Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation

Consider Re-Naming this page

Since all of the allegations have been debunked and traced back to the Clinton campaign, this page should he renamed "Attempts to overturn the 2016 election" or something similar. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Except that many allegations have been confirmed, this investigation had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, and nobody tried to overturn the 2016 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well this didn't aged well LOL. The opposite is true and proof is resurfacing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:141A:F590:5B46:E677 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment from ten months ago stands. No "proof" of anything like that exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to what you may have been told, the press reporting on Trump-Russia was overwhelmingly correct, and the fact Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court does not mean the press reporting was wrong. The FBI investigation never targeted Trump, it was a counterintel investigation to prevent Russian intelligence from infiltrating the Trump campaign (and maybe the Oval Office!) and the only reason Trump was pulled into the Mueller investigation was because he fired Comey, which looked a whole lot like obstruction and for which he is still subject to prosecution. Trump could've avoided bringing all this drama on himself if he'd just not fired Comey, because Comey wasn't even investigating Trump. So, short story long, nah, we're not gonna make the change you seek.soibangla (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge Trump"

I copyedited this, I expect someone to dispute it, so starting the discussion here. It is known that actually several of Trump's associates were in fact in litigation before being pardoned, such as Roger Stone. In terms of evidence, there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy, but as we found out, Roger Stone did indeed have contact, and Manafort, in fact this just came out about Manafort[1]. Regardless, there's the Special Counsel investigation, and the Barr report, and how Rosenstein landed the plane. Mueller's report, the less-redacted version[2], showed: "Trump had direct knowledge of Roger Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, according to multiple witnesses interviewed by Mueller. He encouraged that outreach and asked his campaign chairman to pursue it further, those witnesses said. And Mueller’s office appears to have strongly suspected, without putting it in so many words, that Trump lied to the special counsel in his written answers to Mueller’s questions about the Stone affair." Andre🚐 21:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Good change. It wasn't "no" evidence, it was "insufficient". "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked. "That is correct," Mueller asked.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That quote is accurate but has an obvious typo. It should end with "Mueller replied". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That too, which is about obstruction specifically. But in terms of the "collusion" there was "collusion," in that, Manafort gave polling data to Russian intelligence, and of course there were the many meetings written about by Seth Abramson in Proof of Collusion and Proof of Conspiracy, there wasn't enough evidence to charge them, but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that wasn't sufficient for a court of law to bring a prosecution. Andre🚐 00:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, well, there's a quote for that too. "The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller said during his Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.[4] This source uses the phrase "insufficient evidence". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly! Andre🚐 00:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, as your cited source makes clear, Mueller was referring to potential obstruction of justice in that quote (an altogether separate topic from conspiracy/collusion with Russia); given this context, it does not actually support the inference that you (and Andrevan) are drawing from it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You continue to let your own political bias influence what you write. I am removing the politically biased language you enter. The Mueller investigation's stated goal was to determine if the Trump campaign conspired/coordinated with Russia. The Mueller report concluded there was no evidence the Trump campaign did this. Therefore, the conclusion and "one sentence" summary is that the Mueller investigation found no coordination/conspiracy with Russia. After that sentence, is where the sentence about the Trump campaign welcoming Russian help goes. You are trying to suppress the main outcome of the investigations stated goal that the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia. Gjonesagain (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Gjonesagain, where did you get the idea that "the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia?" There was "insufficient evidence" to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do you understand the difference between those two sentences? BTW, many RS, including leading members of the intelligence community, who do not accept Mueller's conclusion. They see evidence of conspiracy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It came from this CNN article here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-findings/index.html CNN cited (verbatim) from the Mueller report "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities." @Valjean You can continue to let your own political bias interfere with the article. Gjonesagain (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mueller did not exonerate Trump on anything. Andre🚐 03:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So you don't understand the difference. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. Mentioning another editor’s political beliefs as a means to dismiss them is a forbidden personal attack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

comments requested regarding article title

here soibangla (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

unless there is an objection, I plan to make this change soibangla (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Good change. Likely, more people know the name Mueller than know what a special counsel is. DFlhb (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"There was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge Trump"

Summarizing the Mueller report with this limited information is not an accurate representation, considering they had insufficient evidence that the campaign as a whole conspired or coordinated with Russia, not just Trump in particular. A direct quote of the Mueller report is that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Bill Williams 19:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Russia russia russia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Russia russia russia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Russia russia russia until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian Interference?

That whole section of the article, basically where the author concluded there was substantial Russian interference, is just simply not true. Can we get that part fixed? YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)