Talk:Mueller report/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This article needs citations from the report, not Barr

A superb effort is ongoing on Wikisource to put up the report: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_On_The_Investigation_Into_Russian_Interference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election - and I encourage those who have time to help out. For this article there's currently (and perhaps naturally while everyone's still reading it) an over-reliance on newspaper articles, which may or may not be misleading. There's also a lot about the Barr letter: this is completely misleading. It shouldn't be in the introduction at all, and I suggest we move the section of his spin down into the reaction part. It's a story in itself. For instance, Barr stated that Trump not being charged with obstruction was unrelated to the constitutional position of him being President at a press conference. That was simply wrong and everything in the letter is geared towards Trump being able to falsely claim "no collusion, no obstruction". On the contrary, for the reason below, the Report establishes the evidential basis for both.

Within the conspiracy (aka "collusion") section, you'll see from the report on pages 187-188 that the reason Donald Trump Jr was not questioned or charged was because of a requirement in US law of "willfullness" which in turn is said to mean that one must know one violates a law (i.e. ignorance of the law is a defence). This is crucial. In most other countries (and in many US state laws) a charge of criminal conspiracy doesn't depend on knowing that what you do is unlawful. This is why people are starting to talk about Don Jr being (pejoratively) "too dumb to jail". But even under US federal law, it's completely unclear why Mueller didn't question Don Jr (they say they didn't want a protracted battle to question Trump himself) which could've given evidence that Don Jr knew he was doing something wrong. See further here by Richard L. Hasen: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/donald-trump-jr-mueller-report-campaign-finance.html

It's also worth noting that after page 188 the next section is blanked out: my suspicion is this is about Trump inviting Russia to hack emails. But for now, I wanted to raise these issues because this is obviously going to be a controversial page. That's why it's also critical to be scrupulously accurate, and remove misinformation generated by Barr and certain media outlets.

Wikidea 10:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Crazy idea from me. Could the Barr letter get its own article? Then we can throw all/most information about it away from here and in that article. Were the Barr summary faithful to the report, it would be a non-story. But it wasn't (the Mueller report had executive summaries for both Volume 1 and 2, and Barr didn't use them, God knows why) so here we are. starship.paint ~ KO 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I support the idea of a separate article for the Barr letter. Micronor (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikidea - if I don't rely on newspapers, what do I rely on? We haven't yet confirmed the report as a reliable source on WP:RSN. starship.paint ~ KO 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure - a separate article for the Barr letter seems very sensible. Newspapers can definitely be good - I didn't mean to suggest otherwise - but I'd also be quoting from the report itself alongside (with links to the Wikisource pages as they come up, in the footnotes). Great work so far, btw. Wikidea 11:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - it was a team effort though. Okay, yes, source both report and secondary source. I did that in the lede, but not in the body. But I think Aviartm did do that in the body. Hopefully editors can follow suit eventually. As for Barr letter, we can throw the whole section of Mueller report findings compared to Barr letter in this article into there. starship.paint ~ KO 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to treat the Barr letter as a very different topic and move its discussion primarily into some faraway place. The letter is a major part of the story of the report. The Barr letter is how the public and Congress learned what is in the report, and almost a month went by before anything further was available. By the time the redacted report document was released, some degree of attention fatigue had already set in. The letter is about the report (not about anything else), and it is fundamental to the story of the report and its reception. I think the Barr letter should be discussed in the lead section of this article. Of course, the authoritative document about the report is the report itself, not Barr's letter about it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment – Barr's four-page letter is not some kind of material independent of its own. The four-page letter is completely dependent on the report. Secondly, in areas which the special counsel did not reach a conclusion, such as obstruction, per DOJ Policy and law, that decision goes to the Attorney General. All of this information is expressed in the article. So yes, this page does not information from Barr's four-page letter because it derives its information from the report. It loops back. Aviartm (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - Secondly, in areas which the special counsel did not reach a conclusion, such as obstruction, per DOJ Policy and law, that decision goes to the Attorney General. All of this information is expressed in the article. - is it really? I think we only have Barr's word for it. Could you show me where it is justified? Seeing how sources interpret that Mueller was punting to Congress, I have trouble believing that he was leaving it to Barr. starship.paint ~ KO 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sure. Keep in mind, however, we talked about this already here. Check the last paragraph in lead and in Barr letter. Aviartm (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - we talked about Congress, never about Barr. The part I am skeptical of is The Special Counsel's decision ... leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Is this substantiated in law according to a secondary source? Our article just quotes Barr, yes we know he said that, is anyone else confirming that it is true in law? starship.paint ~ KO 02:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: "he [Mueller] is required under the regulation to provide me [Barr] with a confidential report." As previously mentioned, a special counsel does not serve Congress but the Justice Department. And whether Congress and the Executive wish to do whatever, that is where our checks and balances come into play. At Barr's press conference he said;

""I would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense...We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."

As Barr mentioned in his four-page letter: "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." Aviartm (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - everything you mentioned is from Barr. I just want someone to say it who isn't Barr and isn't quoting Barr. Frankly, these comments by Barr, especially the baloney in your second paragraph, are exactly why I want a separate article. I feel that Barr's actions in the aftermath of the special counsel investigation deserve its own article. starship.paint ~ KO 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: If you can find the law, go ahead. And we don't need an article exclusively about an Attorney General's actions after an investigation. It's not that Barr is lying whatsoever. "After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions..."; this would be a good place to look for. And there is a hierarchy in the system just like any other government agency. The boss in the DOJ is the Attorney General.

I did find this however in the report:

"This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."

Since the special counsel exclusively reports to the Attorney General, the Attorney General has the general say in things. That is why Barr had the right to conclude whichever way on obstruction .Aviartm (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm nah I don't have the time to look up the law, plus I might not understand it anyway. The last quote you mentioned though, just says provide the report explaining decisions. It's a bit of stretch to from this point only infer Barr had the right to conclude. starship.paint ~ KO 03:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint If you like, you can read all of the statutes here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600. All statutes except 28 CFR § 600.5 - Staff and 28 CFR § 600.10 - No creation of rights, mention what authority the Attorney General has. All the statutes are short and concise. Aviartm (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Aviartm - I read the all the 10 parts you provided. The only thing I see being of the nearest relevance is The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action ... a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. So if the counsel says pursue this and the AG says no pursue, the AG can, with explanation to Congress, do so. But if the counsel says "no conclusion", can the AG say "conclusion"? It's not stated. starship.paint ~ KO 03:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Starship.paint Good point. Remember though, the special counsel serves the Attorney General, no one else. "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." However, as 28 CFR § 600.9 says: "The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -...(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation." If the Attorney General, I think, said "yes" when a special counsel report says "no" and the Chairman and Minority Member of the House and Senate Committees notice this discrepancy, they will probably call for impeachment. However, this is not what we are talking about. I think it is some policy within the DOJ that if a special counsel does not reach a conclusion on a matter it was instructed to investigate, the verdict rests with the Attorney General, or Deputy Attorney General if the Attorney General recused himself/herself. Aviartm (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - I think it is some policy within the DOJ that if a special counsel does not reach a conclusion on a matter it was instructed to investigate, the verdict rests with the Attorney General, or Deputy Attorney General if the Attorney General recused himself/herself. - yeah so I believe it would be best to have a source for that. But since nobody in Congress is about to impeach Barr, he probably could make that decision. starship.paint ~ KO 04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Well, Barr is not going to be impeached, as we speculated, they followed a DOJ policy that gives Barr the right to reach a conclusion on a non-conclusion. And I have not even seen a citation from close to what we have discussed here. I'll try looking. Aviartm (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Barr letter should stay included and cited in this article, it is not a separate topic. It's a major point in the release and forms the concluding judgements or outcomes part from the report. It's also a significant WEIGHT by coverage - and I think we need to stay with second party coverage. I don't imagine we could be citing the report for other than snippets, and selecting what would be WP:OR unless it has WEIGHT of external sources doing the highlighting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Searchable PDF of Mueller report

It annoys me to no end that the government releases locked PDFs that are unsearchable. Here's a searchable PDF from my Google drive that you can download.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1B8g_VwVuD-7nONVVPtdqpjgRQ8NrZvS7

soibangla (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Cory Booker suggested on Facebook that the government did this on purpose to force people to read the whole thing and prevent people from searching it(to slow down review). 331dot (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - a Link to a downloadable PDF version (may not be searchable) (from NBC News), and a Link to an online version (which may be searchable) (from NYT) are noted in the "External links" section of the Mueller Report article as follows:

* Read/Download full (public) Searchable version (PDF); NBC Not-Searchable version (PDF); NYT version (online).

And, more recently =>

* Read/Download full (public) from Justice.gov; Non-Searchable version (NBC PDF); Searchable versions: (NYT online); (Scribd online).

hope these Links help in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm not a fan of using documents with an OCR of unknown source. We already have https://archive.org/details/muellerreport Nemo 14:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The PDF DoJ uploaded was not "locked" it was merely images. DoJ uploaded an OCRed file on April 22, as I noted in the page. However, the original (and replacement) files they posted are of egregiously low quality, and are not accessible, and in fact, not even fully searchable, even with OCR. Is this a worthy note for the page? Duff Johnson (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We should link to the most easily searchable file and not to the DOJ's file which obstructs access to the Mueller Report. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The post April 22 PDF from the justice department *is* searchable. There are some accessibility problems with it, but it is the official version and since it can be directly traced to the source it is the version we should use, per WP:V. - Paul^T+/_C 06:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Broken cross-references

This edit by Nableezy caused broken cross-references to cited sources "auto1", "auto3" and "auto4". Could someone please review that edit and fix the problem? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixing. nableezy - 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is spelled out in a guideline anywhere or not, but I've found it is generally safer to refer to references in the lead that are actually defined and spelled out elsewhere in the article. That is to say use <ref name="ImportantReference1" /> in the lead and <ref name="ImportantReference1">{{cite whatever|...}}</ref> in the first use of that reference after the lead. Just something to think about in the future. Thanks for fixing it! - Paul^T+/_C 22:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It rarely takes more than a few hours for a bot to fix problems like this. Zero^talk 12:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

true, but I should have gotten it in my edit. nableezy - 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report is not a "primary" source

There's a note in the intro to the text asserting the Mueller Report is somehow a "primary" source, not a secondary source. Wherever this idea comes from it's wrong. The Report, like a journalist reporting a car crash in a paper, is a *secondary* source - and obviously so. The interviews Mueller did (recorded in various footnotes) or the legal sources it cites (but not law reports) are primary sources. The Report records what has happened based on research. This is fundamental to any credible understanding. There is, therefore, no need for tertiary journalism about the report in footnotes - although that may well be desirable. Wikidea 16:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There was rough consensus to call the report a primary source at WP:RSN#Mueller Report. — JFG ^talk 16:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, "Primary" does not mean "bad" — "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We can say that the Mueller Report is a secondary source characterizing its subjects -- Russian intervention, obstruction, etc. And it's also, itself, an influential document, and is a primary document about itself, and there are secondary sources about it. I'm with the editors above in thinking that it is a good and reliable source to cite, and I would oppose people pushing it out because it's sometimes primary. -- econterms (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Even if the report was a secondary source (which it isn't), it would still be a primary source in relation to itself. Berlin: The Downfall 1945 is a secondary source with regard to the capture of Berlin. It is still a primary source in relation to itself, on the article about itself. GMG^talk 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal Framework

I posted about this above, but I think this deserves its own, separate discussion.

The legal framework of the report is very important to understand in order to make any kind of conclusion or have any kind of understanding of what the report says. With that in mind I think there needs to be an explicit section on this point very early in the article. Ideally, it would come before any mention of Barr's comments since they were made while he knew about this framework. I think it can work as a level 3 section under Impetus for report, but it could perhaps also go as its own level 2 section between Impetus and the Barr comments.

This section will explain how Mueller went about the investigation from a legal point of view with regard to how to investigate the president without being able to indict him. This was discussed here in other, earlier sections like #Potentially useful NYT quote - Mueller's reasons for not charging Trump with obstruction and I think a lot of the back-and-forth discussions about the lead and its length were about this point.

I have to track down sources that discuss this specifically (perhaps they are already in the article?), but my understanding is that, for a number of reasons, Mueller could not indict the president and nor could he conclude that he committed a crime. As such, he setup the report to only allow one conclusion (a one-way street) - whether Trump was "not guilty" of two particular crimes - conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Regarding the latter, he was not able to reach that conclusion and so Trump was "found" not "not guilty" of obstruction. I don't think this hypothetical future section needs to get into the conclusions, but it should setup the different possible outcomes based on the framework:

• Not guilty of conspiracy and not guilty of obstruction ("total exoneration", which did NOT happen)
• Not guilty of conspiracy and NOT not guilty of obstruction (this is what I believe is in the report)
• NOT not guilty of conspiracy and not guilty of obstruction (unlikely to ever have been a possibility)
• NOT not guilty of conspiracy and NOT not guilty of obstruction (worst possible outcome for all involved)

Continuing the one-way street metaphor. In one instance (conspiracy) Mueller was able to reach the end of the street ("not guilty"), in the other (collusion) there 10/11 obstacles that prevented Mueller from reaching the end of the street (NOT "not guilty").

Does this make sense? Again, there needs to be sources to support all of this but I'm reasonably confident that they exist, it is just a question of giving the framework the proper weight and emphasis in this article. I know I'm missing things and I'd really appreciate any help in getting this added. - Paul^T+/_C 13:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs to explain Mueller's constraints before it can explain what he did and did not conclude. This bothered me on the first sentence of the third lede paragraph ("Vol. II") that has the quote that appeared in Barr's letter: "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, [and] it also does not exonerate him." It feels rather misleading to start the paragraph with the (almost tautological) statement that This report did not conclude something that legally it was precluded from concluding. For the legal framework, we could make a section attached to "impetus" that explains the limitations, legal authorization, and the investigatory scope of Mueller's mandate.-Ich (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ich:, how's this for the lede? Simple swap. [1] If we find a source saying that's his legal framework, we can even say so in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 14:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Thanks, looks good. I think flows a lot better.-Ich (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Glad to help, I'll go swap it on Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) as well. starship.paint ~ KO 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the lead (note, not "lede") glossed over some of this and the change above by starship is miles better, but I still think this needs to be fleshed out more in the body of the article. - Paul^T+/_C 22:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: - is much of the legal framework already in Mueller Report#Obstruction of justice, second paragraph? You mention conspiracy, but isn't the legal framework only in Volume II, which is obstruction of justice? I'm not sure whether the legal framework is mentioned in Volume I. That said, Mueller does clearly conclude did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference (obstruction of justice paragraph one) so Trump's cleared on that point, and Trump's clearly not exonerated on obstruction. starship.paint ~ KO 14:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Also, does the 'collusion / conspiracy / coordination what definition is used' stuff go in legal framework? It's already in the article. starship.paint ~ KO 14:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No, an explanation of the legal framework is not currently present in the article. The closest is what you are talking about in the obstruction section:

On obstruction of justice, the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, [and] it also does not exonerate him". Since the special counsel's office had decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment", they "did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct". The report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime", as investigators decided "not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes". Investigators did not charge Trump with a crime, for two main reasons: Firstly, the investigation abided by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion written in 2000 that a sitting president cannot be indicted, a stance taken from the start of the investigation. Secondly, investigators did not want to charge Trump because a federal criminal charge would hinder a sitting president's "capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct", with a footnote reference to impeachment. Even if charges were recommended in a secret memo or a charging document sealed until Trump's presidency ended, the information could still be leaked. In addition, the special counsel's office rejected the alternative option of accusing Trump of committing a crime without bringing a charge. Investigators felt that this alternative option would be unfair to Trump, as there would be no trial in which Trump could clear his own name.

But that does not have the emphasis it should for something this significant - Mueller couldn't find guilt on any charge/item raised to the investigation, they could only find absence of guilt ("not guilty") OR the absence of the absence of guilt (NOT "not guilty"). What I'm talking about is a discussion and explanation of the framework directly as it relates to the investigation broadly and not just with regard to specific charges or specific claims made in the report. The framework that Mueller set up applies to the entire report, not just the obstruction section. It isn't as important in the conspiracy section because Mueller was able to get to the end of that one way street he setup, but the street was still there in that section. (Also, I'd argue any conclusion drawn from the report should only do so with the legal framework of the report in mind.) For an example of why this is important, in this diff (thanks by the way, I think I wrote the comment in the lead asking for something on this in the body) Barr completely mischaractarizes what the report says about the OLC opinion, while technically being accurate in the statement itself. [H]e was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime is accurate, but has a completely different meaning without knowing that because of the framework (which includes the OLC opinion, but has other major considerations as well) he couldn't find a crime. If the legal framework is explicitly described, there is less room for that kind of mischaracterization to happen.

Again, I need to find better sources that discuss this, but I wanted to get my thoughts on it down to see if others felt similarly or had other resources that can be helpful. - Paul^T+/_C 21:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• This seems an unsupported framing, not a valid paraphrase of the report nor a dominant or common view. While you might find some dozen loose supports among thousands of analysts about, the framing seems WP:OR because it’s being worked out instead of simply being dominant in coverage. The report explains itself — I suggest just ‘follow the cites’ and paraphrase what it says. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 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 section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, per WP:SNOW. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Mueller Report → Mueller report – MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS mandate lowercase. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In the case of legal documents, or government reports, it's the natural convention to have upper case for "Report" - e.g. Starr Report. Wikidea 10:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but Mueller report is not the official title, that's why I think it's a tricky case. Micronor (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. It’s a specific report. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Correct primary policy to use here is WP:NCCAPS not manual of style ones cited in request. There are arguments for both sides. It depends how much the report name turns into a common name. Time will tell. There's no big harm in leaving it as such for now, especially considering precedent with the Starr Report. Usage in the article and references is mixed, too. I suggest not to move for now. Micronor (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I understand the intent and in theory I could be convinced, but I don't think there is currently an appreciable difference in RS between either "Report" or "report" and so the current capitalization should stand. What would be ideal is to have a boader conversation about Starr Report and other similar reports to keep capitalization consistent across all of them, ideally after this report has had enough time to consistently and reasonably definitively establish what the WP:COMMONNAME is (with regard to capitalization). Perhaps 2 more weeks at the soonest? - Paul^T+/_C 17:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The capital R suggests it's an official name, a specific proper noun. Lower-case r is appropriate for the common name. -- econterms (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have Church Report, Ryder Report, Starr Report, Fay Report, and Taguba Report, all of which are known by the last name of their principal author and all of which are capitalized. I'm sure one day the MOS will offer guidance to encourage consistency, but until then, I'd defer to the established precedents.-Ich (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ich. Aviartm (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose also, per Ich above - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ich. It seems the right decision to keep it as is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Mueller Report" is fine and the capitalisation refers to its profound political importance. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. strong oppose per Ich and Psantora, weak oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Mueller Report" is generally how I've seen it referred to, but that could change. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. OR, put quotation marks around "Mueller Report" OR have the page title be the actual name of the report that mueller report redirects to, and in the opening sentence include a "commonly referred to as.." Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ich. Eni2dad (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, would potentially support later if news sources/books continue to use lowercase; I haven't checked, but it would be worth investigating what capitalization news/print sources use for Starr Report, Church Report, Cox Report, Dunlop Report, Eberstadt Report, Fay Report, Hurt Report, Marland report (note arbitrary capitalization difference), Meese Report, Morgenthau Report, Niles and Sutherland Report, Ride Report, Ryder Report, and Taguba Report. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding anchors is not BOLD

@Psantora: Anchors are invisible and harmless. Yes, I accidentally added "press" twice, big deal. An anchor named "analysis" does not in any way interfere with the section named "Analysis" soibangla (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What links point to these anchors? Is there any reason they couldn't use the completely invisible anchors "Analysis" and "Press coverage" instead of "analysis" and "press"? The anchors are "mostly harmless", but not completely free of (small) downsides -they are not invisible in the wikitext. They will confuse future editors and since they point directly to existing section names that can easily be used instead, why not just use the section names? If the section names change then we can add anchors there (in the section names) as we have in other portions of the article. - Paul^T+/_C 22:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC) (For future reference, this section is in response to these three edits between soibangla and myself.) - Paul^T+/_C 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I changed it. I suggest some people need to prioritize their issues. Done. soibangla (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Pending Changes protection?

As the flurry of news following the report's release has calmed down, I suggest removing the Pending Changes protection, which makes work confusing when several editors are working on the article within the same time frame. See prior discussion above and my request at User talk:El C#Pending changes confusing. — JFG ^talk 08:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd support removing protection altogether or "downgrading" to semiprotection (4 days, 10 edits). A couple of IP addresses made quality edits, so I'd lean towards unprotected. There's enough attention on the article that any egregious vandalism would be reverted very quickly.-Ich (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I favor pretty much permanent semi-protection for articles like these. They will always be a magnet for POV pushers and driveby vandals. At the least keep it for a couple of months. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Opinion: The Trump Campaign Conspired With the Russians. Mueller Proved It."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With attribution, there might be something useful here:

• "The Trump Campaign Conspired With the Russians. Mueller Proved It." By the standards of a potential impeachment inquiry, the evidence is clear. By Jed Handelsman Shugerman. Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Fordham.

BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Opinion piece, so not citable. Besides, it’s fringish heavy-left ranting, not quite far-left. There’s a lot more WEIGHT in actual reporting that asserts “No ‘collusion’. No obstruction. Total exoneration.” Middle-right view. Main body or middle area seems for now to be ‘No collusion, no obstruction (barely), lots inappropriate and some despicable.’ (Plus ‘we heard most of this before’). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces are indeed citable, and when controversial we usually do it with attribution. We do it all the time, and we are supposed to do it because opinions are part of the "sum of human knowledge" which we document here. BTW, the "total exoneration" bit is false, you do realize that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett - you’re way off on “no obstruction (barely)”. It’s “no obstruction (we were never going to conclude any obstruction due to our legal framework)”. Suggest you read Volume II, Page 1-5. starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint On the contrary, my statement was simply the fact that there are many reports of the ‘totally cleared’ variety, including a BBC piece I mentioned elsewhere, much greater WEIGHT than a fringish opinion piece. The ones using the word “exonerated” are not so common, but they too are part of the media mix. I think the bulk of coverage is more around ‘no obstruction(barely)’ though, especially if you allow “barely” to include the ones saying ‘on technicalities’ or ‘by AG preference’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment – I have zero idea why you are trying to assert an opinion as fact, per your Talk Page title. Probably just a bad use of words. (E: the title of the opinion piece). And just because evidence "is clear" does not mean conclusion, per Mueller's report on OOJ; concluded by Barr, no obstruction. And we don't need an opinion piece when we have dozens upon dozens of secondary sources corroborating the primary source, the report. People can reach their own judgements by reading the page, not by us feeding them opinions by an author they have never heard of. Aviartm (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

↑ This. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm, I made no such assertion, but to make it clearer, I have tweaked the heading. We use all kinds of sources, and editors may choose to use or reject a source for various reasons. A number of RS would agree with this author and others would not. No problemo. I always find the thoughts of subject experts, such as Shugerman, interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer I have never heard of Shugerman and I think the vast majority of consistent editors of the article page haven't either.

"By the preponderance of evidence standard, the report contains ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government, sometimes through intermediaries, other times through a Russian spy."

Again, per my comment: "And just because evidence "is clear" does not mean conclusion, per Mueller's report on OOJ; concluded by Barr, no obstruction." The special counsel already decided that there was no coordination/conspiracy/collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia and Shugerman is trying to assert otherwise.

And just 2 paragraphs down: "The Mueller report, holding itself to the higher standard, concluded that it did not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal conspiracy with Russia. It also offered an explanation: Lies by individuals associated with the Trump campaign “materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Witnesses deleted emails and used applications with encryption or deletion functions, which also thwarted fact-finding." –––Why is this guy asserting coordination/conspiracy/collusion when 2 sentences later, he contradicts himself? I'm sure the guy is generally knowledgable but we don't need opinion-pieces trying to read a conclusion. And this really isn't a conventional Talk Page inquiry. If you thought this was suitable for the article, why didn't you add it firstly, and if someone contested it, go to the talk page then? Aviartm (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

He's a law professor and thus his opinion would generally count for more than most ordinary authors and journalists. Whether we have heard of him or not is irrelevant.

Let's leave Barr out of this, because it's already been established that his summary was quite misleading. ("Barr, no obstruction"???)

I don't know why you keep talking about OOJ (Mueller: Report 'does not exonerate' Trump on obstruction), when this is about "conspiracy and coordination." Two different things, so we need to stay on-topic.

Shugerman is not contradicting himself, because he's talking about two different standards of evidence.

1. The first is about what actually happened. There is "ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government" using the "preponderance of evidence standard." The Mueller Report does indeed contain plenty of such evidence, even though there was much more he didn't get because of some of the things you mention.
2. The second is what could happen in court. Since Mueller deliberately did not try to create a court case, he didn't pursue many avenues of evidence that could have built an even stronger case, so we may never know if he could have. He didn't interview Trump, Don Jr., or demand more evidence which was withheld, and pursue evidence which was destroyed. What we do know is that, with what he had, he didn't think he'd win in court, which uses the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" evidence burden.

So no one who has read the Mueller Report should claim there was no "conspiracy and coordination" at all. There was plenty of it, but Mueller couldn't use what he had to build a case that he could win (95% guilty isn't good enough), so he presented the "ample evidence" in the Report and left it up to Congress to pursue impeachment if they so choose. There is plenty of evidence in the Report they can use to build such a case, and in Congress, there is no "beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard.

As for this talk page, there is no standard, required, or "conventional" procedure for using a talk page with this kind of stuff. I often, especially with controversial articles and topics, start a discussion on the talk page to see if something is worth pursuing or not. Sometimes it saves a lot of wasted time, and sometimes not. C'est la vie. This avoids lots of disruption and edit warring on the article. I really like to avoid creating anything like that. I'd rather have a good faith civil discussion.-- BullRangifer (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A bit more information related to "conspiracy and coordination":

• The Surprises in the Mueller Report. So what did we really learn about Trump, Russia and the power of the presidency? Some of the nation’s top legal minds unpack the document of the decade. By POLITICO MAGAZINE, April 19, 2019

"The campaign certainly tried to collude."

"It is shocking how misleading and disingenuous the attorney general’s four-page letter,... The Mueller report identifies numerous instances of interactions with Russian nationals—by the Trump campaign or Trump associates—in an effort to gain hacked emails and to coordinate their dissemination. That may not be enough to warrant criminal conspiracy charges, but saying there was no collusion—as Barr did—is brazenly dishonest. The campaign certainly tried to collude." -- Bradley P. Moss is a national security attorney in Washington

Also some remarks about OOJ.

This is an excellent source we can use in this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• !?!?!? It seems pretty absurd to say “let’s leave Barr out of it”, when he by regulation is the one who gets to make the final determination about any DOJ Special Counsel report. And to instead push a fringish opinion piece by a law professor ??? Googling, he has got one minor book (The Peoples Courts) and a blog site, plus co-author in amicus brief for CREW v. Trump which failed, so not just a random lawyer but he is not a noted authority or judge or Congressman or celebrity so no significant authority or power or effect. Other than an UNDUE example that some are still clinging to ‘Collusion’, I just don’t see it as getting notice or worth notice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was only referring to leaving Barr out of this discussion, as that only muddied the waters with his dubious and misleading "summary" of the Mueller Report, which was directly contradicted by the Report.

Speaking of "fringe", even the normally fringe Fox News has some level heads which contradict the other 90% of their messaging (and by "weight", we give weight to Napolitano, Shep Smith, et al, and not to their other 90%):

• Andrew Napolitano: Barr was "wrong" to absolve Trump of obstruction.

Quote: "The president's job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable."

• Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?, Fox News

Quote: "To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes."

Food for thought! -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good points and references by BR. Speaking about facts, yes, of course the officials from Trump campaign communicated with Russian state operatives on numerous occasions to discuss the elections and other matters, as for example, during Trump Tower meeting. Speaking about the Muller report, it includes a very strong case to prosecute someone for the obstruction of justice, as very easy to source [2]. Mueller decided not to prosecute just because that was about the president. Someone else would be behind the bars already. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Can we perhaps stop this thread right here, per WP:NOT#FORUM? Arguing at length over an opinion piece is not worth the editors' time. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotes from the report with redacted content - new template

I went ahead and created (technically re-created, it is originally from Wikisource) {{redacted content}}. It is intended to be used to show the four types of redacted content in the report:

• Harm to Ongoing Matter -> {{redacted content|text={{white|'''Harm to Ongoing Matter'''}}}}
  • HOM -> {{redacted content|text={{white|'''HOM'''}}}}
• Personal Privacy -> {{redacted content|text={{green|'''Personal Privacy'''}}}}
  • PP -> {{redacted content|text={{green|'''PP'''}}}}
• Personal Privacy -> {{redacted content|text={{lime|'''Personal Privacy'''}}}}
  • PP -> {{redacted content|text={{lime|'''PP'''}}}}
• Investigative Technique -> {{redacted content|text={{yellow|'''Investigative Technique'''}}}}
  • IT -> {{redacted content|text={{yellow|'''IT'''}}}}
• Grand Jury -> {{redacted content|text={{dark red|'''Grand Jury'''}}}}
  • GJ -> {{redacted content|text={{dark red|'''GJ'''}}}}
• Grand Jury -> {{redacted content|text={{red|'''Grand Jury'''}}}}
  • GJ -> {{redacted content|text={{red|'''GJ'''}}}}

Please use the above content directly as stated here so that we are consistent in all cases when this tool is needed for content quoted from the report. If there are any suggested changes/updates please feel free to suggest them here as well. Thanks. - Paul^T+/_C 18:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Simply beautiful and amazing! Thank you for doing this Psantora! :) Aviartm (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Psantora May I suggest, purely for readability:

• Personal Privacy -> {{redacted content|text={{lime|'''Personal Privacy'''}}}}
  • PP -> {{redacted content|text={{lime|'''PP'''}}}}
• Grand Jury -> {{redacted content|text={{red|'''Grand Jury'''}}}}
  • GJ -> {{redacted content|text={{red|'''GJ'''}}}} starship.paint ~ 01:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: starship proposed replacing green with lime, and replacing dark red with red. But, the templates started screwing up the bottom half of the page, turning everything below red. So, starship has deleted these templates and replaced them with this note starship.paint ~ - original message made 01:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC) and edit made 06:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC) [Note, I restored the content so the original comment is preserved. There was vandalism done to {{lime}}, which propagated here. Should be fine now. - Paul^T+/_C 13:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)]

@Psantora: beep beep. see above starship.paint ~ 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I prefer the coloring that is the closest approximation to what is in the actually released PDF, but I understand the benefit to increasing the contrast. As of right now it doesn't seem to matter because the only quoted sections that need these templates are for HOM in white. Having said that, if others agree I will not stand in the way of making the colors more readable. - Paul^T+/_C 12:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this violates MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. We also cannot be sure that the colored text will appear as intended on most users' browsers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No offense and I apologize if I am blunt, but your feeling is wrong (unless you mean to point to a different spot?). This template is created explicitly not to violate that guideline. The text is still text, it is just styled text. It is not an image. Maybe I'm misreading something, but if there is something in there that you think is not being followed please point it out explicitly because I do not see it. - Paul^T+/_C 22:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That is indeed text, and the high-contrast versions are quite readable, which is better than mimicking the exact color of the official report, an impossible task anyway. — JFG ^talk 16:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright then,  Done - Paul^T+/_C 23:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - we're trying to make it easier on our readers in using the lighter colours for contrast. starship.paint ~ KO 06:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

[FIXED ISSUE] Did anyone notice that the vast majority of the article and talk page was in red text and could not be edited?

From 'Public release of redacted report' down was the entire page in red ink excluding wikilinks and headers. In Visual Editor, you could not even edit the text as it was restricted from editing. I found the edit to be done by Psantora. Looking at the changes made, it did not look ill-intended, but somehow something went way wrong. The edit was made on April 25, 2019, at 18:45. However, there was 73 edits (from some JFG, Starship.paint, Kitum, Ich, Horacelamd, and Soibangla) made there after. Did no one else notice this whilst editing in Visual Editor or Reading view? Aviartm (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Just recognized after publishing this talk inquiry that the bottom portion of the Talk Page is in red. Why?! Aviartm (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Edited thread title. Aviartm, I have no idea. It starts from the redacted highlighting stuff #Quotes from the report with redacted content - new template It dates back a few days (checking old versions) but it wasn't definitely wasn't red a few days ago. Frankly I think it wasn't red 12 hours ago. Some formatting / display issue with Wikipedia within the last 12 hours? starship.paint ~ KO 06:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - I fixed it. right? starship.paint ~ KO 06:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all good now. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 06:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Great! I realized I didn’t mention it but I did revert Psantora’s edit that triggered it. So it was a formatting issue inherently but whatever Psantora did triggered it? Aviartm (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - no, you didn't fix it. It was still red on my end. I removed text written by me, and that solved the problem. I'm not a tech expert so I wrote stuff in that section not knowing what it meant. So that's my fault, but I strongly believe something changed on the back end at Wikipedia as well, since it wasn't red until recently. I did something wrong (but error wasn't displayed yet) then Wikipedia's formatting somehow changed very recently and the error was displayed. starship.paint ~ KO 08:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Ah. Well, atleast I fixed it somehow because when I reverted Psantora's edit, it went back to normal from what I saw atleast. And reading from the discussion below my comment, someone vandalized. Aviartm (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

So, I looked into this and I'm 99% sure something happened on Wikipedia's back-end somewhere to cause some kind of display issue. When I first was notified of the issue, my first thought was to check if there had been recent edits to the template, but the history is clear: [3]. Whatever the issue was, there was never anything wrong with any of the code written either here or on the article (so don't think you did something wrong, Starship.paint, because you didn't). Did anyone else see this issue? Because I still haven't seen anything first-hand about the issue. (I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but the more context we get the easier it will be to figure out what happened.) Weird, but I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on it? - Paul^T+/_C 13:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Found it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Lime&action=history Someone vandalized {{lime}}. That template should probably be protected... - Paul^T+/_C 13:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Psantora. I was half right, you were totally right! XD starship.paint ~ KO 14:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede and body needs to expand on findings on Russian interference

I believe most will be focused on Trump and his associates' actions, but the Mueller investigation was also crucially about Russian interference. True enough, there is almost no information on Russian interference in this article whether in the lede or the body. Unfortunately, I'm not very informed on this topic, and am running out of time on Wikipedia for now. So just to alert other editors to keep a lookout. starship.paint ~ KO 09:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I read parts of Volume I (collusion part) and it contains quite interesting details of the Russian interference operation. This has understandably gotten less media attention compared to the politically more contentious obstruction of justice part of the investigation. I suggest we have a "content" section structured like the report: Vol 1 (Collusion) and Vol 2 (Obstruction of Justice) Micronor (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have added Russian interference to the lede with a primary source, but it needs recent secondary sources. starship.paint ~ KO 03:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead needs to be more in line with the fact that the report found no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

I know this will make many of the liberal admins unhappy but that is the result.173.166.127.233 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• 173, how do you propose we improve the lede as is? Could you provide some wording? And no, it will not make "many of the liberal admins unhappy". starship.paint ~ KO 01:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I can say I was right in posting this thread, because as far as I can tell, nobody (in 9 days) has been introducing content on Russian interference to this article except me, whether it's been in the lede or the body. Unfortunately, I believe I will be editing Wikipedia much less for an extended amount of time. I will not be able to expand the section Mueller Report#Hacking and release of material. I have no expertise in this topic either. I believe one can easily use this source [4] from Factcheck.org to do it. Good luck and thanks to anyone who will do it. When May comes around, I'll be adding a tag for expansion of that section if it still remains. starship.paint ~ KO 01:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Where does this go? Justice Dpt official describes Barr's reasoning

Which section is this suitable for? The Washington Post, recent report. [5] Anonymous senior Justice Department official gives some rationale for Barr's decision of no obstruction. starship.paint ~ KO 09:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• "All the attorney general was deciding was whether this was a prosecutable offense, and we don’t bring criminal charges at the department unless we believe we can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury," a senior Justice Department official said,
• Regarding the Lewandoski episode, The senior Justice Department official said bringing a prosecution on those facts would have been complicated because the obstruction “relies on multiple people in a chain all doing something,” including Lewandowski delivering the note, Sessions being persuaded by it and then Sessions moving on the special counsel. “That’s a very attenuated chain,” the official said. “It’s even more attenuated given that the note isn’t even an order.”
• Next, The Justice Department official said prosecutors would have had to prove not just that Trump wanted to shut down the investigation but that he did so with corrupt intent. The official said there was some evidence that Trump wanted to end the investigation because of the effect it was having on his presidency, rather than to cover up another crime, and noted that Mueller did not conclude Trump coordinated with Russia to interfere in the election.
• Lastly, The Justice Department official said the special counsel’s report, though, was not in conflict with Barr’s ultimate conclusion. “The special counsel never decided whether this is a prosecutable case, so there’s no conflict between the attorney general’s decision that it’s not and the special counsel’s report,” the official said. starship.paint ~ KO 09:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Either Reactions if it was after the fact and the DOJ was expounding on things or under Barr's section of the article I'd say. Aviartm (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - yes it was after the public release, so I'll put it in Reactions in Mueller Report#Investigators. It didn't seem appropriate for the "Events before public release" part. starship.paint ~ KO 00:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Great! :) Aviartm (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint - This isn’t suitable to put in as describing Barr’s reasoning. It’s a plausible summary of legal concerns by an unnamed third party, and might be portrayed as their view in DUE weight. But that third party would not know if it was Barr’s reasoning. It seems that only Barr, Rosenstein and maybe Mueller can actually speak as people who know, all else is people speculating. I suggest just let it alone with nothing for now and wait for the Congressional testimonies when we’re likely to have authoritative statements to work with. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  Acknowledge your concerns regarding putting in as describing Barr’s reasoning. As such, I will edit the wording to quote the official fully, and ping you there. I am not aiming to present this as Barr's view, but this senior official's view. We don't know who this official is, it could be Rosenstein for all we know. Barr's testimony deserve their own section. This is regarding other Department officials, who are entitled to their opinion. As such, I respectfully disagree that this shouldn't be included, and welcome all others to weigh in. starship.paint ~ KO 06:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Your attribution and writing is excellent, but we differ in that I don’t see the filler stories as DUE or really worth any inclusion ... good edits from unrelated materials, just stuff said by people who do not know getting printed while we wait for actual info to show up seems kind of off topic of actually involved events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for your praise. Naturally, these people do not know. Yet, they still are reliable sources, and Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. As I said above, I welcome all others to weigh in. starship.paint ~ KO 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rosenstein's reaction

Aviartm - pinging you because I think you added this. I'm not sure how much, if any, of Rosenstein's April 25 comments are relevant for the article. Mueller Report#Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. (April 11 comments are fine). In his April 25 comments, Rosenstein criticized the Obama administration, James Comey, and the media. None of these are the Mueller investigation, much less the Mueller report. How is this relevant to the article then? starship.paint ~ KO 02:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Correct, I did add that addition. I find it appropriate because Rosenstein is criticizing the the previous Administration's actions/inactions which the special counsel investigation. He also defended The DOJ/Barr's handling of the special counsel and report. All of all the comments are linked to the special counsel. I did find it a bit difficult whether to add the contents or not. But I think if the comments are coming from someone of prominence and are discussing the elements about or heavily related to the special counsel/final report, it should be included. Aviartm (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - the way I see it, his part one comments are not about the report but on the Obama administration should go in Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) since it's a reaction to the Russia investigation that preceded the special counsel's, but we have no article on that, so we go with the investigation's page. His part two comments are not about the report but about Comey, should go to Comey's page, and Rosenstein's if you want. His part three comments are not about the report but are about the media, so probably Rosenstein's own page since the media doesn't have a page. starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Yes but we need to understand the context. In the speech. Rosenstein talks about the special counsel, the events before and during its formation several times. Aviartm (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - then you need to expand on what he talked about the special counsel on April 25. That part (the link) is missing right now. starship.paint ~ KO 03:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint That is kinda hard to do when Rosenstein talked about numerous topics unless you are referring to something else. Aviartm (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - So I read the speech, and from the speech, here's what I find are the relevant remarks. I think there may be more relevant portions of the speech, but we can only include if secondary sources report it.

• I did pledge to do it right and take it to the appropriate conclusion. I did not promise to report all results to the public, because grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings. It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges. - include whatever secondary sources report
• Some critical decisions about the Russia investigation were made before I got there. The previous Administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America. The FBI disclosed classified evidence about the investigation to ranking legislators and their staffers. Someone selectively leaked details to the news media. The FBI Director announced at a congressional hearing that there was a counterintelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges. Then the former FBI Director alleged that the President pressured him to close the investigation, and the President denied that the conversation occurred. - we can just summarize that he criticized the Obama administration for not publicizing the full story of Russian interference, criticized the members of the FBI for disclosing classified material, and criticized James Comey's conduct before and after his firing as FBI director.
• But the bottom line is, there was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries. - include whatever secondary sources report
• As acting Attorney General, it was my responsibility to make sure that the Department of Justice would do what the American people pay us to do: conduct an independent investigation; complete it expeditiously; hold perpetrators accountable if warranted; and work with partner agencies to counter foreign agents and deter crimes. Today, our nation is safer, elections are more secure, and citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence schemes. - include whatever secondary sources report
• But not everybody was happy with my decision, in case you did not notice. It is important to keep a sense of humor in Washington. You just need to accept that politicians need to evaluate everything in terms of the immediate political impact. Then there are the mercenary critics... - include first sentence if secondary sources report it, then briefly mention he was referring to journalists and politicians
• If lawyers cannot prove our case in court, then what we believe is irrelevant. But in politics, belief is the whole ball game. In politics – as in journalism – the rules of evidence do not apply. That is not a critique. It is just an observation. - include if mentioned in secondary sources. starship.paint ~ KO 03:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Well, if you'd like to expand on the remarks, we can. Aviartm (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - I'm not only recommending expanding though, as said above. I would expand the parts more relevant to the report/investigation and trim the mentions of Comey/media. starship.paint ~ KO 06:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Alright. Both Rosenstein's remarks on Comey and the media should be kept, just minimized to some degree. Aviartm (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I made the edits and pinged you there, so I won't ping you here. starship.paint ~ KO 07:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint, you wrote: "...criticized the Obama administration for not publicizing the "full story" of Russian interference" Did he "criticize" them for doing it? They did it for good reasons. If they had revealed too much, they would have been revealing classified information to the enemy and also would be accused of interfering in the ongoing election. Rosenstein would see that as a good, standard, FBI strategy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer - I am merely reporting the sources say.

1. AP: [6] Rosenstein also suggested that former President Barack Obama and his team could have done more to warn Americans about Russian election interference in 2016.
2. WSJ: [7] Rosenstein criticized the Obama administration as being slow to publicly address Russia’s efforts to undermine U.S. elections (this part is outside the paywall)
3. US News [8] called out the Obama administration in candid comments
4. NYT [9] Rosenstein, attacked the Obama administration
5. NBC [10] slammed the Obama administration for not revealing "the full story" about Russia's efforts.
6. Fox [11] private speech in which he took a swipe at the Obama administration

starship.paint ~ KO 11:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I must have misread it. Carry on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we be stenographers and merely regurgitate what he said without providing any context or corrections? That's how it appears now. soibangla (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla - you are most welcome to provide that context and/or corrections, I cannot read your mind and do it for you. starship.paint ~ KO 11:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - Paul^T+/_C 05:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note a new discussion was opened regarding the policy pertaining to this document in general at Commons. You can find the discussion here: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Third-party copyright material included in PD-USGov documents. - Paul^T+/_C 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Aaaand as soon as I un-archive, the debate gets closed... as keep with no further redactions necessary! - Paul^T+/_C 19:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Press coverage

Dear Psantora (talk · contribs), english is not my mother tongue so I apologize for my "poor vocabulary". In my opinion, this is a rather light justification for totally deleting a point of view on the press sourced by multiple references [12].--Kitsum (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Here the text, if someone could improuve it. Thanks a lot. :) --Kitsum (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

For the newspapers Politico and Jacobin, the lack of professionalism and objectivity of the mainstream media, the political and media establishment, is to be compared to the lies they had already propagated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi: "it's shocking to see national media voices after the release of Robert Mueller's report [...] congratulating themselves for a three-year faceplant". According to Taibbi, the media's inability to cope with the enormity of the mistakes of recent years may cost their credibility.

For Michael Tracey, journalist at Fortune, the errors, retractions, unfounded speculative claims and blatant deception of the media, which Donald Trump rightly denounced, have the effect that he "can now use the many humiliating failures of the media about Russia as an excuse to designate as "fake news" legitimate reports on other subjects".

The conclusion of the Russiagate is a spectacular slap in the face for almost all the major American media as well as most Western media. The journalists' determination to endorse all conspiracy theories, including the most fanciful, as soon as they seemed to reach President Trump, is now turning against them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsum (talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• @Kitsum: - your first sentence says Politico but your source is France 24. Has there been a mistake? I’m on mobile so didn’t do a full check. I see now that Jacobin, France 24 and ale Monde are sources from March. This was when the Barr letter was released, not the report. Frankly, sources from March are probably jumping to conclusions. Also, I thought the Blaze isn’t reliable. I may be wrong though. starship.paint ~ KO 09:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Starship.paint yes you're right most of the sources preceded the publication of the full report but followed the conclusions. I don't know if sources from March are jumping to conclusions. Why do you think that? I don't know blaze but there is other source including the original article of Taibbi in Rolling stone. I could'nt find the original article of politico but it's what France 24 says so... --Kitsum (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    Kitsum It matters because Barr spun the conclusions to flatter the Trump administration. Barr never said the Internet Research Agency was supporting Trump and attacking Clinton. Barr never mentioned links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Barr didn’t mention the Trump campaign expected to benefit electorally from Russian material. Barr never mentioned the investigation was done in a way that could not conclude Trump was guilty as a crime. Barr never mentioned that investigators did not believe Trump was innocent after examining the evidence on Trump’s actions and motives. There were executive summaries and they were not used by Barr. Any source who made their conclusions in March did not have all the information we have today. starship.paint ~ KO 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    Kitsum - WP:RSP - Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. Let's try to avoid using it. starship.paint ~ KO 06:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kitsum, poorly written prose is a completely justifiable reason to remove content on its own. Bringing the discussion here is in line with WP:BRD. I did take a stab at improving the edit (I see you have used the improved version above), but there were too many assumptions and direct opinions presented in Wikipedia's voice that I thought the whole passage needed to be discussed here before being added to the article. Furthermore, because many of the sources aren't in English I was not able to verify many of the claims. Of the sources you listed, perhaps the Rolling Stone link can be used, but I don't think any of the others as they currently stand make sense to include. - Paul^T+/_C 15:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, we can include Rolling Stone. As for the rest, I would be looking for views in reliable sources are found AFTER the April 18 public release. starship.paint ~ KO 06:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Kitsum Yes, the credibility of press that had touted ‘collusion’ was ridiculed, see the NY Post “Mueller Madness” comparing 32 cases for which of the statements or false actions were the worst, or the poll that said more than 50% then agreed it had been a “witch hunt”. Feel free to try and edit for that period. Since the release of the redacted report, things seem to have shifted to looking mostly at ‘obstruction’ with center seeming ‘no obstruction (barely)’, ranging from left ‘should have been’ to right being ‘no obstruction’, and I don’t believe the ridicule over past ‘collusion’ coverage has continued in any significant amount so it would be inappropriate to put it in as a current big focus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone and thank you for the answers. OK I will try to make a proposal with the proposed sources. Thank you.--Kitsum (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How exactly did Barr conclude "no obstruction"?

Need some filling in on this situation by someone who knows more than me in this situation, because this should be in the article, and I don't think it's in there. Exactly how does Barr conclude that evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense? In the press conference, Barr says he and Rosenstein accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion. That's not really an explanation, is it? Is it the other baloney in the press conference (transcript [13] of prepared remarks) that Trump ... faced an unprecedented situation ... frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency? Surely not, right? Or is it the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation (that's a lie) and the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.? starship.paint ~ KO 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, it was a predetermined outcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu - I am aware of that (memo)... but well, we can't write that, unfortunately. EDIT: Now that you mention it, perhaps that memo does need more mention in this article. If 2019 Barr won't explain himself, we'll just let 2016/2017/2018 Barr do it. starship.paint ~ KO 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I knew you knew that memo. But, it's there with a WP:RS for anyone who didn't know it or wants to deny it. The memo written by Private Citizen Barr is about all we have to go on in terms of his obstruction philosophy, so perhaps we should expand upon it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's great, thanks Muboshgu. Well, here's the unsolicited 20 page memo by Barr for anyone who wants to read it. [14] I won't be editing for maybe half a day, so here's a recent source noting Barr's 2018 quote of Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived. [15] starship.paint ~ KO 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• It would be WP:OR to juxtapose two items not generally connected. As to how he evaluated, just report what he said about it — refer to the Barr letter and his testimony about that evaluation. And be patient — I’d expect the evaluation gets scrutinized when he testifies to Congress. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett - If the sources juxtapose it, it is not WP:OR. I only added sources after Barr made his decision in March, and after the Mueller Report was released. starship.paint ~ KO 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint - the reports mentioned Barr’s unofficial memo said the investigation was fatally misconceived e.g. lacked ability to compel Trump to testify, and this topic was reviewed in his confirmation hearing. But it is not generally connected to the evaluation other than as a background of he had been seen previously as disinclined to pursue obstruction. Not appropriate to say that as “predetermined” per Muboshgu. Proclaiming it the cause/basis of his ruling also runs contrary to general coverage and to Barr’s specific statements in his letter and verbals. General press seems glad to focus on appearance of discrepancies between letter and statements, but are NOT saying the memo from back then was the real mechanism, so we should not. Functionally, I can’t see how it would have foreknowledge or be an evaluation mechanism, but that’s not needed to figure out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett - you didn't use the right ping so I missed this. See how I do it in wikitext? We are neither saying that it was predetermined nor saying that this is the cause/basis of his ruling. That's probably Muboshgu's personal belief, that I did not include in the article. So I think your concerns are assuaged. starship.paint ~ KO 09:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Here's what is written in this article: Following Barr's decision to clear Trump of obstruction in this letter, media commentators have pointed out that in 2018, Barr (who was not working for the government then) wrote an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Department of Justice protesting that Mueller's investigation of President Trump for obstruction is "fatally misconceived". starship.paint ~ KO 09:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint - Fixed the typo above in addressing. But no, this still seems portraying OR by OFFTOPIC association or verging OR and either way seems UNDUE. The insinuation that the memo made it “predetermined” is still there by close association not otherwise explained. This thread is still “how did Barr conclude no obstruction” and speculative bits or vague insinuations seem unsuitable. Either that 2018 line is irrelevant to the evaluation so should not be adjacent, or it should make an explicit statement of how it relates in DUE weight and properly portrayed as knowledge or speculation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett - This thread has sidetracked from the original topic, you should not take it that it represents the article text. Correlation does not imply causation with regard to the text. However, I read your fears and have explained the connection in the article. starship.paint ~ KO 02:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint - Thanks for the link, and your edits did clearly attribute the mentions. I do however suggest delete the paragraph as — at best — an OFFTOPIC diversion, simply not any known part or relationship to the Mueller Report and Barr evaluation. (Be patient, Congress likely will ask Barr for info on that evaluation.) The cites even link the evaluation otherwise, saying that memo had “no impact on the investigation”, “the facts did not show that Trump obstructed justice”, “insufficient evidence”, and “Mueller report’s inconclusive statement on obstruction and determined there was no case for obstruction”. None of the four cites link the evaluation to the earlier memo’s constitutional argument, plus there is an explicit denial from Rosenstein of it as a factor. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - clearly in my view there is a link perceived by the sources regarding the Barr letter or these sources would never have mentioned the memo unprompted in articles regarding the Barr letter. Note that I removed the CNN source which had to explain the memo due to Schiff referencing it - the rest chose to include the memo as part of a story on the Barr letter. So I cannot see how this is off-topic. As for your quotes, I do not see how the last three quotes link the evaluation otherwise. The first does, but it's a quote from Rosenstein, not the source's judgment (which is the memo as the reason why "Barr’s decision is controversial). As such, I will include the quote from Rosenstein in the paragraph. Additionally, I missed the NPR source saying That memo was a precursor to the four-page letter that Barr sent to Congress last month after reviewing the Mueller report. That seems rather clear, really. starship.paint ~ KO 04:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint That Barr wrote a 2018 memo is said. That it had anything to do with his evaluation is *not* said. They really cannot — it would be making a speculation in ignorance, only 3 people seem to have been in on that evaluation. If someone has speculated an involvement, such speculation does not seem famous enough to be DUE a mention. This 2018 memo coverage seems simply filler for them about Barr while everyone waited for the Mueller Report. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - just to clarify your thinking on this matter: is the problem that Wikipedia's voice is saying it had to do with the evaluation? starship.paint ~ KO 11:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint the paragraph is at best an OFFTOPIC digression, none of these particularly DUE a mention let alone almost half the section, and looks prone to making a false impression that the article’s were stating some unclear relationship(s) between the two memos. The 6 statements of the cites are chosen quotes that do not match each other.... and mostly they are not about the Barr letter re Mueller. What’s here does not even well represent the article message — in say LA Times which explicitly says Barr’s letter is breeding new questions - and makes no statement that the prior memo was a basis. Again, I suggest just delete it as filler of the day while everyone was waiting for the release of the Mueller report ... We don’t have to print everything, and this just has no clear relationship to the Barr letter section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - when one has 6 statements, perhaps it would appear that they do not match each other. When one has 10 statements, perhaps similar points do arise. It's now quite clear to me that the sources are linking the 2018 memo to the Barr letter. Invite you to read the updated article, plus the sources. starship.paint ~ KO 13:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Obstruction of Justice "heatmap" from Lawfare

I came across a chart at https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map by Quinta Jurecic, the managing editor of Lawfare. This is an excellent chart that neatly summarizes the extent the instances of obstruction have been "proven" in the report and it seems worthwhile to include somewhere in the article, likely in the "10/11 episodes" section on obstruction. Lawfare is considered a reliable source and can be used as a secondary source here without any issues. There are a ton of other good articles there that can be used as well: https://www.lawfareblog.com/appendix-instances-obstruction-mueller-report https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-demands-impeachment-inquiry https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis . Hopefully someone finds these sources useful. - Paul^T+/_C 18:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Psantora - thank you, this is awesome, worthy of inclusion. starship.paint ~ KO 01:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Where should this be included, though? Analysis or in each episode? starship.paint ~ KO 02:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Most importantly, it shouldn't be broken up. The presentation as a summary is so good, it would be a shame not to reproduce in some form or another. Would it be copyright violation if we recreated the graphic? Micronor (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we can recreate it (there are many other versions out there one example), but we will need to make sure to explicitly state who did the analysis. The various options for the columns on the elements of obstruction are very subjective. We need to take care not to present it in Wikipedia's voice (unless a more "official" version from someplace like Congress or the DoJ/Mueller himself is released at some point). I added a link to the article in the first section of the episodes section in Volume II, but perhaps it may belong somewhere else in the article. - Paul^T+/_C 12:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Umm guys -- First, note the line above the editing window "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Retyping a copyrighted item or replicating a copyrighted image is not viable. Second -- while it's a cute visual, how many independent or official views are reflected here ? One non-DOJ lacks authority and is just not enough WP:WEIGHT for so prominent an display. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC).

  On the first point about copyright, it 100% applies to the image itself and the text itself, but there is no reason a similar, properly cited, originally-created chart (ideally using wikitables) couldn't be added to this article. It wouldn't be in violation of any copyright rules (again, assuming it is properly cited and manually created).

  On the second point, this simply represents an analysis of existing points already present in the report. It isn't creating any new material beyond what is present there, it is just an attempt to put it in a more easily understood medium. Again, it still needs to be properly cited and there needs to be in-text attributions for it, but I don't see any weight issues if there are sources to support the claims, which there are. - Paul^T+/_C 06:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Including the heat map would be a copyright violation, it does not matter if one copies the jpeg or reproduces it by wikitable. It’s an effective way to convey their judgement but it’s their IP. And I don’t see their view as DUE ... it isn’t the only evaluation or a strongly noted one, there are many evaluations out there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Note - in fairness, for the 1 May Barr testimony, one item CNN Reported is a Democratic Senator presents color-coded sign. It’s this heat map. No detail or context, but raises the WEIGHT a bit. The map copyright remains and still UNDUE — but one could paraphrase simply that Barr’s evaluation was criticized as the point. This particular style is not DUE, but enough other forms of criticism exist to make mention of criticism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Are book-form reprints/ebooks on Amazon relevant to this article?

Is the fact the Mueller report has appeared in book form on Amazon relevant for this article? I think not, but Brboyle (talk · contribs) has been adding a short paragraph about the fact that the Mueller report has been published on Amazon to various parts of the article. I added the WP:PROMO tag which was subsequently removed when the paragraph was moved to a different part of the article by the same editor. I reverted the edit because I felt it was completely out of place due to lack of relative notability in that section and feel it should be discussed here first.

thumb|175px|right|The cover of Skyhorse Publishing's edition of the Mueller Report. After the release of the redacted report, several publishers hurried to make book editions available to the public. Among these publishers was Skyhorse Publishing, Scribner, and Melville House. As of April 18th, 2019, the Skyhorse and Scribner editions were both in Amazon's Top 100 bestsellers.

Here are the two versions the paragraph has been included: [16][17] What do other editors like @Starship.paint, Aviartm, and Psantora: think? Micronor (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I haven't read the text in question (yet), but, in general, the fact that the report is being sold as a physical book is worth a brief mention. (Are people really buyingpaying for the ebooks?!) It is a good illustration of the broad public interest in the report. I don't think there needs to be any specific links to places where the report is being sold on Amazon/BN or anything like that. Any RS that mentions the fact that the report is for sale generally should suffice. - Paul^T+/_C 01:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I'm a dunce. I didn't realize you directly included the quoted text. I think the prose is fine but perhaps could lose the direct mentions of the publishers themselves unless they are in some way notable on their own. I didn't read the Washington Post link, but if they aren't mentioned there then they definitely shouldn't be mentioned in the article either. - Paul^T+/_C 01:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: - the publisher names are included. starship.paint ~ KO 01:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we can include the text. We also should include how others have released the book online. We don't need the picture, that seems quite promotional. starship.paint ~ KO 01:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. If they are mentioned there then I suppose keeping the links in the prose should be fine. We just need to be careful that it doesn't turn into a laundry list of every publisher that decides to make a copy of the public domain report available. I also don't have a problem with a single image of one of the editions, but I would prefer the simplest one available - ideally the one with the least amount of "additional material" being promoted on the cover. For example, the "Introduction by Alan Dershowitz" in the image above is not needed to show an example of one of the physical editions of the report. I'm sure there is a simpler cover available that can be used instead. Furthermore, I don't think we need to mention how well the books are selling unless an edition (or maybe collectively, I'm not sure how it would be counted) reaches the NYT bestseller list. - Paul^T+/_C 14:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• NO - the fact there are reprints is not relevant, nor is it surprising or impressive. There is a sub-business that produces paper volumes of public domain items, and also there is a print-on-demand ability these days. All that’s more about publishing and people having preference for paper — this is just an example of that business but not relevant to this article. Cites such as Forbes cover why print editions are popular; or Vox on publishers are racing ... not focused to the report itself. It would need to be something specific and remarked about this particular report other than just ‘fact there are reprints’. In Starr report it mentions the record number sold — something like that maybe. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Barr "summary"?

Barr himself said repeatedly that his letter was not a summary of the Mueller Report, and sent a letter to Congress in late March "reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report". However, this article is saying that the Barr letter summarized the report, is describing the Barr letter as a summary, and is referring to it in citations as "Barr summary letter". I think that is a problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A problem for whom? Is anything in the prose not reflected in the cited sources regarding the use of the term "summary"? - Paul^T+/_C 01:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, one problem is that the letter had been cited in citations of the article as "Barr summary letter". I am glad to see that this has been changed to just "Barr letter". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post article makes it clear that Barr did not intend for it to be a summary but to "provide an account of its top conclusions". I have not taken a look in our article's sources to see what they say yet though. PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone seen this letter in which he purportedly "reiterates?" soibangla (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: - found it for you [18] starship.paint ~ KO 03:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint - Thanks, I'll put that in as a cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see that he claims to be reiterating. Was he playing CYA after talking to Mueller? soibangla (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange that the Wikipedia article says that he "reiterated" but does not say that he had previously iterated. I plan to change that. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the WaPo piece says he reiterated it in his 2nd letter to Congress, but I see no evidence he previously iterated. I have emailed one of the authors to ask about it, no response, will write the other one now. His 2nd letter doesn't indicate that he's reminding Congress that he never said his 1st letter was a summary. Gotta wonder if he's playing CYA after he talked to Mueller about it. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof - talking “summary of Mueller” seems a framing position, as in something to complain that it isn’t. That it wasn’t required to be a summary perhaps gets lost. It was a letter outlining the results - which obviously is somewhat different than a summary of the report and investigation. Basically, the guiding regulation 28 CFR 600.9 calls for a notification of the conclusion, especially of instances (none here) where the AJ is not pursuing the SC proposals (for prosecution). Barr did that and for obstruction gave the quote ”while this report did not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Then went on to provide his prosecutorial decision. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference formats

Should reference 145 contain inverted text colors and be bold as shown here? PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The page being referenced.

Hi PackMecEng, thanks for coming to discuss. The reference cites page 62/Vol. I page 54 in the report. The meaning of the quotation can become ambiguous without directly noting that there is redacted information in it. According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. [...] while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. [...], shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. vs. According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. Harm to Ongoing Matter while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. Harm to Ongoing Matter, shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming..

Perhaps there is consensus to depect the many redactions in the report in a slightly different way? Another example might be According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. ["Harm to Ongoing Matter" content redacted] while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. ["Harm to Ongoing Matter" content redacted], shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. or something similar to that. What do others think? My preference is to keep as true to the source as reasonably possible since it is a direct quotation. - Paul^T+/_C 17:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of that discussion, I think it is plainly clear that all of the above examples are superior to how I found the content originally and the version that was restored in your edit: According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. Harm to Ongoing Matter while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. Harm to Ongoing Matter, shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. In that version it looks like "Harm to Ongoing Matter" is directly part of the report and not a reference to redacted material. - Paul^T+/_C 18:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It is distracting and gives no extra meaning. If you like we can put quotes or brackets around them to show it is different. It is painfully obvious the way it stands currently is incorrect. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, put it in inverted text colors since we can handle that. starship.paint ~ KO 09:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to know how the redaction notes are handled in screen readers for the visually impaired? We should try to make sure the result is comprehensible. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a great question and I 100% agree. I know @Graham87 uses a screen reader, but I don't know if they will be able to say for sure (or if this is even an appropriate question to ask). To summarize for their convenience: Is the use of {{redacted content}} to indicate redacted portions indicated by "Harm to Ongoing Matter" as part of a quote in a reference comprehensible? For example, is this (without the template): According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. Harm to Ongoing Matter while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. Harm to Ongoing Matter, shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. more or less understandable than this (with the template): According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. Harm to Ongoing Matter while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. Harm to Ongoing Matter, shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming., or are both confusing? Thanks for your help, Graham87! - Paul^T+/_C 17:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This obviously does need square-bracketed editorial notes like '["Harm to Ongoing Matter" content redacted]'; just having the phrase "Harm to Ongoing Matter" injected into the sentence makes the material unparseable. As for the idea of using cutesy CSS tricks to "decorate" the redactions, that's against everything MoS says about overstylization. Using a decorative template to simulate the appearance of blacked out material in a censored document isn't something we've written a specific rule about, because no one's tried to do something specifically like that to our articles before. And it's unlikely to happen again, so we don't need a rule about it; the general principle of avoidance of unnecessary stylization is sufficient. {{Redacted content}} should either be WP:TFDed, or repurposed to do something very different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd 22:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. What SMcCandlish said. Graham87 05:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New York Post headline picture

The Man in Question - you added, to Trump's reaction of the Mueller Report, [19] the picture of the New York Post headline: No Collusion, No Obstruction, and furthermore, wrote, Many newspapers ran similar headlines, with this Philly source: [20]. starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I must really question this addition as: (1) none of the other twelve pictured newspapers in that Philly source had a headline saying No Obstruction, so your claim that Many newspapers ran similar headlines is wholly unsupported by this source, plus you've somehow picked the most pro-Trump headline out of 13 choices. (2) it's not apparent that Trump is being quoted in the New York Post headline, so I'm not sure why this picture is doing in the section on Trump's reaction of the Mueller Report (3) per WP:RSP, The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper, surely you can find a better outlet. (4) this is a reaction to the Barr letter, not the public release of the redacted Mueller Report, I'm sure a better reaction would be when more information was actually available. starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  I agree whole-heartedly with Starship.paint. The image is not appropriate for this article. It is much too large and is more about the Barr letter than the actual contents of the report. - Paul^T+/_C 18:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• “No collusion. No obstruction.” Is a match to the President Trump reaction quote it appears next to, and from the photo being Trumps reaction, that seems what it is reporting. So photo seems a good fit to that section. But the caption *is* a bit off - it might say many others reported no collusion, but saying many ran “similar headlines” no. I will adjust to ‘ran “No collusion” headlines’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - yes it's a match, but we cannot tell they are quoting Trump. (5) They did not use quotation marks. (6) They did not write: Trump: No Collusion, No Obstruction. (7) They also wrote: Mueller findings released. Two years of hysteria end in Trump vindication. This is clearly's the New York Post's voice, not Trump's. Thus it's irrelevant for the section. We don't deal in seems what it is reporting. starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 01:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint ?? Said "match" as in to the words, it is not a "quote". “No collusion. No obstruction.” is a match to the President Trump reaction quote it appears next to, and from the photo being Trumps reaction, that seems what it is reporting. It is a catchphrase he said before the Mueller report - and the image is that of him saying it immediately after the Barr letter. So between the image being of him saying that line, and the Post making a headline out of it, which is what the caption says the image represents, I think the content is reporting on it -- that it was no collusion, no obstruction. (The content inside included the ridiculing Mueller Madness.) The image is not saying it is an image of the April 18 speech quoted in para 2 when he again said the catchphrase (Obviously, it predates that event.) The April 18 event was an indoor one and would be this video. The NY Post image is the earliest time he said those words after the Barr letter and -- was used as the NY Post headline -- a match. See also nygop.org/no-collusion-no-obstruction/ or www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/24/white-house-department-justice-found-total-complete-exoneration-president/ re tweets, etcetera. All match the phrase, but are not literally quoting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Okay, it's a match, but my point is that even if it matches, it's not relevant to that section Trump's reaction (because it is a media outlet's reaction, not Trump's). Only if it's a quote, then it's relevant to Trump's reaction (because it's reporting on Trump's reaction). starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be removing it for the 7 reasons cited above. One of the pictures in the Philly article (not this one) may be relevant for the Barr letter. If there are pictures relating to the April 18 release of the Mueller Report for the Commentators Reaction section, let's see them. starship.paint (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: As I am busy off-wiki, and for the time being, I do not intend to respond on-wiki unless someone pings me or alerts me via my talk page. starship.paint (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)