Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Another case of Wikipedia bias

Ah, another wonderful case of Wikipedia bias. Keep draging Wikipedia throught the mud and chasing anyone who complains."eventually peddling a "deep state" conspiracy theory". "were almost immediately debunked including (Long list of supposed debunked cases in an ongoing case that doesn't belong to an intro". Using partial sources like The Washington Post, CNN, New York Times.

You have effectively chased away anyone that isn't as ideological as you and destroyed any semblancy of impartiality in the Wikipedia. Congratulations.

Rather than complain on a Talk page, perhaps your solution is to provide edits that are supported by reliable sources and see if they withstand scrutiny. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, with stuff like "promoting conspiracy theories in an attempt to falsify the evidence Mueller has accumulated." and "peddling a "deep state" conspiracy theory" right in the lede, the wording itself looks more like a forum post on DU than an actual factual article. I'd fix it but it'd just get reverted by the cabal who has come to control Wikipedia since they have so much more time than the rest of us living at Starbucks for most of the day. Jarwulf (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not try making changes rather than presume a "cabal" will revert them? soibangla (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Or, better yet, propose specific changes for discussion on the talk page, and build a consensus for them, so that they can not merely be reverted by someone who disagrees with them. bd2412 T 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Should Mariia Butina be in the table of charges?

Mariia Butina has been charged with crimes. Is this an element of the Special Counsel investigation, and if so, should it be in the table of charges brought? bd2412 T 18:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

no, she wasn't charged by Mueller soibangla (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No and no; for more explication, Butina's arrest was announced by the national security division of Justice, including the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, among others. So her case does not merit inclusion here. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

While WP:RS's note that it isn't under Mueller, they also clearly see the connection. Should be in the article, per WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

She's in paragraph #6 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)#Financial_investigations soibangla (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m inclined to delete that whole “Financial investigations” paragraph beginning “The Special Counsel is also investigating...” The source cited does not actually say that is a special counsel investigation, it says it’s by “FBI counterintelligence investigators”. That could mean under Mueller, or it could mean separately. If we delete it, we should make sure the information is available in other articles, such as the “Russian interference” and Torshin articles. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Additional sources specifically say the Butina case is NOT part of the Mueller investigation. They say she is being investigated by FBI agents with the counterintelligence division in the Washington field office. “The investigation was separate from the ongoing probe by special counsel Robert Mueller.” [1] She is also cooperating with a fraud investigation in South Dakota.[2] --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct, this is not under Mueller. Delete. — JFG ^talk 21:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but then there was this from the same source in June: McClatchy in January disclosed that Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating whether Torshin or others engineered the flow of Russian monies to the NRA, and the original January article states, "All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Mueller’s investigation is confidential and mostly involves classified information."

In February I emailed writer Greg Gordon and asked: "is this an FBI investgation that is separate from the Mueller investigation?"

He replied: "We're confident that this is part of Mueller's investigation. The FBI wouldn't have an investigation into the possibility of money moving during the campaign to Trump's biggest supporter that is separate from the rest of his Russia inquiry." Naturally, that email exchange isn't worth a bucket of spit here, but I just thought I'd throw that in. soibangla (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, and there have been other cases where matters that COULD have come under the Special Counsel are being handled by local U.S. Attorneys instead. (Cohen for instance.) Maybe we shouldn't get too deep into the weeds and just leave it here. Most people will not be surprised to find it included. Anyhow, this source which you cited seems to say that the investigation into NRA money IS a Mueller case. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe this material belongs in the article

and should be restored. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)&diff=850176862&oldid=850176639

On April 11, 2018, Trump tweeted "Big show tonight on @seanhannity! 9:00 P.M. on @FoxNews", twelve minutes before the program aired. During the program, Hannity discussed a purported "Mueller crime family", while his guest Newt Gingrich compared FBI activity under the Mueller investigation to that of the Gestapo of Nazi Germany, and guest Joseph diGenova asserted that Mueller "has surrounded himself with literally a bunch of legal terrorists." Hannity also discussed purported "crime families" headed by Hillary Clinton and James Comey. Alan Dershowitz, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others have asserted that Mueller was responsible for the improper imprisonment of four men when he was a federal prosecutor in Boston during the 1980s. In an opinion piece on April 18, 2018, entitled Smearing Robert Mueller, Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who presided over the matter, wrote "The record simply doesn’t support these assertions."

Can you articulate why you think it belongs in here? It seems undue and trivia to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

For some time, the heading for this section was "Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation," later changed to "Opposition to the investigation." I think the heading should be reverted (as well as the rather odd "2018" heading). The two edits above illustrate efforts to discredit the investigation by smearing Mueller with preposterous accusations. soibangla (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Any further discussion? soibangla (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I hear you - there certainly have been numerous attempts to discredit the investigation, including every time Trump uses Twitter - but I think "Opposition to the investigation" is still the best and most neutral title. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Mother Jones not RS?

@173.73.10.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): which criteria of WP:RS does Mother Jones violate? --bender235 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Mother Jones is a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 01:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree in this case. Awaiting alternative user input. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

We're not counting votes here. Either you can give a plausible reason for your revert, or the content will be restored. --bender235 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. And stay civil please. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again: which criteria of WP:RS does Mother Jones violate? Either you can answer this question, or you can get the hell out of this talk page. --bender235 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC) I spent quite a while yesterday trying to convince 173.73.10.191 to explain what they dislike about the source, and they repeatedly refused to explain. I don't think 173.73.10.191 has a real reason for disliking the source, but is just a troll. See the discussion titled "Don't delete sourced information" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.73.10.191 to read our conversation. 173.73.10.191 repeatedly pretended to have explained its reasoning, but never did. Letupwasp (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC) I've sufficiently explained why I've challenged the revision. No need to be hostile. 173.73.10.191 (talk) No, you never explained your revision at all. It's not hostile to call you a liar, it's accurate. You're lying when you say you explained. Your pretending that you're enforcing rules when you're just vandalizing an article. That's not hostile. That's what you've been doing. You're a troll, a vandal, a liar, etc. Again, I'm not being hostile being you are those things. Letupwasp (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately it seems you've mistaken my comment as being directed towards you instead of Bender235. It's understandable that you're upset with this situation, but this process is in place to ensure content on Wikipedia is reliable. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC) You still have yet to explain your challenge to the reliability of the citation.Letupwasp (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC) I have, you've just chosen to ignore it. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Nope, you're a liar. But please just remind us what your reason was.Letupwasp (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC) For a moment I had forgotten that you're just a troll. Have a nice day. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC) If you can guide us to the edit in which you offered an explanation, or if you repeat your explanation, that would make my day really nice. Thanks! Letupwasp (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You have not explained anything, other than citing Wikipedia procedural guidelines. The latter only detail how content disputes are handled, they aren't in itself a reason for revert. Please explain what makes Mother Jones an unreliable source in your opinion. --bender235 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said Mother Jones is an unreliable source, just the particular article. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Then please explain what makes this particular Mother Jones article an unreliable source in your opinion. --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Check WP:RS. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make a coherent argument in favor of the change you're trying to make. You haven't gained consensus (or even tried to gain consensus). Letupwasp (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking into it, the content in question is this I think. Which is sourced to this Mother Jones blog post. PackMecEng (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

173.73.10.191 has yet to explain what it dislikes about this source. So the discussion should be over until it provides an explanation for their deleting material sourced to a reliable source. Letupwasp (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's reliable, but should be attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) But in this case I see that it doesn't matter because the text has other citations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I pretty much agree with Volunteer Marek. If attributed it would be reliable for the authors opinion, which is the same for the other two opinion articles supporting the sentence. The other two sources [3][4] are also opinion sections. PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Mueller's" investigation ??

Quote: "Mueller's investigation took over several FBI investigations..." ...and more.

Funny, despite the Media's "to tell a story" bias of putting a human face on all complex issues, I thought this was a Department of Justice investigation. Of course the professional detractors love it more by loudly attacking the person, ad nauseam.

Wiki presumptions? Since I discovered it was not an FBI investigation, it took three links to here, and then following another to discover it was a Department of Justice investigation(...and I am still not sure that is the base organization).

Also, I added the missing "Department of Justice" to the lead by crudely modding a link, could be improved. Beware of lazy links and assumptions here. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:68BC:CE2A:BA27:3DC7 (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

It is a Special Counsel investigation. The Special Counsel falls broadly under DOJ, just as the FBI does, but it is accurate to refer to it by the name of the Special Counsel who is conducting it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Welp, you sure got us good. We will never live it down. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Promulgating a narrative" "implies the opposition is lying"

In fact, they are lying. Their false narrative is:

• The Steele dossier is 100% false. That's a lie. Parts have been confirmed, none have been publicly disproven.

• The FBI knew it was 100% false. That's a lie. See above.

• Even though they knew it was 100% false, the FBI used it as justification to open an investigation. That's a lie. They opened it because Papadopoulos blabbed to Downer.

• Even though they knew it was 100% false, the FBI used the dossier as the primary/sole evidence to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page. That's a lie. He had been wiretapped in 2014, long before the dossier.

• They did this to spy on the Trump campaign. That's a lie. Carter Page had left the campaign in September, the new warrant came in October, and when Page left the campaign they denied he'd ever worked on the campaign.

This false narrative has been repeatedly promulgated ad nauseam by Trump, Nunes, Hannity, Gingrich, Jarrett and others, in the hope that repetition will make it true. It will not. They are all lying. Just sayin'.soibangla (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Bingo. And that just scratches the surface of their house of lies. RS will bring it down. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume this section is in response to this edit which was quickly reverted. Without that connection to article content, this would be hatted as WP:FORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Patten was not charged by Mueller

It was a standard DOJ/NSD charge

I’d take it out of the table of charges myself, but I’m on an iPad right now and might mess it up.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/214-samuel-patten-charging-documen/665ff9158ffa09ed1e91/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 soibangla (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are correct, he was not charged by Mueller, but he is indeed cooperating with Mueller. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings:The Table of charges in this article is about charges brought by Mueller. Regardless of Patten's cooperation agreement, the charges against him were brought by the DOJ/NSD, not Mueller, so those charges don't belong here. I am adding a sentence under the Kilimnik section that Patten agreed to cooperate so that the article mentions it. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• WP RS are connecting to that investigation and you had his attorney's there during the case. There is clearly a connection. It needs to be in the chart, even if there should be a footnote on the chargers themself.Casprings (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read the court document. It's not Mueller. soibangla (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have. Just because he is letting other districts charge cases does not mean the case isn’t originating from his work.WP:RSes support this. Needs to be added.Casprings (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's investigation also began with Mueller, but he referred it to SDNY and they prosecuted Cohen. Are Cohen's charges listed here? That's all I have to say on this. soibangla (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Patten shouldn't be added here. Mueller did not bring these charges so it's disingenuous to add them to the table. I don't see why WP:RS is relevant here, just because a charge is connected to the investigation doesn't mean it should be added to the table. Cohen's charge was clearly connected aswell but rightly wasn't added to the table. YD407OTZ (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Soibangla and YD407OTZ that this is off-topic for the table of indictments, although it may be mentioned in the prose, e.g. with Patten, an associate of Manafort and Gates, was charged separately in relation to his Ukrainian business links. We need some sort of boundary around article scope, otherwise we end up playing "connect the dots" to infinity. — JFG ^talk 09:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

How about this.. we let WP:RSes tell us if it is conntected. I will open an RFC later today.Casprings (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with others here that this should not be listed in the table of Mueller indictments, although it should be mentioned in the prose here. Patten may later reach the point of importance to require his own subsection, but he isn't there now. Right now he does appear to be related to Kilimnik and to Manafort. He may well bring in a whole new aspect of the case, via the accusation of laundering of foreign money into the Inauguration fund. That huge, unaudited fund could turn out to be a huge issue in its own right, for multiple reasons; Patten is the first hint that Mueller may be looking into that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Trump counter-intel campaign

In an article in The Hill, Sharyl Attkisson gives the opinion that there is civil servant counterintelligence operation to counter Trump, which has lead to the Mueller investigation. Should such opinion be included in the reaction section of this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No One, she is producing an opinion while working for an organization which is known for POV pushing. Second, she just list a much of stuff that are either normal (unmasking), what you would do if you are running a sensitive investigation (Use code words, warrants, etc) or are totally unfounded (e.g. leaking.. the leaks are likely coming from Trump attorney's or others, not from Mueller).Casprings (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Attkisson is a Trump propaganda hack. Untrustworthy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/23/18 11:15 AM EDT 9,434 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL." Maybe if it got picked up or reported further by Reliable Sources, we could use it, but not when it's just one person's opinion in a Primary Source. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what happened. Gregg Jarrett wrote a best selling book, The Russia Hoax (with lots of references) on the subject. According to Devin Nunes, the opening of the counter-intel operation was based on "no official intelligence". The George Papadopoulos excuse is seen as insufficient probable cause according to Gregg Jarrett. Joseph Misfud was extremely bothered by his questioning by the FBI and even wrote an email to FBI saying that he and Papadopoulos only discussed topics as academics and didn't see anything incriminating about what Papadopoulos said. Spies were sent to infiltrate the Trump campaign. Ohr meeting with Simpson and Steele and passing the dossier to the FBI. Ohr's contacts in this included Strozk, Page, McCabe, Weismann. Journalist were also spied on under the Obama administration.

Phmoreno (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• No. It's an unproven conspiracy theory, which is nicely expounded upon above. It's all contrary to what RS say. As I've previously said (a long time ago), we could have an article about it, if it could be based on RS, but it's mainly based on interpretations of spread and disconnected facts, and then written about in unreliable sources, such as by Jarrett, Nunes, Strassel, and Atkisson. That's how conspiracy theories work. They say more about the mindset of the theorist than about actual events. If done properly, we could still have an article entitled the Russiagate conspiracy theory (The Russia hoax could be a redirect). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Why that conspiracy theory makes no sense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It makes no sense, as it presupposes Hillary did everything possible to help Trump win so that she could afterwards accuse him of harming her chances. No politician does that, and certainly not an experienced fighter like Hillary Clinton. Even though Comey's reopening of the email investigation cost her a whole lot of votes, he is accused of being part of some anti-Trump conspiracy with Clinton. (Pollsters saw an immediate shift away from her, and they see this as the turning point that cost her the election.) There is a lot of evidence against the conspiracy theory, as explained by the RS used in our articles, including the fact that the Clinton campaign didn't know about, and didn't use, most of what's in the Trump-Russia dossier opposition research, because, even though the DNC and Clinton campaign funded it, their lawyer, who handled all the contacts, never thought any of it was usable enough to relay on to his superiors. Most of its findings came as a surprise to them, long after Trump had won the election. Opposition research is supposed to be used to win elections, but that use never happened: "Far from a secret campaign weapon, Steele turned out to be a secret kept from the campaign."[5] The closest she ever came to revealing any insider knowledge (also found in the dossier) was at the third debate, when she called Trump Putin's "puppet" (Trump's actions at the Helsinki summit are seen as confirmation of that description), but by that time multiple international intelligence agencies were reporting to the CIA and FBI about very suspicious conversations between Russian nationals discussing their activities in cooperation with the Trump campaign, and she definitely did know it from them. Clinton, as Secretary of State, and others in the top of the Obama administration, knew that Trump and Putin were up to something bad, but, being afraid of appearing to use their COI to unfairly (un-democratically) tip the scales in the election, they stayed quiet. (That's how loyal to democracy and the rule of law they are. They refused to play dirty.) The worst player is McConnell who knew what was going on and failed to do his duty by refusing to allow the knowledge of Russian interference to become known. Biden has explained what happened. (The above information is all found in our articles.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)}}

I find the tone of this article to be strongly biased towards a liberal point of view.Clepsydrae (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why not edit it? soibangla (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Very long" tag

I get really tired of these tags. I know it's Wikipedia rules and regs and of course there are other Wiki projects, like books and Commons and whatever else where more detail can go that nobody knows about, but Wikipedia is the only thing anybody actually knows. So if an article is long because it has detail and whatever rules and regs enthusiasts use that as a means of dummying things down, questioning the available level of detail, which is somebody's hard work (!), I don't care if the powers that be are into it, these tags are crap.Achim Hering (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal Teams

While it is clear that hard work has been put into this articles, it is (in my opinion) too long. As part of splitting the article, I propose moving the section on the different legal teams to a new page entirely, with only a brief summary located on this page. I would also suggest creating a new article about Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, as they receive much more coverage on this page than any of the other defendants. Finally, I would create a new article for the opposition to the investigation, which is documented at length in this article. DannyS712 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In my view, any gains made by splitting the article are greatly outweighed by the loss of comprehensiveness, cohesion and continuity. The article tells a story. The perception that the article is too lengthy and thereby unwieldy is mitigated by the fact that it's hyperlinked, so readers can jump to sections they're interested in and ignore others, or just scroll and browse. Compelling readers to hop to an entirely different article disrupts the continuity of the story. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DannyS712. It would help the clarity of this article if it were broken up into components. In fairness to the editors of this article, I'm not in a position to split this up, because I don't understand the investigation well enough to split it up, so it might be WP:TOOSOON to refactor the article (per WP:HASTE). But I disagree that "these tags are crap"; we should aspire to simplify really long articles like this one, and push the complexity into sub-articles for readers who want (and need) more information about a particular part of the article. No article should be tl;dr for a reasonably motivated reader, but I have to confess, I haven't gotten around to reading this article beyond a cursory skim, and I probably won't today. I wish there was a shorter article I could commit to giving a detailed read in a short amount of time. -- RobLa (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa: I have created a Draft of a page dedicated to just the legal teams. I propose replacing the current section of this page dedicated to legal teams with a brief summary, and a link to the new "main article" for the topic (the draft I created). The content from this section has been copied into the draft. Comments/feedback on both the draft itself and the potential summary are much appreciated. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712:, it looks good to me on first read. I suppose it might make sense to have a longer intro in the new draft (e.g. summarizing the key members of the prosecution and defense teams), which would be a good place to draft the brief summary for use in this article. -- RobLa (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa: I would welcome help with the intro. I love the idea of also using it as the summary for this article. Would you be willing to help? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa: I have added more to the intro, and also expanded the "others" section. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: the Legal Teams Draft looks good. It might be good to beef up the summary a little bit more (e.g. summarizing the personnel changes on both prosecution and defense), but even without doing that, the draft looks good enough for a split. -- RobLa (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with splitting this article into smaller components. The legal teams are a good start (in fact, this article basically started as a list of the legal teams). bd2412 T 19:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't disagree with splitting this article into chunks, with links back and forth, etc., so long as the table of charges stays (and it doesn't get too unwieldy). —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa, BD2412, and Javert2113: I intend to finalize the draft and move it to mainspace (as well as remove the relavent section here, replace it with a summary, and add a "main article" link). If you have any changes you would like to make, please do so soon. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I implore you not to do this at this time. It is tantamount to working on a transmission as the car speeds down the highway. Cheers.soibangla (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the summary. It's not perfect (e.g. there is still some uncertainty about the attorney count) but the tally of attorneys is unclear in the existing article and only obfuscated by the excessive level of detail. I believe it is reckless to allow such a high-traffic article to exist in a form where it is too unwieldy to holistically review the content. I appreciate DannyS712's work to split this article up. -- RobLa (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree to the proposed split. The first draft about legal teams looks good enough to enact this particular split. Then we can look at other sections. — JFG ^talk 14:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this article is currently too long and some content should be forked. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have enacted the split for the legal teams. What other sections should become their own articles? Or, should the "too long" tag be removed? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the forking of "legal teams" and I have commented at that talk page about coming up with a better title. But there is now a problem with the remaining material under the "Legal teams" section: it is almost entirely unsourced. DannyS712, were there references in the material you removed, that can be added back here? --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good job! --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Shorter Summaries

Given that the "Paul Manafort and Rick Gates" section refers to a main article, I suggest that the summary given on this page be shortened by both separating Rick Gates from this section and/or going into less detail in this summary. For example, I suggest removing the discussion of the "gag order." --DannyS712 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I agree with you that the summary of the "Paul Manafort and Rick Gates" section needs to be trimmed. I expanded the summary of the Trials of Paul Manafort article, adding in important details about Rick Gates. Could the entire "Paul Manafort and Rick Gates" section of the 2017 Special Counsel investigation article be replaced by the newly-expanded summary of the Trials of Paul Manafort article? -- RobLa (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa: I think that would be appropriate. However, I have concerns that the lead section of Trials of Paul Manafort has no references. Would you be willing to add references to the lead, so that, if the entire "Paul Manafort and Rick Gates" section were replaced by the lead from Trials of Paul Manafort, it would properly reference sources? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Yeah, you're right. At least some of the references should survive in the summarized version without forcing readers to go to the Trials of Paul Manafort article to find them. I've started this, and may putter around on this over the coming days. But I'd appreciate help in copying the references into the summary. Any volunteers? -- RobLa (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa: I can help --DannyS712 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@RobLa: I have added references to the lede section of Trials of Paul Manafort. Can you transfer them to the summary? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Per the conversation above, I've replaced the "Paul Manafort and Rick Gates" section of this article with a newly-expanded summary of the Trials of Paul Manafort article. -- RobLa (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Reactions + Polling

Is the article still too long? I’m thinking the Reactions section could be split off if needed. Perhaps the Polling section also. starship.paint ~ KO 13:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would support splitting these reaction and polling sections out into a single new article. There is the investigation itself, the convictions it secures and the conclusions it reaches, and there is the separate matter of reactions to it by other people, including the public at large. All of that is secondary, and can be split out with a brief summary left in the parent article, which will neatly break out about a third of it. bd2412 T 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: I have created Draft:Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). bd2412 T 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Second update: Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) is now live and in mainspace, and I have moved almost all relevant material from the main article there. bd2412 T 20:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks bd2412, finally some breathing space in this article. — JFG ^talk 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Man pleads guilty in Pennsylvania State Case, expected to cooperate in Mueller Probe

I remember information about a man whom I believe pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania in a tax case. Although the case involved state charges, not federal, he was expected to cooperate in the probe. I don't remember who the guy's name was and I can't find any information on him. Could anyone help me and if this is not mentioned in the article, it should be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.126.89 (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 

I'll just leave this here

Regarding Peter Smith, who tried to find Clinton's emails, and reportedly used Flynn and his connections to help, and who committed suicide in May 2017, ten days after talking to Shane Harris at WSJ:

Shane Harris, the WSJ reporter who interviewed Smith days before his death, tweeted in July 2017 that he "had no indication that [Smith] was ill or planning to take his own life."

In June 2018, it was made public via a court filing that Kathryn Rakoczy, an attorney known for her work in violent crimes cases, had joined the Mueller probe

A Washington criminal defense attorney familiar with her work, who spoke anonymously to prevent tension between himself and Rakoczy, said her work for Mueller has generated some head-scratching, since Mueller isn’t investigating any violent street crimes

A suicide note found near him said: "NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER."

Hmmm soibangla (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Patten

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.

---

W. Samuel Patten pled guilty to Violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The case was brought by the US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. The Special Counsel referred the investigation to the District of Columbia and Patten’s plea agreement specifically says he must cooperate with the special counsel’s office. Andrew Weissmann, an attorney for the Special Counsel, attended Patten’s plea hearing.

1. Should this guilty plea and cooperation be included in the article?
2. Should the guilty plea be included in the chart per [6]
3. Should the table of charges chart be changed to reflect charges not made directly by the special Counsel but connected to the investigation?

Casprings (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes/Yes/Yes As OP. First, the connection between this case and the investigation is supported by multiple WP:RSes. See:

• Robert Mueller got another cooperator
• Lobbyist pleads guilty, says he helped steer foreign money to Trump inaugural and lied to Congress
• Mueller Just Gained a Witness With a View From Russia to Trump’s World

I fully understand that the case was not brought by the team. However, in this case the connection to the investigation is deep and much of the work to get this plea was done by this investigation. Mueller seems to be spreading the legal work of his investigation throughout the Justice Department. There could be multiple reasons for this, but the bottom line is that cases that are directly connected to this investigation should be included here, even if the cases are brought by other office within the Justice Department.

• Yes, No, No, per my comments in the thread above this one. (Seriously, this RfC is unnecessary; a consensus is clearly developing in the above discussion. Per WP:RFC, Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, No, No. Obviously the charge should be mentioned somewhere, it's substantially connected to the investigation. It is not however, a charge brought by the Special Counsel, no matter how involved they were in the investigation. YD407OTZ (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, No, No. We have several categories of things going on here. First, we have criminal acts being investigated by the Special Counsel, and directly relating to Russian interference in the election. Those are the various Russian agents and entities against whom charges have been filed but who are outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S., plus Richard Pinedo, who has pled guilty to such a charge. Second, we have criminal acts relating to the election but not being investigated by the Special Counsel, such as Patten and Cohen's illicit payments, and Marina Butina's infiltration of the NRA. Third, we have criminal acts being investigated by the Special Counsel but not directly relating to the election, such as tax evasion and bank fraud by Gates and Manafort. Really what we need is a separate article for criminal investigations regarding conduct during the 2016 elections, one which is not restricted to matters being investigated by the Special Counsel. It appears that a number of these matters have intentionally been referred out of that investigation to prevent the potential firing of the Special Counsel from disrupting the prosecution of such matters. It is therefore likely that there will be a continuing pattern of crimes relating to the election being handled in this way. bd2412 T 20:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Can skip, No, and No - Could skip mentioning here as it feels a bit WP:OFFTOPIC and he doesn't seem particularly prominent WP:WEIGHT or relevant to the investigation. So kind of in small trivia of unrelated items that pop out, could skip it. RS seems kind of showing it more from being associated with Manafort and post-election badness a couple steps removed from Russians, Election, or Trump. (Seems Mueller not charging him perhaps means that Mueller himself felt Patten was not part of the investigation.)

• Manafort associate pleads guilty to lobbying as a 'foreign agent'
• Paul Manafort associate who worked with Cambridge Analytica charged
• Manafort associate admits paying Trump inauguration $50,000 in Ukrainian cash

Definitely not in the chart - as said in the thread above, he was not charged by Mueller. And do not change format of the table for a single entry - if it goes in at all it could be as a line of text or as a footnote below the table. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, yes. If it really bothers people that these charges were referred by Mueller but not brought to him, put it in a different color or something. Volunteer Marek 05:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (brief mention) / No / No – It's not our role as encyclopedia to play "connect the dots" to infinity. Just state that a potential crime unrelated to the investigation was referred elsewhere. If the Patten litigation by itself becomes notable for any other reason than his actions having been incidentally uncovered by Mueller, then it can have its own article. — JFG ^talk 09:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (it is now), No, No soibangla (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, No, No: I haven't had time to peruse the article, but if Patten is mentioned in it, it's fine as-is (most likely); but Patten's case was not charged under the direct auspices of the Special Counsel's office. As such, the lawyers involved in the sentencing, etc., are not Mr. Mueller's lawyers, but rather standard ones from (probably) Main Justice. Nor should we be including tangentially-related indictments and pleas (that is, all cases involving Russian attempts at interference, espionage, or other matters that are not specifically handled in the entirety by the Special Counsel's office) as those would involve significant questions of weight and germaneness that would best be answered on separate articles. What I meant to say is this: tangentially-related cases may be mentioned in the article, most certainly; but they should not be included in the table (I should have made that clear when I titled that section). —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• No, No, and No This article shouldn't even exist. It's over-reliant on primary sources and you're asking if you can twist contemporaneous sources to fit your political agenda? Revisit the matter in 30 years when we have cogent history written. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • By that line of reasoning, we should not have an article on the Presidency of Donald Trump (or even on the Presidency of Barack Obama). bd2412 T 23:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Why not have a separate section entitled “Referrals from Special Counsel’s office” that explains how Mueller has made referrals to other federal prosecutors, and gives a separate table of those cases? That seems the most logical to me. Neutrality^talk 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a vote of Yes/No/No... and explain what you think? I think you should just see it as one list, even if the prosecution is handled by another office. Just make a note of that fact. All of these charges/pleas are coming from one effort and should be handled that way in the article.Casprings (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been almost a week now since the last response on the survey. @Casprings: any update to what will happen to this? YD407OTZ (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need a formal closure? The result looks pretty obvious. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been more than 2 weeks, I removed the content for now. YD407OTZ (talk) 21:26, 26 September 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.

Proposal: Navbox Footer

I suggest that there be a navbox footer for this page, and its "main article" subpages (legal teams, reactions, etc) as well as (perhaps) other connected pages. I have drafted a beginning template in my userspace, and I have included it below. Would do you think? Feel free to edit it at here. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support: seems like that there are enough sub-topics to justify a template footer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support There is also an article about the Legal teams involved in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Might need to move Trump down a line LOL. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I realize that you were joking, but your comment prompted me to reconsider whether Trump should be listed under "government personnel" along with those who are conducting the investigation. Instead, I replaced it with a link to the article about his presidency under the "related" section. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

He looked out of place there... that might be better. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Template now live, I am in the process of adding it to the pages:

--DannyS712 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova

It looks like we have a new indictment of a Russian national. This seems to be a fairly contested article, so I didn't know if I should add new information on my own. Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova was indicted a couple of days ago: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/politics/elena-alekseevna-khusyaynova-russia-charged/index.html

--Icowrich (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly related, but not appearently filed by Mueller. "The case appears to be an outgrowth of a larger case filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in February" maybe belongs under the Referrals. https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-10-19/u-s-charges-russian-for-conspiracy-to-interfere-in-elections I'm still looking for a source that says what office filed the charges in Virginia. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Prosecutors in Virginia, not Mr. Mueller’s team" www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-interference-midterm-elections.amp.html Sources are clear her activity goes back before the 2016 election. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"The new prosecution was brought not by Mueller but by the Justice Department's national security division and prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia. There is no allegation of co-ordination with the Trump campaign." https://www.burnabynow.com/russian-woman-charged-in-first-2018-election-meddling-case-1.23469937 Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not being handled by Special Council Mueller because it includes activities related to the 2018 elections, which are not part of his remit. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

State charge(s)

What about that guy who pleaded guilty, or agreed to do so, to a tax crime in Pennsylvania under state jurisdiction, not federal. He agreed to cooperate with the Special Counsel. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could clarify this individual's identity. I recall seeing a Wikipedia article about him, but I haven't found any information on him in months. I believe the press reported on him in April 2018. --98.109.183.2 (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

From source: "The case against Khusyaynova was unsealed in Alexandria, Virginia, and is not being handled by Mueller" soibangla (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to address me, I'm not talking about Khusyaynova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.183.2 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Time Trump asked sessions to resign VS time trump told Sessions to resign.

soibangla re "Trump requested and received the resignation" is the date of Trump's request known? He may have requested it earlier telling Sessions to do it after the midterms. Could it be reworded? I've tried but it's messy, example: "Trump received the resignation (upon an earlier request as stated in Sessions letter of resignation)..." Skinnytony1 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It would also be fine to say "fired". The "resignation" letter makes it clear this was involuntary and plenty of news sources can be marshalled to support "fired" Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I struggled with that wording. Gotta run, but I'll try again tomorrow, or you can fix it. Cheers.soibangla (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a try later...re Legacypac even using that language doesn't resolve the problem of when Trump communicated his intension to fire him and when the act took place. There could be minutes to months between the two. (its important because it may show collusion on behalf of sessions if he was asked a long time before and premeditated obstruction of justice on behalf of trump). I think it terms of precision the former language is better because there's two things happening here. I dunno?? Skinnytony1 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we know when Trump requested the resignation? I've not seen that yet. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent "proofread" attempt

@Roman J. Lane, Esquire:

You changed: The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of any foreign government efforts to interfere
...To: The Special Counsel Investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation which consists of any foreign government efforts to interfere.

"which consists of" makes it sound like the foreign governments are doing the investigation.

After that, any instance of "the investigation" is replaced with "this investigation." There's not really other investigations being discussed in the article, so I'm not seeing why this is necessary.

You changed federal crimes to federal crime violations. This is unnecessarily wordy and redundant, the colloquial "crimes" is more than sufficient.

You changed: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, in a plea bargain for Manafort's full cooperation with prosecutors
...To: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and by obstructing justice to only result in a plea bargain for his full cooperation with prosecutors

"to only result in" sounds like it's somehow a victory for Manafort. Replacing "Manafort's" with "his" is a good edit because it was established in the previous line that we're talking about Manafort.

You changed: In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and 3 Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency, and in June 2018 added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik,
...To: And in February 2018, Mueller further indicted thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities who are mostly notable from the Internet Research Agency. While in June 2018, he added another indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner.

The "while" makes it sound like it's unrelated and is unnecessary. The previous version was more to-the-point.

You added as a result to the end of with Sean Hannity eventually promoting the "deep state" conspiracy theory -- The source does not say that it was necessarily a result of the prior events listed.

You changed DNC servers to servers owned and operated by the Democratic National Committee. The former gets the point across far quicker.

Now, I would not call this a good proofread/copyedit. I'm not sure why you bothered. I'd've liked to just ignore it, except that... you changed were almost immediately debunked to were and continue to be unresolved with some confirmed to be true, or frankly debunked. This all but turns the sentence around and does not seem to follow the sources cited. I'd've ignored everything else but this is certainly changing the content, and in a way that's not supported by the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

The title suggests that there is, or could only be, one special investigation at a time.

My suggestion is

   Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) instead should be
   Special Counsel investigation on Russian Election Interference (2017–present)

In the sentence: The investigation has resulted in dozens of indictments for federal crimes, and at least eight guilty pleas or convictions.

   If you plead guilty, are you not then convicted?  Should "guilty pleas or" need to be in this sentence?  Is it really an OR

When the conversation changes to Flynn's involvement (in the sentence after footnote 5), should this not be a new paragraph?

In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and 3 Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency,[10] and in June 2018 added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner.[11]

Is Konstantin Milimnik one of the 13? Should this in fact be two sentences instead of the 'and' used to combine them?

In July 2018, 12 members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were indicted.[12] Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen were referred to the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York.[13]

Again, where these 12 members also part of the 13 that are mentioned at the start of this paragraph? Or should this be a different paragraph? Then you also start to wonder if this should not actually be a section devoted to the criminal actions brought forth by the commission?

While initially enjoying bipartisan support,[14] the special counsel investigation became subject to criticism by Trump and his supporters in the conservative media within months, with Sean Hannity eventually promoting the "deep state" conspiracy theory.[15]

Is there a reference to back the claim that the special counsel has become subject to criticism and by who? Is that criticism just by conservative media, or has liberal media also levied criticisms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-ClaudeD (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Split out criminal charges section?

This article continues to grow and grow, to the point where it takes an annoyingly long time just to save an edit. I propose splitting out Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Leave a brief summary on this page, and put the table, long descriptions, and referrals, in the new article. bd2412 T 18:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me soibangla (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Support I could move it this weekend if no one gets to it prior --DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I plan to let the discussion sit for a few more hours, to see if there are any well-reasoned objections to be made. bd2412 T 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A very good idea. Already doing it. We can decide how much info needs to stay in the main article. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)o

Contrast this investigation with other special investigations

538 has a handy figure that compares the Mueller probe to other special investigations in terms of time and indictments.[7] Among other things, it shows many more indictments than other investigations and a far more rapid speed. This would make a useful addition. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article split with dates?

Do we have other similar articles--investigations, etc--which are split into two separate articles by date? Why should this article be different? There are long articles on Wikipedia, it seems like it would be more concise and more useful to merge these two articles into one, no?

Cheers, 129.22.1.19 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• To which two articles do you refer? bd2412 T 16:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Likely the timeline articles where we have a 2016, 2017, 2018 and now 2019 page started. Without splitting we would not be able to load and edit. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

my recent edit - Hannity plainly stumping for Trump now

Vox reports that Sean Hannity is no longer squarely in the "media" column now, however slanted that coverage. He is a direct supporter of Trump. We can cite media, we can cite conservative media. But Hannity is a bit to close to the sun on this I think. Wingspan Shadow (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Now" a direct supporter? LOL. "Sean Hannity Turns Adviser in the Service of Donald Trump", NYT, August 22, 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Lobbyists

"In August 2017, Mueller's team issued grand jury subpoenas to officials in six firms" then goes on to talk exclusively about the Podesta group. Either orange tag it for expansion, or cull the WP:UNDUE weight. You have named individuals in there, BLP and all that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker

You are invited to participate in Talk:Matthew Whitaker (attorney)#RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker. R2 (bleep) 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Roger Stone

Needs a new section now, I would suggest. Key wording is "During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1."Casprings (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger Stone indictment for one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering

Tie-in to Battle of Khasham

See Battle_of_Khasham#U.S._version in Syria Feb 2018 for the relation of the Wagner Group (a paramilitary group) to Concord Management, which has shared the same management since 2017.

Should this go into the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There is definately a connection between Wagner and Concord that should be spelled out in the articles about those companies. This article is narrowly focused on the Special Counsel investigation so this is not really the place for that detail. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible omissions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation for sentence in the Reactions section?

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 22 March 2019

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

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

---

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

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

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Executive privilege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 24 March 2019

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

archives

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

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

Why was this reverted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CURRENT

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

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

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

SUGGESTED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Wcmcdade: - Rosenstein [12] "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows: Robert S. Mueller III is appointed". Also, Rosenstein: [13] " I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority ... Considering the unique circumstances of this matter, however, I determined that a Special Counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome." starship.paint ~ KO 01:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• This seems to not show that FBI was sole cause and the article seems overstating. It really does not show Rosenstein was motivated or even a linkage, it shows only some external commentators view it existed and had an effect. There was also existing Congress (Democrats at least), the Steele dossier, and the ODNI inputs and various commentators saying they played a role (and others saying politics)... but nobody is a mind reader to know what influenced the decisions. Unless it is in the appointment letter or Rosenstein testimony evidence of the thinking, we just do not know — anything saying otherwise... it’s speculation at best, and false promotion spin a distinct possibility. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin story tangle

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Starship.paint “I also just don’t see the added going into views on backstory of the swallowed investigations as suitable” .. OFFTOPIC is OFFTOPIC... it’s just not part of Meuller investigation. Going on for a further detour just to do dissing that for much of 2017 the Steele dossier was known as a factor is even further off the topic.

• I suggest you self-revert or re-edit it at least for flaws in TONE and insufficient/mishandled cites. The TONE is posturing the Steele association and existence as not a factor. And it is stating “considered by the media” as if universally said as fact, ignoring the cites phrasing e.g. Guardian “some say” and stating that is disputed, or National Review ‘if the Nunes memo is correct’, or the Intercept that the Steele dossier was around and unavoidably an influence, plus any views from Fox et al? This also seems not conveying the actual sequence of events of which was publicly known when - obviously the Nunes memo was not known of during the period in question. If you don’t delete it all, I suggest you should edit to ‘first do no harm’ avoid what may convey falsehood or confuse sequence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: It's not off topic because the sources deem it not to be. I've provided many sources on that already. I will edit the tone of the Nunes sentence. By the way, about your description, on the Steele association, I'm not going to self-revert because I never added that information into the article. You can do a check, the content and the source was not added by me. starship.paint ~ KO 05:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh. If you don’t self revert so the whole section isn’t deleted then I suggest you should edit it. But hey, I’ll take this non-objection and disavowal as being Ok to pull and do it this time, and you get the next. Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - you misunderstood. I wrote the part of Nunes, and fully stand by that. Someone else wrote the part of the Steele dossier (after Nunes part). In between my previous comment and now an inaccuracy appeared in the Steele dossier sentence, I corrected that according to the source. starship.paint ~ KO 06:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Anyway, clearly the sources I added relate the Nunes memo to the Mueller investigation. [14][15][16] were removed by you. There's more, you deleted the information before I could add it. [17] [18] [19] [20] - I'll leave this for other editors to comment. If this gets lost in the shuffle, I'll create another section eventually. starship.paint ~ KO 06:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Eh, my delete of the Steele line was undeleted ... just a COATHOOK there piddling out a list of names as wrong! who said something about an investigation that isn’t this one. Partisan mud about some events months before Meuller. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer, Soibangla, BDS334, and MelanieN: - pinged because you have worked on the subsection on Original FBI investigations. Markbassett makes the claim there is overlap between the content with this subsection and others below. I believe the other overlapping content is in Topics. Markbassett thus argues that the content should be merged. What are your views on this matter? starship.paint ~ KO 03:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• It is essential that the origins of the investigation are clearly described, as it's a daily, repeated, lie from Trump and his administration that the dossier was the spark for the Russia investigation, even though the investigation started before the dossier.

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

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

• Maybe there too, but I said “The absorption by Meuller of prior investigation is after his appointment and was already stated at the end of the Comey section,” which is in the Origin section. Absorption is briefly noted just half a screen lower at the end of the appointment section - suitable as it happened just after appointment — and then just another screen further the next subsection Reasons/Firing of Comey ends with a paragraph on that led to obstruction investigation also being rolled in. Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: so where in your opinion is the appropriate place for the information? starship.paint ~ KO 05:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

those fit well enough, but the duplication in this new section doesn’t. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation?

According to court transcripts cited on the Rachel Maddow show, the Washington, DC grand jury involved with this investigation is still meeting and hearing testimony about potential criminal activity and Mueller's legal team is involved. I realize that we need to have reliable sources for this claim but, if proven true, would this affect the timeline of the article? It could be that the investigation is not officially over even though a report has been submitted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The investigation by Mueller is over. The other parts are prosecution activities based on the results or items uncovered during the investigation. That will go on technically many years. Bohbye (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

How should the article describe them? The grand jury will remain secret, but the Judge in the mystery corporation case says she will release some of its information, and Flynn and Manafort are still cooperating with investigations apparently transferred from the Special Counsel to other prosecutors. EllenCT (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

It is inappropriate to refer to a past or present President of the United States without the honorific. In reference to an administration, is is appropriate to use terms such as "Trump administration", however, when referring to the person of the President, particularity when referencing actions or statements made after taking the oath of office, he should be referred to as "President Trump" 66.175.148.38 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The house style is only to require honorifics in the lead sentence of biographies. See MOS:HONORIFIC. EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

and yet, when referring to President Obama, the honorific is used over 90% of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.148.38 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's discretionary, e.g., in an article about some early American history if it wasn't talking about President Jackson earlier then it's a good idea to call him that, and then Jackson in subsequent paragraphs. But this article is very large and everyone knows who it's talking about. "President Trump" already occurs 21 times in this article, but it's only really appropriate in contexts where he needs to be disambiguated from his sons. EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparison to other Special Counsel (or similar) investigations

A number of WP:RS have published pieces comparing the Mueller investigation to other, similar investigations, e.g. re: Whitewater, Iran-Contra, and Watergate. These typically focus on metrics like the length of the investigation, the number of people prosecuted, and the success rate of those prosecutions. Examples: [21] [22][23] [24] [25] [26] [27].

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

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

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

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

Muboshgu, thanks, but we do not need to know what is in the report, in order to know metrics like:

• how long the investigation took,
• how many people were prosecuted by the special counsel,
• how many of those prosecutions secured guilty pleas or verdicts.

These can all be reported now, and compared to past investigations where RS support such comparisons. Zazpot (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Length of report

The length of Mueller's report should probably be mentioned, ideally in an infobox. The Justice Department has confirmed that it is between 300-1000 pages long.

The figure can be updated in the article if a more precise one becomes available. Zazpot (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References