Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)

This is no longer a conspiracy theory! Change the definition!!!!!!!!

This is no longer a conspiracy theory! Change the definition!!!! 73.113.44.103 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely a conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The `woke` crowd controls wikipedia. Their "acceptable" sources won't cover it. Even if they do, it will never be enough to reclassify it as -no longer a theory- Even if that happens, experienced wikipedia editors with graphics all over their User Page proclaiming their loyalty to NPOV will silently delete key bits in the middle of a number of small edits, and those deletions will be without comment, and if you try to revert them; sock-puppet accounts will brazingly violate the 3-revert rule to keep the stealth edit gone.

I mean seriously, we now know that the DNC and Hillary split the cost to hire Perkins Coie, to secretly hire Fusion GPS off the campaign finance books, who hired a foreign national, who paid Russian citizens monthly for information so he could source his fanfic dossier. That's like colluding with Russia to influence the election with extra steps! The FBI thought it was fake, but used it anyway to get themselves a FISA warrant, and fabricated evidence when it came time to renew it. 174.250.4.7 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for this, it can go into the article. If you have a reliable source that it is a well known conspiracy theory, it can go in as one. If not, it does not belong here. Britmax (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs serious update

Given the continued proof that this is Not a conspiracy and that Hillary Clinton funded and orchestrated spying on a candidate, creating and planting false evidence, and spying on a president, this page should be UPDATED 2600:1008:B158:F6E4:B495:DB8D:E258:A23 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that nothing that you just said is accurate, there is no need to update this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about all the huffing and puffing and treason and death sentence coming from the usual suspects since Durham's Friday filing, I don't see it reported by any reliable sources and it wouldn't be specifically relevant to this article anyway. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh that explains where these folks have come from all of a sudden. The WP:DAILYMAIL has as a headline Hillary Clinton's campaign paid tech firm to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower and White House servers, which is of course not true and why the WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate 2

The spygate was on 2/11/2022 confirmed as a fact by special counsel Dunham. So this entire definition has to be rewritten by a authorized person to reflect that the Clinton campaign with Obama’s Whitehouse did in fact spy on candidate and sitting President Trump. This is a federal crime and is by definition Treason. They conspired to go against United States of America and steal top secret information to harm America. So please make these facts now available since you got it all wrong. Again. 174.251.137.110 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what Newsmax and Fox News told you, but here in the real world, we rely on facts. Colorado Springs Gazette says Special counsel John Durham says he is building a case to show the technology executive with whom an indicted Democratic lawyer was working to build a Trump-Russia collusion narrative gained access to internet traffic at the White House to try and obtain dirt on former President Donald Trump. "Building a case" does not mean "confirmed as fact". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also some hysterical projection there with steal top secret information since we just learned that Trump took 15 boxes of documents, including some marked TOP SECRET, with him to Mar-a-Lago. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate is Trump's lie that "a spy" was placed "in his campaign." That never happened.

It's also about supposed events at the time, not anything that might have happened later. -- Valjean (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming from guy that spread the russian collusion nonsense is laughable. John Durham's report is a rs

That is wikipedia's definition. Trump's definition was the wiretapping given the first quote was wiretapping. Likewise the NY Times piece is still the first one that brought spying on Trump to the public and it is still not cited.2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Better make some changes.

This is confirmed to be "not a conspiracy theory". Do not spread mis-dis- information. You can't have it both ways. 2601:40D:401:43B0:BC23:1933:C4A5:6991 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just read the above sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox News headline says "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham"

In fact, nowhere in Durham's brief does "infiltrate" appear. Deep in the story Fox News reveals that Kash Patel said it. soibangla (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if this were ever proved true, it has nothing to do with THIS subject. See the last paragraph of the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

this is no longer a theory. 2605:8D80:461:3ADB:D422:A9B9:B1DB:40C7 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What is considered a credible source?

Could you please give us a few examples of media outlets you consider credible sources? I have read multiple times from editors that this (spygate) is not related to the current filing that Trump was spied on by Tech executive 1 with links to Clinton campaign. If this is the case then why is it the 5th result when you search " Was Trump spied on " ? Is there a keyword issue here? I have no affiliation with any political party. I simply searched the topic to read all info I could find to gather my own opinion. 2600:1007:B039:9F6:3C68:E29:5D3C:7BC8 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP has a list of reliable and unreliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate seems real now….

Seems President Trump, like him or not, wasn’t lying after all, given that Durham has now found that democrats WERE spying on him both during his campaign and when he was our sitting President. Mainstream media (mostly left leaning) has again tried and convicted him over and over, and now we are starting to see the truth revealed—one that is seriously damning and actually indicting democrats for what they (and not Trump) did. You need to update this and be fair rather than regurgitating leftist media propaganda. (And I’m an independent sick of the propaganda, divisiveness, political lying and BS!) 162.226.140.42 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It would "seem" that way if you only listen to right wing media, sure, but in the real world, nothing that you said is accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Durham is alleging the Clinton campaign funded activities in part to infiltrate servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to federal government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia. The language in the motion is pretty clear.

It says Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump. The tech company provided DNS resolution services to the EOP (Executive Office of the President).

It seems absurd for mainstream sources to not report on this. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Durham did not say infiltrate. Fox News falsely reported he did and others ran with it. Oftentimes dubious sources spread a viral false narrative before reliable sources catch up. A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on, as Mark Twain famously didn't actually say. Let's wait. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Durham used "exploited" and "mining" if you prefer those better. Regardless, the alleged intent was nefarious. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was Durham's intent to depict it as nefarious. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It seemed absurd to me to give Hillary's emails the mainstream coverage that it got, but c'est la vie. Same thing here. The mainstream media has really not touched this Durham development, and we reflect reliable sources, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol in response to the ignorant comment below. Here is the indictment from Durham. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17e0:9c30:dd62:88eb:1ed1:d430 (talk) 09:34, February 14, 2022 (UTC)

It's not an indictment, it's a motion and an assertion of facts that Durham needs to prove in court. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lawd have mercy on the blind. Read the “indictment portion”; I’ll even post it for you. But the interesting thing I’m seeing here is that one apparently shouldn’t listen to anything the right media might be saying because it’s all lies and conspiracies—but that listening to left media and conspiracy info is fine. Hypocrisy appears to be alive and well on Wikipedia. :( It’s a shame because I’ve often contributed to them and even allow/encourage my students to use Wiki.

“USA [Durham] vs Michael Sussmann

Criminal Case No. 21-582 (CRC), Document 35”

Below is the factual background information the investigation has found thus far in the “Spygate” investigation.

“FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The defendant is charged in a one-count indictment with making a materially false statement to the FBI, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 (the “Indictment”). As set forth in the Indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm (“Law Firm-1”) that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton Campaign, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank (“Russian Bank-1”). The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company (“Internet Company- 1”), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.

3. The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign (“Campaign Lawyer-1”).

2 Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22

Page 3 of 13

4. The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract. Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.

5. The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)

6. The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating

3 Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22

Page 4 of 13

to Trump – to a second agency of the U.S. government (“Agency-2”). The Government’s evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider. In his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol (“IP”) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider (“Russian Phone Provider-1”). The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations. Indeed, more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel’s Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered – but did not provide to Agency-2 – reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses. Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower. In addition, the more complete data assembled by Tech Executive-1 and his associates reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014 (i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office) – another fact which the allegations omitted.

7. In his meeting with Agency-2 employees, the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he had made to the FBI General Counsel. In particular, the defendant

4 Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22

Page 5 of 13

asserted that he was not representing a particular client in conveying the above allegations. In truth and in fact, the defendant was representing Tech Executive-1 – a fact the defendant subsequently acknowledged under oath in December 2017 testimony before Congress (without identifying the client by name).”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_2.pdf

But maybe Durham is lying with his “factual information.” Just curious, has MSNBC addressed any of this? If so, does it match what Durham said or what you are parroting? After all, you appear to be as leery of media claims as I am, which is why I did NOT post media outlets or people’s (biased) opinions—but instead posted the legal “factual information” from Durham himself. Do you doubt it, too?

I think, considering he is legally investigating this whole spygate thing, that Durham is probably more accurate than anyone/anything else on the topic. But that’s my opinion. And I support your right to an opinion. But facts are not opinions.

When wiki sees something that counters something they’ve written, they have a moral obligation to revisit what was said and update it for accuracy. Or they lose credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17E0:9C30:DD62:88EB:1ED1:D430 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so you copy/pasted all of that text here. So, what does it mean? Remember, per WP:PRIMARY, we don't rely on our own interpretations, but the interpretations of experts and reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You wrote “Okay, so you copy/pasted all of that text here. So, what does it mean?”

Hmm what does it mean to post a very recent legal document that outlines some of factual background on what has been confirmed about this Spygate investigation, thus putting into context the validity of this investigation into Sussmann and spying on and/or colluding against Trump? Only one reason.

Wiki and many of you who are responding to the individuals who posted about the problem with the Spygate page appear to be tossing out anything contrary to your own beliefs. Including turning a blind eye to what Durham is saying.

From what I’ve read from you and others is claims/insinuations that all the objections you are getting to your Spygate page is from the radical right and right-leaning news shows. You’re even now arguing against what Durham found in his investigation because — it doesn’t seem to fit your narrative.

So what do I want? Honesty, integrity and a lack of bias. Wiki needs to review this legal document (in the context of the whole Spygate issue) and be accurate in what they’re saying rather than relying on newspapers and opinions that serve as confirmation bias for you.

Actually, that’s something both the left and the right should do. But I’m not holding my breath because both sides have proven to be false and self-serving, more than not. Your choice. Review the info and adjust for accuracy. Or don’t. Misinformation and disinformation is alive and well on both sides. You can contribute to it if you wish. Ciao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17E0:9C30:DD62:88EB:1ED1:D430 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So what it means is that you will continue to rant about tossing out anything contrary to your own beliefs when really you fail to understand that Trump was not "spied upon" as the conspiracy theory suggested. Sussman was indicted in September 2021. The filing from this past Friday does not suggest what you say it suggests. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, none of this belongs in this article, which is about an alleged embedded person. Second, not until this morning did I see a reliable source about this, which you can see included here. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate has been proven

When is this fake information page change to fully change the page to show President Trump was %100 correct. 174.251.137.110 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If you think this is fake, then why are you here reading it? You are free to stay comfortable in your bubble and be told only what you want to hear, and tell others that this is fake. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Conspiracy

Better change the heading!! Not a conspiracy theory...truth!! 2600:8807:C185:C500:D907:D492:6F2C:DB90 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

or perhaps this page should be protected soibangla (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Give up. Do you really think there's any evidence in the world that will get us to admit Donald Trump was telling the truth? If you think we'd ever do that, you don't know what site you're on. 2603:8080:7301:AE00:78A3:6593:64AE:4A65 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track". The New York Times. February 14, 2022. soibangla (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is wrong based on REAL FACTS

This debunked story has been debunked 2600:1007:B115:E6C:C505:E5F2:21A8:2CD4 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Facts debunk your debunking of a debunked conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

'They spied on a sitting President'

'They spied on a sitting president' https://www.foxnews.com/media/jim-jordan-durham-probe-clinton-spied-trump 2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's your problem: you're taking Jim Jordan at face value. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's your problem: RS encyclopedic fact. Wait we need to collate a left of center POV from nothing but leftist sources and pretend it is not fringe.2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We know for a fact that Jim Jordan said "they spied on a sitting president", yes. We have no proof that anyone spied on a sitting president. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Proof is irrelevant, all we go by is what mainstream RS outlets choose to report on. Any outlet could report that a new Durham motion alleges there was someone mining data from the office of the President and it would be 100% true. We have no proof for example that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation (in fact we have the opposite), but that didn't stop social media companies from suppressing the story days before the 2020 election because of what RS reported. Contrast that with 2016 when a few days before the election Hillary Clinton herself tweeted out the Alfa Bank allegations at the heart of these Durham filings, which allegedly her campaign was the source of. A bit ironic, no? Anyways, this is not likely to get anywhere unless or until RS picks it up, as the IP says. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

in fact we have the opposite Rhetorical question only: we do? Let's not go down that road here. soibangla (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant "proof" as in what we have from RS. That RS aren't touching this with a ten foot pole is telling. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source for American politics. They lie to benefit Republicans. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Schiff and Nadler etc and zero evidence were good enough for 124 individual wiki pages on the collusion hoax that sit largely unchanged. And Fox News is a reliable source, funny coming from an editor that tried to pass ibtimes.sg off as reliable. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Fox News lied about this very story by putting the word "infiltrate" in Durham's mouth. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Who tried to pass of ibtimes.sg as reliable? Not me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu does not know more then the Durham Investigator and it's all coming out now. Edit the article2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump Spied on February 2022 (2)

Trump was spied on per the Durham report and investigation. This is not a conspiracy nor was it ever a conspiracy. Fact is Obama and Hillary Clinton took illegal steps to spy on them candidate Trump and now we find tech was also accessing WH server information to spy on them President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.213.161.206 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-firm-to-spy-on-trump-9hrbjjkr2 Is a reliable source per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Nerguy (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"a US special prosecutor has suggested" soibangla (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a correct description of John Durham. Nerguy (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This CNN article includes in it Right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians, including Trump, are citing Durham's court filing to accuse Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign of spying on Trump because of the use of the data. But Durham's court filing doesn't allege that the pro-Clinton researchers use of internet data meant that there was any eavesdropping on content of communications. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also a correct description of what he did. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla's additions (to the John Durham article) of content on this subject are excellent. Durham did not allege that any eavesdropping of Trump communications content occurred. This is an allegation that DNS lookups may have occurred. That activity could not provide any content information. -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

According to The Times article mentioned by Muboshgu (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-firm-to-spy-on-trump-9hrbjjkr2), "Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers at Trump Tower and the White House in a search for links between Donald Trump and Russia, a US special prosecutor has suggested. The Clinton campaign was effectively accused of spying by John Durham, a lawyer investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry which dogged the first half of the Trump presidency."

As per WP policy: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Time to add it in. If CNN has a different take, add it too; this is going in. A perennial reliable source has given it great prominence. SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Clinton campaign paid to infiltrate" narrative originated with this Fox News article.[1]. It was quickly copied by The New York Post, another Murdoch property, which used the Fox News story as its source.[2]] That was followed by The Times which yesterday wrote "Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers...a US special prosecutor has suggested." And its headline says "paid firm to spy on Trump," as a quote. I don't subscribe to The Times, so I can't see who that quote comes from, but it didn't come from Durham.[3] Now, The Times is green at WP:RSP, but it bears noting it is also a Murdoch property. Last night, Charlie Savage at The New York Times reported in "Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track"[4]:

[Durham] slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump. But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news — the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies...The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Neither the words paid nor infiltrate appear in Durham's searchable brief.[5]

And just FYI, Muboshgu didn't mention The Times article, Nerguy did. soibangla (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Straw poll on parentheses in article title

They screw up notifications and are unnecessary. I get email notifications and invariably get sent to the Spygate disambiguation page. Can't we just get rid of them? They don't serve any purpose as the disambiguation page works just fine. One other improvement would be to make the title reflect the contents, which is a normal requirement: Spygate: Trump conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your email notifications getting screwed up is a good reason to move a page. Parentheticals are how we disambiguate most ambiguous page titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Update the article no longer a conspiracy theory. Proven by multiple inquires.

A wikipedia admin does not know more then the investigator. https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-really-was-spied-on-2016-clinton-campaign-john-durham-court-filing-11644878973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're citing an opinion piece by one of the most right-wing editorial boards in the U.S. That is not a reliable source. The reliable sources all have called bunk on what you watched on Hannity and Jesse Watters last night.[6] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)