Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation

Possible omissions?

I saw this opinion piece and thought it might be useful to this article.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

John Solomon is not a reliable source soibangla (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Are his statements/points false?Terrorist96 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

please see his BLP and "[The Hill's] contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources". Solomon's byline calls him an "opinion contributor." soibangla (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not what I asked. He provides links for his statements too. I'm not saying his piece specifically should be added to the article, merely the points.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to include the points but not the piece, can you provide reliable sources to support the points? If so, go! soibangla (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Are the ones provided by him in the linked piece ok?Terrorist96 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Terrorist96 (Don’t give any weight to the BLP or Sources links above - those are not reliable or applicable to the question.) Opinion pieces generally are not used though it can be source for links that are usable, Solomon as reporter has non-opinion articles that would be usable, and where other sources make similar points or are mentioning his points (just google John Solomon CNN Russia) you should look to cite the BESTSOURCES most prominent/authoritative choices. But I am not really seeing an application here - that CNN and NYT distort by omission and protect Democrats is not directly on the article topic of the Special Council investigation. It’s also not exactly unknown that media outlets in general make profits by catering to their markets and sensationalizing or manufacturing news. But WP policy is only to do NPOV - show all of the significant views in proportion to their prominence - and that only moderates things a bit by favoring things said by all, it does not direct us to reflect on the confidence level or biased portrayal as an article content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation for sentence in the Reactions section?

Is there any citations for this sentence in the Reactions section of this article?

"Throughout 2017 and 2018, Trump and his allies in Congress and the media promulgated a series of false narratives to assert that the FBI, Justice Department and Mueller investigation have been engaged in an elaborate, corrupt conspiracy against Trump."

Thanks. –eggofreason^talk 01:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on centralizing talk pages for the interference and investigation timeline that is split across 4 pages, per WP:TALKCENT

Hello. I created a new section at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to discuss centralizing the talk pages of the 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 timeline articles into one page. I'd appreciate it if other interested editors added their comments to help us reach a broad consensus. To be clear, this would not directly affect this talk page in any way. Thanks. - Paul^T+/_C 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparison to other Special Counsel (or similar) investigations

A number of WP:RS have published pieces comparing the Mueller investigation to other, similar investigations, e.g. re: Whitewater, Iran-Contra, and Watergate. These typically focus on metrics like the length of the investigation, the number of people prosecuted, and the success rate of those prosecutions. Examples: [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

I propose that either this article should compare the Mueller investigation to others, according to such metrics, as such comparisons are clearly noteworthy, or else a "Comparison of special prosecutor investigations" article should be created and linked to from this page. Zazpot (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC); 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw that report by Melber last night and thought it was quite informative. However I'm opposed to adding much or anything about this because it's all recentism. As soon as we include it, it's out of date. I'm inclined to wait until the investigation is over before adding anything like this. R2 (bleep) 20:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

R2, that time has now come. Zazpot (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Zazpot, we don't even know what's in the report yet. Patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Executive privilege

I think the possible future assertion of executive privilege should be excluded from the article. It's both recentism (WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM) and speculation. The report is probably coming out soon and we will all know soon enough whether the White House will or will not assert executive privilege. Also, legal opinions about whether an assertion of executive privilege would be valid or not are also speculation and, even if included, must represent the full range of viewpoints rather than cherry-picking a single one. In addition, the language added by Soibangla read as if it it was trying to push Gaziano's viewpoint. R2 (bleep) 18:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I rephrased the first sentence so it's closer to what CNN reported: not "may seek," but "expect to." I also added a second source that concurs with Gaziano, others are free to add more. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't address any of the problems I identified. We're still referring to notnews statements (not even a formal announcement) about future events that might or might not happen, and we're still pushing Gaziano's viewpoint in exclusion of all others. R2 (bleep) 18:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the changes address most if not all of the concerns you expressed. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't take offense to this Soibangla, but regardless of your intentions, in my view the current wording might be perceived as an attempt to influence future events, rather than to summarize past events. R2 (bleep) 18:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

As the first sentence of the section states, full release is not assured. There are at least two ways the report can be redacted, by Barr or the White House. This paragraph supplements the previous paragraph to explain ways this redaction can be done, and what experts have said about it. soibangla (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, portions of the preceding paragraph should probably also be removed per WP:CBALL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Pragmatically speaking, all of this will be moot soon. R2 (bleep) 21:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the preceding paragraph is CBALL. It explains Barr's options and Congress's options in response, and this has been extensively discussed by reliable sources. The paragraph doesn't assert any possible outcomes. All of this may be moot soon, but until then readers want to know where things stand right now, and the final outcome can be woven into what's there now. soibangla (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have trimmed the commentary - two separate quotes pointing out that executive privilege cannot be used to shield wrongdoing - to a single sentence without quotations. If the White House does claim executive privilege, that can be discussed at the time, but for now it is speculative. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

*sigh* soibangla (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mention of potential executive privilege seems not DUE and SPECULATION. I’m also inclined against it as a bit of sensationalism. Whatever the facts will be are going to show up in a couple months. Suggest just wait for them, so then can report actual events and just follow the cites in DUE weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Page boldly moved by Aviartm - procedural closing. If the page move is reverted, this RM should be reopened. -- DannyS712 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) → Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) – Investigation is complete. Bohbye (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I'm pretty sure this could be WP:BOLDLY moved for all of the obvious reasons.- MrX 🖋 21:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Might as well. Investigation concluded. Update title. Aviartm (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Suggest that Article requires a NPV re-write (especially the first few sentences)

When you compare this biased article to others regarding other, similar special investigations, it becomes clear that the Mueller investigation is being written about from a slanted, leftist, partisan point of view.

As First Sentence examples: 1. The special investigation opposed by Democrats into Clinton and Whitewater is referred to by Wikipedia as "an American political controversy of the 1990s." in the first sentence. 2. You can't even find an article on Wikipedia titled "Fast and Furious" regarding the Obama Administration criticism. Rather that topic is covered by the more obscure article titled, "ATF gunwalking scandal" where it is described in the first sentence as, "a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations" blah, blah, blah... 3. Unlike the first two examples, the Iran Contra investigation was supported by Democrats. Like the Mueller Probe, Wikipedia refers to is as "a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration." linking the word "scandal" directly to President Reagan's Administration.

I rarely contribute to Wikipedia any longer because of the general extreme left-wing bias of its editors. It's just not worth my "breath".

But...let me provide for you the rewrite for the "Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)" if it were consistent with articles 1 or 2 above, hereto referred to as responses R1 and R2.

R1. - Like Whitewater - The Special Counsel Controversy is an American political controversy from 2017 to present. It began with a reaction by Democratic politicians and supporters to the loss of the White House (and political power) through the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race. A leaked political dossier was prepared by a foreign former intelligence officer, Christopher Steele for Fusion GPS and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Information in the dossier was later discredited by testimony provided by Steele in a subsequent civil case in Great Britain. or R2. - Like Fast and Furious - We would call "Special Counsel Investigation" by a more technical name such as the "May 2017 Appointment of Special Counsel". Then the first sentence would be, "The May 2017 Appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Assistant Attorney General, David Rosenstein followed calls by Democratic political opposition on Capitol Hill regarding Russian interference and potential collusion with Russia in the 2016 US Presidential race.

Because I find that most people on the left these days, unlike myself, refuse to see truth even when they're faced smack-dab directly with it, I doubt many editors will agree that a rewrite is required. This is just more evidence of why Wikipedia is going straight down the credibility drain. Wcmcdade (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"R1" is quite biased and inaccurate. The investigation didn't start because Hillary lost. The investigation started because of Russian interference. Also, nothing of the dossier has been discredited. Not all of it has been corroborated, but none of it has been proven false. "R2" is better than R1. I don't see how it's better than what we have already though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You say that the investigation didnt begin because Hillary lost and yet you provide no support for that claim. Of course the Special Counsel investigation began because Hillary lost. Do you think Mueller would have been appointed as Special Counsel if Hillary won? Russian interference has been going on in our elections since at least the beginning of the cold war after WW2. It is investigated all the time, but not by a SPECIAL COUNSEL. You state "nothing of the dossier has been discredited". And yet you provide "0" evidence for any of the allegations regarding Trump in the dossier. I might as well say that Hillary Clinton farts fairy dust and then turn around and state that nothing in my allegation about Hillary Clinton has been proven wrong. It's straw man argument hanging from threads of pure ridiculousness. Lastly you don't see how R2 is better than what we have because you believe, even though the Special Counsel has not proved a single shred of collusion, that somehow Donald Trump must be tied to Russia, Russia, Russia. Enough already. I imagine that you support further Congressional Investigation in to Donald Trump and Russia like most Democrats in Congress. Because the Special Counsel just wasn't enough of a hoax to begin with. Just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is based on the false premises that a) this is a biased article, and b) that there have been "similar special investigations" (there haven't). The only thing that matters is if the article reflects what reliable sources have written about the subject. According to 427 sources and 511 editors, it does. No one has to prove that your crackpot theory is false. Perhaps you would be happier contributing to Conservapedia where I'm sure you won't encounter the "left-wing bias of its editors". - MrX 🖋 00:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, you provided nothing to support that this investigation started because Hillary lost. The sources that verify this started because of Russian interference are in the article. I think a Hillary White House absolutely would've investigated Russian interference, but that's besides the point. We don't know what the special counsel has proven, aside from the Manafort/Gates/Flynn convictions, yet. If you're calling this investigation a hoax (this investigation that has produced convictions, unlike, say, the Benghazi investigation or the emails), I can't imagine there's any point to continuing this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This article, and related articles, contains exhaustive, well-sourced details. Your comments tell me, among other things, that you haven't read it. Unlike F&F, this investigation and Iran-Contra involve people close to the president, and maybe the president himself. Several high-ranking Reagan officials, including his defense secretary and national security advisor, were convicted of felonies and were bound for prison before they were all pardoned. Also, F&F was v2.0 of Operation Wide Receiver, which began in 2006, which is why there is the "ATF gunwalking" article that serves as an umbrella for the whole affair. Ken Starr found no Whitewater scandal, but instead of closing his investigation, he used his unrestricted authority to investigate a blue dress. No one knows that "the Special Counsel has not proved a single shred of collusion," because no one yet knows what's in his report; don't conflate silence with an admission of no evidence, which is a common mantra of conservative bloviators. Finally, "It began with a reaction by Democratic politicians and supporters to the loss of the White House (and political power) through the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race" is flatly, patently, categorically and unequivocally false. Read more Wikipedia, watch less Hannity. soibangla (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to make it clear WHY it is false to say that the investigation was started because Hillary lost: the timing shows very clearly that was not the case. An FBI investigation into Russia's interference, and possible collusion between Trump associates with Russia, was begun months before the election, based on evidence and intelligence. That investigation was handed over to Mueller when he was appointed, but it had been going on for almost a year at that point. And if Mueller had not been appointed, it would still have gone on, under the FBI. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: - I don't think what you just commented above is in this article. I think that's a big problem. It should be part of the Origin and powers, don't you think? starship.paint ~ KO 03:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• I have added info about the existing FBI investigation. starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Wcmcdade agree LEAD could be more neutrally written, and the line offered looks better to that point. Will offer the thought that in general some bias may be excused as being from DUE — until there are better BESTSOURCES, conveying what media reports are carries with it whatever the nature of media is. (I occasionally tell some authors they are watching MSNBC too much and will get better perspective if they also look at BBC and Fox.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Did the Whitewater investigation, to which User:Wcmcdade believes this investigation should be equated, arise from FBI counterintelligence concerns that a hostile foreign power might be attempting to infiltrate the campaign of a man who could become president? soibangla (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla don’t throw a Red herring - the topic is NPOV for the lead and particularly a suggested first line of this article. Of the two mentioned above based on unrelated investigations in R items above, I prefer the offered line starting “The May 2017 Appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Assistant Attorney General Rob Rosenstein”. I’ll be happy to answer indented here if you want clarification or expansion on that input or my side remarks on perspective improvement via BBC. If you want to ask something separate, the correct way is unindent and ping if you are directing it to someone specific. If instead you want to make your own input, the proper way it to not indent here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

By "the line offered looks better to that point," were you referring to the line "Like Whitewater - The Special Counsel Controversy is an American political controversy from 2017 to present. It began with a reaction by Democratic politicians and supporters to the loss of the White House (and political power) through the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race"? Again, you are often difficult to understand. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla “agree LEAD could be more neutrally written, and the line offered looks better to that point” by point I mean “the topic is NPOV for the lead”; and by “line” I mean “Of the two mentioned, I prefer the offered line starting “The May 2017 Appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, that's not the name of the investigation.[8] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu The line States the date of appointment order 3915-2017. There is not an official title to the report known as yet. It’s rather ironic that the summary by Barr was apparently released by someone in Congress within moments of delivery, and Amazon is already taking preorders for the full confidential report by some title — but no such book yet exists and the actual cover title provided by Mueller is unknown but seems unlikely he named it “Mueller Report”. WP:SPECULATION on title aside, the line would be beginning the article with an objective, neutral, and important event of Muellers appointment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, "Mueller Report" would fit WP:COMMONNAME well, much like the Starr Report. I believe the subtitle there is the official title of the report, but do agree we need to wait for full confirmation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu Suggest keep the existing title. You can propose a move to new title, but that seems unlikely to me. This article topic is the Special Counsel investigation. The report itself would potentially get another article. For the moment, if it is a single article, the COMMONNAME would be this one... the investigation has been in news for years, so cumulative Google count of that title exceeds the number of mentions of a report that just got here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wcmcdade is missing a basic understanding of our Wikipedia works. All articles are supposed to reflect the body of published, reliable sources about their subjects, not the beliefs or perceptions of any particular editor. If this isn't going a be a discussion about how reliable sources treat this subject, then it's just editors sharing their personal opinions, and that's not an appropriate use of the talk page. R2 (bleep) 23:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Ahrtoodeetoo no personal attacks please. Wcmcdade is calling for NPOV, especially the first lines, and citing some other articles as precedent for approach... Mention of RS only applies if you are pursuing either wording more neutrally, or else including the significant right wing POVs in due WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Wcmcdade, Muboshgu, MrX, Soibangla, MelanieN, Ahrtoodeetoo, and Markbassett: - I have just realized - the lede doesn't write about the firing of James Comey despite it being reflected adequately in the body of the article. Would you agree that that deserves some mention, as essentially the trigger for the need for a special counsel? starship.paint ~ KO 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, by all means, if there's something that's actually missing from the lead, which doesn't include WITCH HUNT / "But her emails" -esque Hannityisms, let's improve the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, yes the Comey firing should be covered in the lead. It's definitely a significant point.- MrX 🖋 10:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint No, definitely not part of the investigation itself, not a major subsection, and no significant POV holds that influenced Mueller. (It would be an inferred strike against the investigation objectivity if the firing of Comey per se is a prominent motive or influence to appointing his friend Mueller.) This is not now prominent and seems seldom linked in items about the investigation. Leave the lead alone. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett - of course, something that happened before the start of the special counsel investigation isn't part of the investigation, but that doesn't mean it's not notable background information for the lede. Obstruction of justice was one of the key thrusts of the investigation, even Barr acknowledged this. Firing Comey was clearly a topic for whether the president did or did not commit obstruction of justice. In addition, the FBI started the obstruction of justice investigation days after Comey's firing. WaPo As for Comey's firing seemingly being seldom linked in items about the investigation, I'd like to challenge that depiction of reality you proposed with the following news articles from this week alone. NPR 1 Guardian 2 CBS News 3 NBC News 4 Telegraph 5 The Hill 6 ABC News 7 Reuters 8 Associated Press 9 Agence France Presse 10 starship.paint ~ KO 04:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Well, it’s the fourth and least of the reasons but I’ll challenge you back to look beyond just this week to the whole picture. GOOGLE count is not giving relative WEIGHT to a linkage, out of zillions of articles on the investigation .... and when the linkage has been mentioned it can be as a negative to *Mueller* alluding that the staffing selection was biased (cut to anti-Trump tweets), or that Mueller had a conflict of interest from his friend Comey being fired or even conspiracy between them, etcetera etcetera many weeks not just this week. And yes, non-right media mentioned these allegations being made or tweeted. So your providing a cite about what Barr does now, *after* the investigation that this article is on, may be suitable for a closing note (*after* it actually becomes something and accumulates some coverage) or as part of a future article — but is not LEAD material here. Maybe time to start the next article The Mueller Report. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There has never been any evidence that Comey and Mueller were anything more than professional acquaintances. Barr and Mueller have been characterized as "good friends." soibangla (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 Comey firing was clearly a major trigger to this investigation. Should be in lede Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @MrX, Muboshgu, Legacypac, and Markbassett: since all of you replied to me on whether to add firing of Comey to the lede, I have just done so here: [9] starship.paint ~ KO 08:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" (meaning the obstruction of justice)[10]. That I think should be included to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is in the lead now - making it clear that this referred to the obstruction of justice charges. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

But looking at the essence of this, the report/summary seems to contradict itself, as noted in RS. According to the report, there was no collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and the "Russians". On the other hand, according to very same investigation, "so many people in Trump's orbit -- and his campaign -- not only had considerable interactions with Russians but also, in several cases, lied about it. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman and Rick Gates, Trump's deputy campaign chair, all admitted to lying to the special counsel's office about the depth and breadth of their interactions with the Russians."[11]. I guess, this is all already reflected on the page... How come? That looks like a contradiction. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure we will be expanding what the report says as more information comes out. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that we have more information it is clear that the opening paragraph is woefully insufficient and biased with regard to available information. So that you can see the opening in the context of this discussion, I include it here:

CURRENT

"The Special Counsel investigation of 2017 to 2019 (also referred to as the Mueller probe, the Mueller investigation, or the Russia investigation) was a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. According to its authorizing document which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included the allegation that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". The scope of the investigation also included potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others. It was conducted by the Department of Justice Special Counsel's Office, headed by Robert Mueller, a Republican and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."

As I stated earlier, the first sentences are not in keeping with other Special Investigations of Presidential Administration actions.

I propose that in lieu of asking for a complete re-write of the article at this time, that we at least change the first paragraph to the following:

SUGGESTED

The May 2017 Appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Assistant Attorney General, David Rosenstein (also referred to as the Mueller probe, the Mueller investigation, or the Russia investigation) followed calls by Democratic political opposition on Capitol Hill regarding Russian interference and potential collusion with Russia in the 2016 US Presidential race. On the "primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation", the investigation "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election".

The second part of the Special Counsel's report "addresses a number of actions by the President" that the Special Counsel investigated "as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns". The Special Counsel "ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement" regarding the President's actions. After "applying the principles of federal prosecution", Attorney General William Barr made the determination not to pursue prosecution of obstruction-of-justice following consultation with Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.

Agree or Disagree? Wcmcdade (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Wcmcdade (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, uh no. Your rewrite is quite partisan. The investigation was not started because of "calls by Democratic political opposition on Capitol Hill". As has been mentioned in this talk page section, the FBI began its own investigation during the 2016 election, which grew into the Special Counsel investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that William Barr's summary to Congress is "quite partisan" then you are correct in your own judgement that my rewrite is partisan. As most people would find the source document from the DOJ as non-partisan and as those paragraphs that I wrote borrow heavily from the source document, my proposal is decidedly, far from being partisan. Second, I believe that you are confusing this article, which is about the Special Counsel, and all manner of other investigations that were ongoing at the FBI as far back as 2014. The Special Counsel was appointed by Rosenstein as a response to political pressure. Try reading this article as but one of many examples that document that pressure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.f07c802f029a There was an investigation in to taxi cab medallions started in the early 20xx, there was an investigation in to Hillary Clinton e-mails that preceded the Special Counsel appointment. But neither those investigations, nor the investigations that appear to be initiated due to the pee-pee dossier are "why" we got a special counsel. The Special Counsel was..."special" and as such was only the second time since 1999 when the US Government invoked the use of that law. So yes...The Special Counsel was appointed due to political pressure and that pressure came mainly from Democrats. I'm certain that you would agree that had Hillary Clinton won the election, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler would not have been advocating for a Special Counsel. They would be fine with regular, career prosecutors taking up all these matters. Can you provide any proof otherwise? Wcmcdade (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Mueller was appointed after growing concerns within the FBI over months culminated in Comey's firing. Have you considered the possible reasons why Republicans were less outspoken about calling for a special counsel? Because Trump could snap them in two with a single tweet, perhaps? They are terrified of crossing him. And "Assistant Attorney General, David Rosenstein" speaks volumes about your knowledge of this matter. soibangla (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, no, what you wrote is partisan and a nonstarter. The investigation was already going before November 2016. I have no doubt that an investigation of Russian interference would have continued regardless of who won. But that's irrelevant speculation anyway. What we know is that the SC investigation is due to the Russian interference, not "calls by Democratic political opposition on Capitol Hill". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide some basis for your insistence that the Special Counsel appointment was “due to the Russian interference”? That simply is not true and I can find no factual basis for it other than your assertion. I’m not saying that there wasn’t Russian interference. I’m stating that that interference is NOT what caused the appointment of a Soevial Counsel. They are related, but one did not cause the other.

Also Mueller was not appointed, as has been suggested “after growing concerns within the FBI”. The FBI has little to do with Rosenstein’s decision. Are you suggesting that Rosnestein was being pressured by the FBI to appoint a Soecial Counsel? Where is the evidence for that? Wcmcdade (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said...In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Wcmcdade: - Rosenstein [12] "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows: Robert S. Mueller III is appointed". Also, Rosenstein: [13] " I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority ... Considering the unique circumstances of this matter, however, I determined that a Special Counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome." starship.paint ~ KO 01:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: SNOW not moved. I'm IAR closing this because this article is extremely high traffic today and readers don't need to see a RM at the top. Adjustments to redirects can be discussed below. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) → Special Counsel investigation – Already redirects here. Unreal7 (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It initially redirected to Special prosecutor, and then was changed to redirect here. I think it should go back to Special prosecutor. This is not the only special counsel investigation ever undertaken. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved back the redirect --Bohbye (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Special prosecutor is a full blown concept article. That title is taken Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, to be clear, I meant that "Special Counsel investigation" should redirect to "Special prosecutor". The diff I presented should be undone, IMHO. This article should remain named as it is, unless there's another WP:COMMONNAME alternative like "Mueller investigation" we can agree on. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Too broad of a title. The current title will do. Aviartm (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad of a title, this is the specific investigation, quite surprised to see such a nomoination from someone who is editing 8+ years on wikipedia. --Bohbye (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose neither the first or the last such investigation. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Recenticism. The redirect should be DAB. There have been at least three such investigation in history. Snow close as soon as this becomes overwhelmingly opposed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs. Brrr, I’m cold... — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been multiple special counsel investigations. I agree w/Muboshgu that "Special Counsel investigation" should redirect to "Special prosecutor." Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would support moving this one to Meuller investigation or something else specific. This title with date range is odd, but there’s just a number of Special Counsels so it needs something to distinguish it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are other notable special counsel investigations. Something like Mueller investigation would be a better title, and there is precedent for this type of title (e.g., Rogers Commission Report). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - the proposed title is currently a redirect to Special prosecutor, as it should be. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Why was this reverted?

@Markbassett: And why was the entire subsection incorrectly attributed to me? soibangla (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)&diff=889320105&oldid=889319840

I object to the removal of that section, and I'm glad it has been restored. It was added (by me among others) as a result of talk page discussion here, at which it was pointed out that the article didn't make an important point clear: the fact that the investigation was started 3 months before the election and thus was not a "reaction to Hillary losing" as Trump and others have claimed. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I originally added the subsection. It affirms the beginning of the investigation into links between Trump associates and Russia. The quoted reason for the removal as "repetition" is flimsy given that nowhere else in the article does it mention Papadopoulos met with Downer with suspicious information, and that that is the trigger for the investigation. starship.paint ~ KO 04:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• The reason for starting the investigation is pretty important. It's good that has been restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• we need this section Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - I must challenge your rationale on the removal of information taking out bit cited to a bar conversation... OFFTOPIC anyway as about why CI investigation happened starship.paint ~ KO 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)&diff=889485592&oldid=889484835

It was cited to Washington Post, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, not a bar conversation. Downer did talk to Papa in a bar, but that wasn’t mentioned in the article anyway, and doesn’t make the information offtopic. It talks about the start of the original FBI investigation the Mueller probe took over. Thus being important background information. starship.paint ~ KO 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I also object and suggest that @Markbasset: self-revert. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla Thank you for adding the pings, I had no prior ping so was continuing in parallel edits and new section below.

• Name Oops. Doing the editing and then comment for a bit, my memory of it being S-Starship somehow became S-Soi you. Sorry about that. I did it again below and will strike it. It was Starship who BOLDLY created the section 23 March and before I REVERTED on 24 March did a set of 7 then 4 edits. I think MelanieN did a copy edit, but as far as I saw, fundamentally the substance and placement and cites and creation was one person, and I saw no TALK indicating it had begun or substantially involved other editors prior to me, so just named (wrongly) one person.
• As stated below, it was deleted for multiple reasons. Partly it caught my eye that it’s a top-level prominence insert, near LEAD placement — out of sequence and WEIGHT. Partly it caught my eye that the Meuller absorption of other investigations was already present, so that was redundant. Partly it caught my eye it’s going on about a bar conversation re OFFTOPIC backstory on the absorbed investigation other than Meuller. Partly that it’s stating as fact something the Post backed away from. (As conveyed, however poorly and briefly, by BDS334.). So, I did the REVERT and crammed some of this into the brief edit comment.
• I’m thinking this is still problematic and placement issues, but will now go fix my other naming you mistakenly. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

archives

i don't see an archives index in the junk at the top of this page, and looking at the history it seems at least one is under a different title. seems to me that the archives should be moved to the current title and an index included at the top of this page so people can find them. 74.44.162.140 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was moved to 2019 when the investigation finished, but the archive pages weren't. Should be fixed now. -- Ununseti (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin story tangle

User:Soibangla User:Starship.paint - I deleted your recent insert of “Original FBI investigations” because it’s a jumbled bunch of things with a combination of repetition, scope, and sequence issues. The absorption by Mueller of prior investigation is after his appointment and was already stated at the end of the Comey section, so I don’t see a need to have another mention in the Mueller article, appearing with a bunch of bits not about the scope of the article, and jumping back and forth in years. I also just don’t see the added going into the views on backstory of the swallowed investigations as suitable for first-section prominence, since they’re not related to backstory of the Mueller investigation.

Since the delete was reverted, I’ve been trying to clean it up just the now ... but am finding the issues still there. Plus getting cite headaches —. For example, there seems no Mueller-relevant point to mention the Nunes Report, but I had to at least take out the cite to WaPo article which starts by saying it has been updated to remove the assertion the cite is about.

Please re-examine the article content in Comey section, and fold whatever from here to those. Alternatively please state the relationship interest for Nunes etcetera and why DUE this prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As explained previously, I did not create the section. Your decision to remove the longstanding subsection wholesale without discussion was inappropriate and appears to reflect your recurring POV, which others have not accepted as consensus. It's not a "a jumbled bunch of things." And "The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok," says Nunes memo, while other RS have pinpointed it to July 31, 2016. soibangla (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla Think you’ll agree to being mistaken a couple ways. The section was added 23 March, I deleted it 24 March, so not “long-standing”. As not long-standing and was seeing no coordination on insert per BRD a simple revert suffices, not inappropriate. (Having now gone into discuss stage.) Otherwise, thanks for trying re Nunes input even though my addressing you was in error so am looking for creators move or delete or explain. (I’m still seeing Nunes memo with allegations of bias by Strozk, poor basis re Page, etcetera as a couple steps away from the topic of Meullers Investigation — and with the Post cite having an almost-retraction on the point also weakens it. There’s just no reason apparent to me why it would be a Meuller article topic how the other items were initiated or talked about after they were superseded by Meuller.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - you originally considered the bar converstation OFFTOPIC. However I have newly found a number of sources that consider it to be essentially the spark for the Mueller investigation. You can see that diff here. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer, Soibangla, BDS334, and MelanieN: - pinged because you have worked on the subsection on Original FBI investigations. Markbassett makes the claim there is overlap between the content with this subsection and others below. I believe the other overlapping content is in Topics. Markbassett thus argues that the content should be merged. What are your views on this matter? starship.paint ~ KO 03:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It is essential that the origins of the investigation are clearly described, as it's a daily, repeated, lie from Trump and his administration that the dossier was the spark for the Russia investigation, even though the investigation started before the dossier.

The dossier was indeed a small, but important, "part of" the basis for the FISA application, but it had ZERO influence on the start of the Russia investigation. It was actions by Trump people, most notably Papadopoulos, that raised the alarm with American intelligence and others before them.

This can be done in a "History" or "Background" section, and it should include the current controversy about the lies being told about it, IOW a real debunking of Trump's falsehoods about it, as is being done by many RS all the time. There is plenty of material which lays it out. Trump's constant harping on the subject has ensured that RS cover it daily and tell the truth about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Factual Issues/NPOV issues

So here's the thing. We do not know what Mueller found or did not find. We have four incomplete sentences quoted by Barr.

So we don't know what Mueller found or did not find. The article must reflect that all we have is a summary produced by an attorney general hand-picked by the president.

NPOV means that we must not take a position based on what was found or what was not found. "According to Barr," or "Barr alleges" should be placed throughout this article to reflect that fact.

Until we have seen the report, we don't know what Mueller actually concluded.

Ollie Garkey (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ollie Garkey: Just one problem, "alleges" violates WP:WEASEL, and is clearly biased against the impartiality of the Attorney General. Furthermore, with the report being made public in the coming weeks would it really make sense for Barr to lie about "no russian collusion"? The backfiring from that would be immense, especially since President Trump himself said to "make the report public". Why would Trump want that if it proved he colluded with Russia? NPOV means we must take no position on matters. We don't know the exact text of the Muller Report (and we probably won't truly see all of it until it's declassified in 2082), but we do know the four page summary by the attorney general. Furthermore, Muller recommended "no new indictments", that reads to me as him taking a position on the matter. By NPOV we can neither take a rightist, nor a leftist position. ElectroChip123 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, just because Trump says he wants to "make the report public" doesn't mean that he wants to make the report public. He could do that unilaterally, but he won't. It's much like how he said he would be happy to be interviewed by Mueller, and then had his lawyers put the kibosh on that. He says one thing publicly, and then does the exact opposite behind the scenes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Barr's "impartiality" is a farce, as proven by his statements against the investigation before he even got the job. Some sources state he was fishing for the job by letting Trump know he would be more loyal to Trump than to the investigation and rule of law. Time will tell, but his impartiality is not evident or to be expected. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite required due to inaccurate cited sources

The entire article and many of the citations have now been proven to be inaccurate as the light of day is being shed on the Special Counsel investigation.

Please see as an example, the following article listing several articles that are simply fake news:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/

Associated articles such as Nunes memo are also now rife with errors.

If there was absolutely no conspiracy between any American and Russia to influence the 2016 election then we must determine why there was an investigation to begin with?

The only known reason for an investigation by our Federal Government of the Trump Campaign is because the Clinton campaign paid a firm millions of dollars to fly people over to Russia to collect made up information (opposition research) on the other political party’s candidate.

This is becoming an increasingly apparent fact in light of there being no evidence of any other conspiracy or collusion. Wcmcdade (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, I am anxiously awaiting the "light of day" being shined on the Special Counsel investigation. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet. All we have so far is a three-and-a-half page letter supposedly about the report, written by somebody who was a vocal opponent of the investigation before he became Attorney General, which tells us very little. Mueller left the case of obstruction of justice up to Barr after a two year investigation. How did Barr come to the conclusion not to pursue that after two days? So, as you can now see, the sources that were true before last week are still true today. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, also, the Steele Dossier was started by funding from conservative opponents of Trump, and began after the FBI started investigating Carter Page's connections with Russia. I'm looking forward to you getting better acquainted with the facts before talking about what you think is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fact: The author of the dossier is Steele. Steele was hired by Fusion after the contract with Fusion and the Free Beacon (the Republicans) ended. Therefore, the dossier was not funded by Republicans. What was previously funded was oppo research. Go ahead and read Wiki’s own biased article that at least makes this clear. Get out of your NPR echo chamber. Try this opinion piece to begin to get Re-aquatinted with the truth: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-exposes-spy-chiefs-11553555713. Also Paige was not charged with any crime, so why would he be investigated to begin with if not for the dossier? This may help as well: https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ Wcmcdade (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wcmcdade, nothing about the New York Post "helps", unless you like their sports coverage or Page Six. A March Madness style bracket for who got what "wrong" about the report when we still don't know what's in the report yet? This sums up pretty well how the dossier was not the sole cause of the investigation. I misspoke about Carter Page, it was Papadopoulos that got the investigation going. Funny you decry the "NPR echo chamber". NPR is unbiased. You probably read too much Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars, or Daily Caller. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR is hardly an unbiased source. Furthermore, numerous News organizations (including CNN and MSNBC) have talked about "we got this so wrong". Even John Brennan walked back his claims saying "I was given bad information". Not judging the rest of your statement, just felt like pointing this out about "source bias". ElectroChip123 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’m surprised that you are continuing to hold on to the thousands of previous articles and misinformation that Democrats and journalists have been weaving regarding the collusion fiction. You can see by this article that what appears to be happening is that we’re uncovering the greatest misuse of government power we’ve ever seen in our country. This all started with a Secretary of State who tried to hide her communications from Congress, the FBI and journalists. Then she ran for office and could not get away from the criticism of her crimes - even if she has escaped prosecution as yet. Next the President of the United States, Barack Obama ordered a counter-intelligence operation against Hilary’s opponent, the Trump campaign for baseless reasons as there is no evidence that Trump Campaign members were colluding with Russians. That very illegal and dangerous (to our democracy) investigation involved, Clapper, Brennan, Lynch and Comey with the help of extreme partisan lackeys like Ohr, Struck and Lisa Page. Now that we have the Mueller investigation concluded and there was no basis for an investigation of Trump the reckoning is beginning. Wow! This is huge. Take a look at what Lara Logan has to say about this. https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/03/26/lara-logan-media-coverage-robert-mueller-trump-russia-probe-fake-news Wcmcdade (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC) References Wcmcdade, Lara Logan is a partisan hack. See Lara Logan#Benghazi report errors. I say this again: the Special Counsel investigation has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, or Obama. You right wingers have twisted yourself into knots creating a fictitious series of events where somehow Hillary Clinton has anything to do with this investigation. It started in the summer of 2016 with the FBI investigating Papadopoulos (not Page, that was my mistake). Nothing was done by Mueller that was "illegal or dangerous". Please, for the sake of your own brain, stop reading Fox News. They are lying to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)