-to-this-article content (very nearly) verbatim from the lede of the Mueller Report article. 172.58.41.183 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Some notes

On December 1, 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI,[59] and is yet to be sentenced.

Is lying to the FBI a criminal offense? Shouldn't this be perjury? (E.g. he lied under oath.) Guywan (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that this is, in fact, a criminal offense. Guywan (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In mid-December 2016, when Trump "was openly feuding with American intelligence agencies", Kushner met for thirty minutes with Russian banker Sergey N. Gorkov, "whose financial institution was deeply intertwined with Russian intelligence" and is "under sanction by the United States". By late May 2017, the meeting had "come under increasing scrutiny" by the Senate Intelligence Committee, as "current and former American officials" said "it may have been part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to establish a direct line to Mr. Putin outside established diplomatic channels."

Who is being quoted here, and why? I think we can do away with the quotation marks. Guywan (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a clear consensus against moving to the proposed title, however, this closure is without prejudice to speedy renomination with the alternative target proposed by MelanieN, which may attract consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials → Links between Trump associates and Russians – Dropping "officials" makes sense, as the contacts included many types of Russians, most of whom were not officials. This does not change the scope of the article or any change of content but brings the title into harmony with the existing content.
The current title sets up a false expectation that Trump campaign members' contacts with "officials" were the only things investigated, when, in fact, their contacts with numerous Russians were investigated, from oligarchs, Russian FSB and GRU agents, professors, politicians, businessmen, etc. BullRangifer (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose – The current title is indeed not ideal when looking at the full gamut of people who have been scrutinized. However, switching from "Russian officials" to "Russians" would also be wrong, as many of those people are not even Russian (Georgians, Ukrainians, Soviet-born Americans, etc.) Also, the "Russian officials" theme has been so prominent in sources from the past 3 years that dropping it now could be construed as noncompliant with our sourcing policy, and may be puzzling to our readers. I think that a broader discussion is needed on the scope and titling of this article. — JFG ^talk 10:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• I Oppose "Russians" but I also don't like "Russian officials". Most of the Russians involved were not specifically "officials" but rather people (ostensibly private citizens) who had some kind of connection to the Kremlin. That seems to be how things work there. How about "Links between Trump associates and Russia"? That would include business dealings and Russia-sponsored Ukrainians and Russia-born Americans and pretty much all of the people mentioned in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but then the current title also leaves out non Russian players. Not really sure what to do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like MelanieN above, I propose Links between Trump associates and Russia. Reason being: It's more inclusive. IMO, no ideal name exists to summarise all this data. (WP:TPS) Guywan (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• JFG, I can see your point. Since the title should describe the contents, I suggest we work backward by examining the contents and then creating the title. It appears that the article isn't just about any type of "links", but about links between Trump associates and foreign nationals which are being investigated by the FBI. Going from that, how about something like this?

• FBI investigations into links between Trump associates and foreign nationals

Will that work? I know it's a bit long, but we have longer titles around here and it describes the essential elements of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I think the scope should be reviewed first, and then a better title can emerge. If we start calling this "FBI investigation", it's also very limiting in scope. Let's wait for comments from other editors. — JFG ^talk 00:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Lateral thinking: broader scope?

Seeing the difficulty to find an informative and correct article name, perhaps that means the article scope should be adjusted to match everything that connects Trump with Russia. A lot of the material here is already repeated in other articles, such as Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, Trump Tower meeting, Manafort trials and Mueller Report, plus the biographies of Manafort/Page/Don Jr./Papadopoulos/Cohen/Stone/Kushner/etc. Perhaps this article could just shrink to an overview of the various "Links between Donald Trump and Russia", which would point readers to each relevant article without going into too much detail. As it stands, this article is not limited to Trump campaign members on one side, or to Russian people, let alone officials, on the other side. The real subject matter is "Trump … Russia, connect the dots". I think the broader theme of links between Donald Trump and Russia would be consistent with the minutious and longstanding RS coverage of everything that may be construed as a Russian liability for Trump. — JFG ^talk 00:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Clinton campaign involvement

Where is the Wikipedia Clinton Russia collusion page? Her campaign actually paid & suborned Fusion GPS & Steele for oppo dossier. Markvrb (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You may find relevant content at Trump–Russia dossier. Opposition research, as performed by Steele (the DNC and Clinton campaign did not know he was hired or what he was doing until much later), is not collusion with Russians. It was done in spite of them.

From the article:

Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those 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."[312]

Jane Mayer referred to the same meeting and contrasted the difference in reactions to Russian attempts to support Trump: When Trump Jr. was offered "dirt" on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," instead of "going to the F.B.I., as Steele had" done when he learned that Russia was helping Trump, Trump's son accepted the support by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it..."[10]

The Trump campaign actively sought and accepted help from Russians, while Steele immediately took his information to the FBI.

Joe Walsh, a conservative and Republican, on Twitter:

• "24 hours later, I want to thank Robert Mueller for his testimony yesterday. He reminded all of us that Donald Trump asked for help from Russia, Trump got that help, Trump used that help, Trump lied to cover up that help, and then Trump obstructed the investigation into that help."[11] twitter.com

Unlike Steele (and anyone in the Clinton campaign), Trump has declared he would accept offered help from the Russians, and that he feels no obligation to report it to the FBI.[12] So who is it that still intends to collude with the Russians? The answer is pretty obvious.

If you have content from RS relevant to your concerns, please provide those sources here, along with the wording you'd like to include. Let's look at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I put this into a conspiracy theory category which was subsequently removed. As of now, this definitely falls into that category. I would maintain:

• A conspiracy theory is that which is claimed but not (yet) proven.
• A conspiracy theory can be partially based on a grain of truth.
• A conspiracy theory does not have to be wild, outrageous or out there.
• A conspiracy theory will often contain elements which can't be proven.

The Russian electoral interference claims fall into all four of these categories. I have no doubt that at least some of the accusations are false, but that since "Reds under the Bed" type paranoia is back in style, they will try and make them stick. (If there is a conspiracy in US politics, it is to exclude third parties from election.) However, there may be some Russian interference at some level (grain of truth - notwithstanding the slightly embarassing irony that Americans themselves have frequently interfered in other countries' elections).

The Russians are blamed for everything these days including home grown problems. Trolling is blamed on Russians, and that claim is being used to enable internet censorship. But the idea that the Russians cause everything is a conspiracy theory.

Oh and by the way... I'm not a Trump supporter. Can't stand America's binary politics. Not Russian either!!! Copying this to discussion page.-31.84.101.248 (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It is an established fact that the Russian operatives under the direction of Putin interfered in the US election. It is also an established fact that there are links between several Russian officials and several Trump associates. This is documented with citations to trusted sources in this article, and dozens of others.- MrX 🖋 11:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW It is also an established fact that there are links between several Russian officials and several Clinton associates, yet this claim would be solidly considered a conspiracy theory. Both fit the same definition, it's either a conspiracy theory, or not a conspiracy theory. The question is are there sources that can attest to the moniker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I second this. It is literally a theory (by the "conjecture" meaning of the word), which has now been disproven, regarding a communication between two people to commit an unlawful act (which is the definition of conspiracy). Not calling it a conspiracy theory is a lie. Mathguyjohn (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Before you edit any controversial articles, please familiarize yourself with out policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. - MrX 🖋 23:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Your policies are blatantly obvious: it's considered a "point of view" when you disagree with it, but not when you agree with it. If Wikipedia is still calling spygate, which actually has supporting evidence, a conspiracy theory, then the collusion story, which now has zero supporting evidence, most definitely is as well. Mathguyjohn (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm very serious about understanding and following our policies if you are going to dive into the deep end of editing politically controversial articles. There is no shortcut like "I just know it's true". I would tread carefully if I were you.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

And investigation has led to charges (related to interference) and has stated Russia interfered, it fails almost all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. What needs to be pointed out for one campaign must be pointed out for the other. Both campaigns were infiltrated by Russian bad actors. Markvrb (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence from RS that the Clinton campaign was "infiltrated by Russian bad actors"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ohr documentation of links

This is from an unreliable source (Washington Examiner), so we can't use it, but what they mention might pop up in more reliable sources, and then we might be able to use it:

"The newly-released emails show Bruce forwarded himself a spreadsheet sent by his wife titled “WhosWho19Sept2016.xlsx” on December 5, 2016. The spreadsheet listed 80 different people and groups — many affiliated with Russia — who Nellie and Fusion GPS were tracking, and purported to show “linkages” between at least 40 of them, and Trump and his family. Bruce provided this list to the FBI.
"Those scrutinized by Nellie and Fusion GPS over their “linkages” to Trump included global businessmen, lobbyists, and figures with alleged ties to Russian organized crime and intelligence."

Editors should keep their eyes open for RS coverage of this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Bruce Ohr? X1\ (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

"This is from an unreliable source (Washington Examiner), so we can't use it," Clarification on why WE is a reliable source? source for said allegations? Milanbishop (talk)

See our article Washington Examiner. Guy (help!) 21:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Milanbishop, also see its listing on Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES. X1\ (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The list clearly indicates that there is no consensus on reliability (and thus no determination) and it's allowed to be used as a source, in absence of 'better' sources, if claims are verifiable.

Washington Examiner, in it's article, relies on primary source material provided by Judicial Watch, which is perfectly verifiable, and a lot better than the anonymous sources (officials, people familiar with the matter) we are used to, and have no objection to, just because they written by WaPo or NYT.

Also, pretty interesting how almost no sources on the right of the political spectrum (except for FOX) are listed as reliable.

Wikipedia shouldn't be an echo chamber. This particular WE article is just good reporting, substantiated with primary sources. Milanbishop (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Milanbishop; There is going to be "echoing" in all directions of the Left–right political spectrum (and those that might not fit into this oversimplification bidirectional line, too), just as there is in the non-virtual world.

Note: It is important to avoid false balance. Note: Judicial Watch is an activist group. Note: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and remember the Wikipedia:Five pillars.

If you can find and use a more credible source, you can avoid the Wikipedia:LIKE argument; if not, attribute the source so the reader knows the bias of the source.

Because you find something pretty interesting (appears to be sarcasm) doesn't mean it isn't reality. We depend on wp:RS not wp:OR to build wp. You may find User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here with its RSs a useful read. The Wikipedia:RSP table is very far from complete. For example, it is missing much from the Newspaper of record list. You can start a discussion to potentially added a source to the table at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Just my two cents, X1\ (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"2016 Section" cites an unreliable source is and pushing NPOV

This section reads like a tabloid paper and is sourcing GQ (not a reliable source per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Gamasutra)-

During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strong leader, leading to jokes about their "bromance".[27][28]

The other source Washington Post does not use such language either or mention this in the article but discussed a phone call between Putin and Trump (quite normal and occurred under Obama). Moreover, the language used is simply not fit for an encyclopedia and is NPOV.

On various occasions from 2013 to 2015, Trump has said regarding Putin, "I do have a relationship with him", - where does it say that in the AP article? It only states he stated that he has a relationship with Putin once in 2013 during an interview on NBC for Miss Universe Moscow ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skPjMdSe2Mo&t=49s ), which by the way journalist asks: Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin, his party or anything you feel like you have sway or influence over his government? NOT with Putin specifically

"I met him once", and "I spoke indirectly and directly with President Putin, who could not have been nicer". However, from 2016, during Trump's election campaign, Trump's stance changed. During a press conference Trump claimed, "I never met Putin, I don't know who Putin is ... Never spoken to him", and during another interview Trump said, "I have no relationship with him".[29]

This section is missing vital context since in the video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhy-xQbQ14s ) Trump is discussing the fact he was on 60 minutes with him and met him and gained a relationship through both being invited on a news show (60 minutes). He also states that Putin though was invited to the Miss Universe did not show up (therefore we know he was not present there).

There must be mention of this context that the only time he has confirmed their paths met was on 60 minutes. Clearly this specific situation is different than it is being presented, that is as if Trump denied meeting him in some clandestine fashion out of fear of being caught in the now-debunked allegation he personally colluded with Russia.

I will wait for the editors to chime in, but if no one has any issues with it I will be expanding this section to include this context as it's even mentioned on the source used as citation.

Pformenti (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pformenti: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources does not say GQ is unreliable. GQ is not mentioned. Actually read WP:RSP before using it, because it is not a comprehensive list of all possible sources, just ones that have been repeatedly discussed. The closest thing to an organized discussion regarding GQ had a clear consensus that it's reliable.

The WaPo article literally says "During the campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Putin as a strong leader".

As for this AP piece, read the rest of the article. The section you have a contention with is the best possible summary of lines six through fifteen. That you have missed that suggests the problem is not in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: until GQ is nominated and mentioned as a reliable source it's best it not be used for an encyclopedic article particularly when it calls Trump's relationship with Putin a "bromance". By your very own logic, any magazine/tabloid/press journal is fair game as a source just by virtue of nature it not being listed on reliable sources. Editors are allowed to question the reliability therefore of GQ since it is not listed and must first be nominated showing a clear consensus to be kept as source material for this section. Washington Post does not mention anything regarding a "bromance", we should stray away from colloquialism/slang like this in favor of more academic terminology backed by WP:RSP.

Incorrect, the AP article makes no mention of several occasions of him stating he has a relationship with Putin 2013-2015 as I have explained to you. Please show me where it mentions that in the article and refrain from personal attacks.

Pformenti (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pformenti: Since you apparently refuse to actually read the AP article:

Trump was asked whether he had a relationship with Putin in a 2013 interview with NBC taped in Moscow ahead of that year’s Miss Universe pageant.
“I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today,” said Trump, who used to own the beauty contest. “He’s probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form. But I do have a relationship with him.”
___
Late-night night host David Letterman asked Trump during a 2013 interview whether he had a relationship with Russia ahead of the Miss Universe pageant.
“Well I’ve done a lot of business with the Russians,” Trump said, before being asked whether he’d met Putin personally.
“He’s a tough guy. I met him once,” said Trump.
___
During a May, 2014 speech in front of the National Press Club, Trump described having been in Moscow recently, “and I spoke indirectly and directly with President Putin, who could not have been nicer.”
___
In a 2015 interview with conservative talk-radio host Michael Savage, Trump was asked again point-blank whether he’d ever met Putin.
“Yes,” Trump said. “One time, yes. Long time ago.”
“Got along with him great, by the way,” Trump added.
Trump said he’d met numerous Russian leaders when he’d been in Moscow for the pageant.
“I got to know so many of the Russian leaders and the top, top people in Russia,” he said.
___
Trump’s story began to change during the campaign. At a Republican primary debate in November 2015, Trump said he’d gotten to know Putin “very well” during a joint television appearance.
“I got to know him very well because we were both on “60 Minutes;” we were stablemates,” Trump said, adding that they’d done “very well that night.”
Trump and Putin had appeared on the same episode of the news program, but Trump’s segment had been taped in New York; Putin’s in Russia.

That is a description of multiple times from 2013 to 2015 that he claimed to have a relationship with Putin. If you refuse to see that, then I'm not making a personal attack when I say the problem is on your end and not in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Realized an edit I made didn't go far enough

I've only edited an article once before years ago and just made one again, but I should've gone further actually.

I changed this sentence:

"In particular, they noted that Paul Manafort had hired Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a "Russian intelligence officer," and that Kilimnik was probably the source of the leaks and hacks."

to

"In particular, they noted that Paul Manafort had hired Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a "Russian intelligence officer," and that Kilimnik was possibly the source of the leaks and hacks."

Changing the word "probably" to "possibly" because the article referenced said:

"The Senate committee said it also obtained information that suggested Kilimnik was possibly connected to the Russian intelligence service's 2016 hack and leak operation."

But I should've changed it more exactly to the source material. Possibly "the source of leaks and hacks" has different implications than possibly being CONNECTED to leaks and hacks. I guess I can wait and make the further change, but just wanted to be open about my regret about not changing it a little more — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyDigtl (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

1RR violation and edit warring

Neptune1969, this edit restored disputed text, and is thus a violation of the 1RR provision of DS for this article. It is also edit warring as it does not follow BRD and ignores that the text is disputed. If you immediately self-revert, I won't report you to a drama board.

My edit summary was clear, so your question is puzzling, as it's easy to read: "POV opinion/conspiracy theory content based on unreliable sources." We don't include disinformation from Russian intelligence as fact, especially when sourced to unreliable sources. Fox News and Andrew C. McCarthy are unreliable sources for political content. McCarthy is a pusher of conspiracy theories. They both report the "news" as if the Russians were right, rather than reporting it as Russian disinformation designed to denigrate Clinton and aid Trump. Instead of doing that, we use RS and, if it has enough weight, report it as the Russian disinformation that it is.

That you spammed this content to three different articles is also problematic. That you reverted my deletion of that dubious content at the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) article (and added more content at the same time) is also problematic, and you should also self-revert there. I will leave a comment similar to this one at that article's talk page. Pinging Muboshgu and GorillaWarfare for their input. If I'm wrong, I will happily apologize. -- Valjean (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that this is a violation of the BRD restriction on this page. I also agree with your concerns about the edit—it is poorly sourced and appears to be presenting a fringe view as the mainstream view. I have reverted the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that the DNI sent a letter to the United States Senate asserting that they had intelligence. The letter itself cannot be used as a source, because that would make it original research. The addition of two separate articles in news publications -- even if opinion pieces -- corroborates that the letter existed, and therefore its inclusion is not primary research but the addition of a widely acknowledged fact. How about removing the block of text that you found inappropriate rather than removing all of the stylistic edits as well that improved the readability of the article?Neptune1969 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Neptune1969, if you had RS which commented on the matter, you'd have a case, but we must never use unreliable sources and conspiracy theorists to justify inclusion of dubious content. When RS can be used, we should document their take on it, which will be a narrative that is usually opposed to the view found in unreliable sources. We do not give false balance between true and false views here. We take the view found in RS. We are a mainstream encyclopedia.

This is not Conservapedia. That you found disinformation to be true is very troubling. Please stop reading unreliable sources. If you don't want your POV to be challenged, and if you want to feel more comfortable, you can edit at Conservapedia, as they favor using the sources we and fact-checkers consider unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. Their connection to reality is very tenuous and flimsy and is tailor-made for those living in a right-wing disinformation bubble.

The stylistic edits are another matter. If you stick to them, you can try them again if they are guaranteed to be uncontroversial. -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that there are other links to primary source materials on this page. I will link to the letter directly, then, since the link is to a webpage of the United States Senate and no one has removed those direct links in the past on this page. The fact of the letter existing is indisputable, though the content itself is debatable. You are making borderline ad hominem attacks in your comments here in suggesting that my somehow adding the fact of a letter is somehow my endorsement of a political side. Stick to the subject, not me. My opinions are irrelevant--facts alone matter. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, and multiple sourcing on facts confirm the existence of indisputable actions (such as the sending of a letter) that help those editors who come along later when more information is available.Neptune1969 (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the proposed context and wording for inclusion of the letter? (I assume it's this one.) Also what secondary RS would accompany that inclusion? They will help to establish its due weight. Since this article is under DS sanctions, let's work this out on the talk page first. -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

News about Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

There is some news about the links between Trump associates and Russian officials: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-has-new-intel-manafort-friend-kilimnik-gave-trump-n1264371 and "Trump Collusion Exposed In 2021: Mueller Vet On Revealed Kremlin Link | The Beat With Ari Melber" --Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead Section

Lead section is too long and confusing. Proposing chopping the whole third paragraph from "The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017...all way to..."Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" off the lead section and potentially moving it elsewhere...maybe creating a separate section "Media coverage" or something. The whole paragraph is detailed and confusing. Any thoughts? Kolma8 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

From above. This is the part of the third paragraph that should be removed:

Two...

In congressional testimony the following June, former FBI director James Comey, regarding the report by the New York Times, stated “in the main, it was not true”. The Times reported that during the intervening months, its sources continued to believe the reporting was "solid." In July 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee released notes taken contemporaneously with the Times report by FBI Counterintelligence Division chief Peter Strzok indicating his skepticism about the Times' reporting, writing, “We have not seen evidence of any officials associated with the Trump team in contact with [intelligence officers]" and "“We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” Despite this, the Times still stood by its account, claiming that the released notes did not provide a fully accurate representation of Strzok's knowledge. CNN reported on March 23, 2017, that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

This content was placed in the lead, creating a much larger lead than necessary. This violated LEAD in several ways: It was too detailed for a lead; it lacked necessary context for a very complicated matter, and what was used was misleading; it had not been covered in the body of the article, so on that ground alone it had to be removed. That's firm. It's also a COATRACK violation. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I took a chop on the lead section. All the information was retained, but some of it was moved under different sections. Kindly ask to provide any feedback... Kolma8 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Good work. -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Jeff Sessions section

I read the Jeff Sessions' section and don't understand why Jeff Sessions is in this... He met with a Russian official while he was a senator and then what? Mueller report found nothing on this. So, what is the link between Sessions and "the Russians officials"? I recommend removing this section altogether as this already covered ad naseaum in here. Kolma8 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote and link so we don't need to enlarge the section. It seems fine as it is at one paragraph. I suspect the reason it ever became an issue is that he denied having contact. If he had originally been honest, there would have been no issue. -- Valjean (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sessions' purported contacts with Russians are one of the reasons he recused himself from the investigation, and as such have pretty significant consequences. I would say that section should remain. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Cohen

Now, about Michael Cohen... What link does he have with the Russians officials? The section fails to mention any. Delete the section? Kolma8 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Essentially what we have now is that Cohen was Trump's personal lawyer who was questioned and... The section does not outline any links... Kolma8 (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is what it is. People listed here don't have to be "guilty" of any crimes. This description is pretty innocuous, which is nice for him. Maybe we should develop the section with all his work with Russians for the Trump Organization. Trump Tower Moscow is just one project, and there were others. Keep as is for now until we develop it more. -- Valjean (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There are no links mentioned between Cohen and Russia - his section should be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised the section doesn't mention Cohen's contacts with Dmitry Peskov about Trump Tower Moscow well into the campaign.[13] soibangla (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this section should be developed, not deleted. Cohen was Trump's fixer and hand in many situations, including contacts to Russia and business dealings. When Trump couldn't travel, Cohen did it for him, and Trump made many trips to Russia, so Cohen may have made even more. He cleaned up (that's what a fixer does) after Trump, seeking to cover-up evidence of embarrassing things. He tried to track down the alleged pee tape, so he was worried. If he thought Trump was innocent, he wouldn't have been doing that job. He also paid off porn stars and mistresses. He is an expert at making bad things disappear. That was an important part of his job, and that's no secret. RS have revealed a lot. He also helped with legal contracts and negotiations. I don't know how many trips he made to Russia and other eastern bloc countries, but it must have been quite a few. Russian matters were just one aspect of his work, but it was part of it, so develop this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter W. Smith

The same as above with Cohen and Sessions... What links Smith had with Russian officials. Yes, it is mentioned that he tried to contact some Russian hackers...but nothing about Russian officials. Also, was he really a Trump associate? As a reminder, the name of the article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. We need some clarity here... Kolma8 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

He "tried to contact some Russian hackers". There you have it. That's pretty serious, and is one of the most direct instances of an attempt (successful or unsuccessful?) at actual "conspiracy" and "collaboration". His actions go beyond collusion. Merely receiving information would be collusion, but actively seeking it out is collaboration, and when kept secret equals conspiracy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean...But did he has a proven and verifiable link between him and the Russian officials, which is the title of the article. I think the answer is not. Thus, he does not belong here. Kolma8 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with removal. There were no links between Smith and Russian officials. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

His links to both Trump and Russian officials are tenuous. Remove. soibangla (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the feedback. Kolma8 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Too few opinions?

That tag was added by Kolma8, and I have no idea what it's about. There is no discussion or explanation of that tag's addition, so it's improper and I'm going to delete it. Tags, especially generic and unspecific ones like that, are generally ignored and serve no other purpose than a mark of shame on the article. They only serve to damage Wikipedia's reputation, and that's unhelpful and disloyal. They don't move toward a resolution. OTOH, specific and targeted discussion here is what works best. So what the heck is that about? Let's fix this alleged problem, whatever it may be. -- Valjean (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Renaming the article...maybe?

I would like to gather some opinions on whether the name of the article is appropriate? Maybe I am a word literalist ;) and the word "Links" is not sitting well with me. I even looked at the MW dictionary for the definitions and was not satisficed. Any thoughts? Kolma8 (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Trump campaign's ties to Russia? I'm happy with the status quo, but that's an option. -- Valjean (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Google search: Trump campaign Russia contacts

Current lead: "The investigations have revealed that a number of them had various types of links to or contacts with Russian officials, business people, banks, and Russian intelligence agencies." -- Valjean (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet, again and again -- to @Mr Ernie's point -- the Mueller investigation found no evidence of Trump's collision with Russia and that "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”. Kolma8 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Collusion" is the wrong word for you and Mr Ernie to use above. Mueller excluded "conspired" and "coordinated" (which he treated as synonyms), which are not the same as "colluded" and "cooperated". There is a huge difference.

I hope you'll choose your words more carefully in the future. It's okay to say "found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination", but it's wrong to say that Mueller said "no collusion". He never said that. He found many forms of collusion, but used other words for it. At Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination, he describes it this way (in the footnotes):

Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion'. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud[e]' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."

Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: "In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Note this: "We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Bolding added. Those bold words describe what the Trump campaign did, and would fall under the word collusion, which is not a legal term. The links between Trump campaigners and Russian agents and officials did happen, and there as no legitimate reason for it to happen. That's why they did it secretly and lied about it. -- Valjean (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

My searches turn up widespread use of "contacts", "links" and "ties". Some sources tally them. I recall one RS had a tally of over 200 contacts. Keep in mind that most of them were secret and lied about. -- Valjean (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government on the matters of the 2016 election. Kolma8 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have the source and URL for that? I was responding to your words above: "the Mueller investigation found no evidence of Trump's collision with Russia..." That puts words in Mueller's mouth. Above Mueller is quoted:

"In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud[e]' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation."

He recognized that the word collusion was thrown around a lot, and often misused in a confusing manner, so he limited his investigation to clearly criminal behavior, "conspiracy" or "coordination" (which he treated as synonyms). -- Valjean (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The link you use above quotes Trump as saying no "collusion" and uses the word in its clickbait title. This shows how carelessly the word has been used. It's safest to use Mueller's words when describing what he didn't find. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Kolma8 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8, have you done any more thinking about renaming this article? My searches turn up widespread use of "contacts", "links" and "ties". We need an umbrella term that covers the subject, without being tied to one exact term that must always be used in sources. That extremely focused type of article tends to exclude valuable information that is clearly related to the topic, and that's a bad approach to article writing. -- Valjean (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean, I have not. Bluntly speaking, I think the article is very weak at its best. It seems secondary (or may be a better word, as a derivative) of all of those investigations and BLPs, it is almost a corollarium of some kind. We have here FBI investigation; we have Trump's quotes about Putin, we got here media bombs; we have here Trump's campaign staff; we got here his personal lawyer; we got here a UK politician who met with Trump and "previously" (when???) met a Russian official; we got a Russian dude, whose father is an oligarch and the former worked with Trump and the latter financed someone, and either the son or the father (it is hard to understand) stayed in one of the Trump's hotels during Trumps' inauguration; we got a businessman, who might do something, but maybe not. And oh yeah... we have an overview and timeline of the "links." What a mess!!! I think this article need a major overhaul or even a WP:TNT instead of trying to find a proper word to describe what are we really trying to provider her for our Wiki Reader... I really don't know... Kolma8 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts, @Soibangla@Mr Ernie, an my above acrid rant :) ? Kolma8 (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reagan also had links to Russians thru Gorbachev. Kennedy thru Khruschev. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Jaygo113, what are you trying to imply? Did they lie about and try to hide those links? Did they secretly exploit them to aid their election chances? Did they have illicit and secret contacts with proven Russian intelligence agents which they kept secret from the American people? Did they lie to the FBI about them? Did they ally themselves with Russia over America? Did they believe Russian intelligence and disbelieve American and European allied intelligence agency findings? Were they trying to cultivate lucrative business deals in Russia and would do anything, including aiding Russian military efforts to attack and destroy American democracy, to avoid offending Russian leaders in a way that might jeopardize those deals?

What are you really trying to say about Reagan and Kennedy? No one has ever questioned the nature of their perfectly normal diplomatic contacts with Gorbachev and Khruschev or their allegiance to American interests. To my knowledge, you are the first one to imply anything improper about those links. -- Valjean (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Content unrelated to subject was deleted (and restored)

I deleted some content that seemed unrelated to the subject matter, even though they might seem tangentially related. It seemed a COATRACK violation. We need to be more strict. This is not the article where this content is covered best. It is covered elsewhere much better. Here are the THREE paragraphs I deleted, so comment at the right spots:

One...

On September 16, 2021, Grand Jury indicted Michael A. Sussmann, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney with making false statements to the FBI in 2016 regarding alleged communications between Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, an allegedly Russian Government-linked financial institution. The indictment alleged "that researchers were tasked to mine this internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” that would tie then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to Russia." It is further alleged that Sussmann falsely stated "he was not bringing these allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client", even though he "coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign in these efforts". The FBI ultimately found no sufficient evidence to support the allegations of secret communication between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank and thus Robert S. Mueller III did not use the matter in his final report to the Justice Department on March 22, 2019.

This content was not related to the subject of the article. Sussmann is not a member of the Trump campaign, nor did this kerfuffle accuse any member of the Trump campaign with wrongdoing. It's a different issue and doesn't belong in this article. It is covered elsewhere in a much better manner. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• • You might be right, but I would like to hear a few more opinions of other editors here as well. I think it is relevant as it undermines the whole notion of Russiagate. If that doe snot belong here where should it go? Kolma8 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Also while we on the matter of the subject of the article... This article is about the links of the Trump associates and Russian officials, right? Why would then we have the whole section about Trump himself expressing his opinions about Putin/Russia? Here Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials#2016_campaign...is in it a classic case of Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#All_About_George? Kolma8 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Trump's relationship/links to Putin is very much on-topic here. He is the "king" of all "Trump associates", so to speak. It would be odd to leave him out. -- Valjean (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Valjean Do you have anything to substantiate your claim of the "king" of..."? Or is it just your personal opinion? Kolma8 (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • That was sarcasm. Trump would obviously be included in "Trump associates" as he's associated with himself. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
          • @Valjean Which part of your comment was sarcasm? Kolma8 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
            • "King". He's no king, although he's a kingpin, definitionally the boss/leader, and thus most important figure, in "Trump associates". It would defy logic to exclude him from the equation, and investigators have understood this by including him in their investigations. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Two...

In congressional testimony the following June, former FBI director James Comey, regarding the report by the New York Times, stated “in the main, it was not true”. The Times reported that during the intervening months, its sources continued to believe the reporting was "solid." In July 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee released notes taken contemporaneously with the Times report by FBI Counterintelligence Division chief Peter Strzok indicating his skepticism about the Times' reporting, writing, “We have not seen evidence of any officials associated with the Trump team in contact with [intelligence officers]" and "“We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” Despite this, the Times still stood by its account, claiming that the released notes did not provide a fully accurate representation of Strzok's knowledge. CNN reported on March 23, 2017, that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

This content was placed in the lead, creating a much larger lead than necessary. This violated LEAD in several ways: It was too detailed for a lead; it lacked necessary context for a very complicated matter, and what was used was misleading; it had not been covered in the body of the article, so on that ground alone it had to be removed. That's firm. It's also a COATRACK violation. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• (1) I agree that the Lead is too long. (2) See below my two cents about WP:COATRACK and WP:CHERRYPICK. Kolma8 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Kolma8, would you please self-revert this one? It is a complete violation of LEAD and also bloats the lead. I'm not sure how it could be integrated into the body in its present form as it is a much more complicated issue that is written in an abbreviated manner here and is thus misleading. Right now it should be deleted. -- Valjean (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Three...

In January 2021, an FBI agent, Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced on a probation for intentionally altering an internal FBI email and creating a false record in order to seeking a court's permission to continue government surveillance of former Trump campaign official Carter Page in 2016 and 2017.

Yes, this content is "related to the surveillance on Page," but we cover Page to the degree necessary for this article. The inclusion of this content here violates COATRACK. It's not necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• We can't first make a statement earlier in the Page section as below:

"Page was dropped from the Trump team after reports that he was under investigation by federal authorities. The FBI and the Justice Department obtained a FISA warrant to monitor Page's communications during October 2016, after they made the case that there was probable cause to think Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. Page told The Washington Post that he considered that to be "unjustified, politically motivated government surveillance." According to the Nunes memo, the 90-day warrant was renewed three times."

And cannot mention that the basis for surveillance was fabricated by an FBI agent, can't we? Kolma8 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Also kindly would like to remind you that WP:COATRACK is an advisory essay not a set of rules that can be "violated." Secondly, lets try not to WP:CHERRYPICK the facts here. Kolma8 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  * here is about WP:COATRACK essay:

  This is an essay.

  It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Kolma8 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The surveillance of Page is covered in his bio and is not relevant to the links established and documented here. Clinesmith's actions do not undermine the findings about his links to Russians, links which Page is proud of.

BTW, the words "and creating a false record" should be stricken. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean, BTW, that should be left along, or replaced with "false statement" as "Mr. Clinesmith acknowledged that his action met the criteria for an illegal false statement because the original text did not contain the phrase that he added about Mr. Page." The sources is here. Mr. Clinesmith also said, "...I am agreeing that the information I inserted into the email was not originally there, and I inserted that information." Also please read here: "Mr. Clinesmith pleaded guilty last year to making a false statement, he acknowledged that he had intentionally altered the email and created a false record." And here: "Clinesmith pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement ..." Kolma8 (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant explanation! I wasn't familiar with the phrase "false record". False statement is probably most understandable to readers, so why don't we go with that? Go for it. Oh, I see that you. Good. There is one problem with that wording. It makes it sound like two separate offenses. I'll tweak it. Feel free to improve that, if necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "basis for surveillance was fabricated." Clinesmith's letter was not the only "basis" for the FISA warrants but did contribute. Originally, the FBI had accumulated evidence of many suspicious actions by Page and were at the 50% mark of deciding whether or not they had probable cause (FISA warrants have a low bar for establishing probable cause) to seek a renewed FISA warrant (he had previously been the subject of a FISA warrant in 2013(?)). Then the Steele dossier came along. Since the independent evidence from CIA sources confirmed what Steele had found, it provided them the needed 1% "push over the edge" (thus a central factor) to cause them to actually do it. That's where Clinesmith's letter came into the picture. A lawyer had to make the application.

As to Clinesmith's actions? Clinesmith and Sussmann likely do deserve some form of punishment. Clinesmith's punishment was very lenient, likely because he had no intent to deceive, but fixed what he correctly saw as the wrong use of the term "source" (it has different meanings). Carter Page had held himself out as an activated CIA asset/source, when he was nothing of the kind (he was merely a passive sub-source they could question), and Clinesmith actually corrected that false impression, but he did it in an improper/unauthorized manner and was rightly punished for doing so. Sussmann's errors might actually be more egregious because he may have wasted the FBI's time. Time will tell. -- Valjean (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Since the independent evidence from CIA sources confirmed what Steele had found..." uh, source? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That was clumsily written. I didn't mean to imply that all dossier allegations were confirmed. Definitely not! (Also, it might have been the FBI's sources, not CIA's, because it was the FBI that sought the FISA warrants.)

When the FBI finally received the first dossier allegations, quite a while after the Russia investigation was started, they accepted the dossier as something worth investigating, partially because they already had their own, independent, evidence from their own sources which, when compared with some of the dossier's central allegations (especially that the Russians were supporting Trump and interfering in the election, and that Trump knew and accepted), found that the dossier agreed with their own evidence. Thus, when they later filed for FISA warrants, they didn't need to depend on the dossier. They just folded it in as an addendum and depended on their own evidence to justify seeking the warrants.

"The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia." The FBI already had plenty of evidence. I don't remember, but I think it was McCabe or Strzok, who said their own evidence was at about the 50% tipping point (51% was needed to make the final decision), and the dossier just pushed them over the edge to make that decision. Before that they were wavering. What they had was not quite enough to give them confidence to immediately file the application.

When the dossier came along and showed that others had discovered the same things they already knew, that gave them the confidence to file for a renewed warrant. (One could say that the amount of evidence didn't radically change, but their confidence in the evidence did change.) The allegations in the dossier were not used as the primary basis for filing the FISA warrants. In his testimony before Congress, Glenn Simpson "confirmed that the FBI had sources of its own and that whatever the FBI learned from Steele was simply folded into its ongoing work."[14] The role of the dossier in getting the warrants, even if it were only the seemingly small 1% needed to tip the scales, is variously described as a "central" or "essential" "role". Note that the FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary and appropriate to include material in this article which falsely alleged improper connections between Trump and Russia and has subsequently been debunked. Links between political campaigns and foreign actors are quite commonplace, often necessary, and are usually harmless. As we all know, Mueller conclusively investigated and found no sort of collusion, collaboration, or cooperation which could be charged. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If what you say is true, it would indeed be necessary to include such material. Unfortunately what you seem to imply doesn't match the facts.

Mueller wasn't able to find "conspiracy" and "collaboration", possibly because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation. He did find multiple examples of what could be folded into a "collusion" narrative: Trump's his campaign's invitation, welcoming, cooperation, lying about, secrecy, failure to notify the FBI, use of unofficial communication devices and encrypted messaging apps, destruction of evidence, obstruction of investigations, praising and never critizing Russia, denying the Russians interfered, doing nothing to stop the interference, etc.

Be careful with your words. Mueller only mentioned "conspiracy" and "collaboration". He did find plenty of collusion and myriad improper links.

Which "improper connections" were "falsely alleged" and "subsequently debunked"? Links between campaigns and foreign actors are not that commonplace, and never before of this type. Contacts have previously happened, but not help from foreign actors, especially from actual foreign agents. It is very illegal for a campaign to accept this type of actual foreign help.

The contacts were serious enough, already in 2015, to have alarmed multiple foreign intelligence agencies. They were watching potentially treasonous behavior by Trump campaigners. Keep in mind that already in late 2013 (Trump's Miss Universe trip to Moscow), Trump and Russians were discussing his plans to run for president, and some Russians then (early 2014) publicly expressed their intention to support him. This was before any Americans knew of such plans from public sources. Trump's Russian and American allies knew. Already by 2014, the Russians started their hacking, and by 2015 Trump campaigners were meeting very secretly in multiple European cities with known Russian agents, agents who were under observation by European intelligence agencies.

Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern".

Then, in April 2016, they received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". The Dutch also reported how they watched a group of Russians hacking the DNC.

The New York Times also reported that British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries, and that U.S. intelligence had overheard Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, talking about contacts with Trump associates. Some Russian officials were arguing about how much to interfere in the election. Then cyber attacks on state electoral systems led the Obama administration to directly accuse the Russians of interfering.

Because the CIA is not allowed to surveil the private communications of American citizens without a warrant, the CIA and FBI were slow to react to these revelations.

In September and November 2015, the FBI warned the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that one of their computers had been hacked and was sending information back to Russia. On March 19, 2016, the Russians gained access to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails. Then an unwitting revelation by George Papadopoulos revealed that he knew, seven weeks before the FBI, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign did not reveal this to the FBI, but the Australian ambassador did. It was this revelation which started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

In sworn testimony, Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen stated that Trump knew in advance that WikiLeaks would leak the hacked Democratic emails. Trump also repeatedly praised and thanked WikiLeaks and publicly asked the Russians to find Hillary's emails. Russian officials began efforts to hack her server and the Clinton campaign servers "on or around" the same day as Trump's request.

So let me ask again, which "improper connections" were "falsely alleged" and "subsequently debunked"? Don't try to say there was no cooperation, collusion, or improper links. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Continues in next subsection. -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources

The three issues

which "improper connections" were "falsely alleged" and "subsequently debunked"? - the 3 we are talking about in this thread that you started. It was alleged that a Trump owned server was in secret communication with a Russian bank. That was false and brought to the FBI by a political operative working for Hillary Clinton probably for the purpose of stoking this media fire. There was a NYT story alleging improper contact which Director Comey called not true. And finally there was an FBI lawyer who altered wording in a request to spy on an American to try to find a link between Page and Russia which wasn't there. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, thanks for the clear reply. Let's look at each issue:

1. Yes, the "Alfa Bank backchannel" issue should be mentioned. It was a very short-lived allegation (BTW, unlike what some believe it, was never touched by the Steele dossier). Currently we don't cover it, only mentioning it in connection with Sussmann, not in relation to the coverage it had at the time. He comes at the end of the story as a revelation. Feel free to propose some form of paragraph on the subject.
2. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "story alleging improper contact which Director Comey called not true." Please refresh my memory.
3. That has been restored, so we do cover Clinesmith's misdeed, and with many RS:

"In January 2021, an FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced on probation for intentionally altering an internal FBI email in connection with a FISA request to continue government surveillance on former Trump campaign official Carter Page in 2016 and 2017.

The mention of Clinesmith has nothing to do with Carter Page's proven myriad suspicious and lied about links, and are thus not related to any supposed "falsely alleged improper connections between Trump and Russia". That's why I felt that should not be mentioned HERE, as such mention feeds into the false narrative that there was no good reason to be suspicious of Page's actions. There was plenty of good reason to surveil him, especially because he and the Trump campaign lied about his actions and relationship to the campaign. Read: " Why Carter Page Was Worth Watching. There’s plenty of evidence that the former Trump campaign adviser, for all his quirks, was on suspiciously good terms with Russia." and "Revisiting Carter Page and the Rosneft Deal".

Valjean (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) @Valjean I am a bit confused about your statement below: "Trump and Russians were discussing his plans to run for president, and some Russians then (early 2014) publicly expressed their intention to support him. This was before any Americans knew of such plans from public sources." If "some Russians then publicly" supported Trump then how it could be that no Americans "knew of such plans from public sources"? At least since 1988 and for sure from 1999 Trump mentioned his intent to run. See here and more at Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Background.

And what is wrong with "some Russians" (assuming private citizens) expressing their intention to support Trump? Hillary Clinton said on record during her 2016 campaign. "I am already receiving messages from leaders ­– I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump." She also mentioned that at least one world leader offered support publicly. Kolma8

The contacts with foreign figures are troublesome, but not illegal...unless of course there is funding of the candidates involved. Kolma8 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

To answer this, I'd have to get into forum territory, so I just copied your sig from below and placed it here so I could answer here. I hope you don't mind. I'll then copy this to my talk page where we can continue tomorrow. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think it will go beyond the matters of this article, so I don't want to get our focus away from improving this article. Again, respectfully I am just making a point that verifiable content trumps the content that just wallops. Kolma8 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(2)@Valjean, your comment... You wrote: "Mueller wasn't able to find "conspiracy" and "collaboration", possibly because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation. " I assume it is your position, so please keep to yourself... The main narrative that is shared on WP is "(T)he Mueller Report...concluded that though the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference and expected to benefit from it, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges against Trump or his associates. The report did not reach a conclusion about possible obstruction of justice of Trump, citing a Justice Department guideline that prohibits the federal indictment of a sitting president." This is it. The rest is your position and that goes against WP:VNT, specifically "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." The job of WP editors is not be truth-finders WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, but add a verifiable content. Kolma8 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am careful how I edit. I've been here since 2003 and my wordings and fingerprints are still in a number of our most important policies, so I'm not a newbie who adds "what I believe" to articles without any RS. Conversation on talk pages is allowed a bit more freedom. RS tell us that Mueller provided abundant evidence of obstruction, but punted the issue to Congress. The Republicans chose to ignore that evidence and didn't convict Trump. That's what our articles here tell us, and they are based on RS. I have no opinions on that subject that I didn't get from RS.

My use of "possibly" refers to the fact that we don't have concrete evidence of a "conspiracy", and also shows my doubt that such a thing exists, but if it did exist, the obstruction succeded in allowing us to really know. I really doubt that there ever was a real oral or written conspiracy, just all the elements we associate with collusion related to the Russian interference: invitation, welcoming, cooperating, aiding and abetting, lying about, facilitating, encouraging, not preventing, preventing intelligence agencies from doing their jobs, etc. There is plenty of evidence in RS about those things. Some are not illegal, and others could be. It all depends. I believe it was illoyal to the American people and American security interests, and, because it was partially a Russian military cyberattack (an act of war) carried out by our enemies, aiding such efforts may well fall under the American definition of treason, but that's just me. Don't worry, I won't put that in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Coincidentally invitation, welcoming, cooperating, aiding and abetting, lying about, facilitating, encouraging, not preventing, preventing intelligence agencies from doing their jobs is also more or less what the Clinton campaign did through its engagement of Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. Paying foreign actors and working with them to generate opposition research, some of it fake and incorrect, lying to the FBI about motives, wasting the FBI's time chasing down fake leads, etc. There is no evidence that Trump's "successful obstruction" prevented Mueller from reaching a charging position. In fact, saying Trump successfully obstructed the investigation is undoubtedly a BLP violation. It is much more likely that there was simply nothing to charge. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, there is a huge difference between what the Trump campaign did (illegally accepting "something of value" to their campaign from a foreign power) and what the Clinton campaign did (performing legal opposition research, something all campaigns do). You really should read our articles on these subjects and the RS used. It's all there.

There was also a huge distinction between their motivations and actions: "Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give." Trump's actions threatened national security, while Steele found worrying information and immediately acted to protect national security.

This aid from Russia applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations, and the Trump campaign did receive cash from Russians. Remember that, while foreign intelligence agencies were surveilling Russian agents/spies who were secretly meeting with Trump campaigners, in April 2016, they received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". That was a conversation about the Trump campaign. There is also the NRA-GOP pipeline of money where Russian money was given to the NRA, and then whitewashed into campaign contributions to the GOP and Trump campaigns.

About campaign contributions and opposition research....

The legal status of the dossier relates to FEC laws forbidding foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns, and that applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations. The dossier and the 2016 Trump Tower meeting are frequently contrasted and conflated in this regard. At issue is the legal difference between a campaign expenditure and a campaign contribution.

Philip Bump has explained "why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't": "Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined."

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution") to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump squashed the fairly honest press release prepared by Donald Jr. and Kushner and issued a very deceptive press release about the nature of the meeting.

The very act of keeping such transactions secret from the FBI immediately made all the Trump people involved vulnerable to Russian blackmail and they have been considered a huge security risk. Trump would never be able to properly get a security clearance as he is considered by many to be a domestic threat. George Takei put it well here. Trump should have immediately gone to the FBI, as Steele did, but he didn't because his loyalties are with Russia and Steele's with America.

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if performed by foreigners.

Bump explains that:

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.

Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those 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."

Jane Mayer referred to the same meeting and contrasted the difference in reactions to Russian attempts to support Trump: When Trump Jr. was offered "dirt" on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", instead of "going to the F.B.I., as Steele had" when he learned Russia was helping Trump, Trump's son accepted the support by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it ..."

About obstruction by Trump and his campaign...

Don't be so naive as to think that the Trump campaign's destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, lying, refusal to testify and produce documents, use of encrypted cell phones and apps, secret backchannel communications with Russians, etc. had no effect on Mueller's ability to gather evidence. It obviously did, and many Trump people were indicted and convicted (and later pardoned by Trump). Mueller documented all of that, and that was part of the evidence of obstruction he punted to Congress, and the Senate GOP ignored it and refused to convict Trump at his impeachment.

Mueller described some of the obstruction: "Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony."[15]

As a result of the missing evidence, Mueller wrote that his office "cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report." Sean Hannity even (jokingly) advised Mueller targets to smash their cell phones.[16]

The Mueller investigation was weak and never really finished. Mueller caved to the time constraints imposed by Trump and didn't use his powers to subpoena and imprison these people to force them to produce evidence, unlike what happened before Nixon's impeachment. The two Special Counsels were very different. Trump seems to be Teflon (search that phrase!) -- Valjean (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Valjean, I, once again, would like to remind that we are not to find truth, but create a verifiable content in accordance with WP philosophy. And again -- to @Mr Ernie's point -- the verdict of Mueller investigation is that there was no evidence of Trump's collision with Russia and that "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” yet we still have an article that named Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials. Kolma8 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean And by the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Those are all verifiable content pieces about the matter IAW WP style/philosophy/guidance. Kolma8 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What are?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8, as has been explained to you, it was "conspiracy" that was not proven, not "collusion". Be careful with your choice of words. Mueller excluded "conspired" and "coordinated" (which he treated as synonyms), which are not the same as "colluded" and "cooperated". There is a huge difference. It's okay to say "found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination", but it's wrong to say that Mueller said "no collusion". He never said that. He found many forms of collusion, but used other words for it. He found multiple examples of what could be folded into a "collusion" narrative: Trump's and his campaign's invitation, welcoming, cooperation, lying about, secrecy, failure to notify the FBI, use of unofficial communication devices and encrypted messaging apps, destruction of evidence, secret contacts with known Russian intelligence agents, obstruction of investigations, praising and never criticizing Russia and Putin, denying the Russians interfered, doing nothing to stop the interference, telling the Russian ambassador that he didn't mind the interference, etc. Mueller found plenty of collusion and myriad improper links. -- Valjean (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Deletion of subchapter

@Slatersteven @Soibangla deleted an entire subchapter without any prior discussion because he does not understand it relevance to this article... his own words: "can someone explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?"

Firstly, he should have taken it to the discussion prior to deleting the entire section. Secondly, the information the content is related as it is in regards of the sources of Steel dossier, that in turn was did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page in terms of establishing FISA's low bar for probable cause. So, it is directly contributing to the article content. Kolma8 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Soibangla said that, I have changed your wording above. That means your original ping did not serve its intended purpose. -- Valjean (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, "can someone explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?" were my words, which was your cue to follow BRD and get consensus on Talk. You didn't, instead you edit warred. soibangla (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No I deleted it because you were wp:editwarring and it is down to you to make a case for inclusion (per WP:ONUS). The fact you are not even aware of who said what means you are not in fact reading the reasons people are reverting this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

So what you need to do is address the question "Explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?".Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Are you being bluntly ignorant now? Read above... Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see no section above where your edits have consensus. What I can see is a section above where (for a number of months) this content has been challenged. And no I was not aware this has been debated for this long, I can't know everything said on this talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8 does not need consensus to boldly add content. And we don't need to rush to the talk page to get consensus for every single addition, especially when it's obvious that it should be in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, if I understand this correctly, the issue is not the addition of content but about the deletion of contested content. Bold additions and deletions of content are okay, but then BRD starts working, and a reversion (whether an addition or deletion) of content should not be reverted, but dealt with by discussion. Also, when an editor knows that the content is potentially controversial and/or has been contested, they should not act boldly anymore. Bold is for what is thought to be uncontroversial content. (Any resistance then makes clear that bold no longer works.) Instead, Kolma8 ignored edit summaries and edit warred, so whether they were right or wrong about the worth of the content, their reaction was improper. I hope that makes some sense of the situation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I was not the one who reverted them but once they had been reverted (and told why, as they had been) it was down to them to get consensus and not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not necessarily controversial, as it is quite well sourced. There's no emergency BLP issue. You can also make your case as to why you are reverting it via talk page discussion. The only issue would be is it DUE here and that doesn't necessitate an edit war, by either side. This is not a particularly good article, and is a catch-all for all kinds of topics. I mean half of the Jared Kushner section is about his contacts with a banker. Wilbur Ross owns shares in a Russian company (where's the official?). I bet if you looked into the Clinton campaign you would also find political insiders who had been involved at some point in their career with a Russian. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Moreover this [[17]] is new content, not discussed above. So you should not have added it back. As I said, I was reverting your edit waring, nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - Why did you reverted only my edit? It was multiple edits in this article done at the similar way as my contribution, but you only reverted mine. Kolma8 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Because I saw you do it, I saw you add back content that had been contested without discussion. I have not seen anyone else do that, maybe they have, but if so I have missed it. So stop making this personal. Stop making this about me and explain why the content you added today was relevant, make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's going to be a sub section of this article called Steele Dossier, then it is obviously relevant to include the updates about Danchenko. It is critical to include this material because some of these alleged links now appear to have been fabricated by democratic operatives. I support inclusion of this:

On November 4, 2021, FBI indicted Igor Danchenko, an associate of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and the key source of "a series of salacious and largely discredited reports about former President Donald Trump and Russia" known as Steele Dossier. Danchenko was arrested on five counts of making false statements to the FBI "relating to sources for the material he gave a British firm that prepared the dossier." The false information contributed by Danchenko became part of the FBI's foreign intelligence surveillance warrants on Carter Page. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of conflation in that, perhaps stemming from a syllogistic fallacy:

• The dossier included stuff about links to Russians
• Danchenko was involved with the dossier
• Therefore, Danchenko was involved with stuff about links to Russians
• Moreover, there's a Clinton guy involved, so...Hillary did it! soibangla (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You’ve almost got it. The dossier mentioned links to Russians. That information was of dubious origin. We should point that out and describe how the source of some of that information was arrested for lying. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just not in this article. In Steele dossier and John Durham#Indictment of Steele dossier source soibangla (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we should remove mention of the Steele dossier in this article, because if so, there's an entire subsection about it. If not, it needs to be expanded to note that the primary source has been arrested for lying about information he provided to Steele. This really shouldn't be controversial. On a side note, can anyone with access to the Independent confirm the first part of this sentence is properly sourced - "The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations, while Trump denounced it as fake news." The source - link - is behind a paywall for me. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we should remove mention of the Steele dossier Of course not. I believe I've adequately drawn the distinction between specifically what belongs and what doesn't. soibangla (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, yes, but not this article. Also, some of the "links to Russians" mentioned in the dossier are not dubious, but confirmed by Mueller and Crossfire Hurricane investigations. The latest news about Clinesmith, Sussmann, and Danchenko do not undermine the findings of Russian interference and myriad illicit and secret links between Trump campaigners and Russians. That information is solid and untouched by recent events. That evidence was built from other sources than the dossier and Danchenko. The dossier was a curiosity that only affected the FISA warrants on Carter Page and never was a serious part of the other investigations. They were able to corroborate some aspects of the dossier, in particular its main finding that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians./>

There are fringe/contrary views that posit that so-called "Russiagate" was a failed conspiracy and witch hunt against Trump and Russia, but those views are still right-wing fever dreams and conspiracy theories found only on unreliable sources. Your comment you edit warred over at Jack Posobiec revealed why such sources should not be trusted. ("So go with the latter." (IOW reject RS and believe unreliable sources) was horrible advice.) -- Valjean (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you write: "...The false information contributed by Danchenko..." Your source does not justify saying "false". That is yet to be established firmly. It may, or it may not. He lied about who he got the info from. The info may be true or not. Protection of sources is normally a legitimate concern that justifies obfuscation, but not when talking to the FBI. That's where he went wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How about we add "alleged?" Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Then remove mention of the Steele Dossier from this article. Or we can add the blurb that the primary source was indicted from lying. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, we'll certainly add that if and when it becomes relevant to this article. The parts of the Steele dossier mentioned here are very relevant to this topic. -- Valjean (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant now. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As I asked, which sources actually say that the evidence he provided to the dossier was called into question? If it was only one then we can't put it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? NYMag, NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, and NPR, for starters, have all run stories that the main source of the dossier was arrested for lying to the FBI about the dossier. Either we make it clear here that the Steele Dossier was deeply flawed and show how, or we remove it as irrelevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was, and I note one or two of those do not seem to stay more than he was used as a source, not that it casts doubt. But this is enough for something like "Doubt was cast onto the accuracy of the steel report with the arrest of..." and that is about it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course Danchenko's indictment was widely reported, but has it been reported that it specifically relates to links between Trump associates and Russian officials? I don't see that. I note that the content I removed also included the Sussmann indictment, which clearly doesn't belong here. So I get the sense there's some conflation going on here (which is quite common) because many consider Durham their last hope to prove Trump was right all along, so they are eager to use any indictment he makes to connect dots that have no business being connected. Maybe Durham will drop a bomb before he's done, but we're not there yet, and I don't see major conservative media figures connecting the dots like this. I'm not aware even Hannity is running with this narrative. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Simple question, do RS make the link?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph about how a blog characterizes the Steele Dossier as it is irrelevant to the main topic and not how the thrust of RS characterize that document anymore. Additionally, I have removed the opinion of an Atlantic Writer as irrelevant to the topic of links to Russian officials. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And it's already been removed. Slatersteven, please show how these two paragraphs are either accurate or relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

We cannot discuss two things at once, so please raise your new concerns in a new section.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References