{{quotation | We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order.}}
{{quotation | We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order.}}
There is no "cobbling", I am directly quoting a primary source. In fact, it's on Page 4 of the IG Report, in the first section labeled, "Executive Summary".
There is no "cobbling", I am directly quoting a primary source. In fact, it's on Page vi of the [IG Report](https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf), in the first section labeled, "Executive Summary".
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
The Theory - missing main point =
In this section it is missing the point about the predication. The investigation was started based on the intelligence community assessment of the DNC servers. I think the Theory part should state the theory is that the assessments were done by a third party that could not be independently verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.201.200 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional News Citations on IG Report Added =
I elevated the precise quote of the IG findings to the beginning of the section. I added citations from USA Today and NPR highlighting that the FBI process was so riddled with error that the FISA court itself is demanding explanations for how these serious errors will be prevented in the future. To simply offer the WaPO headline of "no political bias" without making reference to the serious flaws in the process uncovered by the investigation is a dangerously selective representation of the facts.JAQUINO (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to US Attorney General's Criminal Investigation Removed
I added a documented reference to the fact that the investigation into the origins of the Russian collusion theory with respect is now a criminal investigation.
It is clear that the fact that a criminal investigation by the DOJ is relevnnt to the topic.
On October 24, 2019 The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that Durham's inquiry had been elevated to a criminal investigation, raising concerns of politicization of the Justice Department to pursue political enemies of the President.
After looking at the cites and sources, none of them mention "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory". In other words, none of the sources call it a "conspiracy theory". DN (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for "counter-narrative"
There are a lot of ways of describing this (alternate reality, alternative facts, conspiracy theory etc). I settle don counter-narrative as it seems to me to be the most NPOV, it doesn't embody a judgment other than that it's a counter to the mainstream narrative supported by everyone other than the right wing media.
However, I have been challenged to bring sources explicitly identifying it as a counter narrative. Here are a dozen or so:
AG Barr is investigating a counter-narrative that a deep-state, international conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning in 2016. Does the story have any merit? [1]
The House Intelligence Committee has “very little visibility” into the three Justice Department investigations into the intelligence officials who launched the Russia probe, the panel’s chairman Adam Schiff said on Wednesday. It’s a situation that has Schiff concerned, given his fears that the probes are politically motivated. “It’s an effort to amplify the counter-narrative, and to ignore what the Russians did, and what they will do in the next election,” Schiff said at a National Press Club event on Wednesday.[2]
Ever since American law enforcement started investigating Russian US election interference, Trump and his supporters have run a counter-narrative: that the claims were fake news, the product of a vast network of “Deep State” operatives actively working against the Trump campaign. A key tenet of the counter-narrative is that this network was determined to frustrate Trump’s ambition for a robust unilateralism in US foreign policy (“America First”) - Professor Simon Jackman, Chief Executive Officer, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney.[3] as also reported directly in The Australian[4]
like so much about the pre-election period, the episode has been the subject of a counter-narrative marbled with conspiracy: that the Obama administration had dispatched the Australian official, Alexander Downer, to spy on the Trump campaign as part of a broader effort to help Clinton get elected. There is no evidence to support this, but the conspiracy has been advanced by some of the president’s allies in Congress, by some Fox News commentators and in frequent tweets by Papadopoulos.[5] widely syndicated e.g. [6][7]
But Trump continues to glom onto this counter-narrative about Ukraine as part of a broader effort to discredit Mueller’s Russia investigation. It’s why, for instance, Trump’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, is reportedly asking foreign leaders around the world to help him investigate various other conspiracy theories about the origins of the Mueller probe, including the notion that the Obama administration had an Australian official spy on Trump’s campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign.[8]
The counter-narrative from the conservatives about the real scandal being on the other side, never mind what you can see plain as day when it comes to Trump, that`s back, too. Except this time, it won`t just be something shopped by the conservative media and Trump supporters and swallowed whole by the regular media. This time, it will be amplified not just by the candidate and the campaign, this time it will be amplified by the White House. And this time its apparent source will be the U.S. Justice Department. - Maddow (suitable for WP:ATT only, as an opinion voice) [9]
This week in the Russia investigations: The "FISA abuse" counter-narrative might be running out of steam — and so, apparently, is President Trump's relationship with Attorney General Jeff Sessions" [10]
And why is the attorney general now traveling all over the world investigating the origins of the Russia probe? He's trying to prove a counter-narrative. Might he be able to do so? [11]
The president's personal attorneys have been working on a counter-report to rebut Mueller's findings. This counter-narrative has been in the works for months and they have continued to edit it this week. The length of the report has varied, although Mr. Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said "they are trying to make it concise."[12]
Trump, however, has adopted a bizarre counter-narrative for the F.B.I. inquest. As my colleague Gabriel Sherman reported yesterday, the president has become convinced that anti-Trump forces inside the F.B.I. actually entrapped his advisers, and may have even planted evidence of Russian collusion as a sort of insurance policy if he won the election. [13]
Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, said: “He’s attempting to create a counter-narrative based on conspiracy theories in which the FBI chiefly is cast as the villain of the deep state.[14]
Now that Republicans have a congenial attorney general, they are using the power of the Department of Justice against itself. In addition to the two ongoing probes into the origins of the Russia case — along with the Mueller report, which goes into these questions in great depth — Barr has announced yet another "investigation into the investigation," as well as some kind of cross-agency inquiry with the CIA and the director of national intelligence. It's a wonder the Department of Justice will have time to do anything else. The effect of this isn't necessarily to put FBI officials in jail, although that's not out of the question. The point is to mainstream the counter-narrative.[15]
while the Mueller investigation proceeds, and might or might not lead to any criminal indictments or the removal from office of Donald Trump, a counter-narrative has emerged. What if somebody else hacked the Democratic National Committee, not Russia, and not to benefit Mr Trump? [16]
We should not write a description that is disputed in media outlets in the title. We dont have to do that. WP:COMMONNAME applies. The description can be in the lead section or the lede paragraph.
I suggest "review into the origins of the Russia investigation" (origins could be origin) as it is a neutral title.
NBC: the title is AG Barr expands mysterious review into origin of Russia investigation
NYT: Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation
NYT: He later announced that he was reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation, and Mr. Trump said in May that he wanted Mr. Barr
thehill: reviewing the origins of the Russia probe are reportedly looking into the CIA's actions when John Brennan served as its director.
WaPo: Trump, who at times has inquired about the origins of the Russia investigation and the professor in particular
washingtonexaminer: Trump accuses Obama of election 'corruption' as DOJ reviews Russia investigation origins. by Daniel Chaitin. & Jerry Dunleavy.
WSJ: Attorney General William Barr said his review of the origins of the Russia probe is focused on intelligence-gathering before the FBI opened its
MSNBC: A review launched by AG Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid
CNN: Attorney General William Barr's review of the origins of the 2016 Russia investigation
CBS: Barr's investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, first reported by Bloomberg, is separate from the long-running Office of Inspector
There are also a lot of sources.
Google hits for "Review the origins of the Russia investigation" is 8,960 results
Google hits for "Russia investigation origins counter-narrative" is 8 results
SharabSalam, The "review" title only refers to the last third of the article. The first two thirds are about the alternative narrative, which the oranges investigation is designed to prove. Guy (help!) 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still this is odd. The article subject should be about the investigation or the inquire and the narrative, the whole article needs to be rewritten or this article is a WP:POVSPLIT.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam, The article is about the alternate narrative in the conservative media: that the FBI investigation started due to the deep state, that they lied about Democratic Party oppo research to get FISA warrants, that they spied on the Trump campaign, and that it and the Mueller investigation were part of a conspiracy to keep Trump from power and hobble him once he got it.
The Barr/Durham inquiry is a part of that counter-narrative: Trump is using the power of the administration to support it. That's what the sources say. Guy (help!) 18:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: "Oranges" comment in lead
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.
A few editors, including myself, have raised concerns about the comment about investigating the "oranges" of the investigation in the lead. I'm of the view that including the phrase as it stands in the lead is creeping into UNDUE territory. Putting it into a section and removing it from the lead is what I would vote for, but this is an RfC, so we should probably gather consensus before changing anything. I think that there are 3 possible solutions here.
1. Change the wording in the lead but don't remove the sentence.
2. Move the comment to a section in the article but remove it from the lead.
Jdcomix, just change the word, I don't care either way. Most of the text is edited from sections taken from the multiple articles into which this was creeping like kudzu, hence the split-out. Guy (help!) 14:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Guy, she still has one of the best research teams around. Their policy of reading all documentation all the way to the bottom has paid off well. They are rarely wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the biggest and most important political scandal in American history. We have never had a president so in league with our most dangerous enemy that he treats Americans as the enemy and never criticizes Putin. The implications and consequences justify intense scrutiny, and that's what she does. His successful disruption of democratic institutions, crippling of our government, destruction of many foreign alliances, destruction of our reputation abroad, creation of divisions in our society, and creation of intense distrust of good media may all take generations to recover from. The reason Putin chose to support his candidacy proved to be prescient. The sources which provided the following allegations, now found in the Trump–Russia dossier, knew what was happening. Some were literally in Putin's office. Their prophetic words have been proven correct. Steele had excellent sources which had proven their worth for many years. Putin is a strategic genius:
That Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests.[1][2] (Dossier, pp. 1–2)
That Trump was a "divisive" and "anti-Establishment" candidate, as well as "a pragmatist with whom they could do business". That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected.[3][4] (Dossier, p. 29)
That a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country".[3][4] (Dossier, pp. 28–29)
That the Russian government's support for Trump was originally conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then by the Federal Security Service (FSB), and was eventually directly handled by the Russian presidency because of its "growing significance over time".[3][5] (Dossier, p. 29)
All of this planning to support Trump started in 2013, and Russians publicly expressed their support for his future candidacy back then. Since the election, Russians have frequently expressed their pride about them choosing the next American president and them putting him in power. Rachel is fully justified in her obsession over this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lede needs to call it a false counter-narrative, firstly because that's implicit in counter-narrative and secondly because it lacks nuance - the counter narrative is woven from a mix of truth and fiction. It's not a hill I want to die on but it does seem to be one of those cases where excessively emphatic writing might impact the neutrality of the article in the eyes of a fair-minded observer. Guy (help!) 09:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, bothsidesism. Because being fair-minded is letting both sides present a narrative, and just because one side has a few facts built into it, it has to be presented as potentially valid, merely a "A narrative that goes against another narrative" rather than utter fabrication! Unclear how a counter-narrative is implicitly false when it just means it goes against the prevailing story (this uses it as truth going against a false extremist narrative). These are woven so complicated – so contrived! – that it must be clear. Just because it's true Steele wrote a dossier doesn't make the narrative anything but false, which is why I opposed the name change to begin with. Reywas92Talk18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, I'm intrigued by your mention of the Steele dossier. What are you saying? Are you implying that it's "false", rather than mostly true, with many still unproven allegations, and none proven false? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that Trump, et al.'s claims that the Steele Dossier is fake, was produced illegally, or is broadly not credible is false. Steele's claims have been found true or are not publicly corroborated. Trump's claims of his campaign being spied on by Obama is false. Trump's claims that Muller's team are merely partisan Democrats is false. Can you clarify which part of the article's history you're referring to? This is what you said in the AFD and I trust that the rest of the article says so, but the lead (that many people will only read) should be explicit in this. Anyway, I don't want to fight over this either, thanks for your work expanding this since then. Reywas92Talk23:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Russia investigation origins counter-narrative → Review into the origins of the Russia investigation – The current title is only used in Wikipedia, so it is not a subject that the media has talked about and we can't collect sources and create a subject, therefore, it should be moved to another title that is commonly recognized per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:POVNAME we should represent both sides point of views in the title, RS sources say that the description "conspiracy theory" is claimed by the critics (the Guardian, "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the justice department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories")(Reuters, "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials have accused Barr, the top U.S. law enforcement official, of using the power of the Justice Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories")
The title I am proposing is more commonly used in the media as I proved in the above discussion.SharabSalam (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Both siderism is not appropriate. If we change the title at all, it could be changed back to Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory because RS cover this as a conspiracy theory and cover-up. That view is obviously going to be held by the fact-based group (in this case the Democrats), and our content must be fact-based. The view pushed by those involved in the cover-up and by unreliable sources only gets its tiny bit of due weight here. Their deserved due weight is much less weight than the mainstream view found in RS, IOW we mention and document the fringe conspiracy theory view, but the view that debunks it gets much greater weight. That's how "due weight" works here. File:Wikipedia scale of justice3.jpgA false balance
All opinions are not equal, so the scales, and our content, should be allowed to tip so they represent that fact.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Update per refs ?
Attorney General William Barr's handpicked prosecutor John Durham told the DoJ IG Michael Horowitz that he found no evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies had planted spies in the Trump campaign, including no evidence to support the allegation Joseph Mifsud was a spy planted by the FBI or U.S. intelligence agencies. Horowitz's report concluded that the FBI had adequate cause to launch its Russia investigation.
It's really important to allow the glaring bias of articles like this to remain glaring. When you correct and update the information, you help create the impression that Wikipedia is in any way fair to conservatives. 76.168.10.186 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should make a quick review of the difference between 'Theory' and 'hypothesis'. Overall the 'The theory' section contains a number of public statements made by different people that containing allegations that are unsubstantiated or even attempted to provided evidence for. Later summarized by one analyst who called it a 'theory', though media narrative (per title) would fit better. --5.102.238.15 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muddled wording to fix
Circulair tried to fix some muddled wording (which got reverted), and wrote this edit summary: "this is factually incorrect...according to multiple RS there was a clean break between the GOP funded investigation (which was standard opposition research) and the DNC/Clinton funded investigation which produced the dossier. only the second investigation produced the dossier so there needs to be a distinction made."
We go into much more detail there, as that's the mother article. Here the dispute is over this wording ("took over a Republican investigation of Trump after Republican sources stopped their funding"), which is not an accusation in the conspiracy theory, and thus is a bit off-topic (it is an explanation of the history). That's why I think Circulair's concerns are legitimate. The reversion did not address their concerns.
Part of the problem is that we mash a bunch of false and/or misleading accusations in the theory together, with occasional debunking thrown into the mix. We should separate each part out and debunk it, but that's a bigger job I'm not going to tackle right now.
This can be streamlined, so let's start by looking at the two versions and go from there:
Here is the original version:
"the accusation that it was fraudulent, was paid for by the Democratic Party (the DNC and Clinton campaign took over a Republican investigation of Trump after Republican sources stopped their funding),"
Here is Circulair's version, which was reverted:
"the accusation that it was fraudulent, was paid for by the Democratic Party (however both the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the opposition research which produced the dossier),"
I have stricken out the part that is not part of the theory's accusations. Both versions contained too much. Keeping it short and sweet (for now) solves the problem.
This section states: "Core elements of the theory include:" To improve the content, we should then separate out each individual accusation and explain/debunk it. As it is, we do it incompletely, squish it all together, and that's not good.
By listing false or misleading accusations without debunking or explaining each element, we violate a core principle here, and that is we are not supposed to give undue weight to falsehoods by letting them stand alone. They should always be accompanied with what mainstream RS say about them.
The conspiracy theory aims to prove that the dossier was used as an excuse for the FBI to start their Russia investigation. It also aims to discredit Steele and thus discredit the whole investigation.[13] The dossier could not have had any role in the opening of the Russia investigation on July 31, 2016, as top FBI officials received the dossier the following September.[14] Instead, it was the activities of George Papadopoulos which started the investigation.[15] The investigation by Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz into Russian interference and alleged FISA abuses found that "none of the evidence used to open the [original Crossfire Hurricane FBI] investigation" came from the C.I.A. or Trump–Russia dossier.[16]
The founders of Fusion GPS did not expect their connections to Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Steele, Hillary Clinton, and the FBI to "become public and subsequently provide the framework for a deep-state conspiracy theory".[17]
Several conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal involve the dossier. According to The Wall Street Journal, President Trump's actions in the Trump–Ukraine scandal stemmed from his belief that Ukraine was responsible for the Steele Dossier.[18][19] Trump has insinuated that the dossier had its origins in Ukraine, that the Clintons were involved, that Hillary Clinton's email server is currently secreted in Ukraine,[20] and that Clinton's deleted emails are in Ukraine.[7]
The dossier is central to Republican assertions that Trump is the victim of an intelligence community conspiracy to take him down. Democrats see this focus on the dossier as conspiratorial.[21] Congressman Devin Nunes, a staunch Trump defender, asserted as fact that the dossier originated in Ukraine during his questioning of EU ambassador Gordon Sondland during the Trump impeachment inquiry hearings in September 2019.[22]
Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan have pushed a conspiracy theory that the dossier was based on Russian disinformation.[6]
Given that the article refers to allegations being investigated by the department of justice (no less) as a "false counter-narrative" (!) it can have very little credibility to a neutral reader and will simply detract from wikipedia's authority as a politically unbiased source. The article is amateurish in several other respects. I would recommend deleting it in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D500:1700:40D2:3D2E:DA8:189F (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree that nothing about the Durham investigation should be listed under "false" or "counter-narrative" or "conspiracy theory". It is an official DOJ investigation and has no less legitimacy than other investigations, such as Mueller's. We wouldn't identify the Watergate investigation as a "counter-narrative" (or "narrative"). In that vein, to present obviously disparate elements as part of a cohesive "counter-narrative" is very odd—we certainly wouldn't title the Mueller and Horowitz investigations as "Russia investigation origins narrative". Agree that this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Tambourine60 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those words about Durham's investigation are cited to their sources and are a blip on the page. The rest is descriptive. The main theme is also based on RS. The trigger for the Russia investigation is established, but there are several false counter-narratives floating around. If they are ever proven true and reported by RS, we will alter the article accordingly. Until then, we call them "false" because RS say so.
BTW who is this "neutral reader" mentioned above? I have never met such a human being, either reader or editor. We really don't care. We just document what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted blatantly false statements about steele dossier / DNC
Article claimed that Steele Dossier was not central to the investigation, and that it wasn't funded by the DNC. Both claims are false. The first claim is proven false by the IG Horowitz testimony in whic he said "The Steele Reporting Played A Central and Essential Role” In FISA Warrants. The second claim has been acknowledged as true by Clinton/DNC and a cursory google supports it
Update: on further investigation, the majority of the article is out of date. It's filled with linked from as early as 2018 and as late as October last year. We've learned that many of these claims are actually true since then, so for objectivity feel it's necessary to place the `
This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.
` tag until such time as article is caught up to the current month.
RS are clear that the Steele Dossier did not set off the Russian interference investigation Your own original research does not justify your removals of RS content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my original research, to quote the Inspector General Report linked below:
We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order.
So it's not original research. Previous source was out of date, which explains the assertion being opposite from IG above. -- Urthogie (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're cobbling together random statements from a primary source that you personally feel contradict actual RS reporting. On Wikipedia, we use reliable sources, not random editors' own analyses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order.
There is no "cobbling", I am directly quoting a primary source. In fact, it's on Page vi of the [IG Report](https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf), in the first section labeled, "Executive Summary".
Done -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
