Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second lede paragraph - trim?

I'd like to revive the discussion on the second lede paragraph. I believe it's too detailed. Fragments I would like to question in particular are who had a four year long relationship with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States,[1] and in December 2015 had been photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin[2] on an undisclosed trip to Russia,[13] and who Russian intelligence agents described as an ally they could use to influence Trump,[3] ... Sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress in response to Russian electoral interference were not imposed by Trump,[4][5] to the astonishment of some observers.[6] - as not apparently relevant to this investigation. Even the references quoted here don't mention the Mueller investigation in relation to this info. I think EllenCT probably wrote this, so here's a ping. starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

By the conclusion of the investigation in March 2019, 34 persons had been indicted for federal crimes. Seven of these individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted in federal court. In August 2018, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of eight felony counts of fraud and bank crimes in Virginia,[10] and, in a plea bargain with prosecutors, also pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States.[11][12] Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s first National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian ambassador during the campaign,[13] and became a cooperating witness for the investigation.[14] Others pleading guilty included Manafort's business partner Rick Gates, Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan,[15] Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and Richard Pinedo.[17] Most became cooperating witnesses for investigators. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency;[18] in June, he indicted Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's former business partner,[19] to whom Manafort had passed internal campaign polling data.[20] In July 2018, 12 members of the GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were also indicted.[21] Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and lobbyist W. Samuel Patten,[16] were referred to their respective United States Attorneys.[22] Finally, longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone was indicted on seven charges in January 2019.[23]

Javert2113 proposed this, which I believe is an improvement. starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I made a correction of a wording error. The changed text is reflected in bold above. starship.paint (edits | talk) 08:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: the #RFC was open for five days during which I was the only one who voted. I feel that the parts you don't like establish important context per WP:LEAD. At least two of the passages were discussed and consensus arrived at in the weeks leading up to the RFC. If you want to replace passages, please open another RFC and participate in it. EllenCT (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: why do you think omitting Flynn's relationship with Kislyak, that he didn't disclose his trip to have dinner with Putin as required, what Russian intelligence said about him, and the sanctions outcome improves the article? You wrote, "the references quoted here don't mention the Mueller investigation," but [7] does at length, and the other facts certainly "establish context" per WP:LEAD. Do you have any specific reasons that readers would not be served by such context, other than "too detailed"? EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: The CNN article mentions this investigation at length. That’s the exact problem, the investigation is just a quip in the article, it’s not the main focus. Readers are not served because all of these information distract from the real focus of the article. This is a criminal investigation. Flynn had dinner with Putin - is that criminal? He didn’t disclose that meeting - is that criminal too? I’m not aware he was charged for it. Sanctions were applied - was that due to this investigation? I think not, the report wasn’t released then? It’s about relevancy to the topic. starship.paint (edits | talk) 06:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: those facts about Flynn, the Ambassador, Russian intelligence, and sanctions are important context because he was convicted of lying to investigators about his discussion with the Russian Ambassador about sanctions. We'll probably have to wait for Mueller's congressional testimony to find out why he felt so differently about sentencing than the Judge. In the mean time, since the current text was decided by an RFC, if you think the release of the report has weakened the argument for including those facts, you should articulate the reasons in another RFC. EllenCT (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: - I have no comment regarding your comment on Flynn, etc. But no, the current text wasn't decided by RFC, because by your own admission, only you replied to it. starship.paint (edits | talk) 08:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint - responding to ping. My input last time was to nudge that immediately prior discussion said things like “We can heavily trim the second paragraph”, “the lead still needs a good trim”, and “Practically the whole 2nd paragraph can go”. That was saying 'reduce' for the size about a month ago -- and instead the article and lead has since grown about 25%. As I suggested before, the wording could drop the flowery fillips for some -- but it's looking like it needs to be a lot more serious than that and get organized about "cut or shift to section heads is the goal" for most of the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
As long as everyone remembers the difference between the counterintelligence and law enforcement cases, and doesn't blur details from one into the other, I don't care about the specific nature or volume of either set. Have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: - RFC's closed, please please move the stuff you added in the lede to the body before someone deletes it. Same for Mueller Report please, the stuff you added to the lede but not the body, please also write it in the body.... starship.paint (edits | talk) 03:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC take two

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seems a strong preference to use Javert2113's version as the starting point. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Which version of the second paragraph do you prefer? 16:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Options under the fold

EllenCT's current version of the second paragraph:

As of April 2019, thirty-four individuals were indicted by Special Counsel investigators.[9] Eight have pled guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including at least five Trump associates and campaign officials.[10] Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had a four year long relationship with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States,[11] and in December 2015 had been photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin[12] on an undisclosed trip to Russia,[13] and who Russian intelligence agents described as an ally they could use to influence Trump,[11] pled guilty to making false statements about his discussions of sanctions with the ambassador.[14][15] Sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress in response to Russian electoral interference were not imposed by Trump,[16][17] to the astonishment of some observers.[18] Mueller's proposed plea agreement with Flynn was rejected by the sentencing judge, who accused Flynn of selling out his country.[19] Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts[20] and later pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of justice.[21][22] A lobbyist for Russian interests in Ukraine for a decade,[23][24] Manafort had been released on an agreement to cooperate, but subsequently lied to investigators and was sentenced to over seven years in jail.[25] Mueller's team also indicted twenty-five Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency[26] and twelve members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking,[27] about which Trump claimed to have advance knowledge.[28] In June 2018 investigators added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner[29] who investigators accused of working for Russian intelligence.[30] Manafort arranged for Kilimnik to receive internal campaign polling data[31] months before their August 2, 2016 meeting to discuss winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states and a plan for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine.[32] Also among the convicted were Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pled guilty to making hush payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal for Trump in violation of campaign finance and possibly state tax laws,[33][34] Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos,[35] and Russian spy Maria Butina, who was interviewed by Special Counsel investigators but prosecuted by the National Security Law Unit.[36][37] Longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone, who had met with a Russian agent offering to sell information about Hillary Clinton,[38] was indicted on seven charges.[39] Following the conclusion of the special counsel, at least three dozen ongoing investigations originally handled by the Special Counsel's office were passed on to district and state prosecutors, other Department of Justice branches, other federal agencies, and Congress.[40]

Javert2113's alternative version of the second paragraph:

By the conclusion of the investigation in March 2019, 34 persons had been indicted for federal crimes. Seven of these individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted in federal court. In August 2018, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of eight felony counts of fraud and bank crimes in Virginia,[10] and, in a plea bargain with prosecutors, also pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States.[11][12] Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s first National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian ambassador during the campaign,[13] and became a cooperating witness for the investigation.[14] Others pleading guilty included Manafort's business partner Rick Gates, Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan,[15] Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and Richard Pinedo.[17] Most became cooperating witnesses for investigators. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency;[18] in June, he indicted Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's former business partner,[19] to whom Manafort had passed internal campaign polling data.[20] In July 2018, 12 members of the GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were also indicted.[21] Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and lobbyist W. Samuel Patten,[16] were referred to their respective United States Attorneys.[22] Finally, longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone was indicted on seven charges in January 2019.[23]
  • I support Javert2113's proposed version, which does focus on actual indictments stemming from this investigation. EllenCT's additions are undue for this particular article. — JFG talk 08:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer my version, because of the instructions to "establish context" and include the "most important" facts in the WP:LEAD. EllenCT (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • While not perfect and still rough around the edges, I prefer Javert2113's because it is shorter (from a quick glance, it seems to be half the size) and more on point to the relevant areas of investigation done by the special counsel, however there are some inaccuracies that EllenCT and I discussed that she fixed that aren't fixed here, namely that Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador during the transition and not the campaign. Another prominent issue I have with Javert2113's version is that Michael Cohen was still investigated and charged by the special counsel for lying to congress (in addition to becoming a cooperating witness despite not being listed in that sentence), and that should be more prominent than merely saying his case was only refereed. I think it would be best to use Javert2113's as a base, improve upon it with small additions where more context is felt to be needed appropriate for WP:LEAD, and then remove any remaining inaccuracies. Wander0fstars (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If I might interject (and, no, this is not a vote, but a comment): my version certainly is flawed, and I'm more than open to further revision. That's the fun part of working on an open, collaborative encyclopedia. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Similarly I feel that [8] is more important than some things in my version, for example, the description of ongoing investigations, which I originally had added to the end of the intro. Someone else moved it to the second paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EllenCT: - you just brought up a blog by Marcy Wheeler. I'm pretty sure that's not a high-quality reliable source, that doesn't help your credibility and your case, but damages them. Even so, you seem to be claiming that this Barr made some kind of statement that said floating pardons for false testimony would be a crime. And then, on Sunday, he said it wasn’t a crime. is suitable for the lede. I respectfully and strongly disagree. starship.paint ~ KO 04:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, [9] and [10] or [11] will do just as well. EllenCT (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: - okay, reliable sources discussing hypocritical behaviour. That doesn't mean it's lede worthy. Also see my other comment below, just above Slatersteven's. starship.paint ~ KO 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support Javert2113's proposed version as the base, with individual additions/expansions to be agreed upon with discussion here. My arguments are in the above section. starship.paint ~ KO 04:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    By the way, EllenCT, I can't help but notice that many of the references you added in the lede are not cited elsewhere in the article. Am I right in saying that these info you added, are only to the lede and not the body? starship.paint ~ KO 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I missed some, and will rectify that. EllenCT (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: - not only this article recently. I’m sure you added stuff about Manafort, Gates and Ukraine to the lede of Mueller Report. I’m also sure you added about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations I scroll down to the section Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination and none of this is there. I consider it unlikely to have been removed from the body. Plus I already pinged you about this on that article’s talk page. Definitely one, possibly twice, I won’t check. Please be more careful. starship.paint ~ KO 00:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: if you want me to go through them all, you have to say which version. Then the onus is on me to go through it to make sure. I'm happy to work on the body until you decide. EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: - even if I support the other version, you need to go through your own version. You should be able to identify what you added. Then, check if what you added is already in the body. If it isn't, add it to the body. Use the same references, use more references if needed. starship.paint ~ KO 06:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


  • The second version is shorter and thus fits better as a lede, the top one has far too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • NEITHER - as said repeatedly by several editors the lead and specifically this paragraph are too long. Write with tighter phrasing, and cut out details to reduce things to maybe a third of the shown length. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
None of the above is unanimous. EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Didn’t say it was — I said that multiple editors voiced that the lead was too long, and my feeling that neither of these is short enough. Javert2113 is only better on that relative to EllenCT, and could use a few tweaks ... (e.g. include saying 13 and IRA were indicted, and don’t just say indicted, say indicted for what; wikilink the term Fancy Bear.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Javert's version, the other version would lead a reader to miss the forest for the trees. signed, Rosguill talk 04:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)
  • Javert's version, with the caveat that it could surely benefit from further improvements. The current version is not only excessively detailed, but it's so long that it hurts my eyes. I'd choose a short paragraph of lorem ipsum, or maybe even something saying "All Hail Trump the God Emperor" over that unsightly beast. R2 (bleep) 23:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo - bet you wouldn't choose this [12] paragraph though. starship.paint ~ KO 02:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The second, its shorter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven - you already said that on 23 April starship.paint ~ KO 14:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2019 (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.

Russia investigation as a RICO investigation

Main article: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
The following content was rescued from an archiving of the discussion at another article's talk page. It may be worth discussing here as it's about the subject of this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I'm not familiar with the phrase "enterprise CI investigation". Is that the same as a "criminal enterprise" counterintelligence investigation? Is this about the investigations of Trump's businesses, which are being investigated in the same way that organized crime businesses are investigated, considering that he operates in the same way? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @BullRangifer: - I was not familiar either (and I'm not American). But, I did a Google search and found The Attorney General's guidelines for domestic FBI operations states that the distinctive characteristic of enterprise investigations is that they concern groups or organizations that may be involved in the most serious criminal or national security threats to the public I strongly caution about thinking this is related to Trump's businesses. This investigation is about the Trump campaign only. starship.paint ~ KO 00:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I automatically associated that type of investigation with the ones going on with his businesses (because those are RICO investigations, so no need for the caution), but, if this applies to his campaign, that is, in some ways, even more serious. Wow! But then, why should we be surprised? He has taken his normal ways of doing "business" right into the campaign, public relations, dealings with media, foreign affairs, and the White House, so nothing should surprise us.
BTW,that source can be appended as a ref to the words "enterprise investigations". I suspect it's the "national security" aspect which is most relevant to the campaign, but that also applies to the White House operations, as we can see with the 25 people who got security clearances over the objections of trained, non-partisan, professionals. National security isn't a matter of interest to this administration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that you have cleared that up, I have created this as a [talk page] subsection, as a RICO investigation is a well-known (in America) type of investigation normally reserved for organized crime. There are a number of RS and other sources dealing with this and Trump, especially about the investigations into his business affairs by State Attorneys Generals:

What I find more interesting in the context of this article is that the Russia investigation started in July 2016 was also opened as a RICO investigation, according to the FBI's definition of "enterprise investigation" in your source. Can we find more sources about that? Adding content (about the 2016 investigation) only based on a definition would be a type of original research we can't do, but if we can find RS making the connection, then we can add it.

OTOH, the investigations in New York and Virginia are spinoffs based on evidence uncovered in the Russia investigation, so there is a direct connection. They are just extensions of the Russia investigation largely created so that Trump couldn't pardon himself, his family, and his accomplices. Mueller could have prosecuted them himself, but he exploited the fact that some of these alleged crimes were committed in those states.

When dealing with RICO and their usual use, this tweet from Preet Bharara is very apropos. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this looks like a WP:FORUM thread. What are you suggesting to add to this article? — JFG talk 19:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Should there now be a "Congressional investigations of Donald Trump" article?

just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Give it some time. I'm busy investigating myself. [13] O3000 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
What are they again? It's hard to keep track... (1) tax returns... starship.paint (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, pretty good idea. That would clarify a lot of stuff that happened over the last 3 years and is ongoing, and it would help offload some content from other articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, Tax returns of Donald Trump, and especially Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017), 2018, 2019, 2020 coming soon! I think the overview article should just be called Investigations of Donald Trump, not limited to Congress inquiries, so it would also encompass the Mueller probe and Operation Crossfire Hurricane. — JFG talk 19:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: - I support your idea. But what counts, for example, the investigation into Trump's presidential inaugural committee, does that count? [14] [15] (some of the investigations are listed in this link.) What if Trump repeats his performance during the Russia investigation "I'm not a subject. I'm not being investigated?" Thus my suggestion is, Investigations related to Donald Trump. I think readers will be interested if, let's say, the Trump Foundation or Trump Organization is investigated (maybe they already are!). starship.paint (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot that one. Sure, anything connected to Trump has been or will be investigated, so the inauguration should be included. Manafort must regret having sent that memo telling Trump he could help him get the nomination! — JFG talk 01:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't like the "related to" language, because anything can be construed as related to anything else, and we've seen too much of this "connect the dots" game. I think "Investigations of Donald Trump" is clear and concise, and the various entities or people that gravitate around Trump would naturally fit in there, even if the title does not go into much detail about the scope. — JFG talk 01:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
We'll need to clarify that from the get-go then. starship.paint (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to do this, I suggest we proceed promptly, as developments are moving fast and we don't want them to slip away and reconstruct everything retroactively soibangla (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a missing authorisation?

The article has an original mandate letter... is there a later version or another one ? The Original FBI Investigations and Firing of Comey sections end with mentions a report of Mueller later taking over previous FBI Obstruction Investigation ... Seems like for expansion and almost half the final report there should be something stating that authority or task. It doesn’t seem likely Mueller just redefined his own mission or could just scoop up ongoing investigations at whim. Anyone know where the paperwork is or if things were just done verbally ? Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"What happened to the Trump counterintelligence investigation? House investigators don't know."

This may be of relevance here:

  • What happened to the Trump counterintelligence investigation? House investigators don't know.[1]

BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bump, Philip (May 15, 2019). "What happened to the Trump counterintelligence investigation? House investigators don't know". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 16, 2019.

Barr on Manafort/Kilimnik

Does Barr's apparent lack of knowledge of Manafort's relationship with Kilimnik make that relationship more noteworthy? EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Does a reliable source make this connection? — JFG talk 07:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you even look? [16], [17], [18]. EllenCT (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Sources report that Booker made a statement about the sharing of polling data during the Barr testimony; Barr asked what was shared and with whom, and Booker didn't answer. What else is there to say? How is that lead-worthy? — JFG talk 19:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Booker reacted with incredulity and said he could provide page numbers. Why is Barr's apparent unawareness of Manafort's meeting to trade midwestern voter campaigning for a way for Russia to take control of Eastern Ukraine not lead-worthy? EllenCT (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
User:EllenCT seems to me not lead-worthy because none of that relates to what is suitable lead per WP:LEAD - this tidbit isn’t a big part of the article. Really seems a bit OFFTOPIC as not related to the article topic Special Counsel’s Investigation, and just lacks WP:WEIGHT proportion of coverage to be DUE much mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"Not related to the article topic Special Counsel’s Investigation"? The AG apparently didn't know what was in the Report, the conviction for which resulted in the longest sentence imposed as a result of the investigation so far. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Second paragraph gutted

The second paragraph now says Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak "during the campaign," which was not corrected as agreed without dissent in both RFC discussions. And among other things, it now references minor go-between players van der Zwaan and Patten. I intend to delete those portions and restore what I believe is essential context pertaining to Flynn's long-standing relationships with top Russian officials, Manafort's provision of internal polling data and his specific discussions about Midwestern Democratic voters and a plan for Russian control of Eastern Ukraine, and the ongoing investigations, all of which have been deleted. I don't care as much about the other deletions. EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The RfC showed quasi-unanimous consensus against your changes. Perhaps you should take a step back before diving in again. I have corrected the information about Flynn; thanks for the notice. — JFG talk 21:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you keep the two-bit wannabe money launderers? "Pleaded" instead of "pled" is all over that paragraph. The RFC wasn't about my version, it was about my version that someone had moved the long ongoing investigation sentence up into to make longer, and a different version with the mistake you corrected, which was basically copied from the 2nd paragraph from some months ago, way before even the redacted Report was out. I'm replacing the information about Flynn and Manafort in a new, third paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've produced a new version with a second paragraph more similar to mine from the RFC, but shorter because the long sentence about ongoing investigations is at the end. I'm open to further compromise. EllenCT (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me you should discuss your proposed changes here before pushing them into the article as "superior in all respects".[19] Of course you think your version is superior, but just recently a consensus of editors thought someone else's version was superior to yours. I have not yet formed an opinion on your recent edits, so won't revert. I do think the lead section is way too long and detailed. — JFG talk 14:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have started trimming the lead. Only done up to the list of indictments for now. See what you think. — JFG talk 18:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: why did you decide to omit summaries of [20], [21], and [22]? EllenCT (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Why should these articles be inserted in the lead? — JFG talk 07:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Because they're central to the events surrounding the investigation. Discussion of sanctions with the ambassador was followed by lifting travel restrictions on the top three intelligence officials. Flynn's carefully crafted plea bargain was thrown out by a judge who told him he sold out his country. Manafort was handing over internal polling data to known Russian spies while talking about how to hand over Eastern Ukraine. What purpose does it serve the reader to omit these facts? EllenCT (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Two of these three events are not even mentioned in the body, and the third one has just a couple lines. The lead is already too long and does not require such detail to be a faithful summary of the investigation's findings. — JFG talk 15:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"Barr contradicted Mueller"

@Plakow: You added a sentence to the lead saying Attorney General William Barr contradicted Mueller's assertion, saying that during a private meeting in early March, Mueller "made it very clear several times that that was not his position."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/he-said-he-said-are-mueller-barr-same-page-about-n1012026</ref> I want to explain why I removed it. If you read the reference source, it is pretty subtle as to what Mueller was denying. In context, it appears Mueller was asked if he WOULD have charged a crime except for the DOJ rule - and he said no, because he never considered the possibility of charging a crime. Mueller makes it clear that from the outset they ruled out even considering such a charge. Without all that subtlety, the Barr quote can be misinterpreted as if Barr was saying Mueller didn't actually rely on the DOJ rule. But he clearly did. Mueller has made it very clear, both in the report and in his comments, that the DOJ rule was determinative for them. So I think we should not put this quote in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you are technically correct about Mueller's rationale, but why did you write in the edit summary "trivial comment of dubious credibility"? Honestly this whole issue is confusing on both sides, feels like the article should be renamed "The Mueller/Barr contradiction". Plakow (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
That edit summary was based on my initial reaction: since Mueller has said repeatedly that he relied on the DOJ policy, I simply didn't believe Barr if he was contradicting Mueller on that point. After I removed it I went and looked at the reference to see if Barr had really said that. I found that although this quote taken out of context seems to say that Mueller told Barr he didn't rely on the DOJ policy, in the context of the discussion he meant something quite different. Anyhow I think we are in agreement that it is too confusing/misleading to include here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected"

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-attacks-mueller-probe-confirms-russia-helped-elect-him-1.7307566 EllenCT (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:EllenCT Well “no collusion” was also a result of the investigation, but this cite doesn’t relate to the article on the investigation itself and wasn’t about that result. He’s pretty obviously saying the whole narrative was fake, but NYT Haretz etcetera chose to misportray the wording to be him saying part was true and highlighting that alone. Either as humorous misspeak or just playing to a market there. Not useable for here either way, since it’s not about the article topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The report went to great lengths to avoid using the term collusion. EllenCT (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my impression was also strong avoidance. And that reads as a distinct snub or rejection of the word. After so much mention (confident hype predictions even), avoiding it might be just that it isn’t a professional term, and not be that he had a distain of it as politics or as a disreputable conspiracy theory. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede is WAAAAY too long

Ideally, an article lede should be one, maybe two paragraphs. Any suggestions on how this can be condensed to something more manageable? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a complex subject deserving of six to eight introductory paragraphs when necessary to resolve disputes. EllenCT (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Complexity is dealt with in the article itself: the lede should be a brief, concise summary. See WP:MOSLEAD. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
User:TechBear I’d favor a heavy trim, but suggest instead WP:MOSLEAD no more than 4 short overview paras, cut length to one screen or less before the TOC. My suggestions for cuts would be to move most of the long run on paragraphs to details sections and cut out the couple small ones entirely.
Para 1 keep, introduce topic & show letter
Para 2 shorten - saying 34 indicted is fine, and add mention of spinoff investigations now in para 4 - but cut most of it is listing names which is too much detail. Have details in section 8 of the article, not replicate the whole section here.
Drop para 3 criticisms entirely.
Para 4 shorten - saying it ended 22 March is fine, specify the two kinds of Russian meddling is fine, drop the embellishment lines of quotes re Trump there, keep the line saying volume 2 was on 10 instances re obstruction, drop the embellishment lines of quotes and only keep the does not conclude and does not exonerate, then finish with Barr judged it insufficient evidence.
Drop para 5 Meullers farewell bit.
Cheeres Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tackled it, it's now 4 paragraphs. Screen lengths are not a good measure - we have different screens and resolutions. Reactions are sent to body. Fifth paragraph is merged. starship.paint (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This Report Is Written as if This Investigation Was Legitimate

First, I suspect this report is written primarily by paid political operatives. We all know the allegations against Trump were 100% fabricated and advanced by the criminal efforts of the Obama administration. This report should be written in a way that makes it impossible to read without being informed of the scandal it represents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelynGowdy (talk • contribs)

@EvelynGowdy: New sections go at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes and Wikipedia just summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources instead of spouting off sour grapes propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: How about knocking off the personal insults? That way we can have a conversation. I appreciate what you pointed out about the function of Wikipedia. Thank you for correcting the placement of my entry in talk. Are you using more than one username? EvelynGowdy (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Where did I comment on your person (rather than your actions) and on what grounds do you have to ask me if I'm using more than one username? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Odd Language in intro

It takes quite a bit of reading in the intro section to come to a conclusion as to what the report actually said. That is, there was no collusion and Trump did not commit any crimes. I think it's rather ridiculous the intro segment takes several paragraphs to try and weasel around that conclusion though and should be rewritten. Wordbearer88 (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Page size

This article has 427,961 bytes of markup - it is far too big. What is the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Concord Management and Consulting

You can't make a reference to Fox News! You just can't! It's a very dishonest news outlet! ("On March 16, 2020, the US government dropped the charges against Prigozhin-owned companies Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering.") Here's proof of how corrupt, and dishonest, and biased they are! It's not even news at all! It's a propaganda tool! Don't you ever do that again! 37.21.91.250 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

wp:rsn has discussed this and found it to be acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked at that sentence on Concord Management mentioned above. The current citation for it is for the Financial Times at ft.com. I have no knowledge of how reputable that source is, but in any case it is behind a paywall. Need a better source and citation format. Can anyone shed light on the source or how to navigate the paywall? Kirby777 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Kirby777

Actually they not just dropped the case (because Progozhin asked for classified documents and thus the case was immediately dropped by a judge, also they were trolling the courts because of obvious jurisdiction issues), but Prigozhin's company Concord Management sued your government for 50 billions $USD. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-concord-idUSKBN21427H http://uawire.org/putin-s-chef-intends-to-sue-us-authorities-for-50-billion 2A00:1370:812D:1FC5:DCD2:D4CD:7B8A:B21D (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, The Financial Times described the indictment as "a rare mis-step by Mr Mueller". Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kirby777: The Financial Times is one of the best newspapers in the world and the content is fully verifiable:

"The US has dropped election meddling charges against two companies controlled by a close ally of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin in a stunning retreat for the Department of Justice. Prosecutors on Monday asked a federal judge to dismiss an indictment ..."
— The Financial Times, March 17 2020

The content is also supported by other sources, which should be trivial to find. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing stunning about it. It is impossible to sue russian people in USA courts due to jurisdiction problems, the only way somebody can win is if the other, in this case russian, party does not show up in the court. Or if they will sue in russian courts, but they apparently do not know how to do it. If they do show up, the case is immediatelly dismissed. For those interested the latest update in that copyright case going to SCOTUS https://completemusicupdate.com/article/russian-stream-ripper-formally-takes-his-copyright-dispute-to-us-supreme-court-and-says-the-majors-should-support-that-move/ 2A00:1370:812D:65B6:ECA9:19BF:C664:CE28 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cozy Bear / Dutch section

I looked at the referenced Dutch newspaper article, and clarified that the Cozy Bear penetration allowed real-time observation of the penetration of the State Department and the White House, not the Democratic National Committee. There is a remaining problem, however, because the subsequent Bloomberg citation incorrectly states that the Dutch article says that the Dutch intelligence group monitored the DNC hack in real time. The original Dutch article does not say that. I suggest that this citation needs to be removed as inaccurate, but the Dutch one remain.Neptune1969 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is this not labeled a "Conspiracy Theory"?

It is literally a theory about a conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Any other allegation that the President of the United States was in cahoots with a hostile foreign country as part of some vast conspiracy to steal elections and hand America over to the Russians a la "The Manchurian Candidate" would be labeled a baseless, ridiculous conspiracy theory, just like Biden and Ukraine or Spygate. Or is Wikipedia saying that Trump really did collude with Russia, even after the Mueller Report said it "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CE90:A310:94EE:255A:B857:6DD0 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you post a link to a couple of news articles from reputable news agencies that call it a conspiracy theory? Everything on Wikipedia must have a reliable source, especially when other editors are reverting you. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mueller report: Donald Trump collusion conspiracy theories are now exposed. Will they end? [1]

The Russian Grassy Knoll: The collusion conspiracy theorists keep looking for a second shooter.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CE90:A310:E193:EA5D:5CED:C94A (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a good start. Those are reliable sources, but they are opinion pieces. I don't think we could put "conspiracy theory" in the section title with that, but maybe you could put "X from USA Today has referred to this as a conspiracy theory" or "Some opinion writers have referred to this as a conspiracy theory" somewhere in that section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added that, with those two references. Let's see if we can obtain some additional indications of RS statements about this as a conspiracy theory. This seems to have traction.Neptune1969 (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
And I've reverted it. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. The USA today opinion piece was written by Glenn Reynolds, who operates the right-wing blog Instapundit. WSJ is quite right wing as well, and their framing comparing this to the JFK assassination is ridiculous on its face. The special counsel investigation is clearly not a conspiracy theory, because it's an investigation. Conspiracy theories don't usually result in so many convictions either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm presenting the fact that there are opinions, which is what Novem Linguae suggested was worthwhile. Novem Linguae. I disagree that we cannot include the fact that there are differing opinions. Really you're just fronting your your opinion on this rather than aggregating all of the parts (including that there were different opinions offered by strident observers) of this now-historical event.--Neptune1969 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we can put this dispute to bed. Scholarly sources located (publication by university professor in scholarly publishing house, peer-reviewed source).-Neptune1969 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed your edit because the reference as presented cannot verify the content. soibangla (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
How so? Looks like page 119 covers it?[23] PackMecEng (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The ref provided by the editor was empty and could not be verified. soibangla (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a standard ref time for sure. Here is the appropriate cite book.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I see the book says “Of course, Trump-Russia conspiracy theories were not the only prominent conspiracy theories following Trump's victory.” The editor would need to establish that the book specifically refers to matters in this article as conspiracy theories, as opposed to perhaps other things some random kooks on Twitter may have said. soibangla (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Mueller's finding that no American conspired with Russia put into perspective how fantastical some of the mainstream coverage of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories had become. Profit motives were to be found in much of the Trump-Russia coverage. (page 117). This goes on for a few pages but I understand Uscinski to be calling any allegation that Trump colluded with Russia a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure how much WP:WEIGHT this has. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
His assertion that MSM coverage was fantastical is not supported by Mueller report#Press coverage of the investigation. Does he provide examples? soibangla (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. PackMecEng (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that his assertions are supported much anywhere; I think it's idiosyncratic opinion. He has a lengthy quote of Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on p. 115 as an example of one of a handful of Trump-Russia skeptics on the left. Examples he gives of fantastical coverage include factual errors in reporting that have little to do with the Special Counsel investigation, eg, that Russia hacked the U.S. electrical grid and that Trump was (supposedly) communicating with a Russian bank through secret internet traffic (p. 116). Other examples are Jonathan Chait (New York Magazine) claiming before the Mueller Report was released that Trump had been a Russian asset since the 1980s. I don't see him accusing Mueller of trafficking in any conspiracy theories, or implying that the Special Counsel investigation was a conspiracy theory. For him, the conspiracy theories he's talking about were mainly being driven by mainstream and alternative media selling clickbait for profit. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The far left calls Trump-Russia stuff conspiracy theories. I hear it all the time on the podcast that I listen to. I guess the question from the point of view of Wikipedia policy is, is this WP:FRINGE or a minority viewpoint? Neptune1969 provided a published book with an ISBN by a respectable publisher (Rowman & Littlefield) and a respectable author (Joseph Uscinski, "an American political scientist specializing in the study of conspiracy theories"). At first glance, looks like a reliable source to me. To me, the "conspiracy theory" wording is looking less like FRINGE and more like a minority viewpoint that deserves a sentence in the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a pro-fringe minority viewpoint, held by one person, an obscure academic. In an article about one of the biggest political events in living memory. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Dang, the biggest political event in living memory? That's pretty big. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Because they found evidence, and it led to charges? You would need some top-line sourcing to get past wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. WP:DENY SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, what part would be a conspiracy theory? Justified suspicions that must be investigated are not a conspiracy theory. They are unproven allegations until they are proven or disproven. Many of the allegations remain unproven. They are not debunked. The ineffective and incomplete Mueller investigation was unable to find evidence of a formal oral or written "conspiracy" between Trump and the Russians (largely because of Trump's successful obstruction, although I doubt such evidence exists), so that part is unproven, but the investigation found plenty of evidence of collusion and cooperation between Trump's campaign and Russians, and even more incriminating information is piling up about "Trump's Russian connections":

"His campaign team — with its own unusual shady ties to Russia — was willing to work with a hostile foreign power and eager to accept material stolen from Americans. None went to the authorities to report the illicit contacts, and many of them were subsequently arrested. When the issue of Russian involvement surfaced publicly, every single one of them lied and covered up their actions. Trump then attacked the very institutions that could hold him to account and sought to obstruct investigations, eventually pardoning anyone who could provide evidence of wrongdoing."

Keep in mind two words in the allegation of a "conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership".[4] The first is unproven, but the second, and far more serious allegation, is proven beyond all doubt. To understand this, imagine a team of bank robbers who are separately arrested for a robbery that they are proven to have committed together. Their defense attorney claims that no evidence of a "conspiracy" to commit the robbery has been found, so all their defenders choose to ignore the robbery itself, and even get the case dropped completely.

Who in their right mind gives a flying f**k if they conspired? The actual deed is what's important. They robbed a bank and should pay the price for doing so. That's what's happened. The GOP says to ignore the whole thing because "conspiracy" has not been proven and wants to call the whole investigation a "conspiracy theory" and the proven Russian interference a "Russia hoax". Those are the fringe beliefs, and you'll find that they are pushed by unreliable sources, not RS. That's why we don't change the title or description. RS and evidence do not back such a change. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, the conspiracy theory part would be the neo-liberals pushing this narrative that Trump is a manchurian candidate to Russia, absent strong evidence of this extraordinary claim, and basically pushing this narrative hard for two years. But, I know how to read a room. If everybody here says this is fringe, then it's fringe. We can keep it out of the article and no need to discuss further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, thanks for the clarification. Yes, the idea that Trump is an actual, literal, Manchurian candidate, is a fringe idea which some might believe, but it's not a widely held belief, even among those skeptical of him. I don't know of any evidence, confirmed by RS, that such is the case. He is seen as a Russian "asset", not an "agent". There is a big difference, yet the end result is a problem, as it makes him a national security risk.
The more widely held view we find in RS is that he is a bumbling, often unwitting, useful idiot which Russian intelligence has cultivated for decades, and that he may be largely ignorant of it, and sees it as an irrelevant non-issue. He has often espoused anti-American and pro-Russian views and has never shown any particular allegiance to American interests, only to his own, so he apparently doesn't care. The Russians use the carrot and stick approach to exploit his vanity, greed, and narcissm, all the while gathering kompromat which they can use for blackmail. There is plenty of evidence that such is likely the case. There are plenty of RS, including literally all of the now-former (because Trump fired them) leaders of our intelligence agencies, which state that Trump is indeed a Russian asset whom they play like a fiddle. They all consider him a serious national security risk. This quote is interesting:
"Brennan did not say there was no evidence of collusion. He made clear he had been alarmed by the extent of contacts between the Trump team and Moscow....Brennan stressed repeatedly that collusion may have been unwitting, at least at first as Russian intelligence was deft at disguising its approaches to would-be agents. 'Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late,' he said."[5]
You may find this section illuminating: Steele dossier#Trump viewed as under Putin's influence, and this article about "Trump's Russian connections" is good. -- Valjean (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


Sources

Judge criticizes Barr as 'Not Worthy of Credence' and making ‘Disingenuous’ Claims

The cover-up exposed:

Valjean (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that section Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)#Topics be split into a separate page called Topics of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). "Topics" is by far the largest section of this current article and splitting it would be a significant help to resolving the oversize issue currently being experienced. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Notifying the top ten by authorship and edits, excluding a CU blocked account and a vanished user. I am coming at this from an outside perspective, having no involvement with this article previously, after stumbling across it in my watchlist last night for some reason (must've been vandalized or something at some point so added) & seeing the page size. @Soibangla, Starship.paint, MelanieN, Ich, Emir of Wikipedia, Psantora, BD2412, Levivich, Valjean, HandsomeFella, Javert2113, and JFG: --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Strongly support splitting or othewise reducing the length of the article per WP:AS. I'm not sure that a significant reduction in length can be accomplished through "just" copyediting (without losing significant information), so a split seems to be the better way to go (this is a very broad and complex topic, after all). In terms of how to split, spinning out the longest section, Topics, seems like a good place to start. Levivich 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This makes sense. The lead for that subarticle could then be used as the section left behind here, maybe even a single paragraph. It should mention and link to each of the topics mentioned:
1 Russian election interference; 2 Links between Trump associates and Russian officials; 3 Alleged collusion between Trump campaign and Russian agents; 4 Potential obstruction of justice; 5 Financial investigations; 6 Lobbyists; 7 Trump as a subject of investigation; 8 Other topics; and 9 Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal.
Valjean (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Who is the primary culprit for creating this monster, anyway? Oh wait, that would be me, actually. Sorry. soibangla (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but for an endashed article name, not hyphenated. Fixed that. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - alright. starship.paint (exalt) 01:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't object. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have a pretty strong consensus to do this, so who wants to do it? soibangla, as the one who has done the most on this subject, do you want to do it? If not, I won't mind. I have time enough right now and plenty of experience doing this type of thing. -- Valjean (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not very good with such things, so I defer to you. soibangla (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay.  Done That cut −236,500 bytes from this article. -- Valjean (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I approve and applaud. Well done, guys! — JFG talk 09:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Issue with "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"

“On potential obstruction of justice by President Trump, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime", as investigators would not indict a sitting president per an Office of Legal Counsel opinion.” (Citations removed)

So, perhaps this is a petty issue, but does anyone else have an issue with how this worded? It’s mentioned several other times throughout the article, as well

Investigators — regardless of what they’re called or what title they hold — don’t have the power to determine whether or not someone committed a crime. They might *believe* someone committed a crime, but they cannot find anyone ‘guilty.’ They can conclude they believe someone committed a crime, in other words, but they cannot “conclude” someone as guilty. Regardless of whether or not an indictment of a sitting president is legal, one still needs to be found guilty by the proper authority — whether it be a criminal court, the Senate, what have you

Thoughts? MWFwiki (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mueller_special_counsel_investigation/Archive_5&oldid=1178687992"