Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 10 November 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Links between Trump associates and Russian officials article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was copied or moved into Links between Trump associates and Russian officials on 20:48, 30 May 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Content unrelated to subject was deleted (and restored)

I deleted some content that seemed unrelated to the subject matter, even though they might seem tangentially related. It seemed a COATRACK violation. We need to be more strict. This is not the article where this content is covered best. It is covered elsewhere much better. Here are the THREE paragraphs I deleted, so comment at the right spots:

One...

On September 16, 2021, Grand Jury indicted Michael A. Sussmann, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney with making false statements to the FBI in 2016 regarding alleged communications between Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, an allegedly Russian Government-linked financial institution. The indictment alleged "that researchers were tasked to mine this internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” that would tie then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to Russia." It is further alleged that Sussmann falsely stated "he was not bringing these allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client", even though he "coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign in these efforts". The FBI ultimately found no sufficient evidence to support the allegations of secret communication between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank and thus Robert S. Mueller III did not use the matter in his final report to the Justice Department on March 22, 2019.

This content was not related to the subject of the article. Sussmann is not a member of the Trump campaign, nor did this kerfuffle accuse any member of the Trump campaign with wrongdoing. It's a different issue and doesn't belong in this article. It is covered elsewhere in a much better manner. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• • You might be right, but I would like to hear a few more opinions of other editors here as well. I think it is relevant as it undermines the whole notion of Russiagate. If that doe snot belong here where should it go? Kolma8 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Also while we on the matter of the subject of the article... This article is about the links of the Trump associates and Russian officials, right? Why would then we have the whole section about Trump himself expressing his opinions about Putin/Russia? Here Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials#2016_campaign...is in it a classic case of Misplaced Pages:Coatrack_articles#All_About_George? Kolma8 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Trump's relationship/links to Putin is very much on-topic here. He is the "king" of all "Trump associates", so to speak. It would be odd to leave him out. -- Valjean (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Valjean Do you have anything to substantiate your claim of the "king" of..."? Or is it just your personal opinion? Kolma8 (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • That was sarcasm. Trump would obviously be included in "Trump associates" as he's associated with himself. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
          • @Valjean Which part of your comment was sarcasm? Kolma8 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
            • "King". He's no king, although he's a kingpin, definitionally the boss/leader, and thus most important figure, in "Trump associates". It would defy logic to exclude him from the equation, and investigators have understood this by including him in their investigations. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Two...

In congressional testimony the following June, former FBI director James Comey, regarding the report by the New York Times, stated “in the main, it was not true”. The Times reported that during the intervening months, its sources continued to believe the reporting was "solid." In July 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee released notes taken contemporaneously with the Times report by FBI Counterintelligence Division chief Peter Strzok indicating his skepticism about the Times' reporting, writing, “We have not seen evidence of any officials associated with the Trump team in contact with " and "“We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” Despite this, the Times still stood by its account, claiming that the released notes did not provide a fully accurate representation of Strzok's knowledge. CNN reported on March 23, 2017, that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

This content was placed in the lead, creating a much larger lead than necessary. This violated LEAD in several ways: It was too detailed for a lead; it lacked necessary context for a very complicated matter, and what was used was misleading; it had not been covered in the body of the article, so on that ground alone it had to be removed. That's firm. It's also a COATRACK violation. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• (1) I agree that the Lead is too long. (2) See below my two cents about WP:COATRACK and WP:CHERRYPICK. Kolma8 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Kolma8, would you please self-revert this one? It is a complete violation of LEAD and also bloats the lead. I'm not sure how it could be integrated into the body in its present form as it is a much more complicated issue that is written in an abbreviated manner here and is thus misleading. Right now it should be deleted. -- Valjean (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Three...

In January 2021, an FBI agent, Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced on a probation for intentionally altering an internal FBI email and creating a false record in order to seeking a court's permission to continue government surveillance of former Trump campaign official Carter Page in 2016 and 2017.

Yes, this content is "related to the surveillance on Page," but we cover Page to the degree necessary for this article. The inclusion of this content here violates COATRACK. It's not necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• We can't first make a statement earlier in the Page section as below:

"Page was dropped from the Trump team after reports that he was under investigation by federal authorities. The FBI and the Justice Department obtained a FISA warrant to monitor Page's communications during October 2016, after they made the case that there was probable cause to think Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. Page told The Washington Post that he considered that to be "unjustified, politically motivated government surveillance." According to the Nunes memo, the 90-day warrant was renewed three times."

And cannot mention that the basis for surveillance was fabricated by an FBI agent, can't we? Kolma8 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Also kindly would like to remind you that WP:COATRACK is an advisory essay not a set of rules that can be "violated." Secondly, lets try not to WP:CHERRYPICK the facts here. Kolma8 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  * here is about WP:COATRACK essay:

  This is an essay.

  It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Kolma8 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The surveillance of Page is covered in his bio and is not relevant to the links established and documented here. Clinesmith's actions do not undermine the findings about his links to Russians, links which Page is proud of.

BTW, the words "and creating a false record" should be stricken. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean, BTW, that should be left along, or replaced with "false statement" as "Mr. Clinesmith acknowledged that his action met the criteria for an illegal false statement because the original text did not contain the phrase that he added about Mr. Page." The sources is here. Mr. Clinesmith also said, "...I am agreeing that the information I inserted into the email was not originally there, and I inserted that information." Also please read here: "Mr. Clinesmith pleaded guilty last year to making a false statement, he acknowledged that he had intentionally altered the email and created a false record." And here: "Clinesmith pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement ..." Kolma8 (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant explanation! I wasn't familiar with the phrase "false record". False statement is probably most understandable to readers, so why don't we go with that? Go for it. Oh, I see that you. Good. There is one problem with that wording. It makes it sound like two separate offenses. I'll tweak it. Feel free to improve that, if necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "basis for surveillance was fabricated." Clinesmith's letter was not the only "basis" for the FISA warrants but did contribute. Originally, the FBI had accumulated evidence of many suspicious actions by Page and were at the 50% mark of deciding whether or not they had probable cause (FISA warrants have a low bar for establishing probable cause) to seek a renewed FISA warrant (he had previously been the subject of a FISA warrant in 2013(?)). Then the Steele dossier came along. Since the independent evidence from CIA sources confirmed what Steele had found, it provided them the needed 1% "push over the edge" (thus a central factor) to cause them to actually do it. That's where Clinesmith's letter came into the picture. A lawyer had to make the application.

As to Clinesmith's actions? Clinesmith and Sussmann likely do deserve some form of punishment. Clinesmith's punishment was very lenient, likely because he had no intent to deceive, but fixed what he correctly saw as the wrong use of the term "source" (it has different meanings). Carter Page had held himself out as an activated CIA asset/source, when he was nothing of the kind (he was merely a passive sub-source they could question), and Clinesmith actually corrected that false impression, but he did it in an improper/unauthorized manner and was rightly punished for doing so. Sussmann's errors might actually be more egregious because he may have wasted the FBI's time. Time will tell. -- Valjean (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Since the independent evidence from CIA sources confirmed what Steele had found..." uh, source? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That was clumsily written. I didn't mean to imply that all dossier allegations were confirmed. Definitely not! (Also, it might have been the FBI's sources, not CIA's, because it was the FBI that sought the FISA warrants.)

When the FBI finally received the first dossier allegations, quite a while after the Russia investigation was started, they accepted the dossier as something worth investigating, partially because they already had their own, independent, evidence from their own sources which, when compared with some of the dossier's central allegations (especially that the Russians were supporting Trump and interfering in the election, and that Trump knew and accepted), found that the dossier agreed with their own evidence. Thus, when they later filed for FISA warrants, they didn't need to depend on the dossier. They just folded it in as an addendum and depended on their own evidence to justify seeking the warrants.

"The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia." The FBI already had plenty of evidence. I don't remember, but I think it was McCabe or Strzok, who said their own evidence was at about the 50% tipping point (51% was needed to make the final decision), and the dossier just pushed them over the edge to make that decision. Before that they were wavering. What they had was not quite enough to give them confidence to immediately file the application.

When the dossier came along and showed that others had discovered the same things they already knew, that gave them the confidence to file for a renewed warrant. (One could say that the amount of evidence didn't radically change, but their confidence in the evidence did change.) The allegations in the dossier were not used as the primary basis for filing the FISA warrants. In his testimony before Congress, Glenn Simpson "confirmed that the FBI had sources of its own and that whatever the FBI learned from Steele was simply folded into its ongoing work." The role of the dossier in getting the warrants, even if it were only the seemingly small 1% needed to tip the scales, is variously described as a "central" or "essential" "role". Note that the FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary and appropriate to include material in this article which falsely alleged improper connections between Trump and Russia and has subsequently been debunked. Links between political campaigns and foreign actors are quite commonplace, often necessary, and are usually harmless. As we all know, Mueller conclusively investigated and found no sort of collusion, collaboration, or cooperation which could be charged. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If what you say is true, it would indeed be necessary to include such material. Unfortunately what you seem to imply doesn't match the facts.

Mueller wasn't able to find "conspiracy" and "collaboration", possibly because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation. He did find multiple examples of what could be folded into a "collusion" narrative: Trump's his campaign's invitation, welcoming, cooperation, lying about, secrecy, failure to notify the FBI, use of unofficial communication devices and encrypted messaging apps, destruction of evidence, obstruction of investigations, praising and never critizing Russia, denying the Russians interfered, doing nothing to stop the interference, etc.

Be careful with your words. Mueller only mentioned "conspiracy" and "collaboration". He did find plenty of collusion and myriad improper links.

Which "improper connections" were "falsely alleged" and "subsequently debunked"? Links between campaigns and foreign actors are not that commonplace, and never before of this type. Contacts have previously happened, but not help from foreign actors, especially from actual foreign agents. It is very illegal for a campaign to accept this type of actual foreign help.

The contacts were serious enough, already in 2015, to have alarmed multiple foreign intelligence agencies. They were watching potentially treasonous behavior by Trump campaigners. Keep in mind that already in late 2013 (Trump's Miss Universe trip to Moscow), Trump and Russians were discussing his plans to run for president, and some Russians then (early 2014) publicly expressed their intention to support him. This was before any Americans knew of such plans from public sources. Trump's Russian and American allies knew. Already by 2014, the Russians started their hacking, and by 2015 Trump campaigners were meeting very secretly in multiple European cities with known Russian agents, agents who were under observation by European intelligence agencies.

Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern".

Then, in April 2016, they received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". The Dutch also reported how they watched a group of Russians hacking the DNC.

The New York Times also reported that British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries, and that U.S. intelligence had overheard Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, talking about contacts with Trump associates. Some Russian officials were arguing about how much to interfere in the election. Then cyber attacks on state electoral systems led the Obama administration to directly accuse the Russians of interfering.

Because the CIA is not allowed to surveil the private communications of American citizens without a warrant, the CIA and FBI were slow to react to these revelations.

In September and November 2015, the FBI warned the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that one of their computers had been hacked and was sending information back to Russia. On March 19, 2016, the Russians gained access to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails. Then an unwitting revelation by George Papadopoulos revealed that he knew, seven weeks before the FBI, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign did not reveal this to the FBI, but the Australian ambassador did. It was this revelation which started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

In sworn testimony, Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen stated that Trump knew in advance that WikiLeaks would leak the hacked Democratic emails. Trump also repeatedly praised and thanked WikiLeaks and publicly asked the Russians to find Hillary's emails. Russian officials began efforts to hack her server and the Clinton campaign servers "on or around" the same day as Trump's request.

So let me ask again, which "improper connections" were "falsely alleged" and "subsequently debunked"? Don't try to say there was no cooperation, collusion, or improper links. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Continues in next subsection. -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The three issues

which "improper connections" were "falsely alleged" and "subsequently debunked"? - the 3 we are talking about in this thread that you started. It was alleged that a Trump owned server was in secret communication with a Russian bank. That was false and brought to the FBI by a political operative working for Hillary Clinton probably for the purpose of stoking this media fire. There was a NYT story alleging improper contact which Director Comey called not true. And finally there was an FBI lawyer who altered wording in a request to spy on an American to try to find a link between Page and Russia which wasn't there. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, thanks for the clear reply. Let's look at each issue:

1. Yes, the "Alfa Bank backchannel" issue should be mentioned. It was a very short-lived allegation (BTW, unlike what some believe it, was never touched by the Steele dossier). Currently we don't cover it, only mentioning it in connection with Sussmann, not in relation to the coverage it had at the time. He comes at the end of the story as a revelation. Feel free to propose some form of paragraph on the subject.
2. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "story alleging improper contact which Director Comey called not true." Please refresh my memory.
3. That has been restored, so we do cover Clinesmith's misdeed, and with many RS:

"In January 2021, an FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced on probation for intentionally altering an internal FBI email in connection with a FISA request to continue government surveillance on former Trump campaign official Carter Page in 2016 and 2017.

The mention of Clinesmith has nothing to do with Carter Page's proven myriad suspicious and lied about links, and are thus not related to any supposed "falsely alleged improper connections between Trump and Russia". That's why I felt that should not be mentioned HERE, as such mention feeds into the false narrative that there was no good reason to be suspicious of Page's actions. There was plenty of good reason to surveil him, especially because he and the Trump campaign lied about his actions and relationship to the campaign. Read: " Why Carter Page Was Worth Watching. There’s plenty of evidence that the former Trump campaign adviser, for all his quirks, was on suspiciously good terms with Russia." and "Revisiting Carter Page and the Rosneft Deal".

Valjean (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) @Valjean I am a bit confused about your statement below: "Trump and Russians were discussing his plans to run for president, and some Russians then (early 2014) publicly expressed their intention to support him. This was before any Americans knew of such plans from public sources." If "some Russians then publicly" supported Trump then how it could be that no Americans "knew of such plans from public sources"? At least since 1988 and for sure from 1999 Trump mentioned his intent to run. See here and more at Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Background.

And what is wrong with "some Russians" (assuming private citizens) expressing their intention to support Trump? Hillary Clinton said on record during her 2016 campaign. "I am already receiving messages from leaders ­– I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump." She also mentioned that at least one world leader offered support publicly. Kolma8

The contacts with foreign figures are troublesome, but not illegal...unless of course there is funding of the candidates involved. Kolma8 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

To answer this, I'd have to get into forum territory, so I just copied your sig from below and placed it here so I could answer here. I hope you don't mind. I'll then copy this to my talk page where we can continue tomorrow. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think it will go beyond the matters of this article, so I don't want to get our focus away from improving this article. Again, respectfully I am just making a point that verifiable content trumps the content that just wallops. Kolma8 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(2)@Valjean, your comment... You wrote: "Mueller wasn't able to find "conspiracy" and "collaboration", possibly because of Trump's successful obstruction of the investigation. " I assume it is your position, so please keep to yourself... The main narrative that is shared on WP is "(T)he Mueller Report...concluded that though the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference and expected to benefit from it, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges against Trump or his associates. The report did not reach a conclusion about possible obstruction of justice of Trump, citing a Justice Department guideline that prohibits the federal indictment of a sitting president." This is it. The rest is your position and that goes against WP:VNT, specifically "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." The job of WP editors is not be truth-finders WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, but add a verifiable content. Kolma8 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am careful how I edit. I've been here since 2003 and my wordings and fingerprints are still in a number of our most important policies, so I'm not a newbie who adds "what I believe" to articles without any RS. Conversation on talk pages is allowed a bit more freedom. RS tell us that Mueller provided abundant evidence of obstruction, but punted the issue to Congress. The Republicans chose to ignore that evidence and didn't convict Trump. That's what our articles here tell us, and they are based on RS. I have no opinions on that subject that I didn't get from RS.

My use of "possibly" refers to the fact that we don't have concrete evidence of a "conspiracy", and also shows my doubt that such a thing exists, but if it did exist, the obstruction succeded in allowing us to really know. I really doubt that there ever was a real oral or written conspiracy, just all the elements we associate with collusion related to the Russian interference: invitation, welcoming, cooperating, aiding and abetting, lying about, facilitating, encouraging, not preventing, preventing intelligence agencies from doing their jobs, etc. There is plenty of evidence in RS about those things. Some are not illegal, and others could be. It all depends. I believe it was illoyal to the American people and American security interests, and, because it was partially a Russian military cyberattack (an act of war) carried out by our enemies, aiding such efforts may well fall under the American definition of treason, but that's just me. Don't worry, I won't put that in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Coincidentally invitation, welcoming, cooperating, aiding and abetting, lying about, facilitating, encouraging, not preventing, preventing intelligence agencies from doing their jobs is also more or less what the Clinton campaign did through its engagement of Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. Paying foreign actors and working with them to generate opposition research, some of it fake and incorrect, lying to the FBI about motives, wasting the FBI's time chasing down fake leads, etc. There is no evidence that Trump's "successful obstruction" prevented Mueller from reaching a charging position. In fact, saying Trump successfully obstructed the investigation is undoubtedly a BLP violation. It is much more likely that there was simply nothing to charge. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, there is a huge difference between what the Trump campaign did (illegally accepting "something of value" to their campaign from a foreign power) and what the Clinton campaign did (performing legal opposition research, something all campaigns do). You really should read our articles on these subjects and the RS used. It's all there.

There was also a huge distinction between their motivations and actions: "Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give." Trump's actions threatened national security, while Steele found worrying information and immediately acted to protect national security.

This aid from Russia applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations, and the Trump campaign did receive cash from Russians. Remember that, while foreign intelligence agencies were surveilling Russian agents/spies who were secretly meeting with Trump campaigners, in April 2016, they received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". That was a conversation about the Trump campaign. There is also the NRA-GOP pipeline of money where Russian money was given to the NRA, and then whitewashed into campaign contributions to the GOP and Trump campaigns.

About campaign contributions and opposition research....

The legal status of the dossier relates to FEC laws forbidding foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns, and that applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations. The dossier and the 2016 Trump Tower meeting are frequently contrasted and conflated in this regard. At issue is the legal difference between a campaign expenditure and a campaign contribution.

Philip Bump has explained "why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't": "Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined."

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution") to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump squashed the fairly honest press release prepared by Donald Jr. and Kushner and issued a very deceptive press release about the nature of the meeting.

The very act of keeping such transactions secret from the FBI immediately made all the Trump people involved vulnerable to Russian blackmail and they have been considered a huge security risk. Trump would never be able to properly get a security clearance as he is considered by many to be a domestic threat. George Takei put it well here. Trump should have immediately gone to the FBI, as Steele did, but he didn't because his loyalties are with Russia and Steele's with America.

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if performed by foreigners.

Bump explains that:

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.

Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."

Jane Mayer referred to the same meeting and contrasted the difference in reactions to Russian attempts to support Trump: When Trump Jr. was offered "dirt" on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", instead of "going to the F.B.I., as Steele had" when he learned Russia was helping Trump, Trump's son accepted the support by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it ..."

About obstruction by Trump and his campaign...

Don't be so naive as to think that the Trump campaign's destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, lying, refusal to testify and produce documents, use of encrypted cell phones and apps, secret backchannel communications with Russians, etc. had no effect on Mueller's ability to gather evidence. It obviously did, and many Trump people were indicted and convicted (and later pardoned by Trump). Mueller documented all of that, and that was part of the evidence of obstruction he punted to Congress, and the Senate GOP ignored it and refused to convict Trump at his impeachment.

Mueller described some of the obstruction: "Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony."

As a result of the missing evidence, Mueller wrote that his office "cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report." Sean Hannity even (jokingly) advised Mueller targets to smash their cell phones.

The Mueller investigation was weak and never really finished. Mueller caved to the time constraints imposed by Trump and didn't use his powers to subpoena and imprison these people to force them to produce evidence, unlike what happened before Nixon's impeachment. The two Special Counsels were very different. Trump seems to be Teflon (search that phrase!) -- Valjean (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Valjean, I, once again, would like to remind that we are not to find truth, but create a verifiable content in accordance with WP philosophy. And again -- to @Mr Ernie's point -- the verdict of Mueller investigation is that there was no evidence of Trump's collision with Russia and that "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” yet we still have an article that named Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials. Kolma8 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean And by the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Those are all verifiable content pieces about the matter IAW WP style/philosophy/guidance. Kolma8 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What are?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8, as has been explained to you, it was "conspiracy" that was not proven, not "collusion". Be careful with your choice of words. Mueller excluded "conspired" and "coordinated" (which he treated as synonyms), which are not the same as "colluded" and "cooperated". There is a huge difference. It's okay to say "found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination", but it's wrong to say that Mueller said "no collusion". He never said that. He found many forms of collusion, but used other words for it. He found multiple examples of what could be folded into a "collusion" narrative: Trump's and his campaign's invitation, welcoming, cooperation, lying about, secrecy, failure to notify the FBI, use of unofficial communication devices and encrypted messaging apps, destruction of evidence, secret contacts with known Russian intelligence agents, obstruction of investigations, praising and never criticizing Russia and Putin, denying the Russians interfered, doing nothing to stop the interference, telling the Russian ambassador that he didn't mind the interference, etc. Mueller found plenty of collusion and myriad improper links. -- Valjean (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty to falsifying claim made to continue surveillance of key figure in Mueller probe". NBC News. Retrieved 2021-09-26.
2. Department, Pete WilliamsPete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice; Court, the Supreme; Washington, based in. "Ex-FBI lawyer gets probation for falsifying Carter Page surveillance application". NBC News. Retrieved 2021-09-26. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
3. Lucas, Ryan (2021-01-29). "Ex-FBI Lawyer Sentenced To Probation For Actions During Russia Investigation". NPR. Retrieved 2021-09-26.
4. "Ex-FBI lawyer avoids prison after admitting he doctored email in investigation of Trump's 2016 campaign". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-09-26.
5. Savage, Charlie (2021-01-29). "Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Who Altered Email in Russia Case Is Sentenced to Probation". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-09-26.
6. ^ Carter, Brandon (October 27, 2017). "CIA's ex-Russia chief: Unlike Steele, Trump Jr. took info Russia wanted to give". The Hill. Retrieved December 27, 2017.
7. Wood, Paul (January 12, 2017). "Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?". BBC News. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
8. ^ Bump, Philip (August 6, 2018). "Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
9. Bump, Philip (August 3, 2020). "Of course Trump's campaign can't reject the idea that Trump might seek foreign assistance". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
10. Mayer, Jane (March 12, 2018). "Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 6, 2018.

Renaming the article...maybe?

I would like to gather some opinions on whether the name of the article is appropriate? Maybe I am a word literalist ;) and the word "Links" is not sitting well with me. I even looked at the MW dictionary for the definitions and was not satisficed. Any thoughts? Kolma8 (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Trump campaign's ties to Russia? I'm happy with the status quo, but that's an option. -- Valjean (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Google search: Trump campaign Russia contacts

Current lead: "The investigations have revealed that a number of them had various types of links to or contacts with Russian officials, business people, banks, and Russian intelligence agencies." -- Valjean (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet, again and again -- to @Mr Ernie's point -- the Mueller investigation found no evidence of Trump's collision with Russia and that "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”. Kolma8 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Collusion" is the wrong word for you and Mr Ernie to use above. Mueller excluded "conspired" and "coordinated" (which he treated as synonyms), which are not the same as "colluded" and "cooperated". There is a huge difference.

I hope you'll choose your words more carefully in the future. It's okay to say "found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination", but it's wrong to say that Mueller said "no collusion". He never said that. He found many forms of collusion, but used other words for it. At Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination, he describes it this way (in the footnotes):

Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion'. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."

Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: "In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Note this: "We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Bolding added. Those bold words describe what the Trump campaign did, and would fall under the word collusion, which is not a legal term. The links between Trump campaigners and Russian agents and officials did happen, and there as no legitimate reason for it to happen. That's why they did it secretly and lied about it. -- Valjean (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

My searches turn up widespread use of "contacts", "links" and "ties". Some sources tally them. I recall one RS had a tally of over 200 contacts. Keep in mind that most of them were secret and lied about. -- Valjean (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government on the matters of the 2016 election. Kolma8 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have the source and URL for that? I was responding to your words above: "the Mueller investigation found no evidence of Trump's collision with Russia..." That puts words in Mueller's mouth. Above Mueller is quoted:

"In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation."

He recognized that the word collusion was thrown around a lot, and often misused in a confusing manner, so he limited his investigation to clearly criminal behavior, "conspiracy" or "coordination" (which he treated as synonyms). -- Valjean (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The link you use above quotes Trump as saying no "collusion" and uses the word in its clickbait title. This shows how carelessly the word has been used. It's safest to use Mueller's words when describing what he didn't find. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Kolma8 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8, have you done any more thinking about renaming this article? My searches turn up widespread use of "contacts", "links" and "ties". We need an umbrella term that covers the subject, without being tied to one exact term that must always be used in sources. That extremely focused type of article tends to exclude valuable information that is clearly related to the topic, and that's a bad approach to article writing. -- Valjean (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean, I have not. Bluntly speaking, I think the article is very weak at its best. It seems secondary (or may be a better word, as a derivative) of all of those investigations and BLPs, it is almost a corollarium of some kind. We have here FBI investigation; we have Trump's quotes about Putin, we got here media bombs; we have here Trump's campaign staff; we got here his personal lawyer; we got here a UK politician who met with Trump and "previously" (when???) met a Russian official; we got a Russian dude, whose father is an oligarch and the former worked with Trump and the latter financed someone, and either the son or the father (it is hard to understand) stayed in one of the Trump's hotels during Trumps' inauguration; we got a businessman, who might do something, but maybe not. And oh yeah... we have an overview and timeline of the "links." What a mess!!! I think this article need a major overhaul or even a WP:TNT instead of trying to find a proper word to describe what are we really trying to provider her for our Wiki Reader... I really don't know... Kolma8 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts, @Soibangla@Mr Ernie, an my above acrid rant :) ? Kolma8 (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reagan also had links to Russians thru Gorbachev. Kennedy thru Khruschev. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Jaygo113, what are you trying to imply? Did they lie about and try to hide those links? Did they secretly exploit them to aid their election chances? Did they have illicit and secret contacts with proven Russian intelligence agents which they kept secret from the American people? Did they lie to the FBI about them? Did they ally themselves with Russia over America? Did they believe Russian intelligence and disbelieve American and European allied intelligence agency findings? Were they trying to cultivate lucrative business deals in Russia and would do anything, including aiding Russian military efforts to attack and destroy American democracy, to avoid offending Russian leaders in a way that might jeopardize those deals?

What are you really trying to say about Reagan and Kennedy? No one has ever questioned the nature of their perfectly normal diplomatic contacts with Gorbachev and Khruschev or their allegiance to American interests. To my knowledge, you are the first one to imply anything improper about those links. -- Valjean (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead Section

Lead section is too long and confusing. Proposing chopping the whole third paragraph from "The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017...all way to..."Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" off the lead section and potentially moving it elsewhere...maybe creating a separate section "Media coverage" or something. The whole paragraph is detailed and confusing. Any thoughts? Kolma8 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

From above. This is the part of the third paragraph that should be removed:

Two...

In congressional testimony the following June, former FBI director James Comey, regarding the report by the New York Times, stated “in the main, it was not true”. The Times reported that during the intervening months, its sources continued to believe the reporting was "solid." In July 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee released notes taken contemporaneously with the Times report by FBI Counterintelligence Division chief Peter Strzok indicating his skepticism about the Times' reporting, writing, “We have not seen evidence of any officials associated with the Trump team in contact with " and "“We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” Despite this, the Times still stood by its account, claiming that the released notes did not provide a fully accurate representation of Strzok's knowledge. CNN reported on March 23, 2017, that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

This content was placed in the lead, creating a much larger lead than necessary. This violated LEAD in several ways: It was too detailed for a lead; it lacked necessary context for a very complicated matter, and what was used was misleading; it had not been covered in the body of the article, so on that ground alone it had to be removed. That's firm. It's also a COATRACK violation. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I took a chop on the lead section. All the information was retained, but some of it was moved under different sections. Kindly ask to provide any feedback... Kolma8 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Good work. -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Schmidt, Michael S.; Mazzetti, Mark; Apuzzo, Matt (June 8, 2017). "Comey Disputes New York Times Article About Russia Investigation (Published 2017)" – via NYTimes.com.
2. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved July 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
3. Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam (July 18, 2020). "F.B.I. Agent in Russia Inquiry Saw Basis in Early 2017 to Doubt Dossier" – via NYTimes.com.
4. Pamela Brown; Evan Perez; Shimon Prokupecz; Jim Sciutto. "US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians". CNN. Archived from the original on May 1, 2018. Retrieved May 4, 2018.

Jeff Sessions section

I read the Jeff Sessions' section and don't understand why Jeff Sessions is in this... He met with a Russian official while he was a senator and then what? Mueller report found nothing on this. So, what is the link between Sessions and "the Russians officials"? I recommend removing this section altogether as this already covered ad naseaum in here. Kolma8 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote and link so we don't need to enlarge the section. It seems fine as it is at one paragraph. I suspect the reason it ever became an issue is that he denied having contact. If he had originally been honest, there would have been no issue. -- Valjean (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sessions' purported contacts with Russians are one of the reasons he recused himself from the investigation, and as such have pretty significant consequences. I would say that section should remain. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Cohen

Now, about Michael Cohen... What link does he have with the Russians officials? The section fails to mention any. Delete the section? Kolma8 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Essentially what we have now is that Cohen was Trump's personal lawyer who was questioned and... The section does not outline any links... Kolma8 (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is what it is. People listed here don't have to be "guilty" of any crimes. This description is pretty innocuous, which is nice for him. Maybe we should develop the section with all his work with Russians for the Trump Organization. Trump Tower Moscow is just one project, and there were others. Keep as is for now until we develop it more. -- Valjean (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There are no links mentioned between Cohen and Russia - his section should be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised the section doesn't mention Cohen's contacts with Dmitry Peskov about Trump Tower Moscow well into the campaign. soibangla (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this section should be developed, not deleted. Cohen was Trump's fixer and hand in many situations, including contacts to Russia and business dealings. When Trump couldn't travel, Cohen did it for him, and Trump made many trips to Russia, so Cohen may have made even more. He cleaned up (that's what a fixer does) after Trump, seeking to cover-up evidence of embarrassing things. He tried to track down the alleged pee tape, so he was worried. If he thought Trump was innocent, he wouldn't have been doing that job. He also paid off porn stars and mistresses. He is an expert at making bad things disappear. That was an important part of his job, and that's no secret. RS have revealed a lot. He also helped with legal contracts and negotiations. I don't know how many trips he made to Russia and other eastern bloc countries, but it must have been quite a few. Russian matters were just one aspect of his work, but it was part of it, so develop this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter W. Smith

The same as above with Cohen and Sessions... What links Smith had with Russian officials. Yes, it is mentioned that he tried to contact some Russian hackers...but nothing about Russian officials. Also, was he really a Trump associate? As a reminder, the name of the article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. We need some clarity here... Kolma8 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

He "tried to contact some Russian hackers". There you have it. That's pretty serious, and is one of the most direct instances of an attempt (successful or unsuccessful?) at actual "conspiracy" and "collaboration". His actions go beyond collusion. Merely receiving information would be collusion, but actively seeking it out is collaboration, and when kept secret equals conspiracy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean...But did he has a proven and verifiable link between him and the Russian officials, which is the title of the article. I think the answer is not. Thus, he does not belong here. Kolma8 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with removal. There were no links between Smith and Russian officials. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

His links to both Trump and Russian officials are tenuous. Remove. soibangla (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the feedback. Kolma8 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Too few opinions?

That tag was added by Kolma8, and I have no idea what it's about. There is no discussion or explanation of that tag's addition, so it's improper and I'm going to delete it. Tags, especially generic and unspecific ones like that, are generally ignored and serve no other purpose than a mark of shame on the article. They only serve to damage Misplaced Pages's reputation, and that's unhelpful and disloyal. They don't move toward a resolution. OTOH, specific and targeted discussion here is what works best. So what the heck is that about? Let's fix this alleged problem, whatever it may be. -- Valjean (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of subchapter

@Slatersteven @Soibangla deleted an entire subchapter without any prior discussion because he does not understand it relevance to this article... his own words: "can someone explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?"

Firstly, he should have taken it to the discussion prior to deleting the entire section. Secondly, the information the content is related as it is in regards of the sources of Steel dossier, that in turn was did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page in terms of establishing FISA's low bar for probable cause. So, it is directly contributing to the article content. Kolma8 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Soibangla said that, I have changed your wording above. That means your original ping did not serve its intended purpose. -- Valjean (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, "can someone explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?" were my words, which was your cue to follow BRD and get consensus on Talk. You didn't, instead you edit warred. soibangla (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No I deleted it because you were wp:editwarring and it is down to you to make a case for inclusion (per WP:ONUS). The fact you are not even aware of who said what means you are not in fact reading the reasons people are reverting this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

So what you need to do is address the question "Explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?".Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Are you being bluntly ignorant now? Read above... Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see no section above where your edits have consensus. What I can see is a section above where (for a number of months) this content has been challenged. And no I was not aware this has been debated for this long, I can't know everything said on this talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8 does not need consensus to boldly add content. And we don't need to rush to the talk page to get consensus for every single addition, especially when it's obvious that it should be in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, if I understand this correctly, the issue is not the addition of content but about the deletion of contested content. Bold additions and deletions of content are okay, but then BRD starts working, and a reversion (whether an addition or deletion) of content should not be reverted, but dealt with by discussion. Also, when an editor knows that the content is potentially controversial and/or has been contested, they should not act boldly anymore. Bold is for what is thought to be uncontroversial content. (Any resistance then makes clear that bold no longer works.) Instead, Kolma8 ignored edit summaries and edit warred, so whether they were right or wrong about the worth of the content, their reaction was improper. I hope that makes some sense of the situation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I was not the one who reverted them but once they had been reverted (and told why, as they had been) it was down to them to get consensus and not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not necessarily controversial, as it is quite well sourced. There's no emergency BLP issue. You can also make your case as to why you are reverting it via talk page discussion. The only issue would be is it DUE here and that doesn't necessitate an edit war, by either side. This is not a particularly good article, and is a catch-all for all kinds of topics. I mean half of the Jared Kushner section is about his contacts with a banker. Wilbur Ross owns shares in a Russian company (where's the official?). I bet if you looked into the Clinton campaign you would also find political insiders who had been involved at some point in their career with a Russian. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Moreover this ] is new content, not discussed above. So you should not have added it back. As I said, I was reverting your edit waring, nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - Why did you reverted only my edit? It was multiple edits in this article done at the similar way as my contribution, but you only reverted mine. Kolma8 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Because I saw you do it, I saw you add back content that had been contested without discussion. I have not seen anyone else do that, maybe they have, but if so I have missed it. So stop making this personal. Stop making this about me and explain why the content you added today was relevant, make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's going to be a sub section of this article called Steele Dossier, then it is obviously relevant to include the updates about Danchenko. It is critical to include this material because some of these alleged links now appear to have been fabricated by democratic operatives. I support inclusion of this:

On November 4, 2021, FBI indicted Igor Danchenko, an associate of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and the key source of "a series of salacious and largely discredited reports about former President Donald Trump and Russia" known as Steele Dossier. Danchenko was arrested on five counts of making false statements to the FBI "relating to sources for the material he gave a British firm that prepared the dossier." The false information contributed by Danchenko became part of the FBI's foreign intelligence surveillance warrants on Carter Page. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of conflation in that, perhaps stemming from a syllogistic fallacy:

• The dossier included stuff about links to Russians
• Danchenko was involved with the dossier
• Therefore, Danchenko was involved with stuff about links to Russians
• Moreover, there's a Clinton guy involved, so...Hillary did it! soibangla (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You’ve almost got it. The dossier mentioned links to Russians. That information was of dubious origin. We should point that out and describe how the source of some of that information was arrested for lying. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just not in this article. In Steele dossier and John Durham#Indictment of Steele dossier source soibangla (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we should remove mention of the Steele dossier in this article, because if so, there's an entire subsection about it. If not, it needs to be expanded to note that the primary source has been arrested for lying about information he provided to Steele. This really shouldn't be controversial. On a side note, can anyone with access to the Independent confirm the first part of this sentence is properly sourced - "The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations, while Trump denounced it as fake news." The source - link - is behind a paywall for me. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we should remove mention of the Steele dossier Of course not. I believe I've adequately drawn the distinction between specifically what belongs and what doesn't. soibangla (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, yes, but not this article. Also, some of the "links to Russians" mentioned in the dossier are not dubious, but confirmed by Mueller and Crossfire Hurricane investigations. The latest news about Clinesmith, Sussmann, and Danchenko do not undermine the findings of Russian interference and myriad illicit and secret links between Trump campaigners and Russians. That information is solid and untouched by recent events. That evidence was built from other sources than the dossier and Danchenko. The dossier was a curiosity that only affected the FISA warrants on Carter Page and never was a serious part of the other investigations. They were able to corroborate some aspects of the dossier, in particular its main finding that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians./>

There are fringe/contrary views that posit that so-called "Russiagate" was a failed conspiracy and witch hunt against Trump and Russia, but those views are still right-wing fever dreams and conspiracy theories found only on unreliable sources. Your comment you edit warred over at Jack Posobiec revealed why such sources should not be trusted. ("So go with the latter." (IOW reject RS and believe unreliable sources) was horrible advice.) -- Valjean (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you write: "...The false information contributed by Danchenko..." Your source does not justify saying "false". That is yet to be established firmly. It may, or it may not. He lied about who he got the info from. The info may be true or not. Protection of sources is normally a legitimate concern that justifies obfuscation, but not when talking to the FBI. That's where he went wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How about we add "alleged?" Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Then remove mention of the Steele Dossier from this article. Or we can add the blurb that the primary source was indicted from lying. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, we'll certainly add that if and when it becomes relevant to this article. The parts of the Steele dossier mentioned here are very relevant to this topic. -- Valjean (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant now. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As I asked, which sources actually say that the evidence he provided to the dossier was called into question? If it was only one then we can't put it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? NYMag, NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, and NPR, for starters, have all run stories that the main source of the dossier was arrested for lying to the FBI about the dossier. Either we make it clear here that the Steele Dossier was deeply flawed and show how, or we remove it as irrelevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was, and I note one or two of those do not seem to stay more than he was used as a source, not that it casts doubt. But this is enough for something like "Doubt was cast onto the accuracy of the steel report with the arrest of..." and that is about it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course Danchenko's indictment was widely reported, but has it been reported that it specifically relates to links between Trump associates and Russian officials? I don't see that. I note that the content I removed also included the Sussmann indictment, which clearly doesn't belong here. So I get the sense there's some conflation going on here (which is quite common) because many consider Durham their last hope to prove Trump was right all along, so they are eager to use any indictment he makes to connect dots that have no business being connected. Maybe Durham will drop a bomb before he's done, but we're not there yet, and I don't see major conservative media figures connecting the dots like this. I'm not aware even Hannity is running with this narrative. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Simple question, do RS make the link?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph about how a blog characterizes the Steele Dossier as it is irrelevant to the main topic and not how the thrust of RS characterize that document anymore. Additionally, I have removed the opinion of an Atlantic Writer as irrelevant to the topic of links to Russian officials. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And it's already been removed. Slatersteven, please show how these two paragraphs are either accurate or relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

We cannot discuss two things at once, so please raise your new concerns in a new section.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Cullison, Byron Tau and Alan (2021-11-04). "Indictment of Igor Danchenko Casts New Doubts on Sourcing of Steele Dossier". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-11-05.
2. Hosenball, Mark (2021-11-04). "U.S. indicts Russian analyst who contributed to 'Steele dossier'". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-11-05.
3. CNN, Zachary Cohen, Evan Perez and Katelyn Polantz. "Authorities arrest analyst who was source for Steele dossier". CNN. Retrieved 2021-11-05. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Sciutto, Jim; Perez, Evan (February 10, 2017). "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier". CNN. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
5. Cullison, Alan; Volz, Dustin (April 19, 2019). "Mueller Report Dismisses Many Steele Dossier Claims". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
6. Price, Greg (December 21, 2017). "What's True in the Trump 'Golden Shower' Dossier? Salacious Report Dogged President Throughout 2017". Newsweek. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
7. Levine, Mike (January 12, 2018). "FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe". ABC News. Retrieved February 26, 2018.
8. Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry (January 26, 2019). "Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians". The New York Times. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
9. Leonnig, Carol D.; Helderman, Rosalind S. (May 17, 2019). "Judge orders public release of what Michael Flynn said in call to Russian ambassador". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2019.

Should this paragraph stay in?

Should this paragraph detailing the opinion of an Atlantic writer from almost 4 years ago which has not held up in more recent sourcing and given that the Mueller investigation did not find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination stay under the Steele Dossier subsection in an article about links between Trump associates and Russian officials?

David A. Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic, has written: "It's no wonder Trump is upset about the dossier, but his mantra that 'there was no collusion everybody including the Dems knows there was no collusion' rings false these days. While there's not yet any public evidence to indicate a crime was committed, or that Trump was involved, it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

has not held up in more recent sourcing Such as? the Mueller investigation did not find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination It is more accurate to say Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to prevail beyond a reasonable doubt in federal court. soibangla (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this article is not about the Steele Dossier. So we don't need a great big section about it. What makes this staff writer's opinion from 4 years ago at the Atlantic relevant?

Second of all, this is just some random journalist's opinion, and it is outdated. Here's explicitly what Mueller wrote - "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."

So why does this paragraph about an unrelated topic that is out of date and certainly UNDUE need to stay in? Please justify why you've reinserted this material. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You assert it has been negated by more recent sources, so it's a legitimate question to ask which. Mueller is a prosecutor. In his world, "did not establish" is not synonymous with "did not find any evidence." I am not personally inclined to add commentary from a single writer, but it's been there a while and I'm just asking you to provide more recent sources that negate it, as you've said. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret is still correct and very relevant here. You're grabbing at straws in a seemingly blind fashion, as you didn't notice how that wording actually should stay in an article about links between Trump associates and Russian officials, to use your own words. -- Valjean (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Which more recent sourcing has mentioned Mr Grahams opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You reinserted it, so I presume you have some? Can you justify why it should be there since you put it back? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Should this paragraph also stay in?

Should this paragraph from the Lawfare blog be included in this article? The phrase "the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible" does not track with more recent assessments like NYT saying "deeply flawed," or also calling it a "compendium of rumors and unproven assertions.

Lawfare has noted that the "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials." Mr Ernie (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you should slow down and let us resolve one matter before moving to another. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, regardless of the dossier's flaws, that content is still accurate and relevant to this article. -- Valjean (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

“Seems credible” is not in line with current assessments by reliable sources. Can we not do better? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What we had early on was that some parts were proven true, but with the passage of years no other parts have been (publicly) proven true, which leads some to conclude "it's been proven 100% false," but I'm not aware of a RS that flatly declares that, as opposed to "growing doubts" or such. Do you have one? soibangla (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Who is claiming it’s been 100% proven false? I’ve given you plenty of sources now here and at the main Steele article with updated characterizations. I’m saying “seems credible” is not how most reliable sources describe it now. Maybe in the past, but now it’s time to get current. How many sources would you like to see before I can convince you this one blog from almost 3 years ago isn't the best way to describe it anymore? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, are you aware that the second sentence in the lead of the Steele dossier article states: "NPR has described the controversial opposition research as an "explosive dossier of unsubstantiated and salacious material about President Trump's alleged ties with Russia".? That sentence violates lead because it is not used in the body of the article, yet it's still there. I have never challenged it. Do you think it's good to have it there? I think so, even though it lacks nuance and feeds into the mistaken belief that all the dossier's allegations are "unsubstantiated and salacious". In fact, while most of the allegations are unproven (not disproven or false), a few of the most important ones have been corroborated and only two allegations are salacious. So be it. So why is that relevant here? It points to a simplistic misunderstanding shared by many and why they "get it wrong".

What you're "getting wrong" here is believing that any faults with the dossier automatically undermine the whole dossier and the proven facts that the (1) Russians interfered in the election (2) to put Trump in power, and the (3) Trump campaign had myriad illicit links with Russians, the last point being the topic here. This article is primarily about those "links", not about the "dossier" or the "Russian interference". We only touch on those two topics when they intersect with the "links" issue, and they obviously do. Even a dubious writer like Erik Wemple, whose articles at WaPo often contain erroneous assumptions about the Dossier and Trump/Russia, recognizes this problem with the breathless claims made by right-wing sources:

"There is, indeed, far more to Russia-Trump than the dossier. Just spend some time with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report, a nearly 1,000-page document that lays out the whole mess. “The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary,” noted the New York Times in its summary."

Note that last sentence, which is very relevant for this article: "Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary." Yes, "There is, indeed, far more to Russia-Trump than the dossier" and faults with the dossier do not undermine those established facts about the myriad illicit "links" we are documenting here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say at this point it can be trashed. With how RS are treating it these days its probably getting close to a BLP vio to rely on it for anything important. Yes early surface level stuff that was already matter of public knowledge has been confirmed, because it was not really in question. The main thrust and the important parts of the dossier in general have either been proven false or have little to know backing in reality, like most conspiracy theories. We are not here to promote WP:FRINGE views.PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It can in fact be both, as the general thrust of its accusations can be broadly correct whilst most of the individual facts can be wrong. But I am unsure we should be using a blog as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lawfare is no ordinary blog, and its articles are written by subject matter experts. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What experts in politics or espionage?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The legal areas where those subjects often intersect. They are often lawyers and/or experienced spooks and people with experience in government departments. -- Valjean (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a blog funded by the think tank Brookings Institution, which is an org that gives 96% of its donations to Democrats. The claim to fame for the blog is their anti-Trump coverage. While they almost certainly are experts in their field, they are probably undue because of all the other stuff as a fairly partisan source. PackMecEng (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it's been challenged at RSN, doesn't appear on RSP soibangla (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are many types of RS we use here, many times with attribution: (1) straight facts; (2) analysis; (3) opinions; (4) others. Much of Lawfare's stuff is facts and expert analysis, the kind that is highly valued here. Only when bias affects the factual accuracy of a source is there a problem. Like every single reliable source available on the planet, context determines the appropriateness of usage. It is problematic when the bias of editors here leads them to exclude a factually accurate source. Be careful not to approach such behavior. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean It is problematic when the bias of editors here leads them to exclude a factually accurate source. Be careful not to approach such behavior. You have been warned to stop personalizing disputes. It is not helpful and only hurts your position. Also in this case, its hypocritical. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles