This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carter Page article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Carter Page previously worked with the Clinton Administration transition team in 1992-1993 while serving as a Research Fellow on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Capitol Hill. During his Fellowship, HASC Chairman Les Aspin was selected by President Clinton as the Secretary of Defense in December 1992. From May 1993 – December 1994, Carter went on to serve as the Arms Control Action Officer for Counterproliferation Policy in the Nuclear Affairs and International Negotiations Branch of the Navy Staff in the Pentagon.
Source of above: Monday, November 24, 2008, Presidential Administration Transitions: Public Service during Periods of Change106020 Link: http://bgia.bard.edu/speakerseries/archive/?year=2008 70.177.2.93 ( talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Embarrassing fact Carter Page was Clinton's surveillance buddy since 1992!
The article goes directly to Mr. Page's involvement with the Trump campaign, from a broad overview of him. What is not covered is his previous involvement with the FBI in the case of the Russian agent. Victor Podobnyy was one of three Russians charged with espionage as the result of FBI investigations begun in 2013. The Boston Globe provides some background here. [1]
The above article includes this link to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York where the guilty plea of Evgeny Buryakov is announced. [2]
This was also covered in a New York Times article: "Russian Spy's Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump". [3]
This seems like important information for his bio, information that has been widely reported in Reliable Sources, and actually informs our understanding of the more recent controversy. There are conflicting allegations about his role, beyond the FBI interview which is mentioned in all three references above. Some say he was an FBI asset cooperating to make the case, some say he was "on the radar" of the FBI as a possible Russian agent. Both views seem speculative, based on the reliable information we have now, all we can say for sure is that he was involved in the case, and gave the FBI information that was used to convict the Russians.
I realize this is a controversial topic, so I wanted to get the opinion of others before making any changes to the article.
ZeroXero ( talk) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
References
As this article currently reads it amounts to a violation of a biography of a living person. It needs to be fixed soon. Phmoreno ( talk) 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [1]
I have removed this from the lede:
The FBI believes Page conspired with the Russian government and perhaps with individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. [1]
Sources
- ^ Laughland, Oliver; Pengelly, Martin (July 22, 2018). "Trump-Russia: FBI believed Carter Page 'collaborated and conspired' with Moscow". the Guardian. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
This is of course covered in the article. It is based on a mention in the FISA warrant application, which also includes many other "beliefs" on the part of the FBI. But he hasn't actually been charged with anything, so I think it is inappropriate for the lede. Particularly since it accuses him of "collusion" - a red-hot topic which has so far not been officially alleged by the special counsel investigation or any other legal source, or specified in this or any other article AFAIK. Open to discussion of course, but I think we are getting beyond the current state of the evidence if we put this in the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
1 intro to article states "Page was a focus of the " a focus is a geometric term, a circle and a ellipis has a focus, foci - there is no documentation he was the focus of investigation, he was one element. 2 "the Justice Department determined the last two were not valid" the justice department is run by a partisan politician. their determination of valid or not valid is not a COURT determination of guilt or innocence. it is/was their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:105:38F4:788D:14D0:2B43:68CD ( talk) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sheesh. I don't know much about Carter Page, but I'm not a fan, but I just came across this article and it is over the top. Why don't we just write in bolded all caps CARTER PAGE IS A BLACKGUARD 200 times and be done with it. If Carter Page has been convicted of crimes and stuff, that'd be important stuff to talk about. I'm not seeing any convictions or jail time. I am seeing a whole lot of gossip, allegations, and badmouthing. The article is very clearly designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Carter Page is bad news. This is not supposed to be how we roll. International business and politics is not pattycake. It's a brutal business. So what. It's our job to describe the players dispassionately (and, if they're alive, err on the side of being kind), not lead the reader by the nose to conclusions.
Keep in mind that the person is alive and has a reputation to protect, for chrissakes. Lots of people have enemies, and most people in public life have been called "idiot" or "wacko" by somebody. It's not something we generally report. I'm wondering if a (very understandable and probably justified) anomousity to Mr Page is in play here. Editors need to honestly examine themselves to make sure this
Concrete suggestions? I have none at this time. There's... a lot to unpack here. I note above that a request to change ""and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by a U.S. official" to "and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by an unnamed U.S. official" (emphasis added to show the addition (which is true), not in the original request), was turned down (!), which obviously this is not a route we want to be going down. (The source is Yahoo News (oooh) and the person claiming to have heard this is the author of Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.) Jesus H. Christ. If a bad thing is alleged (by a person with an political ideology to have been said about a living person by an anonymous person, we do not elide the fact the fact that the person is anonymous (if we reported it at all, which we should not). This is WP:BLP 101. We need to fix this. I have stuff on my plate. But I'll be back, and hopefully this can all be done cooperatively. We all want the same thing, right? Herostratus ( talk) 01:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Terrorist96: Includes commentary from Joe di Genova, cited in the Washington Examiner, in which di Genova argues that the four FISA warrants the FBI obtained to surveil Page were illegal. Leaving out the question of whether di Genova or the Washington Examiner is a valid source - I'd argue that they'd support anything Trump did - the fact is that di Genova in his capacity as an attorney advised Trump on the Russia-Trump campaign issue to which Page is connected. Given that fact, I don't believe there's any way his commentary can be considered relevant or reliable. T-96 disagres. Anyone else want to offer an opinion? Thanks,
Billmckern ( talk) 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
In his dealings with the Russians, was Page actually a U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Very interesting article:
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Do you have more RS describing Page's contacts with the FBI? We know that he answered questions when approached by the FBI, thus making him a "confidential human source" (CHS) and an operational contact. That does not make him some special type of informant or person who worked for the FBI. We also know that he was warned by the FBI that Russian intelligence was trying to use him, and yet he ignored them and increased his pro-Russian and anti-American activities. He continued to have contacts with Russian spies and engage in very suspicious activities, thus justifying FBI surveillance activities. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
An "asset" is a generic term. Carter is a CIA "asset", a CHS (confidential human source). Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian FSB "asset". The term can refer to witting or unwitting. It doesn't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.
It doesn't belong in the lead. If Carter Page were an FBI double agent, that would deserve mention in the lead, but he's neither an agent or double agent. He's always been a suspect who maintained contact with Russian agents.
Let's take a look at this:
[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) [1] Bolding added
Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition to the lead of the article, with an explanatory edit summary. The New York Times source also did not use the words "operational contact", thus failing verification. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The final sentence needs an edit. As noted in https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/30/fbi-says-wiretap-applications-contained-minor-errors/5551226002/ - in 29 reviewed warrants, only 2 material errors were found.
The 4 Carter Page warrants had 17 material errors.
TheRightSizer ( talk) 02:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The Mueller investigation did not find evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government. No direct evidence, no indirect evidence, no circumstantial evidence. They had suspicions, and Page had connections (some of them not fully explained to date) with Russians, but no coordination was ever shown. To say (or imply) otherwise, in the biography of a living person, you would need an exceptional source explicitly saying that. None of the current sources in the article do that
Trying to reconnect (
talk) 22:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet of banned editor
NoCal100.
There's plenty of evidence that the former Trump campaign adviser, for all his quirks, was on suspiciously good terms with Russia
The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page's activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained.
Late last year, Page provided vague and at times contradictory answers about the December 2016 trip to Russia under intense questioning from the House Intelligence Committee.
Is this whole thread a straw man? Where, in this article, is Page accused, in Wikipedia's voice, of colluding or coordinating with Russia? -- Valjean ( talk) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
We need a resolution to this matter, so maybe the wording can be tweaked. It currently says "the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government." The word in question is "direct". I have just removed one of the sources, an AP reprint of an unreliable source, The Washington Times. That leaves the statement in the lead with two sources to back it up. Here's what I have gleaned that's relevant:
"coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government" is not the same as "coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The first is about the campaign's activities and has a shadow of truth to it, in that the campaign gave their blessings to Page's efforts, and Page informed the campaign about his activities. The latter is about Russian efforts, and no evidence of coordination by Page was found in their incomplete investigation.
Cooperation, welcoming, and invitation by Trump and the campaign with the Russian interference was indeed proven, but two words ("conspiracy" and "coordination") were not proven, the last likely because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation, and now we know that Rosenstein actually secretly shut down the investigation completely, long before all questions about Trump's Russian involvement were cleared up. That is a slightly different matter, as here we're concentrating solely on Carter Page.
Here's what we're left with:
Can we boil that down? We need to include the aspects of doubt, while also including the final, unfinished, status of their investigation of Page. Looking at all the evidence and coming to a conclusion is not the same as making a statement based on clearly incomplete knowledge. To be able to "establish" Page did not coordinate and to not be able to "establish" coordination are two very different things. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is going to need some serious updating as more information is released from Durham. There's no rush. I knew this was coming, and waited patiently for the past...uhm, 4 years or so...knowing all the work that will be involved in getting this, and related articles right. For example,
WaPo states: Although Steele’s allegations were not relied on as a basis to open the investigation into Trump’s campaign, they were used to justify secret surveillance on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, later found the court applications for that surveillance were riddled with serious errors and omissions.
And there's more yet to come. Tomorrow's another day.
Atsme
Talk
📧 20:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that we're trying to cover two slightly different topics with that one sentence, so I think we should fix this one by replacing it with "The Muller "investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."" Then we can write a different sentence to cover the suspicions, problems, and other issues caused by the lies told by Page and the campaign about his activities and the inability/failures of investigators to get more evidence. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Copied here from User_talk:Valjean#Editing_in_violation_of_sanctions by Valjean. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Trying to reconnect ( talk · contribs) blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor NoCal100 ( talk · contribs). 23:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
As you surely noticed when you performed your last revert on
Carter Page, that page is subject to editing restriction s- You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. You have made 2 such edits - please undo your last one, or risk sanctions.
Trying to reconnect (
talk) 14:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
QUESTION FOR EVERYONE....
In the context of DS sanctions, what is considered a "revert"? I always thought it applied to "recent" content. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. Self-reversion is the act of reverting your own edits. Reverting does not always involve the use of the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion.In practice? Eh who knows. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
ec Pinging User:Acroterion, User:Muboshgu, User:MelanieN, User:JzG, User:MastCell. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Let me reiterate what I wrote above. I will abide by the consensus interpretation. I have no intention of edit warring or violating DS sanctions. This is a true disagreement about interpretation. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations., from WP:RSP. It's a tabloid. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently the lead mentions that two FISA warrants were found to be invalid. That is the first and only time FISA warrants are mentioned.
There is nothing about the Horowitz report that vindicated Page, a well documented part of Page's life. It would be totally undue to omit any mention of Horowitz report from the lead. I'm going to add a couple of sentences to the lead, but the lead may need more refinement. Politrukki ( talk) 12:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This reversion restored the "to conceal" language, but is that correct? Is there any evidence that "concealment" was Clinesmith's intent (as he included all the paperwork which confirmed that Page had been a CIA source), because that word does imply bad faith intent, not just what happened because of the change. The body of the article uses this language: "intentionally altered an interagency email to exclude from the FISA warrant application that Page was a CIA source from 2008 to 2013."
None of the wording we use is ideal, and none of the sources use the words "conceal" or "exclude". I contend that "to conceal" is a BLP-violating accusation in Wikipedia's voice. I believe we should use different wording in both instances that simply describes what happened, without judging intent. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
* According to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the Central Intelligence Agency. [1], yes this covers the meat of it as detached as we can be. Any more and we're adding value judgements on the meaning of certain words in certain contexts which most RS don't cover (and not necessarily clear to lay readers). Koncorde ( talk) 17:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's more on the subject from some real experts ( Barbara McQuade and Chuck Rosenberg), which shows how Clinesmisth's "email was literally true," but violated the spirit of what should have happened. The terms "source", "asset", "recruited asset", "operational source", and "operational contact" are important, as Page was an "operational contact", not a "source":
According to the charging document, Clinesmith doctored an email to an FBI colleague, adding the words “not a source” to explain Page’s relationship with the CIA. While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source. Even though the altered email was accurate—Page was not a source—Clinesmith’s representation of the language of the email itself was false. This alteration was material because it tended to diminish Page’s relationship with the CIA, which may have provided an innocent explanation for his otherwise suspicious contacts with Russians. [2] Bolding added
"Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [3] Page could not be used for "operational use" or "tasking". He only answered questions.
"Asset" and "source" are generic terms. Carter has been described as a CIA "source", a CHS (confidential human source). The terms can refer to witting or unwitting. They don't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.
Let's take a look at this:
[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) [3] Bolding added
Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a question. Do we have the wording of the original email? I'm wondering if Clinesmith added the word "not" to "was a source", or added "not a source" to something else. It has always been my impression that he added one word, but now I'm not sure. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"defendant had altered the email by adding the words 'and not a source', thus making it appear that the OGA Liaison had written that Individual #1 was 'not a source' for the OGA".[6] (page 7) Politrukki ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. See changes. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I'm okay with alternatives, but "conceal" is not a BLP violation. It was my reasonable paraphrase, and based on facts. An FBI agent doctored an email by adding "not a source". That was a false statement and effectively concealed the fact that Page was a CIA source. The agent also made similarly false statements in instant messages. I never claimed to know what the agent's intention was. One editor said "Clinesmith did not believe he had been a CIA asset"
. How do they know what Clinesmith believed? Did they hear it from the horse's mouth? (Speaking of pet peeves, if Clinesmith owns any pets, maybe The Daily Beast's favourite
pet psychic could drill into Clinesmith's mind.) Anyway, Durham prosecutors did not find Clinesmith's explanations credible.
Currently the lead says according to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the
Central Intelligence Agency
. That's essentially the same what I wrote before, just with more details. If that's what is wanted, I'm okay with that. The sourcing is not great though: Lawfare is a blog. It mainly publishes opinion pieces, but doesn't have one editorial voice (the blog is pretty consistently partisan, but sometimes publishes opinions from opposing positions), hence its opinions should be attributed to individuals on the by-line. I don't see any reason to use an opinion source when there is no shortage of better mainstream sources.
Politrukki (
talk) 22:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
According to the charging document, Clinesmith doctored an email to an FBI colleague, adding the words “not a source” to explain Page’s relationship with the CIA. While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source. Even though the altered email was accurate—Page was not a source—Clinesmith’s representation of the language of the email itself was false. This alteration was material because it tended to diminish Page’s relationship with the CIA, which may have provided an innocent explanation for his otherwise suspicious contacts with Russians. [2] Bolding added
Sources
|
---|
|
"no intent to deceive"is an opinion, not a fact?
"The FBI official apparently lied because he wanted to avoid a 'terrible footnote' in the latest FISA renewal, admitting the embarrassing fact that the bureau had overlooked the CIA's relationship with Page in previous filings, according to Horowitz's narrative."[7]
[Clinesmith's lawyers say] he believed he was conveying accurate information even if it was improperly added to another official's email ... the prosecution argues that Clinesmith's change to the email may not have been driven by haste or personal convenience, but by his revulsion for Trump ... 'It is plausible that his strong political views and/or personal dislike of the current President made him more willing to engage in the fraudulent and unethical conduct to which he has pled guilty', prosecutors wrote."[8]
"[Lawfare blog's] opinions should be attributed to individuals"I was not endorsing using Lawfare opinion pieces in this article, nor was I saying that it should not be used – except in the lead.Nuance about "operational contact" should not be in the lead, but it may be covered shortly in the body. Again, if it's covered, Lawfare opinion pieces are not needed when there are better sources available: The Associated Press, The Financial Times. Politrukki ( talk) 13:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
A suit from Carter Page alleges a series of omissions and errors made by FBI and Justice Department officials of Obama administration. Page sues over Russia probe surveillance. https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-carter-page-russia-bfc0f495647e70faa2b5dc2749562132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.76.63 ( talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Politrukki, why did you delete the rest of the judge's quote here? Yodabyte also deleted that part. "Wrongdoing" is not an illegal "actionable claim", so the fact that Page engages in vexatious lawsuits comes to mind, even though we don't state it. Maybe that's why his lawsuits get dismissed or lost?!
That brings us to your deletion of the mention of the latest lawsuit from the lead, possibly the most notable one. Now there is no mention of his lawsuits at all in the lead, and that violates our rules for leads, since that's a notable part of the article. We need some mention in the lead, and don't need to say anymore than this:
So that's two issues that need fixing. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"The judge ... said the claims of misconduct and knowing falsehoods in the process of surveilling Page were 'troubling.' However, she said they simply didn't meet the standards for a civil suit ... Friedrich left open the possibility that Page could file a future suit to demand corrections of errors he asserted are present in the 2019 inspector general report, but she said that the energy analyst needed to pursue the issue directly with that office first before going to court.With regards to mentioning all lawsuits in the lead, I generally wouldn't oppose the proposal at this juncture. If the summary is accurate. I don't know much about these cases, but my understanding is that there is enough coverage to warrant a short mention in the lead. However, the text should say who were sued, preferably without naming all names, and what was alleged (defamation or other violations). Politrukki ( talk) 11:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications"in the court decisions (primary source). I incorrectly assumed that when you added the text, you had properly cited the source, and that you quoted the judge (though I was wondering why I can't find the quote in the decision). I now understand that you quoted law360.com without proper attribution. I will self-revert this and remove the law360.com content until we can decide if and how that source should be cited.In theory, something like
According to a summary by law360.com, the judge found "the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications"would suffice for attribution, but the sentence a) only covers one aspect of Page's claims, b) seems a bit clunky. Let me re-emphasise that I haven't seen the source in full.I will also need to notify Yodabyte of this discussion. Politrukki ( talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"legal expert"and you argue for something like giving Buehler special prominence as a legal expert, please explain how legal expertise has been established.The majority of Wikipedia text is, or should be, written by paraphrasing. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text kind of discourages the type quotation I considered clunky:
"Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. ... Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language." [emphasis added]The same guideline says
"Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author", but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Attribution indicates that attribution is not always required.In many occasions it can be difficult to determine whether retaining the original wording is important or not. Paraphrasing can also be really hard, because one needs to capture the full meaning of the relevant content while avoiding close paraphrasing.With regard to pinging, I will ping you now, but I'm not going ping anyone every single time I reply them – because I would consider that dumb – and even if I tried to do so, many times I would just forget. I myself have disabled notifications for all mentions because I find repeated pinging annoying. If someone needs my immediate attention, they should contact me on my user talk page. Thanks, Politrukki ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"last week". Our bio says
"The judge dismissed the suit on February 14, 2021", which is likely wrong. Politrukki ( talk) 14:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"vexatious lawsuits ... suits seem to be frivolous ... a lawyer shouldn't file suits for non-criminal issues". Not a huge deal in this case, but it's better for all to focus on the topic. Politrukki ( talk) 14:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
When I look at the following (from the Steele dossier article), I notice that the first part contains two cases, so there are apparently five cases. I have previously left a message at some legal project's page here and sought help to improve this type of content, but haven't gotten any response. I am not a lawyer, even though my appeal was once used, nearly word for word by the judge in a case, in their decision to throw out a case against a large number of defendants. Apparently, my logic proved, without any need for other evidence, that the litigant was lying and the case was frivolous and malicious litigation. I still don't understand all the details of this type of stuff. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
In October 2018, Carter Page sued the DNC, Perkins Coie, and two Perkins Coie partners, for defamation. [1] [2] The lawsuit was dismissed on January 31, 2019. Page said he intended to appeal the decision. [2] [3]
On January 30, 2020, Page filed another defamation lawsuit (Case: 1:20-cv-00671, Filed: 01/30/20) against the DNC and Perkins Coie, naming Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann as defendants. [4] The suit was dismissed. [5] Page then appealed the lower court's dismissal to the Supreme Court. In January 2022, it declined to review the defamation lawsuit. [6]
On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles that described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true. [7]
Page's suit targeted Oath for 11 articles, especially one written by Michael Isikoff and published by Yahoo! News in September 2016. The judge dismissed the suit on February 11, 2021, [8] noting that "Page's arguments regarding Isikoff's description of the dossier and Steele were 'either sophistry or political spin'." He also said that Page "failed to allege actual malice by any of the authors, and that the three articles written by HuffPost employees were true". [9] Page was represented by attorneys John Pierce [10] and L. Lin Wood, who was denied permission to represent Page because of his actions in the attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in favor of President Donald Trump. [11]
In January 2022, Page lost an effort to revive the defamation case over Isikoff's article. Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said "the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, 'at a minimum,' conveyed a true 'gist,' even if it included some 'minor' or 'irrelevant' incorrect statements." Bloomberg Law reported that "The court dismissed as far-fetched Page's theories about a conspiracy among interconnected media and political figures to tarnish Trump by concocting the Russia investigation from thin air." [12]
On May 16, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a defamation suit filed by Page. [13]
On November 27, 2020, Page filed a $75 million suit against the United States, DOJ, FBI, and several former leading officials for the "defendants' multiple violations of his Constitutional and other legal rights in connection with unlawful surveillance and investigation of him by the United States Government." The defendants included James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Joe Pientka III, Stephen Soma, and Brian J. Auten. [14] [15]
The suit was dismissed on September 1, 2022, by United States district court judge Dabney L. Friedrich, who wrote:
To the extent these allegations are true, there is little question that many individual defendants, as well as the agency as a whole, engaged in wrongdoing. Even so, Page has brought no actionable claim against any individual defendant or against the United States. [16]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)
multiple
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).These are currently treated as separate, but they are apparently the same (Oath Inc. owns Yahoo! News and HuffPost). The dismissal is the same date, same judge, etc.
I'll start working on that, so please wait to edit that area of the article -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carter Page article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Carter Page previously worked with the Clinton Administration transition team in 1992-1993 while serving as a Research Fellow on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Capitol Hill. During his Fellowship, HASC Chairman Les Aspin was selected by President Clinton as the Secretary of Defense in December 1992. From May 1993 – December 1994, Carter went on to serve as the Arms Control Action Officer for Counterproliferation Policy in the Nuclear Affairs and International Negotiations Branch of the Navy Staff in the Pentagon.
Source of above: Monday, November 24, 2008, Presidential Administration Transitions: Public Service during Periods of Change106020 Link: http://bgia.bard.edu/speakerseries/archive/?year=2008 70.177.2.93 ( talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Embarrassing fact Carter Page was Clinton's surveillance buddy since 1992!
The article goes directly to Mr. Page's involvement with the Trump campaign, from a broad overview of him. What is not covered is his previous involvement with the FBI in the case of the Russian agent. Victor Podobnyy was one of three Russians charged with espionage as the result of FBI investigations begun in 2013. The Boston Globe provides some background here. [1]
The above article includes this link to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York where the guilty plea of Evgeny Buryakov is announced. [2]
This was also covered in a New York Times article: "Russian Spy's Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump". [3]
This seems like important information for his bio, information that has been widely reported in Reliable Sources, and actually informs our understanding of the more recent controversy. There are conflicting allegations about his role, beyond the FBI interview which is mentioned in all three references above. Some say he was an FBI asset cooperating to make the case, some say he was "on the radar" of the FBI as a possible Russian agent. Both views seem speculative, based on the reliable information we have now, all we can say for sure is that he was involved in the case, and gave the FBI information that was used to convict the Russians.
I realize this is a controversial topic, so I wanted to get the opinion of others before making any changes to the article.
ZeroXero ( talk) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
References
As this article currently reads it amounts to a violation of a biography of a living person. It needs to be fixed soon. Phmoreno ( talk) 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [1]
I have removed this from the lede:
The FBI believes Page conspired with the Russian government and perhaps with individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. [1]
Sources
- ^ Laughland, Oliver; Pengelly, Martin (July 22, 2018). "Trump-Russia: FBI believed Carter Page 'collaborated and conspired' with Moscow". the Guardian. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
This is of course covered in the article. It is based on a mention in the FISA warrant application, which also includes many other "beliefs" on the part of the FBI. But he hasn't actually been charged with anything, so I think it is inappropriate for the lede. Particularly since it accuses him of "collusion" - a red-hot topic which has so far not been officially alleged by the special counsel investigation or any other legal source, or specified in this or any other article AFAIK. Open to discussion of course, but I think we are getting beyond the current state of the evidence if we put this in the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
1 intro to article states "Page was a focus of the " a focus is a geometric term, a circle and a ellipis has a focus, foci - there is no documentation he was the focus of investigation, he was one element. 2 "the Justice Department determined the last two were not valid" the justice department is run by a partisan politician. their determination of valid or not valid is not a COURT determination of guilt or innocence. it is/was their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:105:38F4:788D:14D0:2B43:68CD ( talk) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sheesh. I don't know much about Carter Page, but I'm not a fan, but I just came across this article and it is over the top. Why don't we just write in bolded all caps CARTER PAGE IS A BLACKGUARD 200 times and be done with it. If Carter Page has been convicted of crimes and stuff, that'd be important stuff to talk about. I'm not seeing any convictions or jail time. I am seeing a whole lot of gossip, allegations, and badmouthing. The article is very clearly designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Carter Page is bad news. This is not supposed to be how we roll. International business and politics is not pattycake. It's a brutal business. So what. It's our job to describe the players dispassionately (and, if they're alive, err on the side of being kind), not lead the reader by the nose to conclusions.
Keep in mind that the person is alive and has a reputation to protect, for chrissakes. Lots of people have enemies, and most people in public life have been called "idiot" or "wacko" by somebody. It's not something we generally report. I'm wondering if a (very understandable and probably justified) anomousity to Mr Page is in play here. Editors need to honestly examine themselves to make sure this
Concrete suggestions? I have none at this time. There's... a lot to unpack here. I note above that a request to change ""and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by a U.S. official" to "and was characterized as a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did by an unnamed U.S. official" (emphasis added to show the addition (which is true), not in the original request), was turned down (!), which obviously this is not a route we want to be going down. (The source is Yahoo News (oooh) and the person claiming to have heard this is the author of Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.) Jesus H. Christ. If a bad thing is alleged (by a person with an political ideology to have been said about a living person by an anonymous person, we do not elide the fact the fact that the person is anonymous (if we reported it at all, which we should not). This is WP:BLP 101. We need to fix this. I have stuff on my plate. But I'll be back, and hopefully this can all be done cooperatively. We all want the same thing, right? Herostratus ( talk) 01:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Terrorist96: Includes commentary from Joe di Genova, cited in the Washington Examiner, in which di Genova argues that the four FISA warrants the FBI obtained to surveil Page were illegal. Leaving out the question of whether di Genova or the Washington Examiner is a valid source - I'd argue that they'd support anything Trump did - the fact is that di Genova in his capacity as an attorney advised Trump on the Russia-Trump campaign issue to which Page is connected. Given that fact, I don't believe there's any way his commentary can be considered relevant or reliable. T-96 disagres. Anyone else want to offer an opinion? Thanks,
Billmckern ( talk) 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
In his dealings with the Russians, was Page actually a U.S. (CIA) intelligence asset? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Very interesting article:
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Do you have more RS describing Page's contacts with the FBI? We know that he answered questions when approached by the FBI, thus making him a "confidential human source" (CHS) and an operational contact. That does not make him some special type of informant or person who worked for the FBI. We also know that he was warned by the FBI that Russian intelligence was trying to use him, and yet he ignored them and increased his pro-Russian and anti-American activities. He continued to have contacts with Russian spies and engage in very suspicious activities, thus justifying FBI surveillance activities. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
An "asset" is a generic term. Carter is a CIA "asset", a CHS (confidential human source). Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian FSB "asset". The term can refer to witting or unwitting. It doesn't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.
It doesn't belong in the lead. If Carter Page were an FBI double agent, that would deserve mention in the lead, but he's neither an agent or double agent. He's always been a suspect who maintained contact with Russian agents.
Let's take a look at this:
[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) [1] Bolding added
Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition to the lead of the article, with an explanatory edit summary. The New York Times source also did not use the words "operational contact", thus failing verification. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The final sentence needs an edit. As noted in https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/30/fbi-says-wiretap-applications-contained-minor-errors/5551226002/ - in 29 reviewed warrants, only 2 material errors were found.
The 4 Carter Page warrants had 17 material errors.
TheRightSizer ( talk) 02:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The Mueller investigation did not find evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government. No direct evidence, no indirect evidence, no circumstantial evidence. They had suspicions, and Page had connections (some of them not fully explained to date) with Russians, but no coordination was ever shown. To say (or imply) otherwise, in the biography of a living person, you would need an exceptional source explicitly saying that. None of the current sources in the article do that
Trying to reconnect (
talk) 22:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet of banned editor
NoCal100.
There's plenty of evidence that the former Trump campaign adviser, for all his quirks, was on suspiciously good terms with Russia
The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page's activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained.
Late last year, Page provided vague and at times contradictory answers about the December 2016 trip to Russia under intense questioning from the House Intelligence Committee.
Is this whole thread a straw man? Where, in this article, is Page accused, in Wikipedia's voice, of colluding or coordinating with Russia? -- Valjean ( talk) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
We need a resolution to this matter, so maybe the wording can be tweaked. It currently says "the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government." The word in question is "direct". I have just removed one of the sources, an AP reprint of an unreliable source, The Washington Times. That leaves the statement in the lead with two sources to back it up. Here's what I have gleaned that's relevant:
"coordinated Trump campaign activities with the Russian government" is not the same as "coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The first is about the campaign's activities and has a shadow of truth to it, in that the campaign gave their blessings to Page's efforts, and Page informed the campaign about his activities. The latter is about Russian efforts, and no evidence of coordination by Page was found in their incomplete investigation.
Cooperation, welcoming, and invitation by Trump and the campaign with the Russian interference was indeed proven, but two words ("conspiracy" and "coordination") were not proven, the last likely because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation, and now we know that Rosenstein actually secretly shut down the investigation completely, long before all questions about Trump's Russian involvement were cleared up. That is a slightly different matter, as here we're concentrating solely on Carter Page.
Here's what we're left with:
Can we boil that down? We need to include the aspects of doubt, while also including the final, unfinished, status of their investigation of Page. Looking at all the evidence and coming to a conclusion is not the same as making a statement based on clearly incomplete knowledge. To be able to "establish" Page did not coordinate and to not be able to "establish" coordination are two very different things. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is going to need some serious updating as more information is released from Durham. There's no rush. I knew this was coming, and waited patiently for the past...uhm, 4 years or so...knowing all the work that will be involved in getting this, and related articles right. For example,
WaPo states: Although Steele’s allegations were not relied on as a basis to open the investigation into Trump’s campaign, they were used to justify secret surveillance on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, later found the court applications for that surveillance were riddled with serious errors and omissions.
And there's more yet to come. Tomorrow's another day.
Atsme
Talk
📧 20:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that we're trying to cover two slightly different topics with that one sentence, so I think we should fix this one by replacing it with "The Muller "investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."" Then we can write a different sentence to cover the suspicions, problems, and other issues caused by the lies told by Page and the campaign about his activities and the inability/failures of investigators to get more evidence. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Copied here from User_talk:Valjean#Editing_in_violation_of_sanctions by Valjean. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Trying to reconnect ( talk · contribs) blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor NoCal100 ( talk · contribs). 23:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
As you surely noticed when you performed your last revert on
Carter Page, that page is subject to editing restriction s- You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. You have made 2 such edits - please undo your last one, or risk sanctions.
Trying to reconnect (
talk) 14:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
QUESTION FOR EVERYONE....
In the context of DS sanctions, what is considered a "revert"? I always thought it applied to "recent" content. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. Self-reversion is the act of reverting your own edits. Reverting does not always involve the use of the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion.In practice? Eh who knows. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
ec Pinging User:Acroterion, User:Muboshgu, User:MelanieN, User:JzG, User:MastCell. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Let me reiterate what I wrote above. I will abide by the consensus interpretation. I have no intention of edit warring or violating DS sanctions. This is a true disagreement about interpretation. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations., from WP:RSP. It's a tabloid. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently the lead mentions that two FISA warrants were found to be invalid. That is the first and only time FISA warrants are mentioned.
There is nothing about the Horowitz report that vindicated Page, a well documented part of Page's life. It would be totally undue to omit any mention of Horowitz report from the lead. I'm going to add a couple of sentences to the lead, but the lead may need more refinement. Politrukki ( talk) 12:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This reversion restored the "to conceal" language, but is that correct? Is there any evidence that "concealment" was Clinesmith's intent (as he included all the paperwork which confirmed that Page had been a CIA source), because that word does imply bad faith intent, not just what happened because of the change. The body of the article uses this language: "intentionally altered an interagency email to exclude from the FISA warrant application that Page was a CIA source from 2008 to 2013."
None of the wording we use is ideal, and none of the sources use the words "conceal" or "exclude". I contend that "to conceal" is a BLP-violating accusation in Wikipedia's voice. I believe we should use different wording in both instances that simply describes what happened, without judging intent. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
* According to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the Central Intelligence Agency. [1], yes this covers the meat of it as detached as we can be. Any more and we're adding value judgements on the meaning of certain words in certain contexts which most RS don't cover (and not necessarily clear to lay readers). Koncorde ( talk) 17:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's more on the subject from some real experts ( Barbara McQuade and Chuck Rosenberg), which shows how Clinesmisth's "email was literally true," but violated the spirit of what should have happened. The terms "source", "asset", "recruited asset", "operational source", and "operational contact" are important, as Page was an "operational contact", not a "source":
According to the charging document, Clinesmith doctored an email to an FBI colleague, adding the words “not a source” to explain Page’s relationship with the CIA. While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source. Even though the altered email was accurate—Page was not a source—Clinesmith’s representation of the language of the email itself was false. This alteration was material because it tended to diminish Page’s relationship with the CIA, which may have provided an innocent explanation for his otherwise suspicious contacts with Russians. [2] Bolding added
"Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [3] Page could not be used for "operational use" or "tasking". He only answered questions.
"Asset" and "source" are generic terms. Carter has been described as a CIA "source", a CHS (confidential human source). The terms can refer to witting or unwitting. They don't mean an "agent" or "spy", although an agent is indeed an asset. Anyone can be an "asset" or "CHS". If the FBI arrive at the scene of a crime and the nightwatchman answers their questions, that person can be a CHS. Big deal.
Let's take a look at this:
[180] On or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from the other U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning Page's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. We found no evidence that, after receiving the August 17 Memorandum, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that we believe were relevant to the FISA application. According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the August 17 Memorandum, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person. [Footnote 180] (p. 61) [3] Bolding added
Notice the bolded part, especially the last part ("a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. person or tasking of that person."), which excludes the possibility of them being used as an agent or witting asset. He remained a suspect and under surveillance by the FBI. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a question. Do we have the wording of the original email? I'm wondering if Clinesmith added the word "not" to "was a source", or added "not a source" to something else. It has always been my impression that he added one word, but now I'm not sure. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"defendant had altered the email by adding the words 'and not a source', thus making it appear that the OGA Liaison had written that Individual #1 was 'not a source' for the OGA".[6] (page 7) Politrukki ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. See changes. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I'm okay with alternatives, but "conceal" is not a BLP violation. It was my reasonable paraphrase, and based on facts. An FBI agent doctored an email by adding "not a source". That was a false statement and effectively concealed the fact that Page was a CIA source. The agent also made similarly false statements in instant messages. I never claimed to know what the agent's intention was. One editor said "Clinesmith did not believe he had been a CIA asset"
. How do they know what Clinesmith believed? Did they hear it from the horse's mouth? (Speaking of pet peeves, if Clinesmith owns any pets, maybe The Daily Beast's favourite
pet psychic could drill into Clinesmith's mind.) Anyway, Durham prosecutors did not find Clinesmith's explanations credible.
Currently the lead says according to Horowitz, an FBI attorney doctored an email by inserting the words "not a source". This change to the email gave the false impression that Carter Page had not been a source for the
Central Intelligence Agency
. That's essentially the same what I wrote before, just with more details. If that's what is wanted, I'm okay with that. The sourcing is not great though: Lawfare is a blog. It mainly publishes opinion pieces, but doesn't have one editorial voice (the blog is pretty consistently partisan, but sometimes publishes opinions from opposing positions), hence its opinions should be attributed to individuals on the by-line. I don't see any reason to use an opinion source when there is no shortage of better mainstream sources.
Politrukki (
talk) 22:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
According to the charging document, Clinesmith doctored an email to an FBI colleague, adding the words “not a source” to explain Page’s relationship with the CIA. While Clinesmith’s email was literally true, and included the fact that the adviser was instead an operational contact of the CIA, Clinesmith represented the words in the email as those of the CIA—when, in fact, he had inserted them himself. Clinesmith told the Justice Department inspector general that he viewed a source as someone who was a recruited asset, whereas an operational contact was someone who interacted with a source. Even though the altered email was accurate—Page was not a source—Clinesmith’s representation of the language of the email itself was false. This alteration was material because it tended to diminish Page’s relationship with the CIA, which may have provided an innocent explanation for his otherwise suspicious contacts with Russians. [2] Bolding added
Sources
|
---|
|
"no intent to deceive"is an opinion, not a fact?
"The FBI official apparently lied because he wanted to avoid a 'terrible footnote' in the latest FISA renewal, admitting the embarrassing fact that the bureau had overlooked the CIA's relationship with Page in previous filings, according to Horowitz's narrative."[7]
[Clinesmith's lawyers say] he believed he was conveying accurate information even if it was improperly added to another official's email ... the prosecution argues that Clinesmith's change to the email may not have been driven by haste or personal convenience, but by his revulsion for Trump ... 'It is plausible that his strong political views and/or personal dislike of the current President made him more willing to engage in the fraudulent and unethical conduct to which he has pled guilty', prosecutors wrote."[8]
"[Lawfare blog's] opinions should be attributed to individuals"I was not endorsing using Lawfare opinion pieces in this article, nor was I saying that it should not be used – except in the lead.Nuance about "operational contact" should not be in the lead, but it may be covered shortly in the body. Again, if it's covered, Lawfare opinion pieces are not needed when there are better sources available: The Associated Press, The Financial Times. Politrukki ( talk) 13:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
A suit from Carter Page alleges a series of omissions and errors made by FBI and Justice Department officials of Obama administration. Page sues over Russia probe surveillance. https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-carter-page-russia-bfc0f495647e70faa2b5dc2749562132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.76.63 ( talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Politrukki, why did you delete the rest of the judge's quote here? Yodabyte also deleted that part. "Wrongdoing" is not an illegal "actionable claim", so the fact that Page engages in vexatious lawsuits comes to mind, even though we don't state it. Maybe that's why his lawsuits get dismissed or lost?!
That brings us to your deletion of the mention of the latest lawsuit from the lead, possibly the most notable one. Now there is no mention of his lawsuits at all in the lead, and that violates our rules for leads, since that's a notable part of the article. We need some mention in the lead, and don't need to say anymore than this:
So that's two issues that need fixing. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"The judge ... said the claims of misconduct and knowing falsehoods in the process of surveilling Page were 'troubling.' However, she said they simply didn't meet the standards for a civil suit ... Friedrich left open the possibility that Page could file a future suit to demand corrections of errors he asserted are present in the 2019 inspector general report, but she said that the energy analyst needed to pursue the issue directly with that office first before going to court.With regards to mentioning all lawsuits in the lead, I generally wouldn't oppose the proposal at this juncture. If the summary is accurate. I don't know much about these cases, but my understanding is that there is enough coverage to warrant a short mention in the lead. However, the text should say who were sued, preferably without naming all names, and what was alleged (defamation or other violations). Politrukki ( talk) 11:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications"in the court decisions (primary source). I incorrectly assumed that when you added the text, you had properly cited the source, and that you quoted the judge (though I was wondering why I can't find the quote in the decision). I now understand that you quoted law360.com without proper attribution. I will self-revert this and remove the law360.com content until we can decide if and how that source should be cited.In theory, something like
According to a summary by law360.com, the judge found "the agencies and officials can't be held liable for erroneous search warrant applications"would suffice for attribution, but the sentence a) only covers one aspect of Page's claims, b) seems a bit clunky. Let me re-emphasise that I haven't seen the source in full.I will also need to notify Yodabyte of this discussion. Politrukki ( talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"legal expert"and you argue for something like giving Buehler special prominence as a legal expert, please explain how legal expertise has been established.The majority of Wikipedia text is, or should be, written by paraphrasing. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text kind of discourages the type quotation I considered clunky:
"Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. ... Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language." [emphasis added]The same guideline says
"Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author", but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Attribution indicates that attribution is not always required.In many occasions it can be difficult to determine whether retaining the original wording is important or not. Paraphrasing can also be really hard, because one needs to capture the full meaning of the relevant content while avoiding close paraphrasing.With regard to pinging, I will ping you now, but I'm not going ping anyone every single time I reply them – because I would consider that dumb – and even if I tried to do so, many times I would just forget. I myself have disabled notifications for all mentions because I find repeated pinging annoying. If someone needs my immediate attention, they should contact me on my user talk page. Thanks, Politrukki ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"last week". Our bio says
"The judge dismissed the suit on February 14, 2021", which is likely wrong. Politrukki ( talk) 14:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"vexatious lawsuits ... suits seem to be frivolous ... a lawyer shouldn't file suits for non-criminal issues". Not a huge deal in this case, but it's better for all to focus on the topic. Politrukki ( talk) 14:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
When I look at the following (from the Steele dossier article), I notice that the first part contains two cases, so there are apparently five cases. I have previously left a message at some legal project's page here and sought help to improve this type of content, but haven't gotten any response. I am not a lawyer, even though my appeal was once used, nearly word for word by the judge in a case, in their decision to throw out a case against a large number of defendants. Apparently, my logic proved, without any need for other evidence, that the litigant was lying and the case was frivolous and malicious litigation. I still don't understand all the details of this type of stuff. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
In October 2018, Carter Page sued the DNC, Perkins Coie, and two Perkins Coie partners, for defamation. [1] [2] The lawsuit was dismissed on January 31, 2019. Page said he intended to appeal the decision. [2] [3]
On January 30, 2020, Page filed another defamation lawsuit (Case: 1:20-cv-00671, Filed: 01/30/20) against the DNC and Perkins Coie, naming Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann as defendants. [4] The suit was dismissed. [5] Page then appealed the lower court's dismissal to the Supreme Court. In January 2022, it declined to review the defamation lawsuit. [6]
On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles that described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true. [7]
Page's suit targeted Oath for 11 articles, especially one written by Michael Isikoff and published by Yahoo! News in September 2016. The judge dismissed the suit on February 11, 2021, [8] noting that "Page's arguments regarding Isikoff's description of the dossier and Steele were 'either sophistry or political spin'." He also said that Page "failed to allege actual malice by any of the authors, and that the three articles written by HuffPost employees were true". [9] Page was represented by attorneys John Pierce [10] and L. Lin Wood, who was denied permission to represent Page because of his actions in the attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in favor of President Donald Trump. [11]
In January 2022, Page lost an effort to revive the defamation case over Isikoff's article. Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said "the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, 'at a minimum,' conveyed a true 'gist,' even if it included some 'minor' or 'irrelevant' incorrect statements." Bloomberg Law reported that "The court dismissed as far-fetched Page's theories about a conspiracy among interconnected media and political figures to tarnish Trump by concocting the Russia investigation from thin air." [12]
On May 16, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a defamation suit filed by Page. [13]
On November 27, 2020, Page filed a $75 million suit against the United States, DOJ, FBI, and several former leading officials for the "defendants' multiple violations of his Constitutional and other legal rights in connection with unlawful surveillance and investigation of him by the United States Government." The defendants included James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Joe Pientka III, Stephen Soma, and Brian J. Auten. [14] [15]
The suit was dismissed on September 1, 2022, by United States district court judge Dabney L. Friedrich, who wrote:
To the extent these allegations are true, there is little question that many individual defendants, as well as the agency as a whole, engaged in wrongdoing. Even so, Page has brought no actionable claim against any individual defendant or against the United States. [16]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)
multiple
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).These are currently treated as separate, but they are apparently the same (Oath Inc. owns Yahoo! News and HuffPost). The dismissal is the same date, same judge, etc.
I'll start working on that, so please wait to edit that area of the article -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)