![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ NaturalSelection: On July 12, 2017, you added the "under construction" tag to Fusion GPS. The article looks pretty well established to me. What expansion or major reconstruction, other than the normal editing process, are you planning to do? I've removed the tag for now. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 05:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought - it may be a bit much to have a whole section heading and paragraph just for a denial, but I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be certain. Darmokand ( talk) 17:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the entire "Alleged involvement in Veselnitskaya meeting" section should be removed for lack of verification. It's not just that the allegation is absurd on its face (since we know the meeting was set up by Goldberg), but there isn't really any sourcing saying that the allegation is being made. The key sentence is "a spokesman for President Trump’s then-outside counsel and some pro-Trump media outlets suggested that Fusion GPS had been involved in setting up the meeting under false pretenses because of the connection between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS via Prevezon Holdings". But in the sources that suggestion - that they were involved in setting up the meeting - is nowhere made explicitly. It is mostly just the rhetorical trick of mentioning Fusion GPS, Veselnitskaya, and the meeting in the same sentence, and hoping people will make the connection.
Of the three references cited, none actually contains an accusation that Fusion GPS was involved in setting up the meeting.
Sources
|
---|
|
I propose we remove the whole section. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, stupid me. Never occurred to me to interprete "associated with" as "a paying client of". From the context (and the title of Fact 5), [1] I inferred that Corallo was implying – while maintaining plausible deniability – that someone working at/for Fusion GPS was involved in setting up the meeting to entrap Junior -> as part of the Democrats' opposition research on candidate Trump -> as part of participating in Russian effort to influence the election -> and then sit on that info for 4 months before and 8 months after the election to accomplish whatever.
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier," he said. " These developments raise serious issues as to exactly who authorized and participated in any effort by Russian nationals to influence our election in any manner."
I also hadn't checked up on who initially added "Veselnitskaya link" to the article - IP address with just this one edit, so maybe trolling). Was doing damage control and not done with that particular section - all those pesky incomplete refs kept me busy. I'm usually opposed to mentioning any conspiracy theories, but I'm on the fence about this one because of who - if not originated, then - propagated it with the full power of his office and his yuge legal team behind him. I may revisit this subject after the Senate hearings.
Sources
|
---|
|
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I accidentally clicked on Save after discovering that my edit summary was too long and before I could remove it and refer to the Talk page. Here's the full summary: The only reliable source for this paragraph was The Atlantic which published Browder’s prepared statement a day BEFORE the Senate hearing. The other two are not RS, and their POV ended up in the paragraph. AFAIK, nobody of interest to this article was questioned by the Judiciary Committee in open session. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Browder appeared before the Committe on July 27, 2017. Neither CNN nor Newsweek report on his testimony mentioning Fusion GPS. He said that he had no direct knowledge of the meeting, but that he did not doubt that the Kremlin was behind it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Fusion GPS aren't "professional smear campaigner[s]", but a bunch of utterly corrupt and amoral enablers aiding and abetting criminals. Simpson's venture into the private sector has gone full circle (link is external). The biggest joke of all has got to be Simpson's -now removed- bio from the International Assessment and Strategy Center (link is external), where he is presented as "Senior Fellow, Corruption and Transnational Crime", who just happens to work for, erm, corrupt transnational criminals. Working for Democrats or Republicans to produce negative PR is one thing; working for the likes of Derwick Associates quite another; but for the world's biggest thug?" which links to this http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/exclusive-oppo-researcher-behind-trump-dossier-is-linked-to-pro-kremlin-lobbying-effort/
"Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues." If Mr. Simpson and Democrats really favor disclosure, then surely Mr. Simpson should disclose who is paying him to rummage through the personal lives of opposition donors. Someone should also ask the White House, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee if Mr. Simpson's chop shop is on their payroll and if they approve of such tactics. Does Mr. Obama think the lifestyles and divorce records of campaign donors should be fair political game?"
Finally, why do you insist on removing the investigative journalism from Tablet magazine? I keep replacing it in the article and it is continually removed http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/241812/news-for-hire-scandal-deepens-gps-fusion-sleazy-venezuela-links-shed-new-light-on-trump-dossier It is a Jewish news and politics website, but that does NOT mean that it is any less credible or acceptable as an WP:RS.-- FeralOink ( talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I have had my edits repeatedly removed. This is what Human Rights Foundation said on 25 July 2017 about Fusion GPS: HRF in U.S. Senate Testimony: Probe Fusion GPS for Venezuela FARA Violations and Paid Smear Campaigns. In the article edit history, my additions were repeatedly removed by two other editors on this talk page because I was told that no one relevant to the article about Fusion GPS was mentioned. Also, the article edit history said that it was a neocon plot to defame Fusion GPS and referenced a 2010 blog post by lobelog that was defamatory toward an investigative journalist for Tablet Magazine.
This is getting ridiculous. Other connected Wikipedia articles have already been updated correctly regarding the most recent news of Fusion GPS activities, including the BLP of Thor Halvorssen and the Trump dossier page. The only article in which all mention of Fusion GPS's very recent, very high profile coverage in the media is absent is the Fusion GPS article page itself. Please stop blocking updates to this article.-- FeralOink ( talk) 00:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
An interesting article:
There may well be something we can use here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer, regarding your edit here, I just read the cited source and can't find where it states what you included as follows: CNN reported that U.S. investigators had corroborated some parts of the dossier in February 2017, however none of the learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals and intercepts which confirmed conversations between them and some named Trump campaign officials, including the days and locations detailed in the dossier. This is the cited source. What I read is: Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.. Where is the information you included? I must have overlooked it. Atsme 📞 📧 23:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can find a better source to cite, then the one you cited is what we have, and based on all the unconfirmed material, you might anna thin=i=dc.wanna rethink adding it.18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme
📞
📧 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It's possible you guys are confusing two things. 1) Who the intercepted conversations were between and 2) What the intercepted conversations described. The intercepted conversations were NOT between Russian agents and Trump officials. They were between Russian agents, among themselves. But, they did *describe*, apparently, meetings between Russian agents and Trump campaign related officials, which lined up with the info in the Steele dossier. It's easy to conflate the two and mistakenly say that the intercepted conversations were between Russian agents and Trump campaign officials. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs. ... CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump."And you really need to stop using talk pages to actively promote the "dossier" and "The Moscow Project" in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 07:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... TheTimesAreAChanging, there are two issues here:
The CNN source states this:
Now, can we just end this off-topic thread? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"The 'same individuals' are certain Russian individuals and certain named (in the dossier) people working for Trump."No, as everyone else—including Volunteer Marek—has tried repeatedly to explain to you, they were solely conversations between foreign nationals, per your own source, CNN:
"Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals."Now please stop misrepresenting sources and using Wikipedia to promote your personal theories. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 16:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging, we're talking about (1) intercepts of conversations which (2) confirm details in the dossier. Volunteer Marek is correct that they are two different things. It's not easy to parse that difference, so I'll say it in more common language based on the article. (This time I won't add any information that comes from other sources.) This is all off-topic here anyway. I'll add numbers to make it easier.
Western intelligence agencies monitor and share information all the time. They especially target "enemy" persons of interest, such as Russians. They monitored (1) Russians speaking to each other, and, probably among other things, those Russians also spoke about specific details which are (2) mentioned in the dossier, thus providing outside, secondary, confirmation of the accuracy of the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, who, as the top British expert spy on Russian affairs, has VERY good sources. The dossier describes (2) conversations between Russians and other Russians, "as detailed in the dossier". That much is from this source. (I got carried away and added more from the dossier and other RS. In fact, as mentioned by Volunteer Marek, the dossier also details conversations between Russians and named people working directly for Donald Trump (Cohen, Manafort, and Page come to mind), including his personal lawyer (Cohen, who is alleged to have arranged for payments to the hackers who hacked the DNC.) Steele, who has a flawless reputation, has those kinds of sources!! Here is the numbered content:
Here are the two paragraphs from the source, just for context. I have bolded the relevant parts:
There is another possibility (I don't remember if other RS confirm this), that the "intercepts" of conversations mentioned are intercepts of the original conversations in the dossier. From my reading, I have never been lead to believe that Steele had access to such things. I have always been under the impression that the "intercepts" were of other and later ("newly learned information") conversations between Russians, at other times, which happened to make reference to content in the dossier. I could be wrong. Maybe
Volunteer Marek can clarify this. There are so many sources! I share between 30-100 RS every single day on FB, much of it on these matters. It can be dizzying
.
If you haven't done it yet, you should read the dossier. BTW, these conversations are not a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. We are discussing sources and trying to parse them. It's not always easy, but it's an important duty for editors. We must understand what we are doing. If we don't, we can easily misrepresent and misuse sources. I do not have any "personal theories" created out of whole cloth. I base my POV on RS. I may misunderstand them, but conversations here, with editors who know more, can help me refine and improve my POV. That's one of the great things about editing here. We MUST change our POV according to what RS tell us, ESPECIALLY if that process is uncomfortable. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Another notable Fusion GPS client is Derwick Associates. They are a large Venezuelan power company operator. They have been the subject of Wikipedia paid editing in the past, which I'm sure is just coincidence. I am in the process of finding adequate WP:RS in order to add a section to the article about this other business activity of Fusion GPS. Since my prior additions to this article have been the subject of so much contention, I thought I would mention this here, first, as a heads up to other editors.-- FeralOink ( talk) 06:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and Steele produced the dossier. That's why the dossier has little to do with Fusion GPS. The collection of information about Trump started there, but once Steele got involved it became his project at Orbis, and was concentrated on a new subject, Trump's Russian affairs. That ended up becoming the 35-page dossier we know. Fusion GPS was not involved in that production, even if Steele had some contact with them at first. Then he stopped getting paid, but continued working on the project because of its alarming importance. Here's from the Donald Trump–Russia dossier article:
That's why the dossier has little relevance to this article and such content should be removed. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have trimmed that section by about half. I eliminated all the play-by-play about subpoenas, arrangements, cancellation of subpoenas, etc. per NOTNEWS, to get to the bottom line that they are going to testify. I eliminated allegations and commentary from third parties. I think what is left is relevant to this subject, but I am open to discussion about it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You really should have discussed it here before you removed it.Shouldn't you have discussed it here before you added it? Especially, shouldn't you have discussed it here before re-adding it? -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You blind reverted my edit and didn't even read it.That is a complete falsehood and I am offended by it. The truth is that I spent half an hour carefully reviewing the two paragraphs - the original paragraph about subpoenas, and your addition about Browder and FARA - removing extraneous material and combining the two paragraphs into a single, better organized one. Before, after. I retained all of the essential material from your addition. You, on the other hand, seem to have noticed only that my edit reduced the two paragraphs to one, so you jumped to the conclusion that I had removed yours, and you are the one who has been "blindly reverting" - twice now. If you are not going to pay more attention to the material than this, there is no point in even discussing with you. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
removed my update edit below that paragraph in its entirety which included the highlights of the Browder testimony against Fusion GPS. Your paragraph did not include that update.Sigh. Still false. Look at your own diffs again: your addition, my modification. Would you mind actually READING them this time? My edit did two things. It reduced the previous "subpoena" paragraph to three short sentences. The rest of my edit was to include the information you had added, but condense it and combine it into a single paragraph with the other three sentences. I shortened the Browder material, left out the White House comment as irrelevant to this article, and shortened Fusion's comment. I kept this much of your edit:
A previous witness, banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, had accused Simpson and Fusion GPS of evading registration as foreign agents for campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. [1] Fusion said through their attorney that they were not required to register under FARA. [1] Senators may also use the hearing "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Sure, sure, MelanieN - I know you don't want to say anymore about who added what, which is fine with me, but I need to clarify what I was doing. You've already made it known on my TP that your POV differs from what you believe mine happens to be, but you were mistaken there, too - not egregiously so, but pretty much. I even thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong.
Atsme addition in green | MelanieN removed addition & condensed |
---|---|
On July 21, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein issued a subpoena for Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson after he denied through his lawyers a request to voluntarily appear "due to long held vacation plans". [1] The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which they may now use "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." [2] Simpson will not testify at the July 26 public hearing as previously scheduled, but instead will be interviewed privately, under terms of an agreement, which includes withdrawal of the subpoena. [3] [4] | Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein made arrangements in July 2017 for Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson to testify before their committee. Simpson will not testify in public, but will be interviewed privately under terms of an agreement. [5] [4] The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). A previous witness, banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, had accused Simpson and Fusion GPS of evading registration as foreign agents for campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. [6] Fusion said through their attorney that they were not required to register under FARA. [6] Senators may also use the hearing "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." [2] |
On July 27, 2017, Fusion GPS issued a statement after the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, who accused Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, and others of evading registration "as foreign agents" campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. According to Browder, Simpson is one of seven people, including Russian-American lobbyist, Rinat Akhmetsin, who failed to register their advocacy work for the Magnitsky Act as required by FARA. [6] White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "Today there was public testimony that further discredited the phony dossier that's been the source of so much of the fake news and conspiracy theories, and we learned that the firm that produced it was also being paid by the Russians." [6] Fusion GPS denied the allegations, saying through their attorney that they weren't required to register with FARA, and accused "the White House of trying to 'smear' it for investigating the president's alleged ties to Russia." [6] |
Sources
|
---|
|
Browder wasn't just a witness - he got the ball rolling when he filed a detailed complaint with the Justice Department’s FARA enforcement unit in 2016. In his complaint, he identified Fusion founder Glenn Simpson. Browder felt that since Fusion GPS is the same firm that oversaw the creation of the unverified Trump Dossier it was "vital for the Committee to fully understand Fusion’s failure to register under FARA and its role in the creating and spreading the dossier" See page 3 & 4. MelanieN, I simply cannot do my work if you and VM keep reverting my edits for no good reason like TMI, or WP:DONTLIKEIT, or WP:CONSENSUS. An encyclopedia is about knowledge, not news headlines. You mentioned that I need to get consensus - well, where is your consensus? I don't normally edit political articles but I'm here now, and I'm trying to expand this particular article so that it reflects quality encyclopedic information that our readers - ALL READERS - can utilize. I do my best to follow PAGs, and while you may object to my citing the acronyms to policies that apply, oh well, I'm not going to stop. I expect our articles to reflect a WP:NPOV just like you do. I don't want to argue with you or anyone else about what should or shouldn't be included in an article when it's so fricken obvious it belongs that a 5 yo could see it. I just want to do my work - I enjoy the hell out of a productive collaboration and just want to be treated fairly, not like some outsider who fell off a pumpkin truck yesterday - and that pretty well sums it up. Atsme 📞 📧 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph is unnecessary and undue. The Bowder stuff is about Simpson and at this point it's just one person's opinion. If and when anything comes of it, it can be added. Huckabee-Sanders' quote is likewise unnecessary and undue and it's not even about this topic - it's about the dossier. This appears to be an attempt to try and WP:COATRACK the article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am replacing a source from HuffPo cited in the article, that is used to establish that BakerHostetler hired Fusion GPS for litigation support as part of the defense for the US government's money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The HuffPo piece is titled, "A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier" with the subheading, "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up". It is used to source BakerHostetler's hiring of Fusion GPS, as well as to provide some of the backstory for the Prevezon Holdings situation (that Veselnitskaya is a Russian attorney defending Prevezon, and that Baker Hosteletler is the US attorney helping defend Prevezon).
Since the HuffPo article isn't in accordance with WP:NPOV, I will use the RFERL source, Eckel, Mike (April 1, 2017). "U.S. Senator Seeks Probe Of Firm Linked To Russia Dossier" which is already cited twice in the article already, as well as Matt Taibbi's article ("Russiagate and the Magnitsky Affair, Linked Again") that was removed for other reasons per the discussion above. I am not using the Taibbi article for anything pertaining to who arranged what meeting with whom, which Taibbi doesn't even touch upon. Rather, Taibbi gives a good, factual but not leading summary of the participants in the Prevezon case. Taibbi explicitly states that Fusion GPS worked for BakerHostetler who was helping defend a group of Russians being charged by the US for money laundering, AND that Fusion GPS produced the Trump dossier, BUT these two facts demonstrate that "Fusion GPS had just done what oppo firms do, i.e. take business wherever they can get it." The Prevezon Russians were Russians, but there's no proof that they were THE Russians (i.e. state actors working for Putin).-- FeralOink ( talk) 07:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"although BakerHostetler was thrown off the case by the U.S. judge due to a conflict of interest in January 2016" is just plain incorrect. The reference says that the court restored BakerHostetler as defense counsel in January 2016. The reference is also very much outdated. I had added a much more current RadioFreeEurope article by Mike Eckel to the Prevezon Holdings section, but it was removed - not gonna go back and check by whom and why. BakerHostetler was barred from the Verezon case by the judge in the lower court in 2014, then reinstated, then finally barred by the appellate court in October 2016. As to why they were barred: BakerHostetler had represented Hermitage Capital, Browder’s US hedge fund, for nine months in 2008 and 2009 in a "in a complex tax fraud that began with the alleged misappropriation of the corporate identities of three companies in the Russian portfolio of Hermitage Capital" and resulted in the theft of $230 million from the Russian Treasury. Hermitage terminated BakerHostetler’s engagement in 2009. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC) CORRECTION: Eckel's April 1, 2017, article is still in there (ref. for Magnitsky Act). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The rest of the story: Browder claimed that, because of Fusion GPS's work for BakerHostetler when they represented Verezon/Katsyv during their lobbying attempt to stop passage of the Magnitsky Act, they should have registered as foreign agents for the Russian government. That's why Grassley wanted to question them in connection with the Trump dossier - once a foreign agent, always a foreign agent. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Lastly: There is nothing wrong with the HuffPo article. The headline may be a bit "sensational" (not even close to, say, "DNC staffer gave 44,000 emails to WikiLeaks") but the reporting is accurate. It's not an opinion piece, either, but written by two paid reporters on the staff. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I also concur with FeralOink on the source issue. Atsme 📞 📧 17:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
FeralOink: Your edits on this Talk page speak for themselves and to your biases. Even though I disagree with your assessment of the HuffPo article, I did not reinsert it; I removed the clause that said the exact opposite of what the sources say. You replaced "thrown off" with "removed" but your clause still says the exact opposite of what your source says: although BakerHostetler was removed from the case by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in January 2016.
Here's what your source says:
Here's more of the story from Frankel, October 18, 2016:
If you absolutely insist on "a short clause" about BakerHofstetler's removal, then I suggest something like "BakerHofstetler was removed from the case in October 2016" and adding Frankel's blog as a source. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
"Тhe case, which has prosecutors seeking to seize more than $11 million in real estate and bank accounts, went on hiatus last year after a U.S. judge threw the defendants' lawyer, Baker Hostetler, off the case. Last month, the defendants’ new lawyers again asked the U.S. judge to throw out the case."
The meeting has happened and Simpson testified: Attorney: Glenn Simpson did not reveal clients for Trump 'dossier' to investigators -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@ BullRangifer: I tried to add this sentence to the section: On August 22, 2017, Simpson was questioned for 10 hours by the Senate Judiciar Committee in a closed-door meeting. The Committee did not release any information on the hearing. [1]
References
I can't figure out why I can only see it when I'm logged in. Were you unsuccessful, as well, since you posted in Talk instead of adding the info to the article? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph in question: "Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
74.8% link, and 45%+/- The Hill using Earwigs copyvio detector. SEE link Atsme 📞 📧 21:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So what does the 'GPS' stand for? DS ( talk) 21:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's another detail: Fusion GPS is actually a company named Bean, LLC. Specifically, Simpson owns Bean, LLC. Bean, LLC is registered in the District of Columbia in order to conduct business under the trade name of Fusion GPS. Bean, LLC DBA (does business as) Fusion GPS. It says that on pp. 14 -17 of the transcript that was released. Does anyone have any ideas whether it makes sense to include this in the article, and if so, where? The only reason I noticed was because of the lower right page footer says "2011 Bean LLC dba Fusion GPS" in the archive page posted by BullRangifer. Any thoughts about this? I don't know enough about DBAs to know if it is significant for Wikipedia purposes, or isn't worth mentioning.-- FeralOink ( talk) 04:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ NaturalSelection: On July 12, 2017, you added the "under construction" tag to Fusion GPS. The article looks pretty well established to me. What expansion or major reconstruction, other than the normal editing process, are you planning to do? I've removed the tag for now. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 05:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought - it may be a bit much to have a whole section heading and paragraph just for a denial, but I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be certain. Darmokand ( talk) 17:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the entire "Alleged involvement in Veselnitskaya meeting" section should be removed for lack of verification. It's not just that the allegation is absurd on its face (since we know the meeting was set up by Goldberg), but there isn't really any sourcing saying that the allegation is being made. The key sentence is "a spokesman for President Trump’s then-outside counsel and some pro-Trump media outlets suggested that Fusion GPS had been involved in setting up the meeting under false pretenses because of the connection between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS via Prevezon Holdings". But in the sources that suggestion - that they were involved in setting up the meeting - is nowhere made explicitly. It is mostly just the rhetorical trick of mentioning Fusion GPS, Veselnitskaya, and the meeting in the same sentence, and hoping people will make the connection.
Of the three references cited, none actually contains an accusation that Fusion GPS was involved in setting up the meeting.
Sources
|
---|
|
I propose we remove the whole section. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, stupid me. Never occurred to me to interprete "associated with" as "a paying client of". From the context (and the title of Fact 5), [1] I inferred that Corallo was implying – while maintaining plausible deniability – that someone working at/for Fusion GPS was involved in setting up the meeting to entrap Junior -> as part of the Democrats' opposition research on candidate Trump -> as part of participating in Russian effort to influence the election -> and then sit on that info for 4 months before and 8 months after the election to accomplish whatever.
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier," he said. " These developments raise serious issues as to exactly who authorized and participated in any effort by Russian nationals to influence our election in any manner."
I also hadn't checked up on who initially added "Veselnitskaya link" to the article - IP address with just this one edit, so maybe trolling). Was doing damage control and not done with that particular section - all those pesky incomplete refs kept me busy. I'm usually opposed to mentioning any conspiracy theories, but I'm on the fence about this one because of who - if not originated, then - propagated it with the full power of his office and his yuge legal team behind him. I may revisit this subject after the Senate hearings.
Sources
|
---|
|
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I accidentally clicked on Save after discovering that my edit summary was too long and before I could remove it and refer to the Talk page. Here's the full summary: The only reliable source for this paragraph was The Atlantic which published Browder’s prepared statement a day BEFORE the Senate hearing. The other two are not RS, and their POV ended up in the paragraph. AFAIK, nobody of interest to this article was questioned by the Judiciary Committee in open session. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Browder appeared before the Committe on July 27, 2017. Neither CNN nor Newsweek report on his testimony mentioning Fusion GPS. He said that he had no direct knowledge of the meeting, but that he did not doubt that the Kremlin was behind it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Fusion GPS aren't "professional smear campaigner[s]", but a bunch of utterly corrupt and amoral enablers aiding and abetting criminals. Simpson's venture into the private sector has gone full circle (link is external). The biggest joke of all has got to be Simpson's -now removed- bio from the International Assessment and Strategy Center (link is external), where he is presented as "Senior Fellow, Corruption and Transnational Crime", who just happens to work for, erm, corrupt transnational criminals. Working for Democrats or Republicans to produce negative PR is one thing; working for the likes of Derwick Associates quite another; but for the world's biggest thug?" which links to this http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/exclusive-oppo-researcher-behind-trump-dossier-is-linked-to-pro-kremlin-lobbying-effort/
"Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues." If Mr. Simpson and Democrats really favor disclosure, then surely Mr. Simpson should disclose who is paying him to rummage through the personal lives of opposition donors. Someone should also ask the White House, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee if Mr. Simpson's chop shop is on their payroll and if they approve of such tactics. Does Mr. Obama think the lifestyles and divorce records of campaign donors should be fair political game?"
Finally, why do you insist on removing the investigative journalism from Tablet magazine? I keep replacing it in the article and it is continually removed http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/241812/news-for-hire-scandal-deepens-gps-fusion-sleazy-venezuela-links-shed-new-light-on-trump-dossier It is a Jewish news and politics website, but that does NOT mean that it is any less credible or acceptable as an WP:RS.-- FeralOink ( talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I have had my edits repeatedly removed. This is what Human Rights Foundation said on 25 July 2017 about Fusion GPS: HRF in U.S. Senate Testimony: Probe Fusion GPS for Venezuela FARA Violations and Paid Smear Campaigns. In the article edit history, my additions were repeatedly removed by two other editors on this talk page because I was told that no one relevant to the article about Fusion GPS was mentioned. Also, the article edit history said that it was a neocon plot to defame Fusion GPS and referenced a 2010 blog post by lobelog that was defamatory toward an investigative journalist for Tablet Magazine.
This is getting ridiculous. Other connected Wikipedia articles have already been updated correctly regarding the most recent news of Fusion GPS activities, including the BLP of Thor Halvorssen and the Trump dossier page. The only article in which all mention of Fusion GPS's very recent, very high profile coverage in the media is absent is the Fusion GPS article page itself. Please stop blocking updates to this article.-- FeralOink ( talk) 00:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
An interesting article:
There may well be something we can use here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer, regarding your edit here, I just read the cited source and can't find where it states what you included as follows: CNN reported that U.S. investigators had corroborated some parts of the dossier in February 2017, however none of the learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals and intercepts which confirmed conversations between them and some named Trump campaign officials, including the days and locations detailed in the dossier. This is the cited source. What I read is: Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.. Where is the information you included? I must have overlooked it. Atsme 📞 📧 23:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can find a better source to cite, then the one you cited is what we have, and based on all the unconfirmed material, you might anna thin=i=dc.wanna rethink adding it.18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme
📞
📧 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It's possible you guys are confusing two things. 1) Who the intercepted conversations were between and 2) What the intercepted conversations described. The intercepted conversations were NOT between Russian agents and Trump officials. They were between Russian agents, among themselves. But, they did *describe*, apparently, meetings between Russian agents and Trump campaign related officials, which lined up with the info in the Steele dossier. It's easy to conflate the two and mistakenly say that the intercepted conversations were between Russian agents and Trump campaign officials. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs. ... CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump."And you really need to stop using talk pages to actively promote the "dossier" and "The Moscow Project" in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 07:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... TheTimesAreAChanging, there are two issues here:
The CNN source states this:
Now, can we just end this off-topic thread? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"The 'same individuals' are certain Russian individuals and certain named (in the dossier) people working for Trump."No, as everyone else—including Volunteer Marek—has tried repeatedly to explain to you, they were solely conversations between foreign nationals, per your own source, CNN:
"Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals."Now please stop misrepresenting sources and using Wikipedia to promote your personal theories. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 16:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging, we're talking about (1) intercepts of conversations which (2) confirm details in the dossier. Volunteer Marek is correct that they are two different things. It's not easy to parse that difference, so I'll say it in more common language based on the article. (This time I won't add any information that comes from other sources.) This is all off-topic here anyway. I'll add numbers to make it easier.
Western intelligence agencies monitor and share information all the time. They especially target "enemy" persons of interest, such as Russians. They monitored (1) Russians speaking to each other, and, probably among other things, those Russians also spoke about specific details which are (2) mentioned in the dossier, thus providing outside, secondary, confirmation of the accuracy of the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, who, as the top British expert spy on Russian affairs, has VERY good sources. The dossier describes (2) conversations between Russians and other Russians, "as detailed in the dossier". That much is from this source. (I got carried away and added more from the dossier and other RS. In fact, as mentioned by Volunteer Marek, the dossier also details conversations between Russians and named people working directly for Donald Trump (Cohen, Manafort, and Page come to mind), including his personal lawyer (Cohen, who is alleged to have arranged for payments to the hackers who hacked the DNC.) Steele, who has a flawless reputation, has those kinds of sources!! Here is the numbered content:
Here are the two paragraphs from the source, just for context. I have bolded the relevant parts:
There is another possibility (I don't remember if other RS confirm this), that the "intercepts" of conversations mentioned are intercepts of the original conversations in the dossier. From my reading, I have never been lead to believe that Steele had access to such things. I have always been under the impression that the "intercepts" were of other and later ("newly learned information") conversations between Russians, at other times, which happened to make reference to content in the dossier. I could be wrong. Maybe
Volunteer Marek can clarify this. There are so many sources! I share between 30-100 RS every single day on FB, much of it on these matters. It can be dizzying
.
If you haven't done it yet, you should read the dossier. BTW, these conversations are not a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. We are discussing sources and trying to parse them. It's not always easy, but it's an important duty for editors. We must understand what we are doing. If we don't, we can easily misrepresent and misuse sources. I do not have any "personal theories" created out of whole cloth. I base my POV on RS. I may misunderstand them, but conversations here, with editors who know more, can help me refine and improve my POV. That's one of the great things about editing here. We MUST change our POV according to what RS tell us, ESPECIALLY if that process is uncomfortable. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Another notable Fusion GPS client is Derwick Associates. They are a large Venezuelan power company operator. They have been the subject of Wikipedia paid editing in the past, which I'm sure is just coincidence. I am in the process of finding adequate WP:RS in order to add a section to the article about this other business activity of Fusion GPS. Since my prior additions to this article have been the subject of so much contention, I thought I would mention this here, first, as a heads up to other editors.-- FeralOink ( talk) 06:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and Steele produced the dossier. That's why the dossier has little to do with Fusion GPS. The collection of information about Trump started there, but once Steele got involved it became his project at Orbis, and was concentrated on a new subject, Trump's Russian affairs. That ended up becoming the 35-page dossier we know. Fusion GPS was not involved in that production, even if Steele had some contact with them at first. Then he stopped getting paid, but continued working on the project because of its alarming importance. Here's from the Donald Trump–Russia dossier article:
That's why the dossier has little relevance to this article and such content should be removed. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have trimmed that section by about half. I eliminated all the play-by-play about subpoenas, arrangements, cancellation of subpoenas, etc. per NOTNEWS, to get to the bottom line that they are going to testify. I eliminated allegations and commentary from third parties. I think what is left is relevant to this subject, but I am open to discussion about it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You really should have discussed it here before you removed it.Shouldn't you have discussed it here before you added it? Especially, shouldn't you have discussed it here before re-adding it? -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You blind reverted my edit and didn't even read it.That is a complete falsehood and I am offended by it. The truth is that I spent half an hour carefully reviewing the two paragraphs - the original paragraph about subpoenas, and your addition about Browder and FARA - removing extraneous material and combining the two paragraphs into a single, better organized one. Before, after. I retained all of the essential material from your addition. You, on the other hand, seem to have noticed only that my edit reduced the two paragraphs to one, so you jumped to the conclusion that I had removed yours, and you are the one who has been "blindly reverting" - twice now. If you are not going to pay more attention to the material than this, there is no point in even discussing with you. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
removed my update edit below that paragraph in its entirety which included the highlights of the Browder testimony against Fusion GPS. Your paragraph did not include that update.Sigh. Still false. Look at your own diffs again: your addition, my modification. Would you mind actually READING them this time? My edit did two things. It reduced the previous "subpoena" paragraph to three short sentences. The rest of my edit was to include the information you had added, but condense it and combine it into a single paragraph with the other three sentences. I shortened the Browder material, left out the White House comment as irrelevant to this article, and shortened Fusion's comment. I kept this much of your edit:
A previous witness, banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, had accused Simpson and Fusion GPS of evading registration as foreign agents for campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. [1] Fusion said through their attorney that they were not required to register under FARA. [1] Senators may also use the hearing "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Sure, sure, MelanieN - I know you don't want to say anymore about who added what, which is fine with me, but I need to clarify what I was doing. You've already made it known on my TP that your POV differs from what you believe mine happens to be, but you were mistaken there, too - not egregiously so, but pretty much. I even thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong.
Atsme addition in green | MelanieN removed addition & condensed |
---|---|
On July 21, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein issued a subpoena for Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson after he denied through his lawyers a request to voluntarily appear "due to long held vacation plans". [1] The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which they may now use "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." [2] Simpson will not testify at the July 26 public hearing as previously scheduled, but instead will be interviewed privately, under terms of an agreement, which includes withdrawal of the subpoena. [3] [4] | Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein made arrangements in July 2017 for Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson to testify before their committee. Simpson will not testify in public, but will be interviewed privately under terms of an agreement. [5] [4] The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). A previous witness, banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, had accused Simpson and Fusion GPS of evading registration as foreign agents for campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. [6] Fusion said through their attorney that they were not required to register under FARA. [6] Senators may also use the hearing "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." [2] |
On July 27, 2017, Fusion GPS issued a statement after the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, who accused Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, and others of evading registration "as foreign agents" campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. According to Browder, Simpson is one of seven people, including Russian-American lobbyist, Rinat Akhmetsin, who failed to register their advocacy work for the Magnitsky Act as required by FARA. [6] White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "Today there was public testimony that further discredited the phony dossier that's been the source of so much of the fake news and conspiracy theories, and we learned that the firm that produced it was also being paid by the Russians." [6] Fusion GPS denied the allegations, saying through their attorney that they weren't required to register with FARA, and accused "the White House of trying to 'smear' it for investigating the president's alleged ties to Russia." [6] |
Sources
|
---|
|
Browder wasn't just a witness - he got the ball rolling when he filed a detailed complaint with the Justice Department’s FARA enforcement unit in 2016. In his complaint, he identified Fusion founder Glenn Simpson. Browder felt that since Fusion GPS is the same firm that oversaw the creation of the unverified Trump Dossier it was "vital for the Committee to fully understand Fusion’s failure to register under FARA and its role in the creating and spreading the dossier" See page 3 & 4. MelanieN, I simply cannot do my work if you and VM keep reverting my edits for no good reason like TMI, or WP:DONTLIKEIT, or WP:CONSENSUS. An encyclopedia is about knowledge, not news headlines. You mentioned that I need to get consensus - well, where is your consensus? I don't normally edit political articles but I'm here now, and I'm trying to expand this particular article so that it reflects quality encyclopedic information that our readers - ALL READERS - can utilize. I do my best to follow PAGs, and while you may object to my citing the acronyms to policies that apply, oh well, I'm not going to stop. I expect our articles to reflect a WP:NPOV just like you do. I don't want to argue with you or anyone else about what should or shouldn't be included in an article when it's so fricken obvious it belongs that a 5 yo could see it. I just want to do my work - I enjoy the hell out of a productive collaboration and just want to be treated fairly, not like some outsider who fell off a pumpkin truck yesterday - and that pretty well sums it up. Atsme 📞 📧 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph is unnecessary and undue. The Bowder stuff is about Simpson and at this point it's just one person's opinion. If and when anything comes of it, it can be added. Huckabee-Sanders' quote is likewise unnecessary and undue and it's not even about this topic - it's about the dossier. This appears to be an attempt to try and WP:COATRACK the article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am replacing a source from HuffPo cited in the article, that is used to establish that BakerHostetler hired Fusion GPS for litigation support as part of the defense for the US government's money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The HuffPo piece is titled, "A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier" with the subheading, "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up". It is used to source BakerHostetler's hiring of Fusion GPS, as well as to provide some of the backstory for the Prevezon Holdings situation (that Veselnitskaya is a Russian attorney defending Prevezon, and that Baker Hosteletler is the US attorney helping defend Prevezon).
Since the HuffPo article isn't in accordance with WP:NPOV, I will use the RFERL source, Eckel, Mike (April 1, 2017). "U.S. Senator Seeks Probe Of Firm Linked To Russia Dossier" which is already cited twice in the article already, as well as Matt Taibbi's article ("Russiagate and the Magnitsky Affair, Linked Again") that was removed for other reasons per the discussion above. I am not using the Taibbi article for anything pertaining to who arranged what meeting with whom, which Taibbi doesn't even touch upon. Rather, Taibbi gives a good, factual but not leading summary of the participants in the Prevezon case. Taibbi explicitly states that Fusion GPS worked for BakerHostetler who was helping defend a group of Russians being charged by the US for money laundering, AND that Fusion GPS produced the Trump dossier, BUT these two facts demonstrate that "Fusion GPS had just done what oppo firms do, i.e. take business wherever they can get it." The Prevezon Russians were Russians, but there's no proof that they were THE Russians (i.e. state actors working for Putin).-- FeralOink ( talk) 07:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"although BakerHostetler was thrown off the case by the U.S. judge due to a conflict of interest in January 2016" is just plain incorrect. The reference says that the court restored BakerHostetler as defense counsel in January 2016. The reference is also very much outdated. I had added a much more current RadioFreeEurope article by Mike Eckel to the Prevezon Holdings section, but it was removed - not gonna go back and check by whom and why. BakerHostetler was barred from the Verezon case by the judge in the lower court in 2014, then reinstated, then finally barred by the appellate court in October 2016. As to why they were barred: BakerHostetler had represented Hermitage Capital, Browder’s US hedge fund, for nine months in 2008 and 2009 in a "in a complex tax fraud that began with the alleged misappropriation of the corporate identities of three companies in the Russian portfolio of Hermitage Capital" and resulted in the theft of $230 million from the Russian Treasury. Hermitage terminated BakerHostetler’s engagement in 2009. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC) CORRECTION: Eckel's April 1, 2017, article is still in there (ref. for Magnitsky Act). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The rest of the story: Browder claimed that, because of Fusion GPS's work for BakerHostetler when they represented Verezon/Katsyv during their lobbying attempt to stop passage of the Magnitsky Act, they should have registered as foreign agents for the Russian government. That's why Grassley wanted to question them in connection with the Trump dossier - once a foreign agent, always a foreign agent. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Lastly: There is nothing wrong with the HuffPo article. The headline may be a bit "sensational" (not even close to, say, "DNC staffer gave 44,000 emails to WikiLeaks") but the reporting is accurate. It's not an opinion piece, either, but written by two paid reporters on the staff. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I also concur with FeralOink on the source issue. Atsme 📞 📧 17:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
FeralOink: Your edits on this Talk page speak for themselves and to your biases. Even though I disagree with your assessment of the HuffPo article, I did not reinsert it; I removed the clause that said the exact opposite of what the sources say. You replaced "thrown off" with "removed" but your clause still says the exact opposite of what your source says: although BakerHostetler was removed from the case by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in January 2016.
Here's what your source says:
Here's more of the story from Frankel, October 18, 2016:
If you absolutely insist on "a short clause" about BakerHofstetler's removal, then I suggest something like "BakerHofstetler was removed from the case in October 2016" and adding Frankel's blog as a source. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
"Тhe case, which has prosecutors seeking to seize more than $11 million in real estate and bank accounts, went on hiatus last year after a U.S. judge threw the defendants' lawyer, Baker Hostetler, off the case. Last month, the defendants’ new lawyers again asked the U.S. judge to throw out the case."
The meeting has happened and Simpson testified: Attorney: Glenn Simpson did not reveal clients for Trump 'dossier' to investigators -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@ BullRangifer: I tried to add this sentence to the section: On August 22, 2017, Simpson was questioned for 10 hours by the Senate Judiciar Committee in a closed-door meeting. The Committee did not release any information on the hearing. [1]
References
I can't figure out why I can only see it when I'm logged in. Were you unsuccessful, as well, since you posted in Talk instead of adding the info to the article? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph in question: "Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
74.8% link, and 45%+/- The Hill using Earwigs copyvio detector. SEE link Atsme 📞 📧 21:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So what does the 'GPS' stand for? DS ( talk) 21:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's another detail: Fusion GPS is actually a company named Bean, LLC. Specifically, Simpson owns Bean, LLC. Bean, LLC is registered in the District of Columbia in order to conduct business under the trade name of Fusion GPS. Bean, LLC DBA (does business as) Fusion GPS. It says that on pp. 14 -17 of the transcript that was released. Does anyone have any ideas whether it makes sense to include this in the article, and if so, where? The only reason I noticed was because of the lower right page footer says "2011 Bean LLC dba Fusion GPS" in the archive page posted by BullRangifer. Any thoughts about this? I don't know enough about DBAs to know if it is significant for Wikipedia purposes, or isn't worth mentioning.-- FeralOink ( talk) 04:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)