Talk:Steele dossier

Facts: "key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats"

This edit should be reverted.

The government released the court documents in which the F.B.I. made its case for conducting the surveillance — records that plainly demonstrated that key elements of Republicans’ claims about the bureau’s actions were misleading or false... But in respect after respect, the newly disclosed documents instead corroborated rebuttals by Democrats on the panel who had seen the top-secret materials and accused Republicans of mischaracterizing them to protect the president.

soibangla (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? The modified text says the same thing, just in a different, more logical, order. First, we learn what the FBI submitted to the court in the FISA warrant, then we describe how the press commented that Nunes was misleading and the Democrats' rebuttal was vindicated. — JFG ^talk 01:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are attempting to bury the lede of what the NYT reported, then attempting to downplay the significance of that lede by saying "This release prompted commentators..."

The facts you put first — "the FBI believed that Steele was "likely looking for information to discredit" Trump's campaign, but still viewed him as a credible source" — are mentioned in paragraph #15 of the story soibangla (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That argument would be valid at the Nunes memo article. Here, the subject of this article is the Steele dossier, not the Nunes memo. So whatever a source says about the dossier should have priority over what it says of the memo. — JFG ^talk 04:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Some commentators have even made the opposite argument (that the released FISA documents actually support the Nunes memo): Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner. Not surprisingly, these sources and commentators tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean we should ignore WP:NPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 06:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

One more reason to place facts first and opinions second. @Volunteer Marek:, as you just reverted and nobody wants to go into an edit war, we would appreciate your comments here in light of FallingGravity's comment showing a diversity of well-sourced opinions on the matter. — JFG ^talk 12:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the Washington Examiner is rarely, if ever, a RS here, especially Byron York, who consistently takes the conspiratorial view that defends Trump and considers the whole Trump-Russia business to be a witch hunt, ergo, he's not on the side of RS, and writes for a paper that's not a RS. He's fringe, and we give more weight to mainstream RS.

The WSJ, while a RS, contains many articles and opinions which fall on all sides of issues, even though it's a traditionally conservative paper. This particular article immediately starts with a debunked premise ("The documents show the bureau relied heavily on the Steele dossier.") on the wrong side of the issues, the side which has been roundly debunked by most RS, so it's not a RS in this instance, but a repetition of old and debunked fringe views.

We already know the dossier was part of the basis for seeking at least one of the warrants, but it was not the only or major basis, but the WSJ wants us to think it was and that this would undermine the legitimacy of the four warrants. That's BS. That's also Trump's view, and we do mention such fringe views. Do we need to do it again? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We follow RS here, and if they are now saying it was a major basis for the warrant it is OR to say otherwise. No conspiracy theories here please. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Now I can't get past WSJ's paywall. Ugh! So, tell me what's new here that isn't a repetition of the conspiracy theories already debunked? What is worth repeating, or what is new? What has changed because of this document? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Basically the WSJ source says "The documents show the bureau relied heavily on the Steele dossier." when talking about the FISA application. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a WSJ article, it's a WSJ editorial. The WSJ editorial board, including that kook Kim Strassel, are notorious, shameless cartoonish liars. They just don't give a damn. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is why I linked the article so people could read it and determine reliability. Also yes the WSJ editorial board is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A WSJ editorial is never, ever a RS. Articles, yes. Editorials, nope. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In this situation they are actually fine, same with Washington Examiner as well. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've already given you two examples in which both sources brazenly lie. You want more? I can do it. They're trash. Period. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I saw your misrepresented quotes. Has nothing to do with what we are talking about. But eh sure whatever you say kid PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also here is a link to the archived site behind the paywall.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial board and Byron York? Really? HAHAHA! The WSJ editorial asserts: "The FISA documents also confirm that the FBI cited a Sept. 23, 2016 story in Yahoo News to buttress its Steele dossier information with the court—even though Mr. Steele was also the source for the Yahoo News story." That is categorically false; the application cited the Yahoo story only to show that Page had denied allegations against him. The Byron York piece asserts as "accurate" this passage of the Nunes memo: "Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony -- "salacious and unverified." That, too, is categorically false, check the transcript: Comey said "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier were "salacious and unverified," not the entire dossier. The peetape allegation. At least some of the dossier contents have been independently verified by American IC. Honestly, how many times do these falsehoods have to be smacked down before the people who keep repeating them stop? soibangla (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"...the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed." What to Make of the Carter Page FISA Applications -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

These are all great analysis and opinions, and maybe some of them deserve a place in the article. To get back to the original wording:

"key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading": Which "key assertions" were false and which were misleading? If the answer is in the sources, then maybe the article should make this clear.

"corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats": What is this "rebuttal made by Democrats"? Is it everything in the rebuttal memo (which is still mostly classified)? Again, the article should make this clear instead of having a vague statement.

The sentence apparently lifts conclusions from a NY Times news analysis article and Lawfare blog post without even discussing their arguments. ^Falling_Gravity 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This article should touch upon the Nunes memo as a related matter, but the details you mention are discussed at length in that article. soibangla (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, what matters here is what the documents say about the dossier, not partisan games about who was right and who was wrong. ^Falling_Gravity 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Once again, this edit buries the lede (namely, "records that plainly demonstrated that key elements of Republicans’ claims about the bureau’s actions were misleading or false") and should be reverted soibangla (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That's because it's a "lede" for a different article, aka the Nunes memo. Read WP:OFFTOPIC. ^Falling_Gravity 00:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a relevant part of the "Subject of the Nunes memo" section, and by your rationale you should have removed the edit in its entirety rather than hijack the edit to distract from the central findings, as another editor previously did. I sense that the actual rationale for these hijackings is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My edit adds material which is directly related to the dossier: the FBI included information from the dossier and a page-length explanation of Steele's motives. This is information directly related to the dossier being a "subject of the Nunes memo". Your edit is the one that distracts from the article's subject. ^Falling_Gravity 18:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your continuing shifting rationale is duly noted soibangla (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My main argument is that the sentence fragments are off-topic, but there's also a case to be made that it's POV by presenting only one side of the issue in vague terms. So far you haven't addressed any of my key arguments. ^Falling_Gravity 02:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In reality, it is abundantly evident that you are injecting POV by completely removing the central findings that key aspects of the memo were false or misleading. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you before to clarify what these "central findings" or "key assertions" are, and then even you admitted they were mostly off-topic for this article. I rest my case. ^Falling_Gravity 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I did nothing of the kind. The key findings should be touched upon in this article. My edit does that, yours does not. soibangla (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support revert of POV edit, per others.Casprings (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support revert or rewrite of Soibangla's off-topic edit, as none of the concerns I raised have been directly addressed. ^Falling_Gravity 18:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is the subject of this thread left out? That's what's most relevant. What about including both, as I tried here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

After nine days and 99 talk page watchers who visited recent edits, there is now a 3 to 1 consensus to revert the edit. Shall we proceed? soibangla (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

soibangla, I agree. We've been very patient. I had hoped that FallingGravity would self-revert, but it hasn't happened, so it should be done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I initially applied a change to put facts first and opinion second. without adding any content. Then FallingGravity noted that there are opinions in support of the Nunes memo as well as against it, and that should be reflected in the text. Nobody has proposed a sentence that would take those diverging opinions into account. — JFG ^talk 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

While I did note some differing opinions, I think these opinion are off-topic for this article. The article's title is "Trump–Russia dossier", not "Nunes memo" or "Carter Page FISA warrant". We should focus on the dossier, not a partisan debate over the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Nunes memo. ^Falling_Gravity 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, they are not opinions, they are the key findings, and you'd prefer to downplay/bury them because they show that a key document designed to discredit the FBI/Mueller investigation was shown to be false in key respects, so you are attempting to inject your partisan POV into the article, while asserting that others are. Moreover, "Subject of the Nunes memo" is a major section of the article, so the key findings are most definitely on-topic. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In the New York Times, there's a professed blur between news analysis and opinions. That doesn't mean it can't be included, just we need to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 08:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the original sentence is best. It mostly serves to summarize the key conclusion of that source (that key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading and that this corroborates the Democratic rebuttal); summarizing this point clearly and concisely is paramount. We cover the fact that Trump continues to dispute this further down, but we have to follow the sources in characterizing and covering that position - trying to cram everything into that one sentence is silly when the main point is extremely clear and supported by numerous sources. The sentence summarizes this point from the relevant source: The government released the court documents in which the F.B.I. made its case for conducting the surveillance — records that plainly demonstrated that key elements of Republicans’ claims about the bureau’s actions were misleading or false. I feel that trying to cram other things into it is a bit WP:SYNTH-y, on top of everything else, since in the NYT that statement is flatly unqualified. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not vote. You can't just dismiss the fact, which has been said several times, that the cited sources are opinion sources and there are opposing views. Stating opinions as facts is not NPOV. Politrukki (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

In principle you're right, but when the opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in this case no mention at all. Framing it as mere opinion would poison the well and serve to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual. Stating debunked conspiracy theories as facts is not NPOV.

I suspect that myself and others would be willing to entertain good changes. Do you have a better way to phrase it, while keeping the gist of the content and facts, that would meet your concerns? Improvement is always welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose revert -- This edit as clearly the User:JFG version is superior in clarity by not jumbling the sources and chronology. The Justice release contains the FBI content, inserting a statement in the middle of that which did not come from Justice is improper attribution and a confused sequence. First thing first, then any comment. And this commentary should be stated as commentary rather than fact and attributed by WP:NEWSORG and since it is a POV judgement not universally espoused. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not favorably inclined to the thread title "Facts: "key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats"" - since this is an opinion not fact, and is logically impossible as phrased -- the claim that a prior item corroborated something that did not yet exist is not possible. The rebuttal is based on the Nunes, it cannot also be proven by the same item -- that's circular logic taken thru a TARDIS. While I have no doubt that key assertions in both partisan documents were misleading and politically motivated, that seems simply called a partisan position or 'spin'. Don't exaggerate or falsely state the commentary, just convey the item accurately and in due WEIGHT. I am feeling the count of !VOTES both inappropriate and incorrect -- and really feel even more than FallingGravity that this bit of the section -- and the preceeding 80% of the section gossipy quotefarms -- is just details belonging perhaps to the Nunes article but OFFTOPIC for this article. Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As FallingGravity correctly pointed out, the cited sources are (1) a news analysis in NYT and (2) a blog post in Lawfare blog by David Kris. News analysis sources are primary sources that may be used as attributed statements by the author, but analysis cannot be stated as a fact if there are significant opposing views. Lawfare is not a news organisation, hence it does not pass as a WP:NEWSBLOG, but perhaps it would be possible to treat Kris as an expert and include some properly attributed (again, with in-text attribution) opinions. NYT reporter Charlie Savage also wrote a news article that focuses on Republican and Democratic claims instead of spoon-feeding Savage's opinions.

Former US Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy writes that the FISA application confirms that "the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation", adding "The FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele's work. Nor did the FBI and Justice Department inform the court that Steele's allegations had never been verified." [2]

Alan Dershowitz said the FISA application supports arguments of "each side", adding that both Republicans and Democrats have overstated the significance of the footnote. [3]

NPR and The Wall Street Journal emphasised that there is a partisan battle over FISA application and the released document did not bring much new info (or partisans have chosen to ignore new info). Both sources mention some key allegations and attribute them (and the rebuttals) to Republicans and Democrats.

NPR confirmed at least two allegations made in Nunes memo:

"Now that portions are public, it is clear that the FISA application does not name Trump or Clinton or Fusion GPS or Simpson or Steele nor detail the political background. ... Nunes and Republicans also complained about a section of the FISA application that cites a news story to buttress information from Steele, even though it has since become clear that Steele also was the source for that story." [emphasis added]

WSJ (news division, not opinion) writes:

"At the center of the partisan brawl are claims that the FBI relied, at least in part, on allegations drawn from a dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, which was funded by Democratic-linked groups. Republicans have asserted the FBI didn't fully disclose that fact to the FISA court." [emphasis added]

WSJ does not explicitly say whether "at least in part" or "fully disclose" is true or false, but it seems to me that the NPR source and other sources show that the claims have been confirmed. Fox News has confirmed that the dossier played significant role in the application: "The documents show that the Steele Dossier ... was a major component of the 2016 surveillance warrant."

One of the key assertion in the Nunes memo was that Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee said that without the dossier there would not have been surveillance. The released document does not touch McCabe's testimony and neither did the Democrats' rebuttal.

Another key claim is Bruce Ohr's role. Democrats have said that Republicans mischaracterised Ohr's role. The new release did not bring any new information because Ohr's testimony is not in the FISA application. And yet another key assertion in the memo is that George Papadopoulos was a key factor in sparking the Russia probe, which has not been disproven.

TLDR: This edit is obviously POV. I'm not sure yet what we should say, but presenting opinions as facts is a non-starter. A vague reference to "key assertions" in our in article without explaining what that does actually means does not help the reader much. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Publicly unverified but not disproven."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified while many others remain publicly unverified but not disproven." I noticed that on wikipedia, there appears to be essentially no evidence that any false information or impression has ever been shared or spread about Donald Trump. The allegations about "golden showers," Russian collusion with no actionable evidence whatsoever, 98% likelihood of Hillary Clinton victory, retracted CNN stories and other things are simply not mentioned at all on the relevant articles or, as I see here, called "publicly unverified but not disproven," which is a perfect phrase that you could use to label the accusations that the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (and many worse stories spread about him). The effect of treating information this way, matter-of-factly reporting anything negative about a disliked figure and pretending any false allegations against them or positive things they've done simply don't exist or are just "unverified", does not actually discredit the person, it discredits the source of the information. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum, do you have an edit request?Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an objective reference source, and the talk sections are supposed to be discussing proper tone, standards and presentation of information. Considering that YOU have been censured on your own page for inappropriate comments and edits of other people's talk pages, I suggest you refrain from trying to act as though you understand or represent wikipedia's intentions. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV WP:LIBEL WP:VERIFY All of which are violated here. Please review these pages, Slatersteven, because you don't seem capable of editing material to this standard. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As we do not accuse anyone or any action, we quote RS who do so no libel violation has taken place. Also all material here is sources to RS, so it does not fail verify. All you have left is NPOV, but you are yet to actually state how we should change this article to address your concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm replying to this because Slatersteven claimed that I did not state how articles should be changed. It's inappropriate to claim someone didn't answer something and then try to close the discussion. Wikipedia's policy is to delete libelous material, not to just publish anything libelous as long as it can be referenced to someone else. Furthermore, verification is a reference to a reliable source. The DNC in a presidential campaign is not a reliable source. Regarding non-neutral POV, I repeatedly give examples of it, such as the golden shower reference which as I said repeatedly, should NOT be reported here since it is a libelous claim made without evidence by a researcher funded by the DNC in a presidential campaign. On top of that, in the handful of other times I've pointed this out, such as stating that either both the CNN and Fox pages should have dedicated criticism sections on the page, or neither should. I make specific suggestions when I do reply. Don't claim I didn't say that and then try to block the conversation so I can't point out that I did and repeat it. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Valid point, the DNC would not be an RS for facts, so what do WE source to the DNC?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)?

No it is Wikipedias policy to not claim it is true. If multiple RS have said something we can repeat it, as long as we do not claim it is factually correct. This is why I say you have not suggested an edit. You are objecting to us saying something WE do not say. As such we cannot address your concerns as we have not said what you claim we say. Moroever we cannot fail to include accusations that RS have deemed noteworthy just because they are salacious. What we must do (and we do do) is not to state them as facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We follow the instructions at WP:PUBLICFIGURE very closely. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely you must be joking? The opening post shows that the IP editor quoted text from our article. The erroneous content "but not disproven" was inserted to the article in April. You said "all material here is sources to RS, so it does not fail verify". Would you kindly explain how the cited source verifies "not disproven"? Politrukki (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, that is a vague bit. By the thread title, I think he's objecting largely to the phrasing 'unverified but not disproven' lead line in the Allegations section which has no cite and perhaps went too far with the fillip "but not disproven". This is well below the long-standing LEAD of simply 'have not been verified' e.g here said "The dossier primarily discusses possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified." The LEAD has a lower line "Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others remain unverified" which also seems to go too far with "allegations" since the Washington Post (shown) cite is using the wording of information rather than allegations "Officials have said some of the information it contains has been corroborated, but other parts — including the most salacious claims about Trump's behavior — remain unverified." In any case, the Allegations lead line is rather vague and lacks WP:V so .... what to do ? Keep, replace with alternative that is supportable, or just delete it ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well you start with understanding current consensus: See: Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 13#RFC on stating no public evidence of collusion , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#RFC_on_lead , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_5#RfC_about_use_of_unverified Casprings (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Casprings And none of those mention "but not disproven", which seems to have not been a consensus discussion before now and still is without WP:V. You should instead look at part of the archives Parts of dossier proven false? Simplified summary seems to be that all the parts one cares about are unverified, though there are several side info nits that have been disproven and the same in side info nits proven. Which perhaps plays more with the other line where changing the cite wording of "information" (e.g.side nits) into the wording "allegations" (i.e. assertion of misconduct) seems inappropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have made a number of additions from good RS to shore up this content, including Shep Smith's confirmation that "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven." Also James Clapper's similar statement. Also John Brennan's well-informed assertion that Trump's denials of collusion are "hogwash": "The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets."

While the dossier itself never uses the word "collusion", it does allege "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." The intelligence community has long been convinced that this is the case, and the statements and actions of Trump and the Trump campaign have done nothing to dispel that impression. On the contrary, their constant lying about secret meetings seems to confirm that the conspiracy is ongoing right now, with a very active cover-up attempt taking place. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer, please tone down your opinion, it detracts from your arguments. — JFG ^talk 17:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

All pretty solidly based on what RS confirm or allege, IOW existing content in some of our articles. That's how I form my opinions. If you consider it to be just my opinion, then that is problematic. (I guess "done nothing to dispel" would be considered opinion if one only listened to Fox News. For those using only RS it's solid fact.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to your last sentence: "seems to confirm that the conspiracy is ongoing right now, with a very active cover-up attempt". The ultimate source will be Mueller's report, when that comes out. In the meantime, an "ongoing conspiracy" is merely opinion. — JFG ^talk 20:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahh! Yes, the actual proof (we have lots of circumstantial evidence now) will come then, even though well-informed people like Brennan already dare call it conspiracy. If Trump succeeds in blocking the investigation (many acts collectively considered a "cover-up"), and he is definitely trying to sabotage it, we may not learn those facts. Innocent people don't act this way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. You can't just make inflammatory allegations ("long been convinced that this is the case", "their constant lying about secret meetings seems to confirm...", "Innocent people don't act this way.") without citing reliable sources. And you know very well that the reliable sources say – that's what matters – that the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been (publicly) proven. You need to provide reliable sources or retract your statements and then stop posting your personal opinions here if they are not directly related to improving the article.

Did you just cite one Fox host's opinion as fact in the article? After someone reminded us of a talk page discussion that clearly shows that some of allegations in the dossier are false or erroneous, according to reliable sources? You can't dismiss reliable sources that don't align with certain POV. You need to provide very convincing counter-evidence to prove that reliable sources that have noted falsehoods or errors – particularly when same sources are cited in this article for different claims – are wrong. Politrukki (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i know, 'not a forum.' This is easily the most slanted and disgraceful wikipedia article I've ever seen. Good to know you're not above wallowing in trash mods. I guarantee you, people from all over read this article and will never trust wikipedia again. Have fun playing 'publicly unverified, but not disproven.' Not an OBVIOUS LOGICAL FALLACY: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence You people are sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:702:8002:448:84F1:EF7:2450:66EB (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy! soibangla (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section "Possible earlier interest in Trump"....new source

Donald Trump: Russian ‘Asset’ Since 1987 When KGB ‘Compromised’ Him On Moscow Trip, According To New Book

Discusses a new book by Craig Unger: House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia

Also mentions coverage by Newsweek at the time.

It turns out that Trump was already openly discussing running for the presidency at the time, making him even more a target for surveillance and cultivation than he already was as an ordinary rich American who voiced anti-American sentiments. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Signs of Trump-Putin collaboration, starting years before the campaign?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Signs of Trump-Putin collaboration, starting years before the campaign?

"Of all the allegations contained in the “Steele dossier,” the urtext of President Trump’s possible ties to Russia, one has long stood out as the most compromising, because it would be evidence of a political and business relationship between Trump and Russia that predated his campaign for the White House."

Interesting article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer ??? Not seeing a point for this article. WP:TALK this space is for discussing edits to the article, not for recommending some other book. A side remark in review of a book unrelated to the article is not suitable for an edit to this article anyway, but I will note there seems bad syntax/logic inherent in this quote saying an allegation is also evidence for itself. And that somehow business with Russia existing which was publicly known is somehow in need of evidence that it existed ? Not seeing any sense in this fragment, really. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally understand all that you're saying, so I'll explain some of the possible reasons from RS showing why this might be relevant here. It's about far more than just "business with Russia existing", but about a long history leading up to the current Russian interference.

As editors, we all have various POV and RS we read, so I don't expect everyone to see value in this source. Some may be able to use it, while others may not. So let's start by AGF that this is proffered, in good faith, as a possible source.

The idea that anything before about 2015, when Trump's presidential campaign officially started, is not fair game for this article, is held by some editors. Other editors believe that any connections which might have led up to, and contributed to, possible Russian interference/influence is also fair game. Any form of cultivation which leads to later cooperation/collusion/conspiracy has to start somewhere, and, quite obviously, that can sometimes start decades earlier, and it may be one-sided for a long time. Cultivation of an asset is usually done to an unwitting target. Trump's greed, narcissism, and susceptibility to being manipulated with just a few words of praise, are well-known parts of his character, and several authors, biographers, and his ghostwriters, have described this in painful detail, ergo, he's a "cheap date" who will offer much in return for nothing more than flattery. The Russian KGB would obviously seek to exploit these character flaws.

Several authors have presented evidence (including documented contacts and Trump statements from the time) and theories which posit that the Russians were already interested in Trump as far back as 1984. They were interested for several reasons:

1. Firstly, because he was a wealthy American, making anti-American/pro-Russian statements, who was willing to try to deal with America's arch enemy during the cold war, a time when Russians weren't normally allowed to travel out of Russia, and Americans usually had difficulty getting in, except under close supervision by the KGB, whether they knew it or not. Even American exchange students and ordinary tourists were accompanied by "guides", who were poorly disguised KGB people. Business dealings by Americans with Russia were generally seen as treasonous, or at least very risky and unwise. Note that the question Steele was supposed to investigate and answer was this: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?" This is true today.
2. Secondly, because back in the early 1980s, Trump was openly talking about seeking the presidency, and the Russians knew this. That made him even more of a target for observation, cultivation, and collection of incriminating evidence, in case it might come in handy at some later, unspecified, time.
3. Thirdly, because Trump was so horrible a businessman, so unpopular in New York and the business world, and so untrustworthy no American banks would loan him money, he was forced to seek funding elsewhere, firstly with Italian mafia types, and then the Russian mob, the latter being much more sophisticated in illegal financial dealings. His financing was largely from laundered money, selling his properties to Russian mobsters, and later to Russian oligarchs. Russian crime rackets (which got busted) were operating right in Trump Tower, and his associates were known criminals. Even his language reflects this close association for so many years. He picked up their habitual language, and currently uses it in his tweets and attacks. Without acting, he'd fit in fine as a character in The Godfather.
4. Fourthly, he got loans from mobsters and oligarchs, and is alleged to have served as a conduit for their money laundering efforts. He was/is deeply in debt to them, and is alleged to have used bribery in Russia, East Block countries, China, and other countries.
5. Fifthly, he is alleged to have continued to live his well-known playboy life (even bragging about it) in Russia, not just in the USA. This allegedly means the Russians have lots of incriminating tapes of debauched sex parties, including what has been described as "perverse" activities on his part. I have no idea if it's true, but that's what RS say, and since he bragged about Russian women, it's not hard to believe. Comey didn't believe the pee tape allegation at first, but after talking with Trump, who twice told unnecessary and easily disproven lies about it, Comey came to believe it might be true.

The dossier alleges that Putin's possession of compromising/embarrassing information isn't just an idle threat, but was a threat which was activated during the presidential campaign, and Trump was informed of it. His campaign (and obviously he would know) was informed that this compromising information could be released, but, as long as they continued to cooperate with Russia, it would be withheld. The threat is portrayed as a very active one, even today, IOW, at any time Trump ceases to follow orders, tapes may appear.

His words and actions at Helsinki caused many RS to openly speculate that he was acting like a scared and compromised man who was being controlled and manipulated. Some of those who said as much were top intelligence officials, who know a lot more classified information about these things than we are allowed to know.

All of these things combine to serve as possible elements in Trump's alleged cultivation as an asset, and susceptibility to being blackmailed, things that are described in RS as part of an unbroken line of interference/influence that ultimately affected (and effected) and led to the proven, successful, Russian interference in the election, and supposedly still affect and control Trump's actions.

Therefore this information is very relevant as a prehistory to what's described in this article. We should include information going back to the early 1980s.

You asked, so I have now explained why I provided this newer RS as one more possible source about these matters. That's one of the purposes for this talk page. We share sources we think might be useful, and other editors can fine comb them and pick out relevant content for use in the article. You are welcome to do the same with RS you may find. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

All somewhat interesting, but has no relevance at all to this article which is about the dossier. Maybe, depending on what happens over the next few years, someday, at some other article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, we should at least include information from about 2011, the time, according to Steele's timeline, when the Russia's were "cultivating and supporting" Trump. This was a year before Obama's re-election as president and a time when Trump was not only promoting the birther conspiracy theory, but actively seeking to run for Obama's office himself. The timeline of the dossier itself justifies including such information. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing in the language of the article worth reporting. That an author "argues" & "theorizes" something is irrelevant. If there's something more concrete within the book, then I'd say add it. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about this: show us some language - what you are proposing to add to the article and where. Then we can talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's just that 40 years ago President Trump's real estate company selling condos to everyone included a few Russians, then probably not for this article. If it's about the dossier - the contracting, the content, or the consequences -- then it would not be WP:OFFTOPIC, so maybe -- it would still have to pass WP:UNDUE. Just another entertaining book of speculation left or right won't do for encyclopedic content. Should probably just go into the reading section list ... I'll add it and one or two others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like something historians will pontificate about at some future point. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's an interesting tidbit from the director of the new documentary "Active Measures": "But connecting the dots between a rogue’s gallery of Russian oligarchs, various money laundering schemes disguised as luxury condominiums,... When we started, we knew 2004 was a very important year for us, both on the Putin side and the Trump side. But as we kept researching, the date kept going farther back, so we decided to start with the first clear act of illegality in 1984," says Bryan, referring to the sale of five Trump Tower condos to Russian mobster David Bogdan." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenged text from sources

@Volunteer Marek: You reverted text that comes straight from the source, about the first meeting between Ohr and Strzok in November.[4] Please restore it for clarity: without this, readers don't know when to count "four months" from "at that time", and the timeline given in the source is crystal clear. I don't mind your other changes, although the bit about Steele being "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected" would deserve to be mentioned somewhere (can't see why you object to placing it here, but feel free to place it somewhere else). — JFG ^talk 06:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it, it seems to say that Ohr speaks with officials at the FBI, not any none individual.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does the Strzok thing even have to be in there? It's barely mentioned. It's a strange thing to cherry pick out of the source. Volunteer Marek 15:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it relevant in this article? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article on Ohr's testimony

Highlights from Wall Street Journal article What Bruce Ohr Told Congress by Kimberley Strassel, Aug. 30, 2018

• Ohr verbally told the FBI that his source had a credibility problem and informed them of Steele's "leanings and motives."
• Ohr told the FBI his wife Nellie was working for Fusion GPS.
• Ohr's wife contributed to the dossier.
• In a note about a Sept. 2016 meeting with Steele, Ohr stated that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
• Steele was terminated as an FBI source in Oct. 2016 for talking to the media. Ohr then began serving as a "back channel".
• FBI personnel Ohr communicated with regarding the dossier included (but were not limited to) Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page. All were aware of his role and his conflict of interest.

Phmoreno (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is basically the same as this section at the Bruce Ohr talk page, so now we have duplication of discussion. Please check it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a news article. The source is an opinion piece by a member of the WSJ editorial board. Not RS for facts. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also not sure it should be in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The article contains opinion, but these points are stated as facts.Phmoreno (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

They are still only opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Kim Strassel is never, ever a RS. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Strassel's opinion is that Bruce Ohr deserves the attention that Trump has given him based on the facts from his testimony she presented. And Soibangla, on one made you the RS police.Phmoreno (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So how about finding another source that states the same facts?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted) Period. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not know her or have much interest in this conversation at all but I would recommend not calling a BLP a compulsive liar without sources even on a talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla, I would be more careful if I were you, because I am inclined to contact the WSJ legal department about such comments. I recommend you retract your statement.Phmoreno (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

BWAHAHA! You go right ahead and do that. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So I take it that no, no other RS has made these claims, thus they are not facts, just this persons opinions of what the fact are.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)