![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
“Special counsel investigation"
"In May 2017, the FBI investigation into Russian interference was overtaken by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. According to Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman Mark Warner (D-VA), the dossier's allegations are being investigated by a Special Counsel led by Robert Mueller, which, since May 2017, has been investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections.[260] In the summer of 2017, Mueller's team of investigators met with Steele.[181] As some leads stemming from the dossier have already been followed and confirmed by the FBI, legal experts have stated that Special Counsel investigators, headed by Robert Mueller, are obligated to follow any leads the dossier has presented them with, irrespective of what parties financed it in its various stages of development, or '[t]hey would be derelict in their duty if they didn't.'”
The main impetus of this article seems to be challenging the Trump camp’s assertion that the Steele Dossier instigated the Russian election-meddling probe with the seemingly small matter of whether or not the allegations in the dossier are actually true is treated almost as peripheral to the article. So now the Mueller Report is in and the AG has stated that the investigation has found no case for collusion which ipso facto would seem to discredit the dossier as found by the very special counsel that the president’s political enemies demanded be named. (Or if Mueller is not accepted as authoritative, does this article descend into a conspiracy theory article?) I, for one, am satisfied with Barr’s summary of the report on that point for the simple reason that he knows that Mueller and his staff are well aware what they wrote and would, of course, challenge such a summary if they found it untrue or even misleading. Nevertheless, for those not satisfied, the release of the Mueller Report (with redactions as mandated by law, such as grand jury testimony) is due out tomorrow, Thursday, April 18, 2019. If the actual report bears out Barr’s summary regarding collusion, is the tenor of this article going to be radically edited to reflect that the main impetus of the article is supposed to be about the Steele Dossier itself and its veracity as opposed to the Russian election-meddling investigation and what instigated it (which one would think would be the peripheral aspect of the article)? HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 19:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 ( bleep) 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The infamous pee tape got a mention in Mueller's report - see the Slate article here. According to that article, a Russian businessman communicating with Michael Cohen was told "the tapes were fake." I'm not sure how this should be added to the article, but it seems to be the first time I've seen any sort of mention of it from RS in formal investigations. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know… .” … Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. … Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. … Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen."
"That Trump was susceptible to blackmail[53][122] due to paying bribes and the existence of "embarrassing material" due to engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior" in Russia,[94][138][142] "enough embarrassing material...to be able to blackmail him if they so wished."[94][138][142][143] (Dossier, pp. 1–2, 8, 11, 27)"
"We can't quote directly from the Mueller Report, as that would be OR...?"Even if the Mueller Report is a primary source for this purpose, which it's not, use of primary sources is expressly permitted by WP:OR. We just can't base large passages on primary sources. R2 ( bleep) 18:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
From the Mueller report - "Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false." This seems to be about as much verification as will be possible that Cohen was never in Prague. This should probably be added to the Cohen section, with proper attribution to the Mueller report. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph of the lead is non-neutral and should be deleted. It reads like a series of unrelated statements that are put together to boost the credibility of the dossier. We shouldn't do that. In addition, it doesn't seem consistent with recent reliable sources. I'm thinking specifically of the recent NY Times piece, which says FBI agents have had misgivings about the report since shortly after its publication, that by summer 2017 the FBI had investigated the report but still could not vouch for much of it, and that intelligence experts have been chattering that Russian informants had fed Steele disinformation. R2 ( bleep) 21:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The second paragraph also includes too much detail for a lead section. Every sentence could be simplified or removed outright. R2 ( bleep) 16:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Great new source:
R2 ( bleep) 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm no dossier expert but this story appears to break significant new ground. It goes at some length into the lengths the FBI went to investigate the dossier's allegations and their inability to verify most of it. There's speculation that parts of the dossier came from disinformation planted by the Russians. R2 ( bleep) 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This content is currently in the article:
According to The New York Times, the findings in the Mueller report suggest that "some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove." [1]
I'm doubtful about it because it makes a false claim about what the Mueller Report says. The report does not suggest that some of the most sensational claims appeared to be false. It says nothing of the kind. The dossier is mentioned only a few times in the report. It says "unverified, personally sensitive allegations compiled by Steele"; "Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen"; "The President also brought up the Steele reporting that Corney had raised in the January 6, 2017 briefing and stated that he was thinking about ordering the FBI to investigate the allegations to prove they were false."; "Corney was also asked whether the FBI was investigating the information contained in the Steele reporting, and he declined to answer."
I don't know what the NY Times is referring to, but it's not in the Mueller Report. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove."--I wonder whether this is reliable or merely speculation. What I do think can and should be included in our article is the effort that the FBI took to verify the allegations, and the absence of all but one of the sensational allegations in the Mueller Report. Those are verifiable and noteworthy. R2 ( bleep) 17:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven deleted the following, sourced from the NYT:
The report's most remarkable claims look to be fake, and others "impossible to prove," containing "rumors and hearsay," and possibly "Russian disinformation." [1]
His edit summary was: "Not an accurate summery" [sic]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false" [1]
Some of the report's most remarkable claims look to be fake, and others "impossible to prove," containing "rumors and hearsay," and possibly "Russian disinformation." [1]
References
some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove [...] the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source.
one newspapers opinionbit. From what I can tell the NYT article is not an opinion article. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
As of this month, a large majority of the dossier still remains unverified. I attempted to correct the text in the lead but user VolunteerMarek claimed it was "original research". This is factually incorrect and backed up by reliable sources including the NYT. According to this article [4] : "the F.B.I. still could not vouch for much of the dossier" "Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out" Over the past two years reliable sources have shown most (a large majority) of the dossier has not been verified or corroborated. Just in the past month, David Ignatius and Bob Woodward, two highly-respected establishment journalists who are not fans of Trump, have also cast doubt about most or all of the dossier's contents. Woodward recently stated: "the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it, and Mueller found that to be the case...real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as Mueller also found out is highly questionable." Also there is speculation that parts of the dossier came from disinformation planted by the Russians, according to the NYT. Circulair ( talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Comey was the guest, and Anderson Cooper (plus questions from the audience) was the host. There is some interesting discussion about vetting the dossier. He also mentions how the Mueller report connects the "stopped the flow of tapes" to the salacious allegation about the pee tape:
It also has discussion about how the "whole episode with Strzok and Page, that it damaged the reputation of the FBI." That may be useful in another article -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Following the same principle we are discussing above, that of attaching the verification status of each claim immediately after the claim, there is also the matter of the anonymous sources for each claim. Right now one would think that Steele is making the allegations, when most of the time he is not. He was just collecting raw information he received, organizing it, and sending it to Fusion GPS. Where possible, and the dossier often mentions it, we should identify the source for each claim.
For example, the first allegation we list is from page one of the dossier. It is alleged:
Instead we could write:
How's that? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether this source is reliable for these facts. I believe the answer is no. In general, opinion sources published by newspapers, such as columns (btw, this is not an op-ed), are subjected to a lower level of fact-checking scrutiny by the editorial staff of the newspaper, in this case the Concord Monitor (not the LA Times). The fact that the author had been an LA Times reporter in the 1980s is pretty much irrelevant. The appropriate inquiry is whether his columns enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, e.g. if they've been cited for facts by other reliable sources. Without evidence of that, we must presume that the source is not reliable. R2 ( bleep) 17:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
R2, I hope you're not trying to make a case against using attributed opinions at Wikipedia, because that is not policy. In this case, the opinion is unquestionably factual, so even though I believe it's good to attribute it, doing so can even undermine it to make the facts it states appear to be mere opinions the reader can question or ignore. In some cases, we don't attribute clearly factual opinions for that reason. This is plainly factual, so should be included, and with the attribution, I don't see a problem. It's a bit wordy, so stripping it of some of the fluffy attribution was a good idea. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Referring to the ODNI assessment, former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent Robert Gillette wrote in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified, that "Russia’s combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and helping Trump." According to Gillette, "Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20." [1]
The January 6, 2017, ODNI assessment confirmed one of the dossier's main assertions when it stated: "Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump." The dossier had described these facts in greater detail six months earlier in a memo dated June 20, 2016. (,a fact pointed out by Robert Gillette.) [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
I think this needs taking to RSN for a wider view. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Getting off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
David Ignatius of the Washington Post said in this interview [5] that the Washington Post (and other news organizations) could not verify any of the dossier's contents. He says this at 1:14:48. If this were to be included, would it go in the Veracity section or the Reactions section? Circulair ( talk) 20:53, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
Can we use the Washington Examiner in this instance? I know it's a borderline source we usually avoid, but this article contains some factual content that's useful. Here's what I'm proposing to include in the "Authorship" section:
If this were controversial content, I wouldn't touch this source, but this seems to be pretty basic, accurate, and non-controversial. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Soibangla, the purpose of the cite check-inline tag is to ask that someone verify that the cited sources verify the following content:
I couldn't find the source text that purported to support that content, but the sources are long and dense so I might have missed it. If you find the source text, it might be helpful to quote it in the ref.
R2 (
bleep)
03:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.
From cited refs: After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele..."The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election," Fallon said. Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.. soibangla ( talk) 17:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
soibangla ( talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)In June 2016, two months after the Clinton campaign and the DNC retained Fusion GPS, the company subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign [1] and DNC officials [2] denied knowing Fusion GPS had subcontracted to Steele, and Steele asserted he did not know the Clinton campaign was the ultimate recipient of his work. [3]
References
A conservative nonprofit has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Hillary Clinton campaign of violating election laws when it paid British citizen Christopher Steeleand continues
A review by The Times didn’t find any Weintraub criticism of Democrats having paid Mr. Steele to collect foreign political dirtand Scarborough dutifully accepts it all at face value. Golly, could it be that there was no criticism because, in fact, Democrats didn't actually pay Steele? In fact, there's no evidence Clinton/DNC paid anyone but Fusion, because that's who they hired, then as an intermediary Fusion takes their cut and pays Steele — which Scarborough nefariously characterizes as "funneled," when it's actually just how their business works. Lots of people file lawsuits, sometimes just to generate publicity and smear people, maybe with help from credulous/partisan WashTimes "reporters," and many lawsuits are dismissed as frivolous. And Obama was briefed on the dossier at the same time president-elect Trump was, long after the briefing could be consequential to the campaign. Are you trying to suggest he had prior knowledge in cahoots with Clinton? I ask become some have speculated to that effect to fabricate yet another vast deep state conspiracy.
the role the DOJ played with Fusion GPS?FBI worked directly with Steele because they had a long history of working together because he ran the MI6 Russia desk. soibangla ( talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to try and second guess any politician or news source. Actually, I'd much rather copy edit, work on leads and MOS. As for the rest, we cite what the sources say, and for contentious opinion, we use in-text attribution, or quote whoever said it. We include information about both sides of the isle, and not treat one side as if it's mainstream while the other side is treated as fringe - the same applies to criticism vs factual news. I think the allegations about Clinton possibly knowing more about the dossier before the election than what's been published in MSM is quite telling. If the current investigations turn out to be nothing burgers, that means less work for us as far as having to clean up the articles. I've got an article to finish reviewing for GA, so I may not respond quickly. It's a very long article. Atsme Talk 📧 03:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the allegations about Clinton possibly knowing more about the dossier before the election than what's been published in MSM is quite tellingOne need only watch Hannity on any given night to see allegations of possible nefarious deep state schemes that have no foundation in reality, yet they are routinely presented as established truth. soibangla ( talk) 17:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
As I understand the sources we have, the firewall (in principle similar to a Chinese wall#Law) maintained by Elias was a typical and common " need to know" system that limited and controlled the flow of information in both directions and worked something like this:
The firewall had several levels which were partially or entirely insulated from each other to preserve attorney-client privilege, limit legal liability, avoid COI problems, and likely to limit the risk of leaks:
DNC and Clinton campaign officials knew that Elias was having opposition research performed, but he did not inform them that he had hired Fusion GPS to do the job, and in turn, Fusion GPS did not tell Elias that they had subcontracted Orbis/Steele. Steele did not know that the DNC and Clinton campaign were the ultimate clients until much later. He only knew there was a lawyer who stood for the job. (That paragraph is what needs to be summarized.)
(Elias also did not pass much of the information from Steele on to his employers because he didn't see it as valuable or verifiable. He was hoping to get the smoking gun in his hands, but he didn't receive actual proof, so he was understandably cautious. All he was seeing was unverified raw intelligence. Steele realized that the allegations from his sources were dynamite and potentially very serious, so he wanted them verified and immediately turned over what he got to the FBI as he got it. The FBI was cautious because it was unverified raw intelligence, so they compared it with the information they had from other sources. When some of the allegations were confirmed by those independent sources, the FBI had more confidence to seek confirmation of the other information, but could only act on what was confirmed or strongly suspected, so further investigation was absolutely necessary. That was also enough justification to seek a FISA warrant. All law enforcement investigations start with some unverified information, hence the need to investigate. If they only received neatly packaged proof, they could skip the investigation and go directly to trial in a courtroom. That rarely happens.)
What we need is a shorter summary of that situation for the lead. We need to summarize this current content in the lead and what's in the whole section:
How about something like this:
That may not be entirely accurate, so feel free to propose changes. There are so many details to summarize in a short and vague statement. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to find the best place for this but maybe someone else does:
The New York Times reported in July 2019 that Crossfire Hurricane investigators began discussing a wiretap on Carter Page with their DOJ superiors in August 2016, before they had obtained the Steele dossier on September 19, 2016.
soibangla ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. [8] What do you think about it?
During Robert Mueller's testimony to two congressional committees on July 24, 2019, Congressman Matt Gaetz told Mueller: "...if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our newly elected president, that would be precisely in your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russian interference. But you weren’t interested in whether the Russians interfered through Steele—and if Steele was lying, then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people." [1]
Mueller was asked about Fusion GPS during his testimony before Congress. He said he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS. [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
User:Slatersteven obviously disagrees. [9] Slatersteven's edit summary: Maybe., but they are also not about Clinton or the DNC. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, add the fact that the debunked Steele Dossier has been financed by the DNC. [10]
Please add the fact that the Steele Dossier has been debunked. [11] [12]
Please, add the fact that data Manafort allegedly passed to Kilimnik was publicly available at the time. Please, add the fact that Kilimnik, contrary to the presiding narrative, is the US State Department asset. [13]
Please, provide a citation for the following claim or use the word 'allegedly': `The polling data was provided during a time when hundreds of Russian operatives were working to play on divisive issues in the U.S` Sasha z ( talk) 05:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. From your WSJ source:
"Some portions of the dossier have been validated."You say
data Manafort allegedly passed to Kilimnik was publicly available at the time, although some of it was confidential internal campaign polling data.
Kilimnik, contrary to the presiding narrative, is the US State Department assetsays an opinion piece by John Solomon, a frequent guest of Sean Hannity who has made many baseless assertions. soibangla ( talk) 16:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sasha z, when you write "Mentioning there one funder and not mentioning the other", what do you mean? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, BullRangifer. Maybe you can explain to me how a request should be uncontroversial? Isn't this the forum for working the issues out? Obviously, there can still be debate about what one considers a RS. An article claiming 'anonymous sources revealed' cannot possibly be considered as RS. Do we forget too soon the NYT/WaPo drumbeat for the 2003 war? The fact of the matter is it's the 'mainstream' talking heads who are spreading a conspiracy theory. The ubiquitous Rachel Maddow, anyone? I get my information from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, The Real News Network, Democracy NOW!. Not WaPo/NYT - that's for sure. It is interesting about the 'bumpy ride'. Seems like unless one is a subject of groupthink, one is not well liked, eh? I welcome the hatred, then. <g> Sasha z ( talk) 20:13, 11 July 2024 UTC [ refresh
Even though Wikipedia tends to lean pro-Democrat, the main article is still shockingly non-neutral and markedly biased in favor of Democrats. There is NOTHING in this partisan dossier, which was paid for by Hillary and the DNC, which has been confirmed. Even Mueller's people admitted that they had done nothing to examine the DNC server; all they did was read a redacted Crowdstrike report and adopt it as gospel. Very bright people contend that download speeds prove the DNC server was never even hacked from overseas, but underwent a domestic download from (some say) some person like the controversial Seth Rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC) |
We're supposed to be neutral. There is a lot of politically charged language in this article that should be removed, and there are several sections that have bold claims without sources. Like a lot of things involving Trump, this article needs a lot of work to make it politically neutral while getting the point across. We're also using political opinion pieces as factual information.
Example 1: Although the dossier later became one factor among many in the Russia investigation, it had no role in the opening of the investigation on July 31, 2016, as top FBI officials received the dossier the following September.[243] This fact has been the subject of intense discussion and controversy, largely fueled by false claims made by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politicians. The statement in bold is opinionated, politically charged, and completely unnecessary while adding nothing of value. We're supposed to be supplying information, not fluff.
The main article looks like it was written by the Democratic National Committee, not by a purportedly neutral online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Example 2: Contrary to repeated assertions by Trump,[19] Fox News,[20] and many of his supporters, the dossier was not the impetus for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[21] More fluff and politically charged language. While the information here has truth in it, PolitiFact, and Vox are not credible sources to use (Vox is a primarily opinion based site, and PolitiFact is somewhat known to have a "Well yes but no" attitude). Use better sources that are less opinionated and more concise.
Just a few examples. We're not Fox News, we're not CNN, and we're not Twitter. We're supposed to be giving real information, not making politically charged articles. 70.16.207.67 ( talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This fact has been the subject of intense discussion and controversy, largely fueled by false claims made by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politiciansis abundantly evident to anyone who is not in a coma or a cult, it would take me a matter of minutes to find countless cites to overwhelmingly prove this obvious reality. We can start with several RSs showing the dossier assertion is false, followed by dozens if not hundreds of instances in which Trump/supporters have insisted it is true — as recently as last week. How many cites would allay your concerns? soibangla ( talk) 03:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The line, "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated... however many allegations remain unverified." appears to me to be misleading. By and large the vast majority of content of this dossier has been either debunked, or enough effort has been made that this statement is misleading. It would be hard to imagine that a neutral reader (if one such exists) reading this blurb would walk away thinking that the vast majority of the content of this dossier was debunked, as it has been. The "... main allegations..." of the dossier were related to linking the Trump candidacy to Russia's efforts to affect the election, whereas the only circumstances that have been demonstrated in their efforts are tangential and unrelated to the campaign itself. Further, the wording, "... remains unverified..." at this point, knowing the information we know about the vast majority of its content, leaves a reader thinking we are just waiting for final evidence of corroboration on material that has been largely debunked.
Also, the content which has been corroborated thus far is essentially conversations between Russian nationals, which, interesting as it may be to some, hardly implies that this document's content has been verified. This is exacerbated by the fact that russian nationals appear to have been the ones feeding Mr. Steele much of this content - hardly justifies implying that part of this document is credible.
Overall, I feel the wording of this section is politically unbalanced in what it implies about the dossier, and leaves the reader with the overall impression that we are waiting for i(s) to be dotted and t(s) to be crossed to verify the content, whereas in fact, at this stage, the vast majority of the content of this document has been debunked, and we have generally discovered that this was a politically funded hit-piece (albeit funded in a bipartisan manner over a period of time). This concept should extend to the rest of the article, where it says things like, "The media... [have] treated the dossier with caution...". Again, misleading. If this were the middle of 2017, fine, this is adequate. The Mueller report has come out, all of this has been largely debunked. This article should be updated to reflect these facts.
I see no issue with the last sentence, however, of the opening, which is critical of the Trump administrations criticism. This is factually accurate, and I am not in favor of flipping this to a pro-Trump article. That would also be politically misleading and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkeljohn ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"By and large the vast majority of content of this dossier has been either debunked", this is factually incorrect. Much of it has been proven. As I recall from the Mueller testimony, there was one specific point in the dossier that he refuted, but I can't recall off the top of my head which it was. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified, [1] others unverified, [2] but none have been disproven, according to James Clapper and Fox News host Shepard Smith, [3] with Smith stating: "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven." [4] In some cases, public verification is hindered because information is classified. [5] [6]
References
Shep Smith, an anchor at Fox News, reported on August 15, 2018, that "Some of the assertions in the dossier have been confirmed. Other parts are unconfirmed. None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven."
Wikipedia needs to correct this entry on the dossier. The document has been exposed as a fake to discredit President Donald Trump. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and her team and passed onto John Brennan. Correct this entry!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.114.85 ( talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The Muller Report findings have not been added to this page Ginatina1969 ( talk) 07:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)gcc
Here is the Mueller Report mentions Comey's briefing of Trump about the pee tape, and there is a footnote 112 (pages 27 and 28, Volume 2) attached to it:
112 Comey 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Comey 11/15/17 302, at 3. Comey's briefing included the Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 20 I6, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there' s anything else. Just so you know " 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Rtskhiladze 4/4/ l 8 30 2, at 12. Coh en said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhilad ze. Cohen 9/12/18 302 , at 13. Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen. Rtskhiladze 5/ l0/18 302, at 7.
p. 27-28
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html
END OF FOOTNOTE
Later events:
Rtskhiladze has tried to backtrack his comments, but he treated them as real when he "stopped the flow". He stopped something. That's what he told Cohen and Mueller. To later say it was rumors, etc, is disingenuous.
POSSIBLY USEFUL SOURCES:
This one could be used in the Trump-Russia dossier article:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pee-tape-trump-mueller-report-823755/
++++++++++++++++++++++++
These three sources probably parse things correctly, but are also sensational, so sources below are better:
https://www.inquisitr.com/5407659/donald-trump-pee-tape-moscow-steele-dossier/
++++++++++++++++++++++
MORE SOURCES
The opinions are all over the map, some ignoring the disconnect between Rtskhiladze's backtracking and what he actually did. He treated the tapes as real, not as rumors, and he stopped the flow of embarrassing tapes for Cohen, whose job it was to bury this type of thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/the-mueller-report-excerpts.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-best-footnotes-mueller-report/story?id=62529749
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/rtskhiladze-cohen-trump-russia-tapes
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/pee-tape-mueller-report.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/mueller-report-on-alleged-pee-tape
Please take a look at these sources (and any more you might find) and see if there's a way to legitimately mention this finding in the Mueller Report. This is exactly the type of kompromat mentioned in the dossier, even if we don't know that it's specifically about the pee tape. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
“Special counsel investigation"
"In May 2017, the FBI investigation into Russian interference was overtaken by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. According to Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman Mark Warner (D-VA), the dossier's allegations are being investigated by a Special Counsel led by Robert Mueller, which, since May 2017, has been investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections.[260] In the summer of 2017, Mueller's team of investigators met with Steele.[181] As some leads stemming from the dossier have already been followed and confirmed by the FBI, legal experts have stated that Special Counsel investigators, headed by Robert Mueller, are obligated to follow any leads the dossier has presented them with, irrespective of what parties financed it in its various stages of development, or '[t]hey would be derelict in their duty if they didn't.'”
The main impetus of this article seems to be challenging the Trump camp’s assertion that the Steele Dossier instigated the Russian election-meddling probe with the seemingly small matter of whether or not the allegations in the dossier are actually true is treated almost as peripheral to the article. So now the Mueller Report is in and the AG has stated that the investigation has found no case for collusion which ipso facto would seem to discredit the dossier as found by the very special counsel that the president’s political enemies demanded be named. (Or if Mueller is not accepted as authoritative, does this article descend into a conspiracy theory article?) I, for one, am satisfied with Barr’s summary of the report on that point for the simple reason that he knows that Mueller and his staff are well aware what they wrote and would, of course, challenge such a summary if they found it untrue or even misleading. Nevertheless, for those not satisfied, the release of the Mueller Report (with redactions as mandated by law, such as grand jury testimony) is due out tomorrow, Thursday, April 18, 2019. If the actual report bears out Barr’s summary regarding collusion, is the tenor of this article going to be radically edited to reflect that the main impetus of the article is supposed to be about the Steele Dossier itself and its veracity as opposed to the Russian election-meddling investigation and what instigated it (which one would think would be the peripheral aspect of the article)? HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 19:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 ( bleep) 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The infamous pee tape got a mention in Mueller's report - see the Slate article here. According to that article, a Russian businessman communicating with Michael Cohen was told "the tapes were fake." I'm not sure how this should be added to the article, but it seems to be the first time I've seen any sort of mention of it from RS in formal investigations. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know… .” … Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. … Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. … Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen."
"That Trump was susceptible to blackmail[53][122] due to paying bribes and the existence of "embarrassing material" due to engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior" in Russia,[94][138][142] "enough embarrassing material...to be able to blackmail him if they so wished."[94][138][142][143] (Dossier, pp. 1–2, 8, 11, 27)"
"We can't quote directly from the Mueller Report, as that would be OR...?"Even if the Mueller Report is a primary source for this purpose, which it's not, use of primary sources is expressly permitted by WP:OR. We just can't base large passages on primary sources. R2 ( bleep) 18:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
From the Mueller report - "Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false." This seems to be about as much verification as will be possible that Cohen was never in Prague. This should probably be added to the Cohen section, with proper attribution to the Mueller report. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph of the lead is non-neutral and should be deleted. It reads like a series of unrelated statements that are put together to boost the credibility of the dossier. We shouldn't do that. In addition, it doesn't seem consistent with recent reliable sources. I'm thinking specifically of the recent NY Times piece, which says FBI agents have had misgivings about the report since shortly after its publication, that by summer 2017 the FBI had investigated the report but still could not vouch for much of it, and that intelligence experts have been chattering that Russian informants had fed Steele disinformation. R2 ( bleep) 21:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The second paragraph also includes too much detail for a lead section. Every sentence could be simplified or removed outright. R2 ( bleep) 16:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Great new source:
R2 ( bleep) 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm no dossier expert but this story appears to break significant new ground. It goes at some length into the lengths the FBI went to investigate the dossier's allegations and their inability to verify most of it. There's speculation that parts of the dossier came from disinformation planted by the Russians. R2 ( bleep) 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This content is currently in the article:
According to The New York Times, the findings in the Mueller report suggest that "some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove." [1]
I'm doubtful about it because it makes a false claim about what the Mueller Report says. The report does not suggest that some of the most sensational claims appeared to be false. It says nothing of the kind. The dossier is mentioned only a few times in the report. It says "unverified, personally sensitive allegations compiled by Steele"; "Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen"; "The President also brought up the Steele reporting that Corney had raised in the January 6, 2017 briefing and stated that he was thinking about ordering the FBI to investigate the allegations to prove they were false."; "Corney was also asked whether the FBI was investigating the information contained in the Steele reporting, and he declined to answer."
I don't know what the NY Times is referring to, but it's not in the Mueller Report. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove."--I wonder whether this is reliable or merely speculation. What I do think can and should be included in our article is the effort that the FBI took to verify the allegations, and the absence of all but one of the sensational allegations in the Mueller Report. Those are verifiable and noteworthy. R2 ( bleep) 17:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven deleted the following, sourced from the NYT:
The report's most remarkable claims look to be fake, and others "impossible to prove," containing "rumors and hearsay," and possibly "Russian disinformation." [1]
His edit summary was: "Not an accurate summery" [sic]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false" [1]
Some of the report's most remarkable claims look to be fake, and others "impossible to prove," containing "rumors and hearsay," and possibly "Russian disinformation." [1]
References
some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove [...] the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source.
one newspapers opinionbit. From what I can tell the NYT article is not an opinion article. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
As of this month, a large majority of the dossier still remains unverified. I attempted to correct the text in the lead but user VolunteerMarek claimed it was "original research". This is factually incorrect and backed up by reliable sources including the NYT. According to this article [4] : "the F.B.I. still could not vouch for much of the dossier" "Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out" Over the past two years reliable sources have shown most (a large majority) of the dossier has not been verified or corroborated. Just in the past month, David Ignatius and Bob Woodward, two highly-respected establishment journalists who are not fans of Trump, have also cast doubt about most or all of the dossier's contents. Woodward recently stated: "the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it, and Mueller found that to be the case...real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as Mueller also found out is highly questionable." Also there is speculation that parts of the dossier came from disinformation planted by the Russians, according to the NYT. Circulair ( talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Comey was the guest, and Anderson Cooper (plus questions from the audience) was the host. There is some interesting discussion about vetting the dossier. He also mentions how the Mueller report connects the "stopped the flow of tapes" to the salacious allegation about the pee tape:
It also has discussion about how the "whole episode with Strzok and Page, that it damaged the reputation of the FBI." That may be useful in another article -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Following the same principle we are discussing above, that of attaching the verification status of each claim immediately after the claim, there is also the matter of the anonymous sources for each claim. Right now one would think that Steele is making the allegations, when most of the time he is not. He was just collecting raw information he received, organizing it, and sending it to Fusion GPS. Where possible, and the dossier often mentions it, we should identify the source for each claim.
For example, the first allegation we list is from page one of the dossier. It is alleged:
Instead we could write:
How's that? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether this source is reliable for these facts. I believe the answer is no. In general, opinion sources published by newspapers, such as columns (btw, this is not an op-ed), are subjected to a lower level of fact-checking scrutiny by the editorial staff of the newspaper, in this case the Concord Monitor (not the LA Times). The fact that the author had been an LA Times reporter in the 1980s is pretty much irrelevant. The appropriate inquiry is whether his columns enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, e.g. if they've been cited for facts by other reliable sources. Without evidence of that, we must presume that the source is not reliable. R2 ( bleep) 17:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
R2, I hope you're not trying to make a case against using attributed opinions at Wikipedia, because that is not policy. In this case, the opinion is unquestionably factual, so even though I believe it's good to attribute it, doing so can even undermine it to make the facts it states appear to be mere opinions the reader can question or ignore. In some cases, we don't attribute clearly factual opinions for that reason. This is plainly factual, so should be included, and with the attribution, I don't see a problem. It's a bit wordy, so stripping it of some of the fluffy attribution was a good idea. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Referring to the ODNI assessment, former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent Robert Gillette wrote in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified, that "Russia’s combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and helping Trump." According to Gillette, "Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20." [1]
The January 6, 2017, ODNI assessment confirmed one of the dossier's main assertions when it stated: "Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump." The dossier had described these facts in greater detail six months earlier in a memo dated June 20, 2016. (,a fact pointed out by Robert Gillette.) [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
I think this needs taking to RSN for a wider view. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Getting off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
David Ignatius of the Washington Post said in this interview [5] that the Washington Post (and other news organizations) could not verify any of the dossier's contents. He says this at 1:14:48. If this were to be included, would it go in the Veracity section or the Reactions section? Circulair ( talk) 20:53, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
Can we use the Washington Examiner in this instance? I know it's a borderline source we usually avoid, but this article contains some factual content that's useful. Here's what I'm proposing to include in the "Authorship" section:
If this were controversial content, I wouldn't touch this source, but this seems to be pretty basic, accurate, and non-controversial. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Soibangla, the purpose of the cite check-inline tag is to ask that someone verify that the cited sources verify the following content:
I couldn't find the source text that purported to support that content, but the sources are long and dense so I might have missed it. If you find the source text, it might be helpful to quote it in the ref.
R2 (
bleep)
03:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.
From cited refs: After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele..."The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election," Fallon said. Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.. soibangla ( talk) 17:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
soibangla ( talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)In June 2016, two months after the Clinton campaign and the DNC retained Fusion GPS, the company subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign [1] and DNC officials [2] denied knowing Fusion GPS had subcontracted to Steele, and Steele asserted he did not know the Clinton campaign was the ultimate recipient of his work. [3]
References
A conservative nonprofit has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Hillary Clinton campaign of violating election laws when it paid British citizen Christopher Steeleand continues
A review by The Times didn’t find any Weintraub criticism of Democrats having paid Mr. Steele to collect foreign political dirtand Scarborough dutifully accepts it all at face value. Golly, could it be that there was no criticism because, in fact, Democrats didn't actually pay Steele? In fact, there's no evidence Clinton/DNC paid anyone but Fusion, because that's who they hired, then as an intermediary Fusion takes their cut and pays Steele — which Scarborough nefariously characterizes as "funneled," when it's actually just how their business works. Lots of people file lawsuits, sometimes just to generate publicity and smear people, maybe with help from credulous/partisan WashTimes "reporters," and many lawsuits are dismissed as frivolous. And Obama was briefed on the dossier at the same time president-elect Trump was, long after the briefing could be consequential to the campaign. Are you trying to suggest he had prior knowledge in cahoots with Clinton? I ask become some have speculated to that effect to fabricate yet another vast deep state conspiracy.
the role the DOJ played with Fusion GPS?FBI worked directly with Steele because they had a long history of working together because he ran the MI6 Russia desk. soibangla ( talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to try and second guess any politician or news source. Actually, I'd much rather copy edit, work on leads and MOS. As for the rest, we cite what the sources say, and for contentious opinion, we use in-text attribution, or quote whoever said it. We include information about both sides of the isle, and not treat one side as if it's mainstream while the other side is treated as fringe - the same applies to criticism vs factual news. I think the allegations about Clinton possibly knowing more about the dossier before the election than what's been published in MSM is quite telling. If the current investigations turn out to be nothing burgers, that means less work for us as far as having to clean up the articles. I've got an article to finish reviewing for GA, so I may not respond quickly. It's a very long article. Atsme Talk 📧 03:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the allegations about Clinton possibly knowing more about the dossier before the election than what's been published in MSM is quite tellingOne need only watch Hannity on any given night to see allegations of possible nefarious deep state schemes that have no foundation in reality, yet they are routinely presented as established truth. soibangla ( talk) 17:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
As I understand the sources we have, the firewall (in principle similar to a Chinese wall#Law) maintained by Elias was a typical and common " need to know" system that limited and controlled the flow of information in both directions and worked something like this:
The firewall had several levels which were partially or entirely insulated from each other to preserve attorney-client privilege, limit legal liability, avoid COI problems, and likely to limit the risk of leaks:
DNC and Clinton campaign officials knew that Elias was having opposition research performed, but he did not inform them that he had hired Fusion GPS to do the job, and in turn, Fusion GPS did not tell Elias that they had subcontracted Orbis/Steele. Steele did not know that the DNC and Clinton campaign were the ultimate clients until much later. He only knew there was a lawyer who stood for the job. (That paragraph is what needs to be summarized.)
(Elias also did not pass much of the information from Steele on to his employers because he didn't see it as valuable or verifiable. He was hoping to get the smoking gun in his hands, but he didn't receive actual proof, so he was understandably cautious. All he was seeing was unverified raw intelligence. Steele realized that the allegations from his sources were dynamite and potentially very serious, so he wanted them verified and immediately turned over what he got to the FBI as he got it. The FBI was cautious because it was unverified raw intelligence, so they compared it with the information they had from other sources. When some of the allegations were confirmed by those independent sources, the FBI had more confidence to seek confirmation of the other information, but could only act on what was confirmed or strongly suspected, so further investigation was absolutely necessary. That was also enough justification to seek a FISA warrant. All law enforcement investigations start with some unverified information, hence the need to investigate. If they only received neatly packaged proof, they could skip the investigation and go directly to trial in a courtroom. That rarely happens.)
What we need is a shorter summary of that situation for the lead. We need to summarize this current content in the lead and what's in the whole section:
How about something like this:
That may not be entirely accurate, so feel free to propose changes. There are so many details to summarize in a short and vague statement. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to find the best place for this but maybe someone else does:
The New York Times reported in July 2019 that Crossfire Hurricane investigators began discussing a wiretap on Carter Page with their DOJ superiors in August 2016, before they had obtained the Steele dossier on September 19, 2016.
soibangla ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. [8] What do you think about it?
During Robert Mueller's testimony to two congressional committees on July 24, 2019, Congressman Matt Gaetz told Mueller: "...if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our newly elected president, that would be precisely in your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russian interference. But you weren’t interested in whether the Russians interfered through Steele—and if Steele was lying, then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people." [1]
Mueller was asked about Fusion GPS during his testimony before Congress. He said he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS. [2]
Sources
|
---|
|
User:Slatersteven obviously disagrees. [9] Slatersteven's edit summary: Maybe., but they are also not about Clinton or the DNC. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, add the fact that the debunked Steele Dossier has been financed by the DNC. [10]
Please add the fact that the Steele Dossier has been debunked. [11] [12]
Please, add the fact that data Manafort allegedly passed to Kilimnik was publicly available at the time. Please, add the fact that Kilimnik, contrary to the presiding narrative, is the US State Department asset. [13]
Please, provide a citation for the following claim or use the word 'allegedly': `The polling data was provided during a time when hundreds of Russian operatives were working to play on divisive issues in the U.S` Sasha z ( talk) 05:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. From your WSJ source:
"Some portions of the dossier have been validated."You say
data Manafort allegedly passed to Kilimnik was publicly available at the time, although some of it was confidential internal campaign polling data.
Kilimnik, contrary to the presiding narrative, is the US State Department assetsays an opinion piece by John Solomon, a frequent guest of Sean Hannity who has made many baseless assertions. soibangla ( talk) 16:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sasha z, when you write "Mentioning there one funder and not mentioning the other", what do you mean? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, BullRangifer. Maybe you can explain to me how a request should be uncontroversial? Isn't this the forum for working the issues out? Obviously, there can still be debate about what one considers a RS. An article claiming 'anonymous sources revealed' cannot possibly be considered as RS. Do we forget too soon the NYT/WaPo drumbeat for the 2003 war? The fact of the matter is it's the 'mainstream' talking heads who are spreading a conspiracy theory. The ubiquitous Rachel Maddow, anyone? I get my information from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, The Real News Network, Democracy NOW!. Not WaPo/NYT - that's for sure. It is interesting about the 'bumpy ride'. Seems like unless one is a subject of groupthink, one is not well liked, eh? I welcome the hatred, then. <g> Sasha z ( talk) 20:13, 11 July 2024 UTC [ refresh
Even though Wikipedia tends to lean pro-Democrat, the main article is still shockingly non-neutral and markedly biased in favor of Democrats. There is NOTHING in this partisan dossier, which was paid for by Hillary and the DNC, which has been confirmed. Even Mueller's people admitted that they had done nothing to examine the DNC server; all they did was read a redacted Crowdstrike report and adopt it as gospel. Very bright people contend that download speeds prove the DNC server was never even hacked from overseas, but underwent a domestic download from (some say) some person like the controversial Seth Rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC) |
We're supposed to be neutral. There is a lot of politically charged language in this article that should be removed, and there are several sections that have bold claims without sources. Like a lot of things involving Trump, this article needs a lot of work to make it politically neutral while getting the point across. We're also using political opinion pieces as factual information.
Example 1: Although the dossier later became one factor among many in the Russia investigation, it had no role in the opening of the investigation on July 31, 2016, as top FBI officials received the dossier the following September.[243] This fact has been the subject of intense discussion and controversy, largely fueled by false claims made by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politicians. The statement in bold is opinionated, politically charged, and completely unnecessary while adding nothing of value. We're supposed to be supplying information, not fluff.
The main article looks like it was written by the Democratic National Committee, not by a purportedly neutral online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Example 2: Contrary to repeated assertions by Trump,[19] Fox News,[20] and many of his supporters, the dossier was not the impetus for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[21] More fluff and politically charged language. While the information here has truth in it, PolitiFact, and Vox are not credible sources to use (Vox is a primarily opinion based site, and PolitiFact is somewhat known to have a "Well yes but no" attitude). Use better sources that are less opinionated and more concise.
Just a few examples. We're not Fox News, we're not CNN, and we're not Twitter. We're supposed to be giving real information, not making politically charged articles. 70.16.207.67 ( talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This fact has been the subject of intense discussion and controversy, largely fueled by false claims made by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politiciansis abundantly evident to anyone who is not in a coma or a cult, it would take me a matter of minutes to find countless cites to overwhelmingly prove this obvious reality. We can start with several RSs showing the dossier assertion is false, followed by dozens if not hundreds of instances in which Trump/supporters have insisted it is true — as recently as last week. How many cites would allay your concerns? soibangla ( talk) 03:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The line, "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated... however many allegations remain unverified." appears to me to be misleading. By and large the vast majority of content of this dossier has been either debunked, or enough effort has been made that this statement is misleading. It would be hard to imagine that a neutral reader (if one such exists) reading this blurb would walk away thinking that the vast majority of the content of this dossier was debunked, as it has been. The "... main allegations..." of the dossier were related to linking the Trump candidacy to Russia's efforts to affect the election, whereas the only circumstances that have been demonstrated in their efforts are tangential and unrelated to the campaign itself. Further, the wording, "... remains unverified..." at this point, knowing the information we know about the vast majority of its content, leaves a reader thinking we are just waiting for final evidence of corroboration on material that has been largely debunked.
Also, the content which has been corroborated thus far is essentially conversations between Russian nationals, which, interesting as it may be to some, hardly implies that this document's content has been verified. This is exacerbated by the fact that russian nationals appear to have been the ones feeding Mr. Steele much of this content - hardly justifies implying that part of this document is credible.
Overall, I feel the wording of this section is politically unbalanced in what it implies about the dossier, and leaves the reader with the overall impression that we are waiting for i(s) to be dotted and t(s) to be crossed to verify the content, whereas in fact, at this stage, the vast majority of the content of this document has been debunked, and we have generally discovered that this was a politically funded hit-piece (albeit funded in a bipartisan manner over a period of time). This concept should extend to the rest of the article, where it says things like, "The media... [have] treated the dossier with caution...". Again, misleading. If this were the middle of 2017, fine, this is adequate. The Mueller report has come out, all of this has been largely debunked. This article should be updated to reflect these facts.
I see no issue with the last sentence, however, of the opening, which is critical of the Trump administrations criticism. This is factually accurate, and I am not in favor of flipping this to a pro-Trump article. That would also be politically misleading and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkeljohn ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"By and large the vast majority of content of this dossier has been either debunked", this is factually incorrect. Much of it has been proven. As I recall from the Mueller testimony, there was one specific point in the dossier that he refuted, but I can't recall off the top of my head which it was. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified, [1] others unverified, [2] but none have been disproven, according to James Clapper and Fox News host Shepard Smith, [3] with Smith stating: "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven." [4] In some cases, public verification is hindered because information is classified. [5] [6]
References
Shep Smith, an anchor at Fox News, reported on August 15, 2018, that "Some of the assertions in the dossier have been confirmed. Other parts are unconfirmed. None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven."
Wikipedia needs to correct this entry on the dossier. The document has been exposed as a fake to discredit President Donald Trump. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and her team and passed onto John Brennan. Correct this entry!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.114.85 ( talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The Muller Report findings have not been added to this page Ginatina1969 ( talk) 07:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)gcc
Here is the Mueller Report mentions Comey's briefing of Trump about the pee tape, and there is a footnote 112 (pages 27 and 28, Volume 2) attached to it:
112 Comey 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Comey 11/15/17 302, at 3. Comey's briefing included the Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 20 I6, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there' s anything else. Just so you know " 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Rtskhiladze 4/4/ l 8 30 2, at 12. Coh en said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhilad ze. Cohen 9/12/18 302 , at 13. Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen. Rtskhiladze 5/ l0/18 302, at 7.
p. 27-28
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html
END OF FOOTNOTE
Later events:
Rtskhiladze has tried to backtrack his comments, but he treated them as real when he "stopped the flow". He stopped something. That's what he told Cohen and Mueller. To later say it was rumors, etc, is disingenuous.
POSSIBLY USEFUL SOURCES:
This one could be used in the Trump-Russia dossier article:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pee-tape-trump-mueller-report-823755/
++++++++++++++++++++++++
These three sources probably parse things correctly, but are also sensational, so sources below are better:
https://www.inquisitr.com/5407659/donald-trump-pee-tape-moscow-steele-dossier/
++++++++++++++++++++++
MORE SOURCES
The opinions are all over the map, some ignoring the disconnect between Rtskhiladze's backtracking and what he actually did. He treated the tapes as real, not as rumors, and he stopped the flow of embarrassing tapes for Cohen, whose job it was to bury this type of thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/the-mueller-report-excerpts.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-best-footnotes-mueller-report/story?id=62529749
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/rtskhiladze-cohen-trump-russia-tapes
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/pee-tape-mueller-report.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/mueller-report-on-alleged-pee-tape
Please take a look at these sources (and any more you might find) and see if there's a way to legitimately mention this finding in the Mueller Report. This is exactly the type of kompromat mentioned in the dossier, even if we don't know that it's specifically about the pee tape. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)