Talk:Steele dossier

RFC on stating no public evidence of collusion

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.

---

Should the article state that "To date, news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign." per [2] Casprings (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Collusion claims To date, news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. The New York Times has said there is no known evidence of clandestine discussions about disseminating the hacked emails, but noted that Trump had publicly urged Russia to hack Clinton's emails, which his son claimed was a joke. The Times also reported that despite extensive evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives, there is no known evidence of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin. Newsweek has said that it is proven that Trump maintained ties to wealthy businessmen in Azerbaijan, but that it was unproven that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump other than attempting to contact him during the 2016 campaign; or that it had offered him lucrative real estate deals; or that there was any evidence the "golden showers" tape existed. Politicial figures and other commentators have disagreed on the significance of existing public evidence. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat, and some critics have argued that the evidence already known shows collusion, with Schiff further saying that additional non-public evidence further supports the allegations. Early investigations and beginning of formal probes Soon after the allegations of collusion surfaced, former DNI Clapper said in March 2017 that a report assembled by the NSA, FBI, and CIA under his supervision as Director of National Intelligence included no evidence "that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians", and that to his knowledge, none existed during his time as Director. He later clarified that he would not be aware of any matters arising after his tenure, and that he had not been aware of a separate investigation by the FBI that had existed at the time. Still later, in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, he said that the Russian effort to meet with Trump's son was a "classic, textbook Soviet and now Russian tradecraft" whereby they confirmed that those close to Trump would be interested in receiving information damaging to Hillary Clinton. In November 2017, Clapper told CNN's Jake Tapper that since his earlier reports, "a lot more has come out that raises, I think, circumstantial questions if nothing else". As questions about possible Trump links to Russian leadership mounted, separate investigations by the Department of Justice and both houses of Congress began. Partisan division on House Intelligence Committee; Republicans end investigation saying no evidence of collusion The proceedings and conclusion of the House Intelligence Committee in its investigation were marked by partisan division. The New York Times wrote that "the day-to-day reality of running a closely watched investigation potentially implicating a sitting president left the committee badly frayed", and noted that Democrats on the committee had accused Republicans of hindering the investigation to protect Trump, while Republicans had complained that Democrats were turning the investigation into a TV spectacle to earn political points. In early 2018, as the special counsel investigation continued, the Republican majority on the house committee ended its investigation—declaring in press statements, and a memo authored without Democratic input, that no evidence of collusion had emerged. Republicans also seized on what they said were efforts by investigators to conceal the association between the document and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign from a FISA court considering a warrant for a wiretap against Carter Page, an argument buttressing Republican claims that the surveillance and Russia investigation were based on the dossier, at its roots a Democratic political document. Regarding the collusion accusations, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), who oversees the committee’s Russia probe, said that they had found "perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings, inappropriate judgment at taking meetings", and that the Trump tower meeting with the Russian lawyer "shouldn’t have happened, no doubt about that", but said that they had found no evidence of collusion. The end of the investigation and dissemination of the memo were met with skepticism and criticism by Congressional Democrats and others who said the moves amounted to a premature end to a flawed investigative process which failed to adequately obtain witness testimony that would implicate Trump, due to Republican control of the committee's subpoena power. Democrats pointed to multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia and said they had seen too few witnesses to make a judgment on collusion; one Republican panel member complained that the probe was "poison" for the previously bipartisan panel. Dissemination of the memo by Nunes also generated an outcry by Democrats, law enforcement officials, and intelligence experts, who said its release would harm national security. The Republican majority also disagreed with the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Putin had a preference for Trump to become President, drawing further criticism. Ranking Democrat Adam Schiff released a memo for the minority on the intelligence committee, summarizing the case against Trump. Schiff told NBC that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial", and that there was direct evidence of deception. He later insisted in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that already-public information—particularly about the campaign's discussions and meeting with Russians regarding the hacked Clinton and DNC emails, and the conversations between George Papadopoulos and Russian government agents—amounted to evidence of collusion, though not necessarily proof of a criminal conspiracy. Schiff also said he thought that some of the non-public evidence in front of the committee was evidence of collusion. Others have argued that Republican actions such as the release of the Nunes memo and calls for Mueller to step down showed an attempt to discredit his probe into Russian election interference. USA Today said: "The investigation's abrupt end underscores the bitter partisan divide that has plagued the committee's work. And it increases pressure on the collegial Senate Intelligence Committee to come out with a credible bipartisan report from its own Russia probe." The Senate Intelligence Committee probe continues. Commentary Public commentary has been largely divided among partisan lines, though prominent Republicans have found the allegations credible while some Democrats have expressed doubt. Critics have said that there is mounting evidence of collusion, while supporters and skeptics have either expressed doubt that collusion actually occurred or have said that there was no evidence to prove the allegation. Commentators have also disagreed on the importance of the fact that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as well as what some regarded as a lack of transparency in a Carter Page FISA warrant application that referenced the dossier. Commentary suggesting collusion claims are true Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee told The Hill in an interview that there was "a lot of evidence of collusion, despite what the president and everyone else says." Colin Kahl argued in Foreign Policy magazine that circumstantial evidence suggesting collusion continued to mount, but said that even if there was no collusion, Trump's efforts to minimize the U.S. response against Moscow's interference were "incredibly troubling". Los Angeles Times former D.C. bureau chief Doyle McManus wrote: "So while there is not conclusive public evidence of direct collaboration between the campaign and the Kremlin, there's mounting evidence that both sides wanted to cooperate and actively explored what they could do for each other." Commentators from NBC news argued that "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation". Republican commentators David French and Charles Krauthammer both said that Trump Jr.'s conversations with the Russians were proof of attempted collusion. Krauthammer wrote, "What Donald Jr.—and Kushner and Manafort—did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor." David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic that "the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret." Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank said that as evidence of the Trump campaign's "entanglement with Russia" continued to emerge, Trump and his advisors were forced to come up with "revised talking points" as part of a "veritable Marshall Plan for the moving of goal posts". Commentary skeptical of collusion claims As the story of collusion claims broke, Scott Shane of The New York Times wrote: "Under the circumstances, many in Washington expected the agencies to make a strong public case to erase any uncertainty. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.' There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery." Jason Kirchick, a Brookings Institution visiting fellow, wrote in Washington Post that "Trump's Defense Department in 2017 proposed a boost in financial support for [NATO]; he's announced the sale of antitank weapons to Ukraine; and, according to reports, U.S. military forces recently killed 'at least 100' Russian mercenaries in Syria. Yet so attached to the collusion narrative are some Trump critics that their theories are impervious to countervailing data." Richard A. Epstein, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, law professor at New York University and senior lecturer at The University of Chicago, wrote in Newsweek: "I agree with the Hoover Institution’s Paul Gregory, who has extensively studied Russian propaganda tactics, that the Russians knew that they could not influence the outcome of the election with a few well timed tweets. But they understood that a disinformation campaign could raise the specter of collusion with either party, which would then weaken the presidency no matter which candidate won." Jonathan Turley, a law professor specializing in public interest law at George Washington University, said in The Hill that "[i]t takes willful blindness not to acknowledge either the lack of direct evidence of collusion or the implausibility of many of the theories abounding on cable news programs." Writers for The New Republic and The Atlantic suggested that it was likely Mueller had not found evidence to implicate Trump. James S. Robbins, national security expert and member of USA Today's Board of Contributors, called the dossier a "sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources" and said its use to authorize surveillance on Trump campaign members "was an unprecedented investigative intrusion into the American political process that makes Watergate look like amateur hour." Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson argued in National Review that "[a]side from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a few minor and transitory campaign officials have been indicted or have pleaded guilty to a variety of transgressions other than collusion." Aaron Maté, writing in The Nation, argued that officials had acknowledged they had seen no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing, and that "[w]ell-placed critics of Trump—including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein—concur to date." "[T]he relentless pursuit of this narrative above all else has had dangerous consequences," he later wrote. References

Survey

• Oppose, as RFC nom. RS after RS has stated there is evidence there is evidence.
  • Foreign Policy: There are reams of evidence pointing to Trump's collusion with Russia
  • New Yorker: The ‘Did Trump’s Campaign Collude’ Debate Is Over. The Only Question Now Is How Much.
  • US News and World Report: Ample Evidence ... of Collusion': Adam Schiff says both public and nonpublic evidence points to collusion
  • Newsweek: VIDENCE OF TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION ALREADY EXISTS, WATERGATE PROSECUTORS SAY
  • Reuters: Russia-Trump campaign collusion an 'open' issue: U.S. Senate panel chiefs

Starting this section and this edit in general seems designed to push a narrative that there is no collusion. This is neither backed up by the facts or by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional Note: This just broke: Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction Questions such as:

What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

clearly show that there is some evidence that the campaign was working with Russia and the investigation continues.Casprings (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As to your additional note, I don't think it's reasonable to assume the evidentiary bases for the questions from their wording. The questions neither support nor undermine whether evidence for collusion exists. Dyrnych (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

These are opinion sources and reported claims of democrats. Fact sourcing says there is no evidence. Moreover the cited material itself plainly shows that it is utterly backed up by both facts and RS. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

SO WHAT MOST OF YOUR SOURCES ARE ALSO OPINION SOURCES AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS "REPORTED CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS" EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THAT'S BLATANTLY FALSE!!!!!!!!!!. Seriously, why did you feel the need to bold your comment? Bolding words doesn't make them magically true (and for example the first source is not "reported claims of democrats" (sic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, your yelling blew-out my hearing aids...and I had them down to low volume. Please reciprocate in-kind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Take it up with Factchecker.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, as this is irrelevant. There is an ongoing investigation and it has been claimed that there is an "abundance” of evidence of collusion with Russia and obstruction by Donald Trump’s campaign and administration that is not yet public". Also it is not that black and white [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  There is an abundance of evidence that Trump was framed and this whole collusion narrative is a fraud.Phmoreno (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe, and if there is we can say that. This question is about whether or not there is public evidence of collusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Phmoreno, but is that "evidence" found in RS? No. We don't include conspiracy theories, but if they are discussed in RS, we might mention them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, there are RS's, but most some not in the scope of the dossier article. The DeSantis letter is part of the evidence directly related to the dossier. The Trump server fraud is connected because Alfa-Bank is mentioned in the dossier. Because Carter Page was an FBI informant in a case involving Russians he was someone who could be framed as a spy (Title 1 FISA), but this would make him a double agent. There is the suspicious link of Bruce and Nellie Ohr to the the dossier that is backed up by RS. Apart from the dossier, there are suspicious links and in some of the other circumstantial evidence, such as the Natalia Veselnitskaya / Fusion GPS sting operation. Also the George Papadopoulos operation looks like it was a set up.Phmoreno (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is well explained by people above. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – but it should be made clear that this specifically refers to the dossier allegations of collusion.
  1. There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians. — The New York Times (answering the question "How much of the dossier has been substantiated?")
  2. That assertion is unproven — as are many of the other claims in the document. That includes the overarching claim that Russian government officials allied with Trump employees and campaign aides to help his election. — The Washington Post
  3. The 35-page dossier, written mostly by former British spy Christopher Steele, includes unverified allegations about Trump, including contacts between Russian officials and his staff during the presidential campaign, and Moscow’s possession of compromising information about the president. — Bloomberg
  4. No evidence has surfaced so far that Trump aides or campaign advisers were involved in Russian efforts to disrupt the 2016 election — The New York Times
  5. Those ties originate in part from a document compiled by former MI6 intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, which contains unverified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. — Newsweek
  6. dossier containing unverified allegations about collusion between President Trump and Russia — The Hill
  7. It contains unproven allegations of coordination between Trump's advisers and Russians on hacking the emails of prominent Democrats and makes unverified claims about sexual activities. — AP
  8. dossier that made unverified allegations of collusion between Trump’s campaign for president and the Kremlin — Times of Israel / AP
  9. It contained as yet unproven allegations that the Russians had wanted Mr. Trump to win the election, that Russians had shared valuable information about Hillary Clinton with the Trump campaign, and that Russia had compromising sexually explicit video of Mr. Trump that could be used as blackmail. — PBS
  10. At this point, no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been made public. It may or may not exist. However, there is an ongoing investigation. — factcheck.org (updated regularly but this is not specifically about dossier allegations, unlike other sources I listed above)
      It is DUE to include one sentence about what news sources have reported. Reliable sources have deemed it necessary to report that as yet there is no evidence. We should follow reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  The text doesn't say "there is no conclusive proof" it says "no evidence". This is false and RS do not state there is no evidence. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  That's demonstrably false. Some sources say "no evidence", others say the allegation is unverified/uncorroborated/unproven. Which one would you prefer? Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  This RfC is about the first. Now where are your sources? SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Check Factcheck.org: "no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been made public". The rest of my sources above are specifically related to dossier. If you don't like specific wording, you can make constructive suggestions instead of opposing the proposal. Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as per Politrukki --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support with different wording I recommend the House Intel Committee's Report findings (External links section). "When asked directly, none of the interviewed witnesses provided evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government." See p-61 for Brennan and Clapper's statement's of "no collusion". That should conclude the matter.Phmoreno (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per Politrukki. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. With all of the back-and-forth over recent days, the article currently lacks an easy-to-find description of the highly exculpatory House Intelligence report. What we must attempt to do is find a version that is simply a neutral description of that report. Like Phmoreno, I am opposed to the summary tagline given in the RfC (which was, I note, wording taken from the original long edit). For now, I suggest settling on Phmoreno's suggestion, but we should also plan to include a neutral description of Friday's minority report as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose as worded. The conclusion of the majority report of the HPSCI are that there has been no public evidence of collusion. This should certainly be covered in the article. And it must also be attributed. And the minority report should also be mentioned and attributed. That is how to satisfy NPOV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is a ridiculous proposal. Which sources? When? Is there a secondary source that actually says this ("news agencies said that blah blah blah") or is it just a collection of some cherry picked sources WP:SYNTH'ed to reach a conclusion by the person wishing to put this into the article? Answer: it's the latter. Blatant POV and SYNTH attempt. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: unneeded, possibly OR, and unhelpful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as there's yet to be any evidence of collusion. Indeed, there isn't even any clear definition of what's meant by collusion. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it is needed, it is factually accurate, there is no OR involved, and ommission would be a disservice to our readers. In fact, more of the same kind of editing updates for accuracy and compliance with NPOV is needed throughout this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• No. Unsourced OR that contradicts sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Which part is OR? "news agencies"? We could simply say "There is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign." or, if the question is specifically about the dossier allegations, "The dossier's allegations of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia have not been corroborated." Which source says there is evidence? Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is getting a little silly now isn't it? It is overwhelmingly covered that there is no public evidence to date by several high quality sources. It would be a dis-service to our readers to not have this information and give the article an even bigger POV issue. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  This just isn't true. See below. Two of these high quality sources are from April 2017, before a lot of developments (in particular, Papadapolous getting busted) came about. The next two or three are being straight up misrepresented and don't say what this text claims they say. THAT is silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  "Papadapolous [sic]" is not even mentioned in the dossier. Is Factcheck.org a reliable source? Above I provided nine sources that say the dossier allegations of collusion are uncorroborated/unverified/unproven or there is "no evidence". Many of them are from October, one from January 2018. Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  ""Papadapolous [sic]" is not even mentioned in the dossier." - yes, but the proposed sentence isn't about the dossier, it's about collusion in general (this also address your nine sources). (your factcheck link doesn't work for me)Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Nothing wrong with the link. The source was last updated on May 1, 2018. The relevant part is quoted above. Politrukki (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: there remains considerable debate, but while there is such debate, we can't have such a bald claim. Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While the public evidence wouldn’t be enough for certainty, there is certainly evidence. And, I don’t see the preponderance of RS stating that there is no evidence. O3000 (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – There are two separate questions: (a) Should it be mentioned that there is no public evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia? and (b) Should it be mentioned that there is no public evidence of the dossier's allegation of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia?
  It seems that everyone who has opposed, is answering the question (a), but the questions are separate because the dossier for example does not mention Papadopoulos or the Trump Tower meeting (if someone thinks they prove collusion). Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support: This has been going on for what? A year and a half now? Nobody seems to be able to find any solid evidence to back the assertion that Trump and Russia colluded to win the election. However, it should be stated simply that "There is currently no evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russian Government". To say that there isn't public evidence would make people assume he did collude. To say there isn't any evidence period would simply be wrong as the investigation may have something that hasn't gone public yet. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • How long did the Benghazi investigation go on? Somehow that wasn't a problem. How many arrests or indictments did that produce? None. Somehow that wasn't a problem. This investigation has had more than a dozen arrests and it probably barely just scratched the surface. Solid evidence is the Papadapolous et. al guilty pleas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    "solid evidence" Factchecker_atyourservice 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    Apparently according to Papadopolous himself since he pled guilty.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    It has been 6 months since he pled guilty to lying about things that were not illegal, so if anybody thought that was "solid evidence" of collusion, there's been plenty of time for them to say so and yet the fact sources say there is no evidence. Do you think they forgot about Papadopoulos when they made that assessment? Factchecker_atyourservice 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    Well, no, actually, you presented a bunch of sources from before Papadopoulos pled guilty ("to things that were not illegal"? Really, ) and tried to pass them off as recent. That's your "fact sources say there is no evidence". Quit trying to play shenanigans with the timeline.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    Oh quit your iterated nonsense. The BBC source is from March 13th. The WaPo source is from Feb 23rd. Both many months after guilty plea. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    I'm going to save myself a bit of time and copy/paste my previous reply which you failed to address:

    Take this source (BBC from March). It doesn't actually say "news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence". What is says is "Republicans claim that there is no public evidence." So this is a straight up misrepresentation of a source. The WaPo (from Feb) source is a bit better here but it too uses words like "directly" and is talking about whether Trump advisers "sought to aid" (you don't have to "aid" to "collude", you just need to know and do nothing, or benefit from it). And so on and so forth. Basically this is a sorry hatchet job - WP:POV and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neither best -- or include both - This is all going into a lot of things not one of the Steele collection of allegations, a result of them, a cause of them, or tied to them. None of this is from or about the dossier so it does not belong in this article. But if the article talks collusion then include this or similar also. Talk of 'collusion' seems more a dog whistle term on later suspicions of conspiracy. But if collusion is included, then I think NPOV and BALANCE requires this one or something of the same ilk. Best to not go offtopic once, second best is to go offtopic twice as two wrongs would make an almost-right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are clearly significant Reliable Sources giving opposing or more complicated views on the subject. That may be due to differing standards of what is "evidence", differing scope of of consideration, or other reasons. Unfortunately it's still going to be some time before Reliable Sources resolve this mess down to a single coherent narrative. Alsee (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support with revised wording, which should say there is no evidence substantiating any of the allegations in the dossier. As far as I'm aware, nobody currently believes the dossier to have been reputable. Meanwhile, the current proposal addresses the collusion investigation altogether, which is outside the immediate scope of this article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• I now oppose per my comments below. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Compassionate727, two points:

1. There are many RS, and especially the intelligence community, which take the allegations very seriously, and have found independent evidence confirming that a number of allegations are true, and others very likely true. That's why the intelligence community uses it as the "road map" for the whole investigation. If it was unreliable, they would have trashed it immediately, or as soon as its claims were found to be unreliable. That has not happened. On the contrary. You should read this article. We cover this quite well, and you can read the RS.
2. You are absolutely right that the RfC is malformed as it discusses matters outside the scope of the dossier. I have pointed this out several times, to no effect. The discussion must focus ONLY on the dossier.

Your narrative, that "nobody currently believes the dossier to have been reputable", only applies to Trump supporters, far-right unreliable sources, and those who believe them (but not to Trump and top GOP leadership, who know the dossier is right). RS tell a very different story, backed up by evidence, rather than conspiracy theories, such as this one in the National Review, which flies in the face of the RS evidence that Papadopoulos was that "inside source" close to Trump, and that he drunkenly revealed that the Trump campaign had inside knowledge of the hacking far earlier than any innocent person should know. That fits the dossier narrative that the Trump campaign worked with Russia and hackers and partially paid for the hacking, all with Trump's knowledge. The FBI later contacted Papadopoulos and flipped him. He then worked for them as an informant. He worked out a plea deal, and was only convicted of lying to the FBI. This is very worrying for Trump. That Nunes and the GOP leadership are panicked that there may be others in Trump's close orbit who are also feeding incriminating evidence to the FBI is logical. Rather than being patriotic and supporting the legitimate efforts to uncover Trump-related corruption and collusion with Russia, they are carrying water for Trump and Putin and seeking to find out who it might be, and feed the info to Trump. Treason? Clearly obstruction of justice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I would dispute the reliability of the intelligence community as a reliable authority on this issue, but that would be wading into FBI/DOJ conspiracy grounds, and it's frankly not relevant. There's been a lot of POV-pushing in this RfC from both sides, and I'm sick of the toxicity. There's a reason I'm interested in politics but don't edit political articles. Anyway, returning to the matter at hand, I'm switching my vote. I completely failed to do basic research before voting here, such as reading this article, for which I apologize. In my (new) view, the third paragraph of the lead here satisfactorily addresses the disputed reliability of the dossier, and this addition is wholly unnecessary in light of that. I thus oppose the proposed addition, unless someone would like to argue that "the media tends to treat its allegations as gossip" is different than what we're trying to establish consensus for. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No need to avoid these topics, since you are clearly able to consider facts and sources and form straightforward editorial judgments. In the WP sense, there's actually only one POV narrative being promoted here for the past 2 years. One of the many false accusations is that NPOV mainstream responses to it are somehow equivalent POV's. Well the mainstream is different than the GOP and right-wing conspiracy theories, but in Wikipedia terms it's NPOV representation of the mainstream view. We don't deal in absolute truth here. We just reflect the weight of mainstream accounts, and for the time being at least the mainstream view is not accepted by folks who hear it for the first time on a WP talk page and discover that it refutes the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, Washington Times, and other weapons of mass deflection. BTW, you may want to change your bolded !vote at the location of your strikethrough to make it clearer for whoever closes this thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you'll appreciate this from Aaron Blake, on Twitter summarizes his WaPo article:

A collusion denial play, in 7 acts

1. No communication w Russia

2. No communication *we're aware of*

3. No *planned* communication

4. Planned meeting, but not re: campaign

5. Was re: campaign, but no good info

6. Collusion isn't crime

7. No info was used

Analysis: Rudy Giuliani just watered down Trump's Russia collusion denial — again. This is now at least the seventh time the goal posts have been moved — all in one direction. The Washington Post

Blake closes with this: "One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it."

So even by the Trump campaign's own moving-goal-post redefinitions, they can't escape the obvious conclusion that they really did collude. Maybe they can't settle on a definition which removes them from the guilt-equation, but we know the definition, and it fits what they did, and are still doing. It hasn't stopped. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. We definitely lack the sources for such a strong claim; the sources that people are trying to cite for this are largely much, much more circumspect and careful in what they say, with numerous qualifiers. Additionally, the wording implies a unanimity among the sources that is definitely not there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion and others: a "unanimity" of sources does not exist. It's not "all or nothing". We can't make such a categorical statement when the weight of RS don't do it either. We can't cherrypick only some RS which say that and ignore those which don't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no fact sourcing that says there is evidence of collusion, so you apparently don't know what "cherry picking" means. Since no evidence has emerged, RS's have been unanimous in stating that in their own editorial voice. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- For all the obvious reasons - we report verified facts not the ongoing absence of verified facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. All of the evidence in the Trump/Russia investigation is not public because it's not supposed to be public. Saying there is "no public evidence" appears to be an attempt to claim "NO COLLUSION" the same way we might see from Trump's twitter feed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally out of the question, as it would violate multiple core policies. Fails verification, as it doesn't accurately portray the source material. In addition the source was written last summer; that's not "to date." Fails neutrality; see sources supplied by Cassprings. Our goal is to summarize verifiable facts, not to repeat mantras. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion 2

• The subject can certainly be covered better. A section which quotes various RS might work. Doing it chronologically is important, as serious sources have tended to change their way of discussing it. Failure to stay up to date and continue to make the "no collusion" claim as the only possible claim is a sign of a careless or agenda-driven journalist/author/source.

There are obviously two general narratives, with the Trump camp insisting there is only one proper way to interpret all this, and that is that there is absolutely no form of collusion. They will continue to make that claim until they die in jail, if that happens. Truth is irrelevant to them. This is a legal strategy, and the modus operandi Trump learned from Roy Cohn: "Deny, deny, deny, and immediately accuse your enemies of what you are doing."

The other view is that there is lots of evidence of several forms of collusion, but we still haven't concluded the investigation, so a final verdict can't be added as a definitive conclusion. The many sources, including Brennan, who see lots of evidence of collusion on several fronts, should be included.

That way NPOV is met by covering both sides of the issue. Trump, Fox, GOP, and fringe sources insist "no collusion" is the only correct POV, while RS are much more nuanced and varied in their interpretations of the available evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, as I have repeatedly complained, "the Trump camp insisting there is only one proper way to interpret all this, and that is that there is absolutely no form of collusion" is a dumb straw man and you're simply preventing constructive discussion by repeating this nonsense.

Please strike your comment and move it to your own userspace where similar angry personal attacks and diatribes fester. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just how many threads do we have on this? Can we keep this all in one place?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: maybe it would be useful to close this, uh, "RFC", which was not presented straightforwardly. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

One, we needed a formal RFC because above wasn't going anywhere. Two, how much more straightforward do you want?Casprings (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, for some reason I thought you had linked a diff of the lead sentence, I must not have checked. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As an RFC is now open the other thread should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: "cherry picking" implies I'm skewing the source presentation by ignoring fact sources that say there is public evidence of collusion. No such fact sources exist that I am aware of—not high quality ones, at any rate.

Would it alleviate your SYNTH concerns If the text were changed to match the source exactly, so it simply reads, "There is no public evidence that . . ." without the initial language attributing it to news agency reporting? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Cherry picking is just the first of your problems. Another one of your problems is that the sources being added are outdated. Yes, at one point in time, there was no public evidence. But let's see... the Papadapolous story broke in October 2017, right? So why are you trying to use a source from April 2017? Or take this source. It doesn't actually say "news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence". What is says is "Republicans claim that there is no public evidence." So this is a straight up misrepresentation of a source. The WaPo source is a bit better here but it too uses words like "directly" and is talking about whether Trump advisers "sought to aid" (you don't have to "aid" to "collude", you just need to know and do nothing, or benefit from it). This is another source from April 2017, before Papadapolous. This source is again, being misrepresented. What it says is that Trump himself hasn't been connected. In the very next line it actually explicitly mentions "illegal activity" by "his campaign". Trump not knowing about it is not the same as no evidence it didn't happen.

And so on and so forth. Basically this is a sorry hatchet job - WP:POV and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It is the picture being painted by top RS fact sources in their own editorial voice. I have looked and looked for a contrary one and did not find it. If I'm wrong show me. Additionally, the "analysis" sources linked, such as from BBC and WaPo, also say there is no evidence, although they don't all say the exact same thing that there is no evidence of—none of them say there is evidence of something. If fact sources say there is public evidence of some Trump collusion, show them now now now.

The sources saying that the evidence known shows collusion, like the sources saying there was probably no collusion, are all opinion commentary. Additionally, in the specific case of Adam Schiff, I treated him like a fact source by putting his views about public and non-public evidence in the introductory summary as well as the investigation subsection, rather than the commentary subsection.

Moreover, the "collusion probably true" opinion commentary all acknowledges the lack of collusion evidence, as we see when NBC News says "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation" and numerous other quotes saying the same and similar things. The idea that we wouldn't report what newspapers say about whether there is any evidence of impeachable offenses by Trump seems extreme, especially given the readiness with which this article reports sensational accusations not widely circulated in high-quality RS. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"It is the picture being painted" <-- Is that like a new fancy way of saying "I just did a bunch of WP:SYNTH?" Cuz that's what it sounds like.

"by top RS" <-- some of which are outdated, from before more recent significant developments, and some of which don't actually say what you claim they say. As explained in detail above. Somehow your response didn't bother addressing these two issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: How, then, does your fantasy-based view account for statements like Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election.]? That's from 2 weeks ago. Ever hear of Reuters? They're, like, totally a thing. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, if you're going to obnoxiously accuse others of having "fantasy-based views" you MIGHT want to leave that fantasy timeline you're living in which is always one year behind the non-fantasy timeline. It's 2018 buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Woops! That source is indeed from 2017! That said, you did obnoxiously accuse me of "misrepresenting" sources which is an, uhm, interesting proposition at best given the supplied source quotes. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"you did obnoxiously accuse me of "misrepresenting" sources" <-- I did. And then I backed it all up in the paragraph above which starts with "No. Cherry picking is just the first of your problems...." which then goes on to explain precisely how you're misrepresenting them. And I like how you basically say "woops, I was wrong, but I am still right dognabbit!" in your second sentence. Time to fold up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose As not all the sources say this "no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed." is not saying there is none, just that it is not strong. "We hasten to note that there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid..." does not say there is no evidence of collusion, just no evidence of direct collusion to aid the attempts. "So while there is not conclusive public evidence of direct collaboration", again this is not saying there is no public evidence of collusion. Sorry the sourcing is not strong enough to say this in wiki's voice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Per my comment ("There are two separate questions) above, which question is more relevant to this article? Should we have two separate RFCs if one group is answering to question (a) and another to question (b)? Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As Jimmy Dore would say, what collusion? What does that mean? Where's this evidence at? GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should anyone care what that particular person would say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The guy's correct. There's been no evidence of collusion, no explanation of kinda collusion. There's no treason committed. You can't have treason, when the 2 countries aren't at war with each other, according to the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The guy's a ... lemme watch BLP here. Anyway, the guy is a non-notable, non-reliable... comedian? Also not sure where you got "treason" from. Has anyone said anything about treason? No? So why are you bringing it up? Also, Papadapolous and Page are your evidence of collusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "We found evidence of collusion in the abundant secret meetings & communications between Trump campaign officials & associates such as Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Don Jr., Flynn & others, w/ emissaries & officials from, or linked to the Russian gov." Adam Schiff -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's Schiff's view—entitled to special prominence, but it's still just a view. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The guilty pleas say otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice 17:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It's time to close this RfC and possibly start another one. We've been chasing the wrong rabbit down the wrong path.

Politrukki made some very good points here.

This RfC is about the wrong question, one better suited for the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)‎ and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections articles. We should not be discussing the broader question of whether there is evidence of collusion.

Instead we should be discussing whether there is evidence for the narrower allegation of "conspiracy" (and other allegations which could be included under the "collusion" umbrella) found in the dossier.

The dossier does not mention Papadopoulos or the Trump Tower meeting, two factors which many consider evidence of collusion. IIRC, many RS note that Mueller may consider the Trump Tower meeting the strongest evidence of collusion that the public knows about. There Trump himself wrote a deceptive press release, and signed it with his son's name. That tied Trump into what happened; because he wrote a press release which was a cover-up of what actually happened, he could not claim to be uninvolved or ignorant. The act of lying was evidence of a guilty conscience.

There are many activities which, seen together, are interpreted by many to be evidence of collusion: the activities of Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, and Cohen; other secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russians; intercepted conversation between Russian nationals discussing their contacts with Trump campaign members; and other information shared by friendly foreign intelligence sources. All of this started the CIA/NSA/FBI investigation into Russian intervention before the dossier mentioned Carter Page.

Trump's own actions are also suspiciou: his odd refusals to condemn Putin; his refusal to take action to prevent further cyber attacks, even though $120 million has been granted to fight Russian meddling (none has been used); his refusal to do anything to improve election security; and his refusal to definitively accuse Russia of interfering in the election to help him. This is interpreted as evidence that he is controlled by Putin, IOW that he is being blackmailed.

The dossier covers some things which have been confirmed, and others not, at least not publicly. Not all things in the dossier are related to collusion, and it never deals with questions of treason, as those are legal questions. Collusion is not illegal when it does not involve secrecy to commit illegal actions, but it is equal to conspiracy (which is illegal) when it does involve secrecy to commit illegal actions.

So we've been discussing the wrong question. We need to focus on what's relevant for this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the USA & Russia aren't at war with each other, so treason is impossible according to the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you going on about? The only person bringing up treason is you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: so basically you are saying we should reject RS characterizations of the evidence, and instead make up one that suits the interests and views of some Wikipedia editors? Couldn't we just cite Reuters saying "Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election." a mere 2 weeks ago and then we could cite User:BullRangifer by saying "but Wikipedia user Bull Rangifer disagrees with this characterization and says there is oodles of evidence"? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, he's probably saying the same thing as other folks - that we shouldn't base our article on outdated sources, like you're trying to do, and we shouldn't misrepresent reliable sources, like you're trying to do. Can you please strike this nonsense about "a mere 2 weeks ago". It's embarrassing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Outdated sources" were included just to show you that fact sources have consistently reported the lack of evidence for over a year now. I didn't "misrepresent" any reliable sources. If you think better wording could be used for what the RS's say there is no evidence of, I'm all ears. But I don't see how you can argue that RS fact statements like the following are not saying there's a lack of collusion evidence.
"no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed"
"there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin"
"there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts"
"There’s no public evidence that Trump is connected to any collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 vote."
Factchecker_atyourservice 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So which one of these are from last year? I don't feel like checking again. And none of these say what the proposed text is claiming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

These are all fact sources from 2018, and 3 of them are top-drawer. There is also ample admission of lack of evidence in anti-Trump opinion commentary such as the NBC commentators saying "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation". As you can see in my proposed text, there was an expansion tag on the section of commentary saying Trump colluded or that there's evidence of collusion—inviting editors to flesh out that view more extensively rather than trying to eliminate coverage of the contrary view, which has been stated in the reported pages of top papers rather than merely in opinion columns. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. You're just repeating the same claim made before even though it's already been replied to and debunked. Here let me copy paste my previous comment, rather than waste my time writing it up again:

Take this source. It doesn't actually say "news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence". What is says is "Republicans claim that there is no public evidence." So this is a straight up misrepresentation of a source. The WaPo source is a bit better here but it too uses words like "directly" and is talking about whether Trump advisers "sought to aid" (you don't have to "aid" to "collude", you just need to know and do nothing, or benefit from it).(...) This source is again, being misrepresented. What it says is that Trump himself hasn't been connected. In the very next line it actually explicitly mentions "illegal activity" by "his campaign". Trump not knowing about it is not the same as no evidence it didn't happen.

And so on and so forth. Basically this is a sorry hatchet job - WP:POV and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Pay attention, it most certainly says that. "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed." Factchecker_atyourservice 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This long song has a simple refrain. "Evidence" is not the same as "proof". We just keep repeating that after every attempt to shoe-horn some kind of exculpatory OR into the article. And even "proof" comes in many flavors. Chocolate, sugar-free, butterscotch, and lemon chiffon. RS tell us there's a ton of evidence. Whether there's proof is left to the future. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"RS tell us there's a ton of evidence."—if that were true then fact reporting would say so. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidence: [4] Not proof. Proof comes from an argument that builds on and interrelates Evidence. RS tell us there's a ton of evidence. I didn't say to put "ton of evidence" in the article, so we don't need a source for "ton" although I'm sure you could easily find one. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think given the levels of sniping going on this has gone way beyond constructive and should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is talking about "proof"?? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per NYT yesterday, Mueller question for Trump: "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" Prior to this disclosure, there had been no publicly available information indicating any such outreach. Now there is. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What the actual" quote says "This is one of the most intriguing questions on the list. It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something new, but there is no publicly available information linking Mr. Manafort, the former campaign chairman, to such outreach. So his inclusion here is significant. Mr. Manafort’s longtime colleague, Rick Gates, is cooperating with Mr. Mueller." It is telling they do not say anything other then about Mr Manfort.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was not quoting NYT, didn't intend to create that appearance soibangla (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No I know, I think that was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources characterize the state of evidence in one very specific way: "there is no public evidence". They do not all use the exact same wording, but they are all clearly talking about the lack of evidence of Trump collusion. Here we have editors wanting to contradict top quality RS characterizations of the evidence because they disagree with it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, how is saying "they have not said X so we cannot say they have said X" contradictory them, you admit they are not actually saying X. It is your personal interpretation that reads them as saying X, one I disagree with. As I said they (in this instance, and how I interpret it, which is no less valid then your interpretation) knowingly just said Manfort. That is not contradicting them, as it does not say anything that is opposite to what they have in actuality said. But as I said this is just going nowhere and should now be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My personal interpretation? This is interesting. I think we need to take things slowly, because maybe words don't mean stuff.

""no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed"

What is your personal interpretation of this statement?

My personal interpretation is that it is saying that no clear-cut evidence of collusion has been unearthed.

Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"No clear cut" means not unambiguously, not non existent. Thus it is saying it is not clear if evidence is available. That is not the same as saying it does not exist.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"not clear if evidence is available"--no, it's saying the evidence that is available is not clear-cut evidence of collusion--to wit, no clear-cut evidence has been "unearthed". Before moving along I want to make absolutely certain we are on the same page here.

To the extent that Mueller has additional evidence, and he may, it does not change the reported fact that none of the public evidence shows collusion, which is what the news agencies are reporting on, nor does that change the fact that some people have argued the existing evidence shows collusion--which is what users are doing here by piecing together bits of evidence that they think are strong. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK word it like that then, now what did the BBC actually say "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed. "We just didn't look hard enough" doesn't carry as venomous a political sting.". So no they are not saying there was no clear cut evidence unearthed, which in context of the above paragraph and the whole section is asking (not saying) the (key there words) question that maybe the reason that the committee said (and note they are saying it was the committee, not the BBC) said they had found no clear cut evidence was they had not really tried.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Slater if you look at my proposed text, I gave very significant coverage to the views arguing that this was not a full investigation. I also went into Schiff's views about the existing evidence, additional non-public evidence, and attempts at deception. Nonetheless as the BBC analyst has put it, no clear evidence has emerged. If you think the summarizing language could be adjusted in a way that you feel would be adequately NPOV that would be helpful, but I don't think it makes sense to just say we can't talk about the news agency summaries of the evidence. Even most of the opinion commentary sources saying Trump probably colluded admit there is no known evidence of it. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that the quoted text I was replying to is from this cite [[5]], which was referred to here [[6]], with that decision to alter what I was replying (after it was made clear that it was being misrepresented) to I am now bowing out. There is no reason to keep this open.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are accusing me of? I removed an unnecessarily snarky remark from one of my own comments? And I supposedly misrepresented a source? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrarier break

The story is at least starting to develop though, with some juicy crystal balling from the NYT editorial board explicitly speculating Mueller may know "a great deal more than he's letting on". Although the bulk of the questions relate to obstruction, a couple of them about Manafort and Stone suggest Mueller might have some collusion evidence. It will be very interesting to see whether Trump agrees to answer any or all of them and if he refuses, there's a possibility we may get to hear what evidence there is, although there is also a possibility Mueller will continue to keep it secret and maintain an active investigation. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's really beside the point. The key question is who leaked this document to the press and why and what reaction were they seeking to precipitate. Those are the questions editors ask. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh lord, you're an editor and I'm not. Very profound Mr. SPECIFICO, and very specific as always. Actually I misremembered, the story didn't say they were leaked, though it seems likely given that the NYT story doesn't say where they got the documents from. At the same time if Mueller were going to "leak" them for some reason he wouldn't want the NYT to say where they got the questions. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) No, you don't seem to understand how, why, and when reporters get their hands on such material and why they publish it. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Enlighten me or shut up. Do not tell me what you think about me personally. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC) What you understand is your business. I'm just explaining it's incorrect and not a fruitful approach for our jobs here. Not going anywhere useful. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Either say why it is incorrect or unfruitful or shut your incorrect, unfruitful mouth. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I will pray for you on Sunday. Meanwhile, I summarized the issues above. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Lead sentence: There is "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors." based on Jan. 2017 article

Which sure sounds like confirmation of collusion accusations!

But we can't have fact reporting from May 2018 or March 2018 or February 2018 or January 2018 talking about the lack of evidence of collusion, anywhere in the article? Gosh this must be one of those things that I am deceptively dishonest for complaining about. Factchecker_atyourservice 05:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that is because most of the sources you used said "we have no seen any evidence" which is not saying "there is none". And we do have claims that the dossiers assertions are dodgey. There may be an argument for expanding this area, but only as long as we accurately reflect what the sources are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is evidence that Democrat operatives set up members of the Trump campaign to create suspicious situations involving Russians: fake dossier, agent provocateurs Halper, Misfud, Downer, Fusion GPS, Veselnitskaya, setting up Trump associates, computer fraud that made it look like Alfa Bank's server was communicating with a Trump email server so that a FISA warrant could be issued. None of this is mentioned in the article but will become part of the lede as more evidence emerges, which will happen soon.Phmoreno (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

When it does I am sure we can include it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK as your comment (after I had replied) was altered, what evidence is there at this time (remember it has to be from RS)? Also (remember) this is evidence we are looking for, not accusations. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is now aware of the FBI spy or spies in the Trump campaign. Regardless of who they were, the circumstantial evidence surrounding some of the contacts of various people with the Trump campaign are more suspicious than any meetings that Trump associates had with Russians.Phmoreno (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So accusations, not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And how is that different from anything else in this article? All accusations, no proof.Phmoreno (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, but then I have no said that what there is is proof of anything. So which of your sources say that this was a Democratic plot to trick the Trump campaign into making contracts with Russians?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RS commentary is not putting it as sensationally as Trump's people, but it's on the radar, e.g. this law prof op-ed in The Hill:

In response to the New York Times report, Trump declared that the FBI planted “at least one” spy in his campaign to frame him. Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani ratcheted up the rhetoric and said, if the story is true, that former FBI Director James Comey should be prosecuted.

The record does not currently support such a criminal conspiracy. However, if Trump and his counsel can be accused of overplaying the known facts, the media can be equally accused of ignoring the implications of the known facts. It should be a serious concern that the Obama administration used secret counterintelligence powers to target officials in the campaign of the opposing party. That is a practice we have widely criticized in other countries from Turkey to Russia to Iran.

Worse yet, the New York Times wrote that the decision was made to use the secret FISA court and counterintelligence personnel to conceal the operation for political purposes. According to the report, FBI officials consciously decided not to seek conventional criminal warrants or pursue a criminal investigation because it might be discovered and raised by Trump during the campaign. Thus, as Trump campaigned against the “deep state,” FBI officials hid their investigation deeper inside the state. FISA was not designed as a convenient alternative for the FBI and the Justice Department to avoid political costs or scrutiny.

Factchecker_atyourservice 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You asked "So which of your sources say that this was a Democratic plot to trick the Trump campaign into making contracts with Russians?", and my comment was a reply to that. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I should have added "in the context of what this talk page is about". Read wp:talkSlatersteven (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to "read WP:TALK"? You asked a question and I answered it. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This just confuses the discussion. The question was directed to Phmoreno (so let them answer), who used the Daily Caller, a very unreliable source. That one can find mention by partisan writers, who echo such unreliable sources and conspiracy theories, in mainstream sources like the NYT is just a fact. We still should not lend them more weight than they deserve because they were allowed to spout their nonsense there. It's still fringe POV pushing by those authors. They are unreliable no matter where they write. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Slater asked a very specific question requesting better sourcing, and that is what I provided. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"None of this is mentioned in the article" because it's nonsense and conspiracy theories from extreme right-wing unreliable sources. It's part of the cover-up and Trump/Putin/GOP pushback against the evidence published in mainstream RS. Most of those things mentioned have logical and better explanations which these extreme sources ignore.

Phmoreno, you have used such sources before. Please stop it. Here's a list of unreliable sources we should not use. Study it and then stop using them at all, in real life, and never use them here again. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just trying to keep everyone informed. Will all break soon.Phmoreno (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are for disusing how to improve articles, not as live news feeds.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Back on topic -- Bull, could you explain why you want to use a quote from a 16-month-old blog post to refer to "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors" right in the article lead—but you think it would be misleading to say "A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts", anywhere in the article, based on timely news reports from the top newspaper in the United States (and other recent high quality news reports)? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please put down your WP:BLUDGEON. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The question of the state of "public evidence" is a moving target and only part of the story. I assume that is a large part of why there are objections from so many as to how that content should be framed. There are no real objections to the sourcing, but the framing, and it's difficult to frame a specific statement about a dynamically moving target. Such a statement must necessarily be quite vague/general, and not very specific. (I note that you're using the exact quote from the NYT, and not the more general wording you originally proposed, so that's a separate discussion I'm not going to get into here. I'll let others discuss that with you, although you might want to drop the stick...just sayin')

By contrast, the proven, and indisputable, fact of myriad secret and suspicious contacts and meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russians is what it is. The only thing changing about that is more being discovered, more being indicted, more confessing, and more turning state's witness. The statement is simple, short, sufficiently vague/general, and indisputable fact. That shouldn't be controversial. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you think we should mention a single extremely old assessment of "evidence" implying Trump guilt, from one source, and feature it very prominently in the lead in WP voice—but we can't have timely, higher quality assessments that there is no known evidence of Trump guilt, anywhere in the article, even though the latter are widely reported? For someone who spends so much time fretting about "misleading" readers, you seem to be trying real hard to do precisely that. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Back off. You've just violated your iBan. You've just falsely claimed it was in "WP voice" (it's in quotes), assumed some things I do not believe, and then attacked me. I'm not going to get drawn more into this seemingly endless discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you've deleted my addition with a dubious edit summary which again attacks me. You are the only one who has complained about that content. It should be uncontroversial. You, of all people, should know better than to touch my edits and make snide comments and edit summaries about me. It's wiser to keep some distance. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Bull, what the source by Wittes says is:

"They take place amidst the background of a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors."

The sentence you added to Wikipedia was:

There is "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors."

You've changed the sentence around to make it a direct declarative statement about "public evidence", and didn't attribute it. I'm not saying this misrepresents the source, it just gives it a flat-out factual presentation in WP voice that is pretty different than if you had said "Susan Hennesy-Wittes wrote in Lawfare that . . ."

And, I don't know why you think something going right to the heart of a content dispute that has been ongoing for 6+ weeks "should be uncontroversial". Factchecker_atyourservice 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then fix it. Normally uncontroversial statements of fact don't need attribution, but if you think it's necessary, fix it, don't delete it. It's also not directly about Trump, which is a slightly different topic, the one you have been discussing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Normally uncontroversial statements of fact don't need attribution That is laughable since we've been debating for nearly 2 months about uncontroversial statements of fact that you and others don't want added to the article at all, much less featured prominently in the lead, much less stated as outright fact—as you have done with this quote from 16+ months ago. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I find the following rather ironic - particularly the argument Slatersteven made above - for censoring 2018 updates suggested by Factchecker who is citing high quality media sources that state there is no evidence of collusion, whereas the argument to exclude has been quite simply that it is not saying "there is none"; making that the reason to exclude the material. Yet, when Phmoreno suggested above that there is evidence of an undercover FBI plant in the Trump campaign, one the NYTimes stated they know the identity of but won't share, is not being allowed because of arguments put forth by some editors, including the one Slatersteven's stated above "So accusations, not proof. I'd say that describes STONEWALLING to the "T", which takes it out of the realm of being a content issue into being a behavioral issue. We have hit rock bottom when the omission (censorship) of important material is based on an argument wherein editors contradict themselves in juxtaposed statements, like what just happened above to Factchecker and Phmoreno. BullRangifer, I agree with you that the sources you named are not to be considered RS for inclusion of this material - no problem - but there are RS that have reported this story including the NYTimes, WSJ, FoxNews, and The Hill, to name a few. It doesn't matter if we agree with what's written in the source, we are only responsible for making sure the material meets the requirements for V and NPOV. I think it is in the best interest of peaceful collaboration that we reach a compromise and proper consensus and stop the STONEWALLING. The disruptive behavior has raised my concerns that there may be a COI involved based on party affiliations and that some editors need to try harder to leave their biases at check-in. I would not be saying any of this if the evidence was not staring us in the face as it is right now. It is impeding our ability to edit in a productive collaborative fashion, and it needs to stop. I am open to suggestions regarding the proposed material, and how best to move forward to find resolution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Errr, Does the source say this is linked to the dossier? What has this FBI spy got to do with the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I recommend reading the article published by WaPo titled Who is the Trump-linked source who led the FBI to treat the dossier seriously?. Considering you are editing in a highly controversial area, perhaps a quick refresher of WP:CIR is in order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted that WaPo link, but it's about Papadopoulos as that "human source". The FBI had been informed by the Australians about his drunken admission that the Trump campaign knew of stolen emails possessed by the Russians, long before they should have known. A number of other RS also make that connection. The FBI agents who met with Steele in Rome informed him that what he was telling them (some of the early allegations in the dossier) was already known to them from another source: the FBI "believed Chris’s information [the dossier] might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization."

At this time, Papadopoulos was still "inside the Trump organization" as one of Trump's advisors, and had been encouraged by the campaign leadership to make contacts with Russians, and he had done it multiple times. That included quite a bit of travel to Russia, Greece (where Putin then arrived at the same time....), and other European cities. This was all done to aid the campaign. When he got exposed he had trouble even getting them to cover his travel expenses.

The current brouhaha about some secret agent infiltrator is just a right-wing revival of that same FBI claim about a "human source" within the Trump campaign, but now clothed in conspiratorial clothing. They refuse to just admit that Papadopoulos was that person, because that clearly implies the Trump campaign was knowingly colluding with Russians, so they instead manufacture this conspiracy theory.

This is a place where Occam's razor applies; the simplest explanation is the right one. Papadopoulos is the guy. One can speculate if Papadopoulos carried a wire while he stayed close to Trump and other campaign members for some time after the FBI had privately confronted him and flipped him. That's entirely possible and fits one of their very legitimate methods for getting evidence about suspects. If that happened, then he could be considered "an FBI spy in the campaign". The timeline fits. Oddly, and not very patriotically, the GOP and Fox News would rather be more concerned about, and attack, the FBI and someone gathering evidence about possibly treasonous crimes, than about stopping the potential criminal(s), because they had already cast their full weight behind the Trump campaign. McConnell already knew that Trump might be compromised by Russians, and commanded the Gang of Eight to remain silent. Unfortunately McConnell has that kind of power.

All this information is from RS we already use in our various Trump-related articles and the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎. The exception is Phmoreno's and the right-wing's conspiracy theories. They are not documented here because they come from unreliable sources. Also the speculation about Papadopoulos maybe wearing a wire. We don't know that for sure, but we know they did flip him, and flipped suspects typically carry wires and report back about conversations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

On this theory, aren't you saying that Papadopoulos's arrest in July 2017 and criminal charges and guilty plea in October 2017 were all a ruse intended to cover up his Summer 2016 involvement in setting Trump up with a wiretap, and he's not really awaiting sentencing right now because once everything in the Mueller investigation comes out in the open, it will be revealed the whole prosecution was fake? Not out of the question but I'm not so sure that is the "simplest" way of reading the crystal ball. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK I will re-word it, which of the sources raised (until your one) discus the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

oOhh and his original claim (then one I challenged him for a source for) was "There is evidence that Democrat operatives set up members of the Trump campaign", not that there was an FBI mole. So do any of these sources say the FBI was working for the Democrats (or this spy was)? That was the claim he said he had proof of, as I pointed out this is not proof it is a (I did not say it then I will now) vague (vague as in nudge nudge wink wink) allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets make this easy, if you think an edd has issues report them, do not discus their actions here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop goading, Slatersteven. Just stick to content and we'll all be much happier. Following are more sources you can read: Politico, The Hill, The Independent - just Google dossier tied to FBI plant in Trump campaign and knock yourself out with all the info that comes up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am the one sticking to the content, a claim was made of evidence that the democrats set Trump up. All that has happened is the goal posts have been changed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact what we have here is (I am not going to count them just list them) more then one topic in this thread, none of which I started).

There is "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors

There is evidence that Democrat operatives set up members of the Trump campaign to create suspicious situations involving Russians

FBI spy or spies in the Trump campaign

there is no known evidence of Trump guilt

Did I miss any? So what is the content I should be sticking to?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're doing it again, Slatersteven. Please read the beginning of the discussion wherein the explanation clearly indicates this entire discussion has been about the censoring of important (notable) material cited to quality RS, beginning with the justified removal of the 1st item in your list, and inclusion of the 2nd, 3rd & 4th items, all of which are RS. My recommendation is to afford Factchecker_atyourservice the opportunity to compose something compliant with DUE & BALANCE, and post it here in a

Talk quote box like this one so we can review it.

It is what we should all consider productive collaboration and a positive attempt to build an encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So it is about the same thing we already have (what 2?) threads on already? Sorry but if this is just "There is no evidence trump did it" just rehashed again this serves no purpose and should be closed, we do not discus the same thing over and over again just re-worded. That is not how "productive collaboration and a positive attempt"s work, by just banging on about the same thing till you get your way.

So I am saying this now, I am only going to now comment in the thread above this one on this topic, anything suggested here I oppose on procedural grounds.Slatersteven (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

National Review article

This article, from the right-leaning National Review, is quite interesting. Goldberg manages to walk the tightrope between two sides of the same facts:

• Separating Conspiracy from Reality in the Trump–Russia Investigation, By Jonah Goldberg, May 23, 2018

Enjoy! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

James Clapper in introduction and potential conflict of interest?

At the moment, we quote James Clapper in the introduction of the article. I think there are two potential problems with this that needs to be raised.

(1) article introductions are supposed to be simply a summary of the article content itself. As far as I can see Clapper is not mentioned in the body of the article. If his views are not notable enough to form a central part of the article, then why is it in the intro?

(2) Clapper is a member of the Episcopal Church (United States) and has recent family members who are Episcopal ministers. Given that this dossier was authored by an MI6 operative, can an Episcopalian be considered a disinterested party on the topic? Is there a dog in the fight, so to speak? The Episcopal Church, is part of the Anglican Communion, a political pseudo-religion which is directly ran by the British establishment. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) The body does mention Clapper, do a "CTRL+F" search. (2) There's nothing to be concerned about there. His relevant affiliation is the U.S. intelligence community. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is a borderline trollish post since it misrepresents the article and puts forward an outlandish conspiracy theory.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)