Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Denialism category

Right now there is a category for "Denialism" on the article. Does that really belong? I didn't want to remove it without a discussion since this article seems to be so sensitive.PopSci (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it fits perfectly per the definition given at Denialism as it 's a conspiracy theory which denies the actual evidence of the DNC leak as well as at least some of the findings of the police investigation. But it fits those because it's a conspiracy theory, and it's already in two conspiracy theory categories (which is proper), but Category:Conspiracy theories is not a subcat of Category:Denialism, which, to my way of thinking, it should be. So I think this is a category problem, not a "categories of this page" problem. But that means wading into the tenebrous -and possibly bottomless- pit that is category space; haunted by lost souls and humorless automatons who pretend to be editors. So that's all on you, buddy. I ain't going no-where near that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Using that reasoning, we could add thousands of articles to the category and thousands of categories to this article. Categories are a navigation device. It is unlikely that someone interested in denialism will find this a must read article or that anyone interested in this article will be interested in denialism. TFD (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt we could add thousands using that logic: "This article is an X and X is a Y" is as far as it goes. You might push things and find a couple dozen categories, but not thousands, or even hundreds. And the vast majority of those would be of the "Why the hell is this article in that category?!" variety, and not of the "Hmm, I see where it's coming from but this seems a bit off..." sort. Regardless, I'm not opposed to removing this article from the cat; I'm just saying that it fits. Whether that's a useful navigational aid is debatable, and the proper applicability of categories is something I'm uninterested in debating for much the same reason that I rarely turn off the lights and whisper "Bloody Mary" into the bathroom mirror. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

POV/Original research problems in second paragraph.

"The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials[5] and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Calling that a "false claim" is, itself, false. It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. This material should not be placed in the voice of WP. The indictment of the Russians, for whatever they did, does not in itself somehow prove that Seth Rich was not involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. The Russians might plausibly have hacked, while independently some insiders within DNC leaked. It's also POV-pushing to label that a "right wing" or a "conspiracy theory". While certainly not yet proven, people from virtually any political stripe might find Seth Rich's murder suspicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not proven to be true, but it's also not proven to be false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what I said, above. That's why it's improper to call this, in the voice of WP, "false". This bias continues throughout the article. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You missed the tag I responded with. We have numerous reliable sources claiming it's been proven false. We also have enough publicly available evidence to ensure that anyone who has even the slightest inkling of what they're talking about understands that the notion Rich leaked the emails is laughably ignorant. So yes: it's been proven false. Your own personal views about it are completely immaterial. On WP, we follow the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Paragraphs 2 and 3, and elsewhere in this article, remain biased. For instance, paragraph 2 refers to "theories", but does not even identify them! This is clearly trying to use WP to push POV. Show us exactly what theories have been proven false, to begin with. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's all right there in the article, if you'd just read it absent any preconception about the conclusions. But if you're reading it secure in your (demonstrably false) views that Rich was the leaker and the conspiracy theories are true, then of course it's going to look biased and POV pushing to you. That doesn't mean it is, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In WHICH article?!? There are many cites in this, and any other article. Stop playing games! WP is suppose to be neutral. It's always possible to seek out sources which come to the specific conclusions you'd like to see. That, you and others have already done. You seek to keep this article biased. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:9514:B185:897C:47B8 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Untwist your tits: no-one is playing games with you here. Here on WP "article" means "Wikipedia article" not "source". Read this article to answer all your questions. And if you still have any, read the sources. There's a reason we hyperlink our inline citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously not willing to discuss the problems with the article. They are quite numerous. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F488:1F31:2B0C:F76A (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously incapable of understanding that the problems only exist in your head. Oh well, not my problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to go against People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." We cannot say that Viktor Borisovich Netyksho and eleven other people named in the D.C. indictment hacked the e-mails until they are convicted. TFD (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't name anyone. And what is it with people forgetting to sign today? (I'm not berating you, just noting that I've seen an unusual number of times today). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, now signed. There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible. In any case, I'll raise it a BLPN and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're going to run smack into a wall of false dichotomy links, if you do. Because that's what you're doing by suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties. And remember; the end result if changed would be to imply a BLP vio against Rich (who still qualified for BLP protections as recently deceased AFAIK), as well as to contradict the RSes based on some editor's interpretation of a policy. I can't see any way that a proposal of that sort gains any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example, which is neither/nor. Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. TFD (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's disingenuous because it is the text and your statement that assumes it is either/or. Again: the text doesn't name anyone and; No, my statement absolutely does not assume it is either or. A suspect can easily be ruled out (as Rich has been) without it implicating a particular person. The closest thing to naming anyone is the claim in the lede, which is a simple statement of fact: The indictment absolutely does contradict the claim that Rich was involved. You are reading that as being the only evidence against Rich's involvement, which is never stated nor even hinted by the text.

The president opined that it could have been a freelance hacker for example And the president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP.

Your argument seems to be that if we do not state as fact that twelve known Russians broke the law, the only conclusion is that Seth Rich leaked the emails. That is a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Then your statement about false dichotomy makes no sense. I have taken the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you should read my comments more carefully because it's clear that you're not understanding me. My point is that saying that Rich did not do it does not imply that the Russians are guilty, nor does the text you quoted. They have been indicted, not convicted. It may turn out that Russian FSB agents are responsible, or even private parties. But it is clear, both by a literal reading of the sources and an honest reflection upon the evidence cited by those sources, that Rich is not the responsible party. Your argument seems to be that as long as we insist that Rich is not guilty (which we do because the RSes do), then we're strongly implying that the Russians did. That is a false dichotomy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying the opposite of that. You said above I was "suggesting it was either Rich or the indicted parties." I said nothing of the kind and challenge to to show where I did. TFD (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If your contention is not that it's binary, then your objection to the bit about the indictment is nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that, per BLP, articles should not imply that people not convicted of crimes are guilty. Nothing binary about that. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the history of this thread, that's hardly a compelling argument against the assertion that you implied a false dichotomy. But presuming that you were ignoring the IP (which would be completely justified considering the IP's poor argument) and merely opining about the Russian individuals: I've addressed that at BLPN. Given that it bears upon both politics and conspiracy theories, it's likely only a matter of time before some new voices are heard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly did not imply that there is a dichotomy, as an reasonable reading of my postings clearly shows. You will find that discussions can be considerably shortened if you don't misrepresent other editors' comments. Anyway, lets get back to the point. How does removing the wording "contradicted by" create a false dichotomy, violate BLP or V or constitute OR or violate any other policy or guideline or common sense that you may raise? TFD (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be before you realize that this is literally the first time you mentioned removing those words, and that the only proposed change in this thread until your most recent comment had been to remove "false" from "...the false claim that Rich had been involved..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The first comment I posted was, "There is a clear implication that the people named in the indictment, which is a matter of public record are responsible." You then launched into an argument I cannot understand saying that changing the wording would turns it into a false dichotomy. Excuse me for digressing by addressing your comments. TFD (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You jumped in the middle of a discussion to insert your own arguments. The discussion was on whether the word "false" should be removed. Your argument doesn't oppose the removal (but rather, supports it). Since I opposed the removal, I responded to your comment in the context in which they were made. In that context (whether or not to remove "false"), your argument that the Russians may not be guilty is one which relies upon a false dichotomy, by implying that if the Russians did not do it, then Rich did.

If you had intended from the get-go not to support removing the word "false", then you should have started a new discussion, or at the very least made it clear what you were proposing, instead of waiting until after you'd made 8 comments over the course of 4 days to finally admit to what you wanted to do. Even then, I fail to see how the current content is a policy problem. The content does not insist that the Russians did it, merely that they are the only parties suspected by authorities, a fact that absolutely contradicts the conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. The clear implication is that the Russians are guilty, which is why the curious phrasing was adopted. If you do not want to make that implication then you should agree to an unambigous wordking. TFD (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already address this at the BLPN thread. I'm not repeating myself here. Your repeated accusations of dishonesty are nothing but uncivil bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with OP and The Four Deuces. We should be vary cautious in use of phrases like "conspiracy theory" in a Wiki-voice. It is fine to say that various sources call it that. Although there are allegations without strong evidence and numerous reliable mainstream sources throwing around the term "conspiracy theory", that does not mean we should.

In particular, stating that "the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016" is a conspiracy theory goes too far. It's true that the Intelligence community and a number of cyber experts allege the Russians caused the DNC email hack. Yet, Wikileaks offered a $20,000 award [1] to solve the murder, which is yet unsolved. On August 11, 2016, the New Zeland Herald said "Julian Assange hints murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was source of damaging email leaks." [2] (Note: same paper later publishes [3]). Patrick Lawrence at the Nation reported on August 9, 2017 [4] that the email was leaked and was "an inside job" rather than the Russians (Note: two weeks later Bob Dreyfuss also at The Nation called it a conspiracy theory [5]). The book "What Happened to Bernie?" (c) 2018 by Jared Beck, all of page 280 (note 116) talks about the possibility that Guccifer 2.0 as not being Russian but as an insider at the DNC.

It is true that a number of media sites have retracted coverage after a lawsuit by the family. But can we really call a claim (that it was an "inside job") that was circulated in the mainstream media a "conspiracy theory" in a wiki voice? I say no. We should report exactly what happened, that they claimed it was possibly an inside job, and later retracted their claims or later referred to claims they had made as conspiracy theories. To ignore this history and call the "inside job" theory a conspiracy theory in wiki-voice goes too far. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The OP was engaged in blatantly obvious political/fringe POV pushing. You agree with them? Good, then I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree, that's fine. But please refrain from calling my (or any other editor's) writing "bullshit". --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

<shrug>. Do you require a fainting couch? --Calton | Talk 06:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If baby can't control his temper baby gets another time out. 199.127.56.86 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Times retraction

Looks like the Washington Times has had to eat some crow:

• "The Washington Times Retracts Column About Seth Rich’s Killing" - New York Times, Oct 1, 2018
• "The Washington Times settles lawsuit with Seth Rich's brother, issues retraction and apology for its coverage" - CNN, Oct 1, 2018

The actual retraction: "Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich"

--Calton | Talk 03:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I opened up that first link with my jaw hanging down, thinking that it was the Washington Post who retracted the story. But no, it was the Times. No big surprise there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I also was relieved to see that Washington Times was not forced to retract the story that contained the revelation that "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign". That would be more difficult, since there is video of him saying it. "Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" But a vocal few still claim it is not worthy of being included in the Wikipedia article. StreetSign (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the retraction was covered in the NYT and CNN, I agree we should add it to this article. TFD (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

New lede

All right, I got tired of waiting for a change (see "Lede", above), and changed the lede. Let me know if it's acceptable:

The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died from two shots to the back.

The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim...

--Calton | Talk 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Approved by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Some facts that are not yet included, which would improve article significantly

Some facts that are not yet included in the Wikipedia article, which would improve it significantly:

The location of the Seth Rich murder: It has been precisely documented as the southwest corner of Flagler Place and W Street Northwest. Currently only described as “Bloomingdale neighborhood".

The hospital where Seth Rich was treated and died. MedStar Washington Hospital Center or Howard University Hospital. Currently only described as “a nearby hospital”.

Statements made by Seth Rich after the shooting. His brother is quoted as saying “They were very surprised he didn’t make it,” “He was very aware, very talkative. Yep, that was 100 percent my brother.” “He wasn’t in pain, they were told,” according to the paper. “But he was confused. When Seth Rich was asked where he lived, he gave a previous address …”

The caliber of the weapon (or weapons) used to shoot Seth Rich in the back twice.

The job offer to Seth Rich from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, days before the murder. Existing in published statements from his parents, and even a video of his father talking about it.

The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich, reported as MeGrimlock4 panda4progress pandas4bernie

A photo or video of the “glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers”

Some of these are well documented, but described as "irrelevant". StreetSign (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

... Additional facts that would improve the article significantly:

The name and badge number of the responding officer.

The names and badge numbers of the assisting officers.

The body worn camera video from the three assisting officers who wore them.

Information that Shotspotter was used by the Metropolitan Police Department to detect and locate the gunshots that killed Seth Rich. Recorded as 5D67055 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:18 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" and 5D67057 Multiple_Gunshots 10-Jul-16 0:04:23 Washington DC5D (latitude) 38.922 (longitude) -76.979 "rounded to three (3) decimal places" (and gunshots (or "firecracker") at the same location minutes earlier) StreetSign (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC) at https://mpdc.dc.gov/publication/shotspotter-data-disclaimer-and-dictionary

The photo taken at the scene of the shooting, showing the police and EMTs.

A copy of Metropolitan Police Department Public Incident Report CCN #16113797 StreetSign (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice trick, starting with the innocuous though irrelevant before trying to sneak in the nutty and insinuating so you can pretend they're on the same level. How about: no? --Calton | Talk 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Why in the hell would we give out his online handle? That's about as unencyclopedic as possible. We're not suppose to be that comprehensive. None of these details would satisfy the principle of some astonishment except for the job offer one, which we've already established is being pushed as a wedge to support the conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that StreetSign has added a bunch more "facts that would improve the article significantly", and now it's bordering on the ridiculous: responding officer badge numbers? Bodycam footage? How is the HELL would things like this improve the article even marginally?

If conspiracy theorists want to legitimize the factual pieces they use to cobble together their nutty hall of mirrors, let them try elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect you to like all the suggestions. StreetSign (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don;'t expect this section to accomplish anything except reducing the amount of respect you're shown on this site, because that's all it's likely to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: "I don't expect you to like all the suggestions", good thing, because I don't like any of them, and I am not alone. StreetSign, if there was any actual evidence published in reliable secondary sources supporting the conspiracy theory, I would be glad to include it. But there isn't.[6][7][8][9] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories. I do believe that some additional published facts should eventually be included in the article, regardless of whose theories those facts support or refute. A consensus is always required, and my list is just an early and partial effort to reach one. StreetSign (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So? Nobody cares if you believe the conspiracy theories or not. Your push to have this article document every minor detail and stress the ones that the conspiracy theorist most latch onto is still not gonna fly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand that not all the facts will be included. It is not uncommon for editors to disagree. Discussion and attempts to reach consensus should take place. StreetSign (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You've had three editors tell you "no", so that discussion and consensus has already taken place. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)h

So "three editors" would be you and two others, out of 130,675 active Wikipedia editors. This is where we are supposed to discuss improvements to the article. Why would you object to including the name of the hospital where Seth Rich was transported? Have you ever heard of Parkland Hospital? We all have. It is named in the Wikipedia articles for JFK and Lee Oswald. When Wendy Karina Martinez was stabbed seven times in Washington D.C. the news reported "She was taken to a nearby Medstar Washington Hospital Center, where she was pronounced dead". Why are you objecting so vehemently in this case? StreetSign (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

News flash: those 130,675 active Wikipedians ain't here clamoring to add this shit to the article. Only you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You and your buddy appear to be very sensitive about adding facts to the Seth Rich article. StreetSign (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it appears that way to you. I'm also sure it would appear to at least 65,338 Wikipedians that you seem strangely keen on adding pointless trivia to it. Because literally every non-POV pusher who watches this page has butted heads with you over your ceaseless attempts to do so, thus far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Labelling this a conspiracy, it is only fair to label the Russia Hack narrative as a conspiracy theory as well.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

FrogCast (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those apply.

You wrote "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander." You just AGREED that they applied. --Calton | Talk 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

FrogCast (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WP doesn't care about "fair". WP cares about reliably sourced info, and your edit made our article say very different things than the sources, so hell no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just because russians are accused, does not contradict the conspiracy theory. Even if they were convicted, it would be hard to say they were. Also, Russia is a conspiracy theory. It has all the markings.

Please make arguments, not ipse dixit emotional outbursts.

FrogCast (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources or STFU. Also, if you think my comment was an "emotional outburst" then you have absolutely no idea what an emotional outburst (or an argument) is. I know your little friends over on /pol/ might have told you that saying that will "trigger" people and make it easier to argue, but they were wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would you ask for a source for a logical argument? It is not hard to understand. If you are accused of something, that does not make you guilty.

FrogCast (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is extraordinarily illogical. Hell, your final sentence was a perfect example of a non sequitur. And if you can't find WP:RS reliable sources to support what you want the article to say, you're shit out of luck, even if you actually have a logical argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You did not address my argument. Being accused is different than being guilty. Ergo, accused russians is not a contradiction to the conspiracy.

FrogCast (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, even though you used the word "Ergo". Logic is not about semantics, I'm afraid, and I have no interest in addressing your argument, as you've yet to provide a source making the same claims you made in the argument. If it were so logical, that should be trivial to find. But without sources, you could make the best argument in the world and you'll still be wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You will need sources because that is how wikipedia works. See WP:5P2 and then follow up with Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RS. If you want an encyclopaedia where you don't need sources for "a logical argument", you're at the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

FrogCast, you fail to recognize the difference between (1) exposing a real conspiracy, and (2) conspiracy theories designed to cover-up that conspiracy. That confusion is common among people and editors who read unreliable sources, such as Sputnik, RT, Fox News (for politics, they are extremely partisan), Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc.

Here is a fully referenced explanation of the actual conspiracy theories, especially those related to the Trump–Russia dossier and the FISA warrant and surveillance of Carter Page after he left the Trump campaign. This is all reliably sourced. I think ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and Nil Einne will also appreciate this (and all my hard work).

Any comments should be added below the hatted content, and below my signature.

Conspiracy theories related to Trump–Russia dossier and surveillance of Carter Page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Trump–Russia dossier has both friends and foes who react for or against the dossier. Therefore we find two main types of Trump-Russia "conspiracies" whenever the dossier is mentioned. One conspiracy is the one alleged in the dossier, and the other "conspiracy" are various right-wing conspiracy theories designed to cover-up that alleged conspiracy and undermine the dossier and investigations. Those conspiracy theories contain one or both of these fundamental components: the dossier and sometimes the FBI surveillance of Carter Page. Without those components the conspiracy theories fall apart as defenses of the Trump campaign, and the Russia investigation would still be underway without the dossier or the surveillance. The first reaction is held by those siding with the investigators of the alleged Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign, as described in the dossier. They tend to consider the dossier a serious work worthy of investigation, and believe it would be a dereliction of duty to not follow its leads, and that Mueller has "an obligation to examine it". Those who believe Steele consider him a hero who tried to warn about the Kremlin's meddling in the election, and people who distrust him consider him a "hired gun" used to attack Trump. The second reaction is held by those siding with the Trump campaign, the alleged conspirators. It's an attitude also held by Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump. They all respond with counterattacks and real conspiracy theories about the origins, backers, and intentions of the dossier. In the first, the dossier alleges that there was a years-long and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Trump campaign and Russian officials for the purposes of harming Clinton's electoral chances and swaying the election in Trump's favor. It also alleges: that Putin possesses kompromat about Trump's alleged "large bribes and kickbacks" and "perverted sexual acts" and is blackmailing him with it; that the Russians have assured Trump that the kompromat will not be used against him on condition that Trump's campaign continues to cooperate with them; that Russia would interfere in the election to harm Clinton's chances and help Trump win; that the help was partially conditioned on Trump ignoring or downplaying Russian aggression in Ukraine, and then lifting the Magnitsky Act and Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia after his election, for which he would be richly rewarded with a 19 per cent (privatised) stake (about $11 billion) in Rosneft. In the second, Trump and his supporters devised a counterattack, described by Natasha Bertrand as a "war on the FBI" and media, using a "deep state" conspiracy theory which alleges that his foes—Clinton, the DNC, Steele, the FBI, and intelligence agencies—conspired with Russia to undermine his election and presidency. The theory's purpose is to undermine the dossier and his foes, thus interfering with investigations into his alleged conspiracy with Russia. Trump has even suggested, as described by Chris Cillizza, that "the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators". BBC correspondent Paul Wood has summarized the two "conspiracies": "There are two Trump-Russia 'conspiracies'. In one, the US President is bought or blackmailed by the Kremlin. In the other, the FBI and the intelligence agencies — the 'deep state' — commit a monstrous abuse of power to try to overturn the election result. The first conspiracy is described in the 'dossier' written by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele; the second, in a series of memos and leaks over the past week, from Congressional Republicans defending Donald Trump." The distinction between the two sides is explained by Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, who views Steele's investigative project favorably, as opposed to the actions 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." One side discovered a possible international criminal conspiracy and took all its findings to the FBI for further investigation. The other side kept a meeting about lifting the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia secret for more than a year, and then kept changing its story when the meeting was discovered. National security expert Juliette Kayyem explained that "testimony shows the Trump team 'did not tell the FBI; they did not alert anyone; they did not say 'no' to offers of information from Russian operatives. We don't have to look for conspiracies anymore. This is a campaign that knew it was meeting with people who had compromised information about Hillary Clinton, and those people were Russians." Trump's conspiracy theory is broad, coming in many formulations, and alleges that "the whole Russia thing" is a "witch hunt", a "hoax", and a "deep state conspiracy". It alleges that Russia was behind Steele's dossier, and that Clinton, with the help of an alleged "deep state" conspiracy involving the FBI and intelligence agencies, is trying to "overturn the election result". This theory has been described by Abigail Tracy as a "conspiracy theory born out of the far-right fringe", a "counter-narrative that has grown... from a conspiratorial whisper on the far-right fringe into the official position of Trumpworld." Trump's false "Spygate" conspiracy theory is part of this counter-narrative. In January 2018, Trump tweeted his conspiracy theory about the dossier and Clinton: "Disproven and paid for by Democrats 'Dossier used to spy on Trump Campaign. Did FBI use Intel tool to influence the Election?' @foxandfriends Did Dems or Clinton also pay Russians? Where are hidden and smashed DNC servers? Where are Crooked Hillary Emails? What a mess!" In August 2018, Trump approvingly tweeted a version of the conspiracy theory formulated by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch: "You had Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party try to hide the fact that they gave money to GPS Fusion to create a Dossier which was used by their allies in the Obama Administration to convince a Court misleadingly, by all accounts, to spy on the Trump Team." Sarah Huckabee Sanders has worded it this way: "There is clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election." Tracy has noted that Sanders' "real collusion scandal" isn't "particularly elegant: if the Democrats were working with the Russians, via Steele, to tarnish Trump, they probably should have leaked the dossier before the election", but that it still, even after the election, serves the purpose of "discrediting special counsel Robert Mueller". Another conspiracy theory related to the dossier is the "Trump-Comey briefing conspiracy theory", alluding to the January 6, 2017, briefing Comey and Clapper gave to Trump about the dossier. Its development has been traced by Matt Ford in his New Republic article "Anatomy of a Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory". It alleges that "the FBI colluded with CNN to damage the president". It started with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Then conservative media and personalities picked it up and ran with it, in this order: The Federalist, Ari Fleischer, Donald Trump Jr., The Washington Times, and Townhall. There are two main investigations into Trump-Russia matters: one deals with the proven Russian interference in the election to aid Trump, and the other is Mueller's Special Counsel investigation into the alleged conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians. Trump's response has been to undermine and interfere with these investigations by siding with Putin and Russian intelligence agencies and attacking American intelligence agencies, Mueller, and the FBI, actions which, after the Helsinki Summit, were termed "treasonous" by former CIA Director John O. Brennan. Greg Miller, journalist and National Security Correspondent for The Washington Post, sees an "irony" in how Trump views Putin and Mueller: "President Trump appears to view the ex-KGB chief as an ally and the ex-director of the FBI as an adversary." Trump is aided in his undermining efforts by GOP Congress members like Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Paul Ryan, and Matt Gaetz. Tracy has mentioned others who help spread this "far-right fringe" "counter-narrative" to undermine the dossier and other investigations: Fox News, The Federalist, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, and Sebastian Gorka. Sean Hannity and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, a strong Trump defender and "anti-Mueller ally", also push anti-dossier conspiracy theories. While referring to the FISA wiretap application, Trump tweeted that the dossier was "a Clinton Campaign document". His claim was fact checked by the AP, with CBS News reporting: "It's also not correct to call the Steele dossier a 'Clinton Campaign document'.... But Clinton's closest aides said they didn't learn about the research until after the election, which is probable considering they never raised the allegations publicly." Mayer has stated that "the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until [the dossier] was in the press." Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has stated: "To impeach Steele's dossier is to impeach Mueller's investigation... It's to recast the focus back on Hillary", with the Republicans' aim to "create a false narrative saying this is all a political witch hunt". Jane Mayer tied his view directly to the Nunes memo, a report "purporting to show that the real conspiracy revolved around Hillary Clinton", falsely alleging that Clinton "colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." The claim was debunked by Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, who explained that Clinton wasn't involved in Steele's work, nor did she work with Russian sources. He gave Nunes "four Pinocchios". The conservative Weekly Standard wrote that Nunes' conspiracy "theory is utterly bunk" and that "Devin Nunes [has] spun a crazy conspiracy narrative". The Nunes memo has undermined Nunes' own conspiracy theory, as well as allied conspiracy theories that are also based on false assertions about the roles of the dossier and the surveillance of Carter Page, an important figure in the dossier. The Nunes memo showed that, even without them, the Trump campaign would still be under investigation for possible conspiracy with Russia. Contrary to the Nunes memo's conspiratorial assertion that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo actually confirmed the investigation began because of a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, thus undermining "the right's Trump-Russia conspiracy theory". Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the DNI has stated that "the dossier 'played absolutely no role' in the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. 'That assessment... was based entirely on other sources and analysis'." The Democrats have asserted that the Nunes memo "shows the Russia investigation would be underway with or without the surveillance of Page, and—more critically—even if the government had never seen the dossier of information about Trump that was compiled by Christopher Steele." References

That should help you understand how this works. Don't call the investigation a "conspiracy". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)