Talk:2017–2018 Department of Justice metadata seizures

Good title?

MelanieN Do you think I created the article with a good title? Or should the article be moved given all available information? -- Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This title will probably get changed at some point but it will do for now, especially if we make a lot of redirects so people can find the article. I suspect at some point we will come up with a different title, but right now I don't have any suggestions. In any case we should discuss here before making any moves. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW congratulations on creating the article. Somebody had to, and you did a good job. I must admit I am surprised there aren't more people here working on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I was surprised there wasn't an article already on this either, so I just took some sources and made one up. I also note that CNN kept referring to it as a scandal a couple hours ago (I remember reading it yesterday and found it on internet archive today), which to me seemed sensationalist. Should the article name be changed to reflect that, or is it too early? -- Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Too early. IMO we would need a near-universal use of the term by Reliable Sources before we title this as a scandal. Some of these incidents are just hard to summarize in a brief title. It took several tries before the Capitol insurrection found its current title. If we wait a few days, mainstream sources will probably settle on what to call this thing, and we will follow their lead. For now, this title is accurate and neutral, and will do until the subject finds its name. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

This title is looking better and better - as it appears that the seizures extended to not just journalists and congressmembers, but also the White House's own White House attorney. If more and more names crop up as targets, the simple title "data seizure" is looking more and more appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing from news organizations targeted by the Trump DOJ - bias?

I just noticed that a significant majority of the sources cited are from CNN, WaPo, or NYT, the same news orgs targeted by Trump DOJ. Does bias come into play when citing these sources? I don't want to see some random WP user jump with a one-liner "This article reeks of bias" -- Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It is maybe a little heavy on CNN; I don't think the NYT or WaPo citations are excessive. If we can find sources other than CNN to replace a few of these citations it wouldn't be a bad idea. But it's not surprising that those sources were the first and most vigorous in reporting this, since after all they were the first to find out about the incursions - they were notified by Apple and Microsoft after the gag orders were lifted. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this WP:EXTRAORDINARY?

The article reads (bold mine)...

After the transition to the Biden administration, the Justice Department continued to pursue three cases, and pressed to keep gag orders imposed on two news organizations even after Biden said he would end the practice of investigating journalists.

...sourced only to The Hill...

...the department continued to push for gag orders in two cases even after President Biden said late last month that seizure of journalist records was "simply wrong."[1]

...but I don't see corroboration of that elsewhere. I see this...

...the government imposed a gag order on CNN’s lawyers and its president...a New York Times lawyer revealed a similar fight — and a gag order imposed in March. The government abandoned its battle for the Times reporters’ email logs on June 2 without having obtained any...[2]

So the gag orders continued into the Biden administration, but I don't see corroboration they continued after Biden's statement. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added the dates of the various statements to the article. Biden said on May 21 that he would forbid the practice. Yet the DOJ continued pursuing gag orders into June, finally abandoning the last of those fights on June 2. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But "The gag order was lifted on March 3, 2021," as opposed to "On June 2, 2021, the DOJ informed NYT it would quash the order to Google and disclose its prior seizure of phone records." Is "the order" the subpoena rather than the gag order? soibangla (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the "order" in "On June 2, 2021, the DOJ informed NYT it would quash the order to Google and disclose its prior seizure of phone records" is the subpoena for the data. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a mistake in the article. March is when the order was imposed, not when it was lifted. The cited source says "Mr. McCraw said Friday that a federal court had lifted the order, which had been in effect since March 3, freeing him to reveal what had happened." -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC) P.S. I have removed "The gag order was lifted on March 3, 2021" from the article. The source does not support it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction @MelanieN. I will change a sentence "The Biden administration, while continuing to pursue the email records, notified a few NYT executives of its quest, but subjected them to a gag order on March 3 which prevented them from disclosing the government's efforts even to its executive editor, Dean Baquet. " The gag order was imposed on March 3 and lifted on June 2. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But still, since it was imposed in March, doesn't that mean The Hill is incorrect DOJ continued the practice after Biden's May statement? An existing order was in place when Biden made the statement, then DOJ had to go through processes to end it days later. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The "existing gag order", which was imposed (or reimposed) on March 3, was imposed by the Biden administration. They were in charge on March 3. After Biden's May 21 statement they took steps to cancel such orders, but we don't have any evidence when they started or how long it took them. Reporting is that they continued to push for gag orders into June until finally dropping it June 2. Anyhow, it appears to be uncontested fact that the practice did continue for a few months under the Biden administration DOJ. A DOJ spokesman confirmed as much in early May, before Biden said to stop it. This is not to fault DOJ. An investigation is like a freight train, it can't stop on a dime. They do appear to have changed course now, and that is reported in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC) -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Reporting is that they continued to push for gag orders into June Yes, which I see in The Hill, but nowhere else, hence my topic. If the assertion that Biden's DOJ pushed it even after Biden said he'd stop is supported in just one source, I'd say that's an extraordinary claim and should be excluded. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't find that claim extraordinary. It's kind of the way governments work. You would think, if it was inaccurate, somebody in the government would have said so by now. What we actually know: the DOJ's first announcement that they were changing course came on June 5, two weeks after Biden's announcement. That spokesman said "on multiple occasions in recent months," the Biden-era department had moved to delay enforcement of the gag order. That would be a little more believable if it weren't for the reporting from several sources that a gag order was imposed or reimposed on March 3. Or even if they had made any kind of "we're working on it" announcement sooner than two weeks after Biden's order. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other. As I said, I understand DOJ had to go through processes to end it days later, but the fact that only one source has reported Biden continued the practice after he said it would end feeds into a narrative of "Biden said he was stopping it but he continued it! He lied!" which is similar to "Biden said he'd stop the wall but he continued it! He lied!"[3] which feeds into a larger narrative of "Biden is doing the exact same things Trump did that you said were bad and evil which proves you were always lying and Trump was right all along!" I think The Hill phrased the sentence poorly, as if the fact DOJ didn't pull the order until days later meant Biden was continuing the practice, but I don't see anyone else reported that. soibangla (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, let me do some more reading and see if anyone else has pointed out this timing issue. One thing IS clear: the Biden DOJ was continuing the same practices, unapologetically and openly, until Biden said he wouldn't allow it. What we differ about is what DOJ did after Biden said what he said. Did they spend the two weeks trying to shut it all down, as nobody seems to have said? Did they continue pressing to maintain at least the gag orders, as some reporting suggests? Are most sources silent on the issue just because nobody expected them to turn on a dime? Let's try to find more sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen either spend the two weeks trying to shut it all down or continue pressing to maintain at least the gag orders explicitly reported, but at this point the whole story is making my head spin and roll right off my shoulders. soibangla (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we've spend enough time on this. I am coming to think maybe we shouldn't call attention to a timeline when actual information about the timeline is kind of shaky. So how about if we change

After the transition to the Biden administration, the Justice Department continued to pursue three cases, and pressed to keep gag orders imposed on two news organizations even after Biden said he would end the practice of investigating journalists.

to

After the transition to the Biden administration, the Justice Department continued to pursue news organization investigations and gag orders for several months, following "established procedures". In early June they said that, "consistent with the president's direction", they had discontinued the practice of subpoening journalists.

Is this change OK with everybody? In the article we do provide all the dates of who said what when; let people draw their own conclusions. The source for the quote is NYT which could be added to that sentence. The sentence is currently in the "others" section although I'm not sure if that's where it belongs. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OK by me. Maybe we've spend enough time on this. Indeed. soibangla (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I made the change. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

John Demers?

I am noticing some contradictory information here. We are saying currently: "John Demers head of the DOJ National Security Division, was heavily involved in the orders and investigations", however, these orders and investigations occurred in 2017. Demers was confirmed in February of 2018 after these orders and investigation occurred. While he was probably notified in some sense of any remaining analyzes, he wouldn't be "heavily involved", if involved at all. When looking through sourcing, I only was able to find one vague statement to that ends, from CNN, which stated: "he was also involved". I cannot find this claim anywhere else, and rather I can only find things stated that he was possibly have been informed of. I think we ought to change our wording here, though I thought I should put it for discussion first. Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

His role is a bit fuzzy, but he worked in NSD before being nominated to head it in Oct 2017 and confirmed in February 2018. soibangla (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In the CNN article it states "Prosecutors from the Justice Department's National Security Division, which is still led by Trump appointee John Demers, were also involved in the order and investigation." Furthermore, the investigation began in 2017 and occurred well through the Trump administration under his tenure till January 26, 2021, when there was mutual agreement for the gag order to expire in May. In regards to his involvement in the CNN investigation, you could rephrase it to "was involved in the order and investigations" or just paraphrase the third last paragraph in the CNN article. I can do the latter. Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I am sure we will probably know the full extent later, I was just thinking we should be cautious for now. Those changes make sense and sound good to me! Also, do we know how long it spanned yet, I thought that was still unclear? (the investigation that is, not the gag order) Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph was somewhat unclear, particularly about his departure. I have reworded it somewhat and clarified what sources apply to what facts. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Section Congress heading as House/Senate or Democrats/Republicans?

Not sure whether to section off Trump administration data seizure#Congress with House and Senate subheadings (currently) or Democrats/Republicans. Wondering if others have a preference for either? Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

House/Senate seems like the better divide for looking back in the future, but tbh either could work. Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely House/Senate. It could be taken as POV / trying to make a political point to divide it into Democrats/Republicans. I do think the section needs trimming. We devote whole paragraphs to quoting people at length; our usual practice would be to summarize with a single sentence or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I pared down a little of the excess quoting. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Seems like this was an uncontroversial move. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC) ~~~~

---

Trump administration data seizure → 2017–2018 Department of Justice congressional metadata seizures – The current name isn't very precise, and it's not easily recognizable. I don't have a quick and easy fix that I am strongly tied to, though I do think that the title should probably reflect that the DOJ (rather than the administration writ large) seized the data and that, since these sorts of data seizures happen all the time in legitimate criminal investigations, we probably want to put the group of people whose data was seized and the years in which the seizures occurred. All this, taken together, leads me to propose the aforementioned naming change, though I'd be open to tweaks if we can crowdsource a name that is both more precise and more concise. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2021 (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.

The move

Mikehawk10, I didn't see your proposal earlier, maybe I need to trim my watchlist. But the new title doesn't address the seizures of metadata from the press, which is extensively covered in the article. soibangla (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the move isn't uncontroversial given your objection, I'd have no issue re-opening the move request and/or brainstorming on a better title. Would dropping "congressional" from the title help to resolve your concerns? Or would you rather it also include some explicit mention of the news media in the title? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose dropping "congressional" would suffice. soibangla (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Will do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017–2018 Department of Justice metadata seizures/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 19:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look at this! — GhostRiver 19:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Background

• there were 27 open investigations into what he called an "epidemic" of leaks of classified information, about nine times what the Obama administration had undertaken. Copied from source

Metadata seizure

CNN

• Prosecutors were seeking email records from a time period when Starr reported on US military options in North Korea that were ready to be presented to Trump, as well as stories on Syria and Afghanistan. Copied from source
• CNN General Counsel David Vigilante was prohibited under a gag order issued by a federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia from sharing any details about the government's efforts with anyone beyond the network's president, top attorneys at CNN's corporate parent and attorneys at an outside law firm. Copied from source

Washington Post

• Most of this paragraph is close to or copied from the source and needs to be reworded per WP:LIMITED

Lawmakers

• While Apple says it would have normally informed customers copied from source
• records seized included those from staff members who had nothing to do with issues related to Russia or former FBI Director James Comey, Copied from source

Reactions

Organizations

• A Google spokeswoman said that while it does not comment on specific cases, the company was "firmly committed to protecting our customers’ data and we have a long history of pushing to notify our customers about any legal requests." copied from source

Trump administration

• push to unmask leakers of classified information very specific phrase copied from source

Biden administration

• Almost all of the last paragraph is copied from the source

References

• Reference [65] is a bare link that needs to be filled in full
• Access date needed for [11] (Benner), [29] (Savage and Goldman), [88] (Schiff)
• Missing work on [38] and [66]

General comments

• Photos are properly licensed and relevant
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Concerns about Earwig score noted above. Most is from quoting, some needs to be fixed

The number of copyright violations here (I have not even checked all of the matches), plus the fact that you have already received warnings for copyright violations, gives me significant pause in this review. I am marking this as a fail. — GhostRiver 22:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)