Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation

"There was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge Trump"

Summarizing the Mueller report with this limited information is not an accurate representation, considering they had insufficient evidence that the campaign as a whole conspired or coordinated with Russia, not just Trump in particular. A direct quote of the Mueller report is that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Bill Williams 19:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Russia russia russia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Russia russia russia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Russia russia russia until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian Interference?

That whole section of the article, basically where the author concluded there was substantial Russian interference, is just simply not true. Can we get that part fixed? YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So are you saying that the Muller report did not say that? Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

YT DomDaBomb20, Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If a "russian entity carried out a social media campaign" favoring one candidate over another that quite literally means nothing. Thats like if the BBC said that one candidate was in their view better than another. It is just an empty endorsement. And Time is noted for its left leaning bias. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Russian interference in the election is not like a newspaper endorsement in any way. For one thing, in that example the BBC is on the record, while Russia was engaged in subterfuge. The quotes from the Mueller report demonstrate what you do not believe to be true is, and you are trying to disqualify that because I used Time magazine, which is reliable, rather than the report itself. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and clearly you've decided, but we won't be changing the page to reflect that alternate reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

YT DomDaBomb20, while you "can believe whatever you want to believe" in your mind, at Wikipedia, advocacy (saying out loud what you are thinking) of fringe POV is forbidden on article talk pages, your own userspace, and of course when editing articles, so you really need to read our articles and their sources. You need to correct your knowledge deficits in this area, and you need to start supporting what RS say. Those who do otherwise are fringe editors, and they don't last long here.

I have already advised you on your talk page and also posted a contentious topics alert, yet you dared to come here and continue to express doubts about this matter? Are you really asking to get blocked? I suggest you tone it down and use your time on uncontroversial topics. That way you won't get in trouble, disrupt our work, and will do some good here. The Russian interference was broad and sweeping, involving many crimes, hackings, leaks, lies, conspiracy theories, and because Trump supported every aspect of what they were doing, the whole country (and world) is negatively affected by it. This was not some "empty endorsement". They even hacked very deep into most state's election systems. Much of this was performed by Russian military intelligence, IOW these were acts of war, and anyone who supports the enemy's acts of war is considered a traitor. Think about that. This is all very serious shit, and it hasn't stopped. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you tone it down and not insinuate that a limited-experience editor may be a "traitor" because they used a Wikipedia Talk page to advocate a change to an article. DonFB (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh my! You misunderstand. I was not writing about the editor. They were not involved in helping the Russians. To make sure you understand what mainstream RS and experts have said about Trump's actions, here are some sources:

Former CIA director John Brennan, who has accused Trump of "treason", tweeted: "He is wholly in the pocket of Putin."

John Brennan stressed repeatedly that collusion may have been unwitting, at least at first as Russian intelligence was deft at disguising its approaches to would-be agents: "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.

Former acting CIA director Michael Morell has called Trump "an unwitting agent of the Russian federation", and former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said Trump was a "useful fool" who is "manipulated by Moscow".

Valjean (talk) (PING me)

Can people please read wp:rs wp:v and specifically wp:or, we go by what RS say, not logic, not reason, not truth, what RS says. By the way, if the BBC did that they would in fact face an investigation, as that would be seen as unfair and biased coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Lies with Wikipedia and promoted are getting to a level of stupidity and need to be remedied. Russiagate was debunked. False.

I find it absolutely abhorrent for the last couple of months that this Russiagate is not only being added to by unsubstantiated claims by what we all know to be CIA pushed talking points, but also pushing this theory about Reality Winner being an honest and truthful situation.  Russiagate was debunked. The 30k emails that HRC destroyed using bleachbit was and is illegal. No mention of Seth Rich. No mention of the use of “personal” email for government purposes which again, is illegal.  This is pure propaganda and disgusting that Wikipedia is promoting this and allowing this during a presidential campaign year. No wonder so many people are ignorant of the truth. Absolutely abhorrent. AmelieRenee (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Russiagate debunked in 2022.

I’m protected under the first amendment. You however have censorship in your country. Don’t push it on Wikipedia. Valjean, you live in the UK.the USA has debunked Russiagate. Yet you push it. That is abominable and disgusting. I don’t push lies regarding your prime ministers. https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie-but-hid-that-truth/ AmelieRenee (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Its important to realise your not protected by the First Amendment- Wikipedia:Free speech. Wikimedia is not a government organisation so this protection does not apply.

Wikipedia is published and based on what reliable sources agree on and conflicting viewpoints do not always agree and where appropriate these will be included. However much you disagree with what has been decided is included here that doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong, we work on consensus and it appears the current consensus is not in your favor. Amortias (T)(C) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)