![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Soibangla, I wonder if a section devoted to this topic would be informative? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 13:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Durbin Statement On Reported Abuses By Special Counsel Durham [1] soibangla ( talk) 22:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Technology expert Brian Krebs (a reliable source under
WP:EXPERTSPS)
provided some analytical commentary, saying the inquiry could lead to a chilling effect
disincentivizing experts from sharing information with the FBI in the future.
DFlhb (
talk)
16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to exercise caution when applying the new Durham conclusions to this article. His report is still new, shows lots of partisan bias (just like any statements from Trump and Barr), and contradicts many findings by Mueller and Horowitz. We need to be patient and then use secondary reliable sources that have analyzed and digested Durham's conclusions as our sources, not depending on the primary source. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Seveneleven19 I reverted your edit, you are obliged to follow BRD rather than restore. Please self-revert and bring the matter here. Your assertion the original content is incorrect is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1155184935 soibangla ( talk) 03:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written and non-neutral. While mainstream sources call the final report "devastating to the FBI" (CNN) and say it "sharply criticizes FBI’s 2016 Trump campaign probe" (Wash. Post) , this article goes to extreme lengths to minimize the criticism, downplay the findings, insinuate the investigation was politically motivated, etc...
Red Slapper (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor", it did not allege political motivation and Durham failed to find what Trump alleged to be a "deep state" plot against him." It ought to say what the report did say, rather than emphasize what it did not, per MOS:DOUBT. Doubt as to the report's findings should be directly attributed to sources (i.e. Washington Post reporter John Q. Public stated that the report "failed to find..." GuardianH ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Durham delivered a report that scolded the F.B.I. but failed to live up to the expectations of supporters of Donald J. Trump that he would uncover a politically motivated "deep state" conspiracy...it accused the F.B.I. of "confirmation bias" rather than making a more explosive conclusion of political bias."
Special counsel John Durham found no evidence that the US justice department and the FBI conspired in a deep-state plot...Durham’s inquiry failed to uncover any blockbuster revelations suggesting the bureau targeted Trump out of political motivations
I would like to see specific examples of how this article goes to extreme lengths to minimize the criticism, downplay the findings, insinuate the investigation was politically motivated, etc
so the POV template can be removed as soon as possible.
soibangla (
talk)
22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
"the FBI investigation should never have been opened, because there was no evidentiary basis for that."
Durham muddies the water by implying the Steele dossier was the trigger for the opening of the Trump-Russia/Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Right there he's wrong. The FBI didn't even have the first reports when they opened their investigation. They had loads of suspicious information to justify opening the investigation into Trump and his campaign. They just needed proof that Trump knew, and they got it. They had evidence of hacking, already back from 2014 and 2015, evidence that Trump talked with Russians at the Miss Universe contest in 2013 about running for president (long before making Americans aware of his plans), myriad suspicious and secretive meetings all over Europe between Trump's people and actual Russian spies, and finally they got evidence that Trump knew and didn't report the Russian offer of stolen emails to help his campaign.
That was plenty of probable cause to open a full investigation. They already had been collecting evidence, but were targeting Russia. Now they just needed to change the target to include Trump's campaign. The "Russian interference" investigation turned into the "Trump-Russia" investigation of how much Trump and his people were helping the Russians. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham found there had been inadequate predication to immediately open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigationto the lead. Please proceed to specify other POV concerns you have. soibangla ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you've identified in the article? I'd like to get busy addressing them to preclude a common occurrence of a POV tag going up but never coming down. soibangla ( talk) 17:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump- we are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged (certainly not in wikipedia's voice), only report on what he charged. So that needs to be changed to
Durham charged the defendants with lying to the FBI
Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor", it did not find political motivation or what Trump alleged to be a "deep state" plot against him.- Special Counsel's report are findings or conclusions, not allegations.
are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged, but that's not remotely close to what the sentence does. It's a statement of fact of what he did and did not do.
a mealy-mouthed sentence.
There are many moreI'm ready, please proceed. soibangla ( talk) 21:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trumpwhat do you think the second part ("rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump") is oding, if not implying that's what he should have charged? Red Slapper ( talk) 02:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
DrQuinnEskimoWoman, regarding your edit
Durham wrote:
Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation
(emphasis mine)
NYT:
But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited [2]
He was alluding to the dossier. He was wink-winking at it because many people continue to believe it. Many have called it words to the effect of "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated." He was saying "dossier" without saying dossier.
Would Alexander Downer's alert require much "analytical rigor?" No, he's a former foreign minister of a Five Eyes member and he said what he said. The dossier would require a lot of "analytical rigor."
Was Downer a "politically affiliated person or entity?" No, but FusionGPS, Perkins Coie, Steele and the HRC campaign were. Wink-wink.
This is consistent with the insinuations about the dossier he tried (but failed) to introduce in the Sussmann trial to implicate the Clinton campaign, and what he continues to insinuate in his report.
soibangla ( talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article is a transplant from the middle of the John Durham article, from which this article was forked. The sentence remains in its original location and its original form, but it is unacceptable as the lead sentence in the lead section of an article, because:
1) As a lead sentence, it is excessively long and unwieldy.
2) It fails to describe the topic of the article. Durham's name is not even mentioned until deep in the second sentence, which is also long. The lead sentence does not comply with Policy and Guideline recommendations. See:
MOS:FIRST (Manual of Style/Lead section): "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Also see:
WP:ISAWORDFOR (Wikipedia is not a dictionary): "A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title)."
The lead sentence can be simplified and made to perform its assigned purpose by adapting the second sentence from the lead. The adaptation provides the basis for a new version of the first two sentences, as follows:
The existing lead sentence can, in effect, be re-transplanted back into the body of the article, by placing it (with any appropriate edit tweaks) as the first sentence in the section, "Investigation into origins of FBI investigation 'Crossfire Hurricane'". The import of the sentence will not be excluded from the revised lead; the information is already contained at the start of the second paragraph in the sentence that begins, "Durham's investigation was predicated...".
In my text about Durham's appointment as special counsel, I omitted the phrasing "had secretly appointed Durham". I have seen two sources that use the word "secret" or "secretly" in this context: a statement by Rep. Adam Schiff quoted in Politico (and probably elsewhere) and a CNN article using "secret" in its reportage without quoting anyone. Both articles also reported that Barr gave a reason for delaying the announcement: to avoid influencing the upcoming election. So, it was one-sided for this article to use "secretly" without also giving the explicitly stated official reason for withholding the announcement. The information--the "secret" appointment as well as the belated justification--can both be described in the body of the article; I don't think the lead needs that level of detail. The lead certainly does not need the unbalanced description that now exists, which weakens the article's adherence to NPOV. I find other problems in the introductory section--and the article--related to accuracy and neutrality. I will address those in a separate Talk section. In this thread, I'm confining my comments to address revision of the first sentence and the description of the special counsel appointment. DonFB ( talk) 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to tweak. --
Valjean (
talk) (
PING me)
15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence has remained improperly conceived and written. It still failed to fulfill the most basic requirements (recommendations, if you prefer) of Policy: to "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" ( MOS:FIRST) and to be "a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title)" ( WP:ISAWORDFOR). Futhermore, it remained no less unwieldy than the version I commented on in my first post here. It also displayed another problem. It showed unseemly haste to villainize Trump, by jumping immediately to his culpability and behavior that led to the Durham probe. That information is not wrong, but it's in the wrong place, a place that should, according to policy, be occupied by the aforementioned "relatively short but discrete explanation" of the topic of the article. Introducing such provocative rhetoric in the immediate beginning of an article does Wikipedia no favors. Its continued presence as the first sentence of the lead section, along with, for example until recently, the one-sided response by a Strzok lawyer, betrayed the article's POV tendencies, as at least one other relatively level-headed editor has noted.
Other issues in the lead:
The article's first sentence (that I have since rewritten) included the following text:
"...Donald Trump's false accusations that investigations of him and his campaign's suspicious ties to Russia and its interference in the 2016 United States elections were part of a deep state plot and a "hoax" or "witch hunt" that was initiated by his political enemies."
In the next paragraph, we see a reprise of the essentially the same information:
"...unproven conspiracy theory pushed by Trump that 'the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement...'" (generously providing the word "conspiracy" twice in the same sentence).
My initial rewrite condensed all that text to: "Beginning in 2017, President Trump and his allies had attacked the FBI probe...". In the version I just posted, I restored some of that purple prose, including: "deep state plot", "hoax", "witch hunt", and "conspiracy", while excising the redundancy.
Farther down, the sentence beginning, "When Inspector General Michael Horowitz..." is another specimen of unwieldy prose. (In desktop Firefox at 110% magnification, it occupies six full lines.)
In my previous rewrite, I broke it into two sentences containing two explicit points: 1) the contradiction; 2) the redirection of the Durham probe to focus on the Clinton campaign. I've left it alone for now, but it fairly demands simplification. The current version includes a lengthy quote from the NYT:
current:
(That's only about half the full sentence.)
My (reverted) version condensed and paraphrased it:
Simply unnecessary and cluttering the text of the current version is the trailing phrase: "along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions". The sentence needs to be cleaned up, along the lines I've recommended.
In the third paragraph of the lead section we see the text: "...one of whom pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation". This refers to Clinesmith. I did not change or remove the sentence, but I will address its substance now. I refer you to the Politico article about Clinesmith of Jan. 29, 2021 by Josh Gerstein, which contains this information: "The only person charged in the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the probe of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and its ties to Russia was spared prison time for altering an email used to support a surveillance application." [4] If an editor knows of a reliable source that says, in effect, this case is "unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation", it needs to be brought forward. Otherwise, the phrase "unrelated...investigation" should be excised from this article.
In the fourth and final paragraph of the lead section, we see the sentence: "Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a 'lack of analytical rigor', it did not find political motivation or what Trump alleged to be a 'deep state' plot against him." This looks like a textbook example of MOS:EDITORIAL (Manual of Style/Words to watch), to wit: "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second" (my ital). In my initial (reverted) edit, I changed the text to two sentences, breaking the evident editorialization. I have not read the multiple citations for the sentence in full, so I request editors who want that sentence unbroken to show that such editorial linkage exists in the sources; otherwise the statements should be separated. In the same sentence, in another case of subtle POV, the text prior to my original revision and also my latest edit said, "Athough the report alleged FBI confirmation bias". In my first rewrite, I changed that to: "The report accused the FBI", because in a source I did peruse, a headline and photo caption use "accused", not "alleged". However, such tangential sourcing may not be sufficient, so in my current revised text of the lead section, I used "concluded", with a citation to the NYT. Perhaps sourcing exists that says the Durham report "alleged" bias; if so, let's see that source. If none exists, "concluded" should stand. "Alleged" connotes uncertainty; "concluded" connotes certainty. DonFB ( talk) 07:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
in this investigation. Yes, this investigation. Crossfire ended in May 2017, Clinesmith changed the email in June 2017. soibangla ( talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
many morePOV issues you've perceived. soibangla ( talk) 17:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
How the FBI acted in the investigation and why it opened the investigation are two very different things. We have a parallelism here:
It's important to understand these things. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
It is getting hard to assume you are editing here in good faith? Right back atcha! soibangla ( talk) 19:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, Red Slapper, your claim that Clinesmith's alteration affected the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is just impossibly wrong. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
which directly contradicts what you just saidis simply wrong. What I originally wrote,
pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation, remains indisputably correct, and I maintain you have drawn an incorrect inference from Politico, just a single source that may have awkwardly phrased just a single sentence from which you drew an incorrect inference, and I am confident I have adequately explained this. soibangla ( talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This is clearly easy to confuse. There is a large difference between "involved in the investigation of the origins" and "involved in the origins". We're all acting in good faith and can figure out wording that conveys all the nuances. This is likely best done with our own wording that summarizes the facts, rather than an exact quote that only deals with one part of the facts. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
DonFB Red Slapper Valjean: have all the issues of this thread been resolved? it's become unwieldy and I'd like to close it so we can start anew. soibangla ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
DonFB Valjean, are you satisfied with how paragraph #4 now reads? NB: By "now," I meant prior to this edit. soibangla ( talk) 17:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) soibangla ( talk) 17:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
DonFB, you are absolutely right that the sentence is long and unwieldy. Let's deal with it in its own section. It's buried above with too much else going on. You wrote above: "Farther down, the sentence beginning, "When Inspector General Michael Horowitz..." is another specimen of unwieldy prose. (In desktop Firefox at 110% magnification, it occupies six full lines.)"
Here's the sentence:
When Inspector General Michael Horowitz contradicted that theory by testifying to Congress that the FBI showed no political bias in starting the investigation into Trump and possible connections with Russia, [1] [2] [3] Barr and Durham, in the words of a New York Times' report, "turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions." [4]
You continued:
In my previous rewrite, I broke it into two sentences containing two explicit points: 1) the contradiction; 2) the redirection of the Durham probe to focus on the Clinton campaign. I've left it alone for now, but it fairly demands simplification. The current version includes a lengthy quote from the NYT:
current:
- "...turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions".
(That's only about half the full sentence.)
My (reverted) version condensed and paraphrased it:
- "...Barr and Durham looked for a reason to accuse the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton of trying to create suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia."
Simply unnecessary and cluttering the text of the current version is the trailing phrase: "along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions". The sentence needs to be cleaned up, along the lines I've recommended.
Now resume here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:31, 27 May 2023
References
Savage_Goldman_Benner_1/26/2023
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yodabyte made some edits to the lead today that I find troublesome. It is certainly true that Durham wrote "especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities," and "there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."
But are those fully accurate statements, or are they misleading statements? Are we in the business of uncritically regurgitating what someone says, particularly in the lead, and especially when many have found the investigation and the final report to be politicized?
Durham is clearly referencing the dossier in these two instances. But his charter was to determine whether Crossfire was properly predicated or politically motivated. He found the answer 'no' in both cases.
After he said "especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities," he said "This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation." I don't know how many times this needs repeating, but the dossier had no role in triggering Crossfire. Moreover, there would not have been a subsequent need for the Mueller investigation had Trump not fired Comey, which raised suspicion of a cover-up. If you have nothing to hide, why would you fire the guy who has explicitly told you he's not investigating you, only to trigger a broader investigation that does include you? Trump brought on Mueller himself by firing Comey; any suggestion that Mueller came along for some other reason is a whitewash of history. The dossier did not lead to Crossfire, which in turn did not lead to Mueller. The dossier was used only to get a third renewal of a FISA on Page, one month after Crossfire was closed. Yes, the FBI relied on the dossier for one aspect of its investigation, but Durham does not provide any context for readers to see it had nothing to do with opening Crossfire, and because the opening was his charter, without context readers may presume Durham is referencing the dossier in the context of the opening. He is engaged in some sleight of word here, intended to insinuate "Hillary did it." When they have nothing, Hillary is always their fallback culprit. Already Maria Bartiromo and Jim Jordan have floated the idea of investigating her again. But I digress...
So, should we include in the lead his exact words, verbatim and uncritically, even though his words are inaccurate and misleading? If we do, we are assuming that because he's a special counsel in our government, his words can be accepted at face value. Would those who believe the government lies all the time find that acceptable, or only when it's from a government they like? soibangla ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
soibangla ( talk) 23:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation
emerging with your own sweeping political conclusions about what it all means, instead of trying to craft the article from a neutral point of viewI am attempting to have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people to ensure this contentious article has a NPOV. This investigation has had deep political implications from the start, so we should not simply accept the Durham report as prima facie truth. The content added today does not comport with that effort, and I'm getting the sense there's some POV projection here. Of course, this might be caused by people not paying close attention to this matter until a few days ago. I go way back on this. soibangla ( talk) 01:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.
But in using the word “triggered,” Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.
the key takeaway from all of them was that it found no evidence of wrongdoing- that is very much incorrect. It found improper basis for starting the investigation, it found double standards, it found confirmation bias and a lack of analytical rigor, and it produced a criminal conviction. Red Slapper ( talk) 11:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This name is taken from a lyric written by Mick Jagger for the song Jumpin' Jack Flash. This fact in unacknowledged in the Report or the present article about it. This omission is probably the only thing of note in either one. The Report was released two weeks ago and all the kerfuffle about it has made me weary, soggy, and hard to light. Wastrel Way ( talk) Eric Wastrel Way ( talk) 13:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
in his report, despite acknowledging the evidence is dubiously sourced from Russia, and was told as much by judge Howell when he twice tried to get a warrant to look into George Soros, makes this lead-notable, especially since the dossier they are strongly dismissive of was also dubiously sourced from Russia. oh the irony, huh?
hence this from NYT:
But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr. Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1157749111
soibangla ( talk) 18:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
If editors would identify specific content they consider POV, we can resolve any issues and move toward removing the tag. If there is not soon significant progress, I will remove the tag.
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor [12]
soibangla ( talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
His investigation has produced a single guilty plea from one extremely small fish for a likely immaterial error that the Inspector General already found. ... The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.[13] Andre 🚐 01:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham’s inquiry failed to uncover any blockbuster revelations suggesting the bureau targeted Trump out of political motivations, and the report at times came across as a defense of his lengthy investigation... The Durham report ended without recommending any wholesale changes at the FBI,... Two cases that Durham took to court ended in failure. Last year, a jury found cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussman not guilty of lying to the FBI. A jury also found Danchenko not guilty of making false statements to the FBI in October, in a case argued personally by Durham. Durham extracted a guilty plea from Clinesmith, who was sentenced to one year of probation and 400 hours of community service after admitting in a 2020 plea agreement that he had altered a government email that a colleague then used to justify to a secret surveillance court the wiretap of the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.[14] Aka a nothingburger. Nothing devastating to the FBI. no revelations. Andre 🚐 01:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
A report by Special Counsel John Durham released Monday found the FBI should not have launched a full investigation into the connections between former President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 electionNBC:
Durham said the FBI opened a full counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign “based on raw, uncorroborated information,”So, clearly, Durham said that the FBI should not have opened a full counterintelligence investigation. Durham was widely discredited by RS. What's the problem. Andre 🚐 01:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you perceive so we can resolve them. I have asked you before to edit the article so we can go through standard BRD, but you seem to prefer talking and talking about issues here. Edit the article like everyone else does. soibangla ( talk) 03:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham said, "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."
article: Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a disproved conspiracy theory.
NYT: But in using the word “triggered,” Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited. [17]
"and" does not bind triggered and sustained. The latter may be correct, but the former certainly is not. And the objective of the Durham investigation was to determine how Crossfire was triggered, that is, was there a vast IC and/or Clinton deep state conspiracy. Ancillary things he also found along the way are not relevant to his appointed mission, try as he and others might to make it seem that way, to exaggerate the importance of his findings (such as the Page FISA, which the IG already covered years earlier, and which Durham merely reiterates at length). Also, "and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation" is false; the Comey firing is the only thing that brought Mueller into the situation. Durham's sleight of word suggests the dossier brought Mueller into it, so this whole thing would never have happened if not for the dossier. haha
The removed edit is supported by a highly reliable source, written by a guy who closely followed the whole investigation from the start. He's kinda one of the top experts on this. The removed content should be restored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1158019811 soibangla ( talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media? Parroted by the NYT, or speculated about on cable news? Does he cite a bogus allegation by the NYT reporters? Of course WaPo corrected and retracted one element of their reporting; journalists are humans who make errors, especially in large, complex, fast-moving topics, but the salient issue is that WaPo fixed them. Do you want to talk about the right-wing coverage now? soibangla ( talk) 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
information outside of just the dossier. The FBI was receiving false information from many different political actors, I see you saying that. soibangla ( talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
He and his supporters hoped it would expose a “deep state” conspiracy within the top echelons of the FBI and other agencies to derail Trump’s presidency and candidacy. Despite expectations that Durham might charge senior government officials, his team produced only three prosecutions. A former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to altering an email the FBI relied on in applying to eavesdrop on an ex-Trump campaign aide. Two other defendants — a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and a Russian-American analyst — were both acquitted on charges of lying to the FBI.[25] Andre 🚐 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
did not recommend any new charges against individuals or “wholesale changes” about how the FBI handles politically charged investigations, despite strongly criticizing the agency’s behavior...Durham did not recommend sweeping changes or new policies around how politically sensitive investigations are handled.AKA a nothingburger Andre 🚐 00:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yodabyte, in your edit summary you wrote "this one NYT article is very weak for inclusion in lead." I explained to you who Charlie Savage is. Are you familiar with his work on this topic? soibangla ( talk) 01:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
My take on the specific disputed text, which has been deleted, restored, deleted, etc:
Article (deleted text): "'In part triggered' the Crossfire Hurricane investigation..."
NYT: "This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane".
My assessment: Source supports article text.
Article (deleted text): "echoing a disproved conspiracy theory about the Steele dossier.
NYT: "Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory".
My assessment: Source supports "echo conspiracy theory"; source does not support "disproved".
The cited NYT report continues, "the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September". A reader (or Wikp editor) could conclude that means the dossier was not used in opening Crossfire. The NYT might make the same conclusion about the claim that it was used. But its article did not say "disproved"--or "debunked" or "false" or "invalid" or use some other such word. If it did, our article would be justified in using the word. No conclusion by Wikp editors about the facts stated by the NYT can be included in this article unless the NYT report or other RS states that conclusion. If there actually is a source that uses 'disproved' or 'debunked' or similar, that source should be presented. Any conclusion published by Wikipedia that is not verifiable in specific language in a source violates NOR/SYNTH, and by extension also violates NPOV. DonFB ( talk) 05:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
the trial unfolded in a way highly unfavorable to Durham’s case; the central claim that Danchenko had made up his contacts with Belarusian-American businessman and Trump campaign associate Sergei Millian was not only unproven but contradicted by some of the evidence. And while initial coverage of Danchenko’s arrest depicted him as an unreliable and opportunistic paid informant, two FBI agents who testified for the prosecution strongly defended the value of Danchenko’s information—leaving Durham in the awkward position of trying to discredit his own witnesses...both the FBI and the media were looking into the Trump-Russia connection before the dossier made its appearance. Even staunch Trump ally Devin Nunes conceded, in a 2018 memo highly critical of the FBI investigation, that the inquiry was triggered by junior Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos’s boasts about contacts with Russian operatives. Steele’s inquiry into Trump’s Russian connections, which began in earnest in June 2016, proceeded in parallel to the FBI investigation, which opened officially in late July 2016; while Steele had some contacts with FBI agents early on, his reports were not submitted to the FBI team in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation until September 19.[28] Andre 🚐 06:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
hose media sources whose original coverage was wrong and criticized for it. You've offered no sources to support that as pertaining to Durham and it doesn't belong here or anywhere else: it's POV pushing and classic WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. The vast majority of the source material has supporting the characterization as Durham as not impactful, and not living up to the hype created by the right wing. That's the story we tell here. Stop questioning RS
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Andre
🚐
00:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This sentence currently reads:
Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigation.
I hope we can all agree that the facts of this statement are fully supported by numerous reliable sources.
Yesterday, Red Slapper said on Talk:
...the clear statement by CNN that Durham concluded that the FBI should not have launched the probe is downplayed and misrepresented in the lead
The current sentence is not "downplayed." It's the first sentence after the Report is introduced.
Moreover, Red Slapper has repeatedly emphasised using the CNN source, despite numerous other reliable sources being available. Now, CNN reported "Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation..." (emphasis mine) "Never" means never, as in, no matter how much additional evidence was acquired in the future to build an airtight case, the FBI should NEVER have opened Crossfire as a full investigation. This is not what Durham said, and I don't see any other source that uses the word "never" in this context. CNN is an outlier here, and outliers should be thrown out in the face of every other reliable source not saying that.
Yesterday, Red Slapper insisted more than once that "never" was not his issue for challenging our content. If so, then why does Red Slapper keep coming back to CNN when numerous other sources are available? The editor also stated that the POV tag will remain until this is resolved to their satisfaction. I have asked Red Slapper at least twice to edit the article so we can go through standard BRD, but the editor has not.
So, I now ask Red Slapper to provide specific language they would prefer. If it includes "never," it should be rejected. But at this point I don't see what problem Red Slapper perceives in our existing sentence. It doesn't "downplay" or "misrepresent" anything, as Red Slapper asserts. It just doesn't contain the word "never," or some other issue that Red Slapper still has not identified. soibangla ( talk) 14:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
lockstep editing patterns between those twois incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you've identified? soibangla ( talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump- we are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged (certainly not in wikipedia's voice), only report on what he charged. So that needs to be changed to
Durham charged the defendants with lying to the FBI. The statement currently in the article is sourced to this, which does not support the "rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump" part Red Slapper ( talk) 16:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you've identified in an orderly fashion. soibangla ( talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
What's this game you are playing?Right back atcha again. BEBOLD, then maybe there will be an R and a D. soibangla ( talk) 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The report Monday from special counsel John Durham represents the long-awaited culmination of an investigation that Trump and allies had claimed would expose massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials. Instead, Durham’s investigation delivered underwhelming results, with prosecutors securing a guilty plea from a little-known FBI employee but losing the only two criminal cases they took to trial.[31] Andre 🚐 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
He and his supporters hoped it would expose a “deep state” conspiracy within the top echelons of the FBI and other agencies to derail Trump’s presidency and candidacy...Despite expectations that Durham might charge senior government officials, his team produced only three prosecutions.Quite clear. Andre 🚐 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham’s report suggested that the FBI moved too quickly to open a full investigation, but stopped short of denouncing the FBI’s and Justice Department’s decisions to investigate ... Preliminary investigations, he wrote, are constrained by time limits and fewer approved investigation techniques.[32] Andre 🚐 23:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Should the current lead sentence...
The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities.
be amended to include this bold content...
The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a
disprovedconspiracy theory promoted by Trump supporters.
This question is rooted in what Charlie Savage exclusively reported in The New York Times:
Mr. Durham went beyond criticizing the wiretap applications, writing: "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."
But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited. [33]
The NYT does not use the word "disproved" but that can be readily sourced if this edit is ultimately adopted.
This matter has been previously discussed in this Talk thread. soibangla ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy.Andre 🚐 18:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossierand in the next sentence says
In fact, as Mr. Durham acknowledged elsewhere in the report, the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September.We can certainly quibble about exact wording, but it strikes me that saying the 'conspiracy theory' was not true is an accurate summary of the source. Again, that doesn't mean it should necessarily be included, but wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
he and his supporters[34] Andre 🚐 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Trump and some of his allies in the news media went further, stoking expectations among his supporters that Mr. Durham would imprison high-level officials[35]
Trump was quick to claim vindication for his claims that a massive deep state plot was designed to thwart him from power seven years ago, even though the report made no such firm conclusion.[36]
“It’s a bit of a dud,” Ryan Goodman, an NYU School of Law professor, told CNN’s Erin Burnett, arguing that Durham’s contention that FBI agents had found countervailing evidence that they ignored to upgrade a preliminary probe into Trump into a full-scale investigation was questionable. Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst, said that the report failed to live up to Trump’s accusations. In that Durham did not find “systemic abuses” that Trump partisans had hoped to see.Andre 🚐 23:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Horowitz refuted the claims propagated by Trump that the Russia investigation had its roots in the unverified, salacious allegations in the dossier.Andre 🚐 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yodabyte, the edit you just made was extensively discussed and resolved here on Talk. IIRC, you were blocked for a time during that discussion, and another participant with similar arguments as yours was indeffed after being found to be a ban evader.
I recommend you self-revert and bring this matter back to Talk. soibangla ( talk) 22:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Soibangla, I wonder if a section devoted to this topic would be informative? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 13:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Durbin Statement On Reported Abuses By Special Counsel Durham [1] soibangla ( talk) 22:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Technology expert Brian Krebs (a reliable source under
WP:EXPERTSPS)
provided some analytical commentary, saying the inquiry could lead to a chilling effect
disincentivizing experts from sharing information with the FBI in the future.
DFlhb (
talk)
16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to exercise caution when applying the new Durham conclusions to this article. His report is still new, shows lots of partisan bias (just like any statements from Trump and Barr), and contradicts many findings by Mueller and Horowitz. We need to be patient and then use secondary reliable sources that have analyzed and digested Durham's conclusions as our sources, not depending on the primary source. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Seveneleven19 I reverted your edit, you are obliged to follow BRD rather than restore. Please self-revert and bring the matter here. Your assertion the original content is incorrect is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1155184935 soibangla ( talk) 03:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written and non-neutral. While mainstream sources call the final report "devastating to the FBI" (CNN) and say it "sharply criticizes FBI’s 2016 Trump campaign probe" (Wash. Post) , this article goes to extreme lengths to minimize the criticism, downplay the findings, insinuate the investigation was politically motivated, etc...
Red Slapper (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor", it did not allege political motivation and Durham failed to find what Trump alleged to be a "deep state" plot against him." It ought to say what the report did say, rather than emphasize what it did not, per MOS:DOUBT. Doubt as to the report's findings should be directly attributed to sources (i.e. Washington Post reporter John Q. Public stated that the report "failed to find..." GuardianH ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Durham delivered a report that scolded the F.B.I. but failed to live up to the expectations of supporters of Donald J. Trump that he would uncover a politically motivated "deep state" conspiracy...it accused the F.B.I. of "confirmation bias" rather than making a more explosive conclusion of political bias."
Special counsel John Durham found no evidence that the US justice department and the FBI conspired in a deep-state plot...Durham’s inquiry failed to uncover any blockbuster revelations suggesting the bureau targeted Trump out of political motivations
I would like to see specific examples of how this article goes to extreme lengths to minimize the criticism, downplay the findings, insinuate the investigation was politically motivated, etc
so the POV template can be removed as soon as possible.
soibangla (
talk)
22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
"the FBI investigation should never have been opened, because there was no evidentiary basis for that."
Durham muddies the water by implying the Steele dossier was the trigger for the opening of the Trump-Russia/Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Right there he's wrong. The FBI didn't even have the first reports when they opened their investigation. They had loads of suspicious information to justify opening the investigation into Trump and his campaign. They just needed proof that Trump knew, and they got it. They had evidence of hacking, already back from 2014 and 2015, evidence that Trump talked with Russians at the Miss Universe contest in 2013 about running for president (long before making Americans aware of his plans), myriad suspicious and secretive meetings all over Europe between Trump's people and actual Russian spies, and finally they got evidence that Trump knew and didn't report the Russian offer of stolen emails to help his campaign.
That was plenty of probable cause to open a full investigation. They already had been collecting evidence, but were targeting Russia. Now they just needed to change the target to include Trump's campaign. The "Russian interference" investigation turned into the "Trump-Russia" investigation of how much Trump and his people were helping the Russians. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham found there had been inadequate predication to immediately open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigationto the lead. Please proceed to specify other POV concerns you have. soibangla ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you've identified in the article? I'd like to get busy addressing them to preclude a common occurrence of a POV tag going up but never coming down. soibangla ( talk) 17:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump- we are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged (certainly not in wikipedia's voice), only report on what he charged. So that needs to be changed to
Durham charged the defendants with lying to the FBI
Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor", it did not find political motivation or what Trump alleged to be a "deep state" plot against him.- Special Counsel's report are findings or conclusions, not allegations.
are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged, but that's not remotely close to what the sentence does. It's a statement of fact of what he did and did not do.
a mealy-mouthed sentence.
There are many moreI'm ready, please proceed. soibangla ( talk) 21:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trumpwhat do you think the second part ("rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump") is oding, if not implying that's what he should have charged? Red Slapper ( talk) 02:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
DrQuinnEskimoWoman, regarding your edit
Durham wrote:
Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation
(emphasis mine)
NYT:
But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited [2]
He was alluding to the dossier. He was wink-winking at it because many people continue to believe it. Many have called it words to the effect of "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated." He was saying "dossier" without saying dossier.
Would Alexander Downer's alert require much "analytical rigor?" No, he's a former foreign minister of a Five Eyes member and he said what he said. The dossier would require a lot of "analytical rigor."
Was Downer a "politically affiliated person or entity?" No, but FusionGPS, Perkins Coie, Steele and the HRC campaign were. Wink-wink.
This is consistent with the insinuations about the dossier he tried (but failed) to introduce in the Sussmann trial to implicate the Clinton campaign, and what he continues to insinuate in his report.
soibangla ( talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article is a transplant from the middle of the John Durham article, from which this article was forked. The sentence remains in its original location and its original form, but it is unacceptable as the lead sentence in the lead section of an article, because:
1) As a lead sentence, it is excessively long and unwieldy.
2) It fails to describe the topic of the article. Durham's name is not even mentioned until deep in the second sentence, which is also long. The lead sentence does not comply with Policy and Guideline recommendations. See:
MOS:FIRST (Manual of Style/Lead section): "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Also see:
WP:ISAWORDFOR (Wikipedia is not a dictionary): "A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title)."
The lead sentence can be simplified and made to perform its assigned purpose by adapting the second sentence from the lead. The adaptation provides the basis for a new version of the first two sentences, as follows:
The existing lead sentence can, in effect, be re-transplanted back into the body of the article, by placing it (with any appropriate edit tweaks) as the first sentence in the section, "Investigation into origins of FBI investigation 'Crossfire Hurricane'". The import of the sentence will not be excluded from the revised lead; the information is already contained at the start of the second paragraph in the sentence that begins, "Durham's investigation was predicated...".
In my text about Durham's appointment as special counsel, I omitted the phrasing "had secretly appointed Durham". I have seen two sources that use the word "secret" or "secretly" in this context: a statement by Rep. Adam Schiff quoted in Politico (and probably elsewhere) and a CNN article using "secret" in its reportage without quoting anyone. Both articles also reported that Barr gave a reason for delaying the announcement: to avoid influencing the upcoming election. So, it was one-sided for this article to use "secretly" without also giving the explicitly stated official reason for withholding the announcement. The information--the "secret" appointment as well as the belated justification--can both be described in the body of the article; I don't think the lead needs that level of detail. The lead certainly does not need the unbalanced description that now exists, which weakens the article's adherence to NPOV. I find other problems in the introductory section--and the article--related to accuracy and neutrality. I will address those in a separate Talk section. In this thread, I'm confining my comments to address revision of the first sentence and the description of the special counsel appointment. DonFB ( talk) 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to tweak. --
Valjean (
talk) (
PING me)
15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence has remained improperly conceived and written. It still failed to fulfill the most basic requirements (recommendations, if you prefer) of Policy: to "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" ( MOS:FIRST) and to be "a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title)" ( WP:ISAWORDFOR). Futhermore, it remained no less unwieldy than the version I commented on in my first post here. It also displayed another problem. It showed unseemly haste to villainize Trump, by jumping immediately to his culpability and behavior that led to the Durham probe. That information is not wrong, but it's in the wrong place, a place that should, according to policy, be occupied by the aforementioned "relatively short but discrete explanation" of the topic of the article. Introducing such provocative rhetoric in the immediate beginning of an article does Wikipedia no favors. Its continued presence as the first sentence of the lead section, along with, for example until recently, the one-sided response by a Strzok lawyer, betrayed the article's POV tendencies, as at least one other relatively level-headed editor has noted.
Other issues in the lead:
The article's first sentence (that I have since rewritten) included the following text:
"...Donald Trump's false accusations that investigations of him and his campaign's suspicious ties to Russia and its interference in the 2016 United States elections were part of a deep state plot and a "hoax" or "witch hunt" that was initiated by his political enemies."
In the next paragraph, we see a reprise of the essentially the same information:
"...unproven conspiracy theory pushed by Trump that 'the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement...'" (generously providing the word "conspiracy" twice in the same sentence).
My initial rewrite condensed all that text to: "Beginning in 2017, President Trump and his allies had attacked the FBI probe...". In the version I just posted, I restored some of that purple prose, including: "deep state plot", "hoax", "witch hunt", and "conspiracy", while excising the redundancy.
Farther down, the sentence beginning, "When Inspector General Michael Horowitz..." is another specimen of unwieldy prose. (In desktop Firefox at 110% magnification, it occupies six full lines.)
In my previous rewrite, I broke it into two sentences containing two explicit points: 1) the contradiction; 2) the redirection of the Durham probe to focus on the Clinton campaign. I've left it alone for now, but it fairly demands simplification. The current version includes a lengthy quote from the NYT:
current:
(That's only about half the full sentence.)
My (reverted) version condensed and paraphrased it:
Simply unnecessary and cluttering the text of the current version is the trailing phrase: "along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions". The sentence needs to be cleaned up, along the lines I've recommended.
In the third paragraph of the lead section we see the text: "...one of whom pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation". This refers to Clinesmith. I did not change or remove the sentence, but I will address its substance now. I refer you to the Politico article about Clinesmith of Jan. 29, 2021 by Josh Gerstein, which contains this information: "The only person charged in the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the probe of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and its ties to Russia was spared prison time for altering an email used to support a surveillance application." [4] If an editor knows of a reliable source that says, in effect, this case is "unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation", it needs to be brought forward. Otherwise, the phrase "unrelated...investigation" should be excised from this article.
In the fourth and final paragraph of the lead section, we see the sentence: "Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a 'lack of analytical rigor', it did not find political motivation or what Trump alleged to be a 'deep state' plot against him." This looks like a textbook example of MOS:EDITORIAL (Manual of Style/Words to watch), to wit: "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second" (my ital). In my initial (reverted) edit, I changed the text to two sentences, breaking the evident editorialization. I have not read the multiple citations for the sentence in full, so I request editors who want that sentence unbroken to show that such editorial linkage exists in the sources; otherwise the statements should be separated. In the same sentence, in another case of subtle POV, the text prior to my original revision and also my latest edit said, "Athough the report alleged FBI confirmation bias". In my first rewrite, I changed that to: "The report accused the FBI", because in a source I did peruse, a headline and photo caption use "accused", not "alleged". However, such tangential sourcing may not be sufficient, so in my current revised text of the lead section, I used "concluded", with a citation to the NYT. Perhaps sourcing exists that says the Durham report "alleged" bias; if so, let's see that source. If none exists, "concluded" should stand. "Alleged" connotes uncertainty; "concluded" connotes certainty. DonFB ( talk) 07:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
in this investigation. Yes, this investigation. Crossfire ended in May 2017, Clinesmith changed the email in June 2017. soibangla ( talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
many morePOV issues you've perceived. soibangla ( talk) 17:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
How the FBI acted in the investigation and why it opened the investigation are two very different things. We have a parallelism here:
It's important to understand these things. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
It is getting hard to assume you are editing here in good faith? Right back atcha! soibangla ( talk) 19:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, Red Slapper, your claim that Clinesmith's alteration affected the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is just impossibly wrong. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
which directly contradicts what you just saidis simply wrong. What I originally wrote,
pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation, remains indisputably correct, and I maintain you have drawn an incorrect inference from Politico, just a single source that may have awkwardly phrased just a single sentence from which you drew an incorrect inference, and I am confident I have adequately explained this. soibangla ( talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This is clearly easy to confuse. There is a large difference between "involved in the investigation of the origins" and "involved in the origins". We're all acting in good faith and can figure out wording that conveys all the nuances. This is likely best done with our own wording that summarizes the facts, rather than an exact quote that only deals with one part of the facts. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
DonFB Red Slapper Valjean: have all the issues of this thread been resolved? it's become unwieldy and I'd like to close it so we can start anew. soibangla ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
DonFB Valjean, are you satisfied with how paragraph #4 now reads? NB: By "now," I meant prior to this edit. soibangla ( talk) 17:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) soibangla ( talk) 17:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
DonFB, you are absolutely right that the sentence is long and unwieldy. Let's deal with it in its own section. It's buried above with too much else going on. You wrote above: "Farther down, the sentence beginning, "When Inspector General Michael Horowitz..." is another specimen of unwieldy prose. (In desktop Firefox at 110% magnification, it occupies six full lines.)"
Here's the sentence:
When Inspector General Michael Horowitz contradicted that theory by testifying to Congress that the FBI showed no political bias in starting the investigation into Trump and possible connections with Russia, [1] [2] [3] Barr and Durham, in the words of a New York Times' report, "turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions." [4]
You continued:
In my previous rewrite, I broke it into two sentences containing two explicit points: 1) the contradiction; 2) the redirection of the Durham probe to focus on the Clinton campaign. I've left it alone for now, but it fairly demands simplification. The current version includes a lengthy quote from the NYT:
current:
- "...turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions".
(That's only about half the full sentence.)
My (reverted) version condensed and paraphrased it:
- "...Barr and Durham looked for a reason to accuse the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton of trying to create suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia."
Simply unnecessary and cluttering the text of the current version is the trailing phrase: "along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions". The sentence needs to be cleaned up, along the lines I've recommended.
Now resume here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:31, 27 May 2023
References
Savage_Goldman_Benner_1/26/2023
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yodabyte made some edits to the lead today that I find troublesome. It is certainly true that Durham wrote "especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities," and "there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."
But are those fully accurate statements, or are they misleading statements? Are we in the business of uncritically regurgitating what someone says, particularly in the lead, and especially when many have found the investigation and the final report to be politicized?
Durham is clearly referencing the dossier in these two instances. But his charter was to determine whether Crossfire was properly predicated or politically motivated. He found the answer 'no' in both cases.
After he said "especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities," he said "This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation." I don't know how many times this needs repeating, but the dossier had no role in triggering Crossfire. Moreover, there would not have been a subsequent need for the Mueller investigation had Trump not fired Comey, which raised suspicion of a cover-up. If you have nothing to hide, why would you fire the guy who has explicitly told you he's not investigating you, only to trigger a broader investigation that does include you? Trump brought on Mueller himself by firing Comey; any suggestion that Mueller came along for some other reason is a whitewash of history. The dossier did not lead to Crossfire, which in turn did not lead to Mueller. The dossier was used only to get a third renewal of a FISA on Page, one month after Crossfire was closed. Yes, the FBI relied on the dossier for one aspect of its investigation, but Durham does not provide any context for readers to see it had nothing to do with opening Crossfire, and because the opening was his charter, without context readers may presume Durham is referencing the dossier in the context of the opening. He is engaged in some sleight of word here, intended to insinuate "Hillary did it." When they have nothing, Hillary is always their fallback culprit. Already Maria Bartiromo and Jim Jordan have floated the idea of investigating her again. But I digress...
So, should we include in the lead his exact words, verbatim and uncritically, even though his words are inaccurate and misleading? If we do, we are assuming that because he's a special counsel in our government, his words can be accepted at face value. Would those who believe the government lies all the time find that acceptable, or only when it's from a government they like? soibangla ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
soibangla ( talk) 23:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation
emerging with your own sweeping political conclusions about what it all means, instead of trying to craft the article from a neutral point of viewI am attempting to have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people to ensure this contentious article has a NPOV. This investigation has had deep political implications from the start, so we should not simply accept the Durham report as prima facie truth. The content added today does not comport with that effort, and I'm getting the sense there's some POV projection here. Of course, this might be caused by people not paying close attention to this matter until a few days ago. I go way back on this. soibangla ( talk) 01:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.
But in using the word “triggered,” Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.
the key takeaway from all of them was that it found no evidence of wrongdoing- that is very much incorrect. It found improper basis for starting the investigation, it found double standards, it found confirmation bias and a lack of analytical rigor, and it produced a criminal conviction. Red Slapper ( talk) 11:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This name is taken from a lyric written by Mick Jagger for the song Jumpin' Jack Flash. This fact in unacknowledged in the Report or the present article about it. This omission is probably the only thing of note in either one. The Report was released two weeks ago and all the kerfuffle about it has made me weary, soggy, and hard to light. Wastrel Way ( talk) Eric Wastrel Way ( talk) 13:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
in his report, despite acknowledging the evidence is dubiously sourced from Russia, and was told as much by judge Howell when he twice tried to get a warrant to look into George Soros, makes this lead-notable, especially since the dossier they are strongly dismissive of was also dubiously sourced from Russia. oh the irony, huh?
hence this from NYT:
But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr. Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1157749111
soibangla ( talk) 18:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
If editors would identify specific content they consider POV, we can resolve any issues and move toward removing the tag. If there is not soon significant progress, I will remove the tag.
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor [12]
soibangla ( talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
His investigation has produced a single guilty plea from one extremely small fish for a likely immaterial error that the Inspector General already found. ... The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.[13] Andre 🚐 01:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham’s inquiry failed to uncover any blockbuster revelations suggesting the bureau targeted Trump out of political motivations, and the report at times came across as a defense of his lengthy investigation... The Durham report ended without recommending any wholesale changes at the FBI,... Two cases that Durham took to court ended in failure. Last year, a jury found cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussman not guilty of lying to the FBI. A jury also found Danchenko not guilty of making false statements to the FBI in October, in a case argued personally by Durham. Durham extracted a guilty plea from Clinesmith, who was sentenced to one year of probation and 400 hours of community service after admitting in a 2020 plea agreement that he had altered a government email that a colleague then used to justify to a secret surveillance court the wiretap of the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.[14] Aka a nothingburger. Nothing devastating to the FBI. no revelations. Andre 🚐 01:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
A report by Special Counsel John Durham released Monday found the FBI should not have launched a full investigation into the connections between former President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 electionNBC:
Durham said the FBI opened a full counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign “based on raw, uncorroborated information,”So, clearly, Durham said that the FBI should not have opened a full counterintelligence investigation. Durham was widely discredited by RS. What's the problem. Andre 🚐 01:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you perceive so we can resolve them. I have asked you before to edit the article so we can go through standard BRD, but you seem to prefer talking and talking about issues here. Edit the article like everyone else does. soibangla ( talk) 03:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham said, "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."
article: Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a disproved conspiracy theory.
NYT: But in using the word “triggered,” Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited. [17]
"and" does not bind triggered and sustained. The latter may be correct, but the former certainly is not. And the objective of the Durham investigation was to determine how Crossfire was triggered, that is, was there a vast IC and/or Clinton deep state conspiracy. Ancillary things he also found along the way are not relevant to his appointed mission, try as he and others might to make it seem that way, to exaggerate the importance of his findings (such as the Page FISA, which the IG already covered years earlier, and which Durham merely reiterates at length). Also, "and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation" is false; the Comey firing is the only thing that brought Mueller into the situation. Durham's sleight of word suggests the dossier brought Mueller into it, so this whole thing would never have happened if not for the dossier. haha
The removed edit is supported by a highly reliable source, written by a guy who closely followed the whole investigation from the start. He's kinda one of the top experts on this. The removed content should be restored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1158019811 soibangla ( talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media? Parroted by the NYT, or speculated about on cable news? Does he cite a bogus allegation by the NYT reporters? Of course WaPo corrected and retracted one element of their reporting; journalists are humans who make errors, especially in large, complex, fast-moving topics, but the salient issue is that WaPo fixed them. Do you want to talk about the right-wing coverage now? soibangla ( talk) 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
information outside of just the dossier. The FBI was receiving false information from many different political actors, I see you saying that. soibangla ( talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
He and his supporters hoped it would expose a “deep state” conspiracy within the top echelons of the FBI and other agencies to derail Trump’s presidency and candidacy. Despite expectations that Durham might charge senior government officials, his team produced only three prosecutions. A former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to altering an email the FBI relied on in applying to eavesdrop on an ex-Trump campaign aide. Two other defendants — a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and a Russian-American analyst — were both acquitted on charges of lying to the FBI.[25] Andre 🚐 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
did not recommend any new charges against individuals or “wholesale changes” about how the FBI handles politically charged investigations, despite strongly criticizing the agency’s behavior...Durham did not recommend sweeping changes or new policies around how politically sensitive investigations are handled.AKA a nothingburger Andre 🚐 00:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yodabyte, in your edit summary you wrote "this one NYT article is very weak for inclusion in lead." I explained to you who Charlie Savage is. Are you familiar with his work on this topic? soibangla ( talk) 01:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
My take on the specific disputed text, which has been deleted, restored, deleted, etc:
Article (deleted text): "'In part triggered' the Crossfire Hurricane investigation..."
NYT: "This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane".
My assessment: Source supports article text.
Article (deleted text): "echoing a disproved conspiracy theory about the Steele dossier.
NYT: "Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory".
My assessment: Source supports "echo conspiracy theory"; source does not support "disproved".
The cited NYT report continues, "the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September". A reader (or Wikp editor) could conclude that means the dossier was not used in opening Crossfire. The NYT might make the same conclusion about the claim that it was used. But its article did not say "disproved"--or "debunked" or "false" or "invalid" or use some other such word. If it did, our article would be justified in using the word. No conclusion by Wikp editors about the facts stated by the NYT can be included in this article unless the NYT report or other RS states that conclusion. If there actually is a source that uses 'disproved' or 'debunked' or similar, that source should be presented. Any conclusion published by Wikipedia that is not verifiable in specific language in a source violates NOR/SYNTH, and by extension also violates NPOV. DonFB ( talk) 05:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
the trial unfolded in a way highly unfavorable to Durham’s case; the central claim that Danchenko had made up his contacts with Belarusian-American businessman and Trump campaign associate Sergei Millian was not only unproven but contradicted by some of the evidence. And while initial coverage of Danchenko’s arrest depicted him as an unreliable and opportunistic paid informant, two FBI agents who testified for the prosecution strongly defended the value of Danchenko’s information—leaving Durham in the awkward position of trying to discredit his own witnesses...both the FBI and the media were looking into the Trump-Russia connection before the dossier made its appearance. Even staunch Trump ally Devin Nunes conceded, in a 2018 memo highly critical of the FBI investigation, that the inquiry was triggered by junior Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos’s boasts about contacts with Russian operatives. Steele’s inquiry into Trump’s Russian connections, which began in earnest in June 2016, proceeded in parallel to the FBI investigation, which opened officially in late July 2016; while Steele had some contacts with FBI agents early on, his reports were not submitted to the FBI team in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation until September 19.[28] Andre 🚐 06:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
hose media sources whose original coverage was wrong and criticized for it. You've offered no sources to support that as pertaining to Durham and it doesn't belong here or anywhere else: it's POV pushing and classic WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. The vast majority of the source material has supporting the characterization as Durham as not impactful, and not living up to the hype created by the right wing. That's the story we tell here. Stop questioning RS
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Andre
🚐
00:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This sentence currently reads:
Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigation.
I hope we can all agree that the facts of this statement are fully supported by numerous reliable sources.
Yesterday, Red Slapper said on Talk:
...the clear statement by CNN that Durham concluded that the FBI should not have launched the probe is downplayed and misrepresented in the lead
The current sentence is not "downplayed." It's the first sentence after the Report is introduced.
Moreover, Red Slapper has repeatedly emphasised using the CNN source, despite numerous other reliable sources being available. Now, CNN reported "Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation..." (emphasis mine) "Never" means never, as in, no matter how much additional evidence was acquired in the future to build an airtight case, the FBI should NEVER have opened Crossfire as a full investigation. This is not what Durham said, and I don't see any other source that uses the word "never" in this context. CNN is an outlier here, and outliers should be thrown out in the face of every other reliable source not saying that.
Yesterday, Red Slapper insisted more than once that "never" was not his issue for challenging our content. If so, then why does Red Slapper keep coming back to CNN when numerous other sources are available? The editor also stated that the POV tag will remain until this is resolved to their satisfaction. I have asked Red Slapper at least twice to edit the article so we can go through standard BRD, but the editor has not.
So, I now ask Red Slapper to provide specific language they would prefer. If it includes "never," it should be rejected. But at this point I don't see what problem Red Slapper perceives in our existing sentence. It doesn't "downplay" or "misrepresent" anything, as Red Slapper asserts. It just doesn't contain the word "never," or some other issue that Red Slapper still has not identified. soibangla ( talk) 14:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
lockstep editing patterns between those twois incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you've identified? soibangla ( talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump- we are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged (certainly not in wikipedia's voice), only report on what he charged. So that needs to be changed to
Durham charged the defendants with lying to the FBI. The statement currently in the article is sourced to this, which does not support the "rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump" part Red Slapper ( talk) 16:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
many othersof POV issues you've identified in an orderly fashion. soibangla ( talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
What's this game you are playing?Right back atcha again. BEBOLD, then maybe there will be an R and a D. soibangla ( talk) 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The report Monday from special counsel John Durham represents the long-awaited culmination of an investigation that Trump and allies had claimed would expose massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials. Instead, Durham’s investigation delivered underwhelming results, with prosecutors securing a guilty plea from a little-known FBI employee but losing the only two criminal cases they took to trial.[31] Andre 🚐 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
He and his supporters hoped it would expose a “deep state” conspiracy within the top echelons of the FBI and other agencies to derail Trump’s presidency and candidacy...Despite expectations that Durham might charge senior government officials, his team produced only three prosecutions.Quite clear. Andre 🚐 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Durham’s report suggested that the FBI moved too quickly to open a full investigation, but stopped short of denouncing the FBI’s and Justice Department’s decisions to investigate ... Preliminary investigations, he wrote, are constrained by time limits and fewer approved investigation techniques.[32] Andre 🚐 23:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Should the current lead sentence...
The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities.
be amended to include this bold content...
The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a
disprovedconspiracy theory promoted by Trump supporters.
This question is rooted in what Charlie Savage exclusively reported in The New York Times:
Mr. Durham went beyond criticizing the wiretap applications, writing: "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."
But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited. [33]
The NYT does not use the word "disproved" but that can be readily sourced if this edit is ultimately adopted.
This matter has been previously discussed in this Talk thread. soibangla ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy.Andre 🚐 18:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossierand in the next sentence says
In fact, as Mr. Durham acknowledged elsewhere in the report, the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September.We can certainly quibble about exact wording, but it strikes me that saying the 'conspiracy theory' was not true is an accurate summary of the source. Again, that doesn't mean it should necessarily be included, but wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
he and his supporters[34] Andre 🚐 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Trump and some of his allies in the news media went further, stoking expectations among his supporters that Mr. Durham would imprison high-level officials[35]
Trump was quick to claim vindication for his claims that a massive deep state plot was designed to thwart him from power seven years ago, even though the report made no such firm conclusion.[36]
“It’s a bit of a dud,” Ryan Goodman, an NYU School of Law professor, told CNN’s Erin Burnett, arguing that Durham’s contention that FBI agents had found countervailing evidence that they ignored to upgrade a preliminary probe into Trump into a full-scale investigation was questionable. Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst, said that the report failed to live up to Trump’s accusations. In that Durham did not find “systemic abuses” that Trump partisans had hoped to see.Andre 🚐 23:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Horowitz refuted the claims propagated by Trump that the Russia investigation had its roots in the unverified, salacious allegations in the dossier.Andre 🚐 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yodabyte, the edit you just made was extensively discussed and resolved here on Talk. IIRC, you were blocked for a time during that discussion, and another participant with similar arguments as yours was indeffed after being found to be a ban evader.
I recommend you self-revert and bring this matter back to Talk. soibangla ( talk) 22:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)