Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two conspiracy theories

I think Starship.paint's recent edits to explain that there were two Spygate conspiracy theories instead of one should have been taken with extra care and should be rolled back until we can obtain some consensus on their validity. Starship.paint may well be right, but at a minimum the sourcing is inadequate. Looking through the sources cited in the lead for the new content, I don't see anything saying or suggesting there were two separate conspiracy theories. What I see is a tweet from Trump apparently contending that the June 2018 allegations were evidence of the same (single) conspiracy theory. R2 (bleep) 16:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

And this also applies to the move from Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) to Spygate (conspiracy theories by Donald Trump). I'm not opposed to Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump), but if we're going to refer to Spygate as multiple "theories" then we need sources to back that up. In addition, this move should not have been made without any talk page input while related move discussions were active and ongoing. R2 (bleep) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump made Allegation A (implant a spy in Trump campaign) in May, he made Allegation B (counterintelligence started in Dec ‘15) is June. While they were on the same topic, they weren’t necessarily related allegations. Trump just called both of them Spygate. Sources called Allegation A a conspiracy theory. Sources called Allegation B a conspiracy theory. In my view they were two conspiracy theories, because Trump didn’t link Allegation B to Allegation A, and the sources didn’t either. What is your interpretation? starship.paint ~ KO 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"In your view..." Not that you're necessarily wrong, but do any reliable sources bear that out? R2 (bleep) 23:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I can flip it back to you that do any reliable sources say they are one / the same conspiracy theory? What sources said is: Allegation A is a conspiracy theory. Allegation B is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 23:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course. Here's a good explanation from Vox of the June 2018 allegations--what you're calling "Allegation B." It explains that Trump's June tweet was just a further development of "the 'Spygate' controversy...the idea that the FBI put a spy in the Trump campaign." It refers to a single "Spygate" conspiracy theory and explains how it developed and snowballed. There's no suggestion that this was a separate theory. R2 (bleep) 23:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well okay. I think the better quote you are looking for in that Vox article is “The best way to analyze “Spygate” is not as a partisan dispute, but rather a conspiracy theory.” which came after Vox discussed both months allegations. starship.paint ~ KO 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, R2, you’ve pasted a whole old version of the article instead of restoring just the lede. 30KB in one shot. And, I will move the article back to 1 conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 00:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll fix. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump also claimed that Trump tower was wiretapped - that was another big Spygate claim. RS were nearly unanimous in saying he claimed it "without evidence." Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I believe that's been treated as something different, apart from Spygate. I haven't found reliable sources saying that the Spygate theory, which started in 2018, includes the Trump Tower wiretapping theory, which started in 2016. Here's a TIME article that treats it as something different and previous. "This is not the first time Trump has made broad claims about the investigation. In 2016, he alleged that President Barack Obama for 'wiretapping' Trump Tower..." Though it seems relevant and may be worthy of mention in our article in some sort of background or "related claims" context. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie - I would caution treating anything as Spygate unless reliable sources explicitly say this allegation / this situation is Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 22:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Spygate is a factual event that occurred where democrats illegally spied on the campaign of Donald trump. More to come. start here

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/barr-doj-investiation-fbi-russia/index.html 209.159.214.113 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Did you actually read the link you provided? ""I think spying did occur," Barr said, though he declined to provide the basis for his concern." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

quintuplicate edit request O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the first sentence, replace "false" with "disputed". Insert a new second sentence: "On April 10, 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr testified before a U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that he believes 'spying' on the 2016 Trump campaign took place, but he is investigating if such spying was adequately predicated." Source: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438214-barr-probing-if-spying-on-trump-campaign-was-adequately-predicated FreshFact (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)  Not done: Four consecutive essentially identical edit requests. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019 In the recent confirmation that this spying absolutely did occur, Wikipedia's core integrity is on the line to pull this completely false article. 69.73.113.13 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1. The request must be uncontroversial. 2. That happens after you have achieved a consensus. BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Remove "false" before conspiracy theory. There is much evidence now in the media that it was actually not false. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe Tigerman325 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

See the replies to previous, identical, requests. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an issue with first sentence of the article

The situation is currently developing. Calling the whole thing false right out of the gate is giving the false impression that the situation is settled (its not as seen this article ), and that their isn't any investigations of ongoing speculation from official parties( which their is as seen here)

It is in wrong to call an ongoing issue false before any real confirmation. The articles cited to make "spygate" seem false are committing the same mistake, and read more like opinion articles. I doubt the neutrality of this article and sentence. Jamescart (talk) 20:27, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)

Barr didn't say one word about Spygate, a conspiracy theory that Obama paid a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Clinton get elected. And please people, quit splitting the discussion. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because he didn't say the word "spygate" doesn't mean that its not painfully obvious what he was referencing. LOOK all I am asking for is that you guys change "false" to "Unconfirmed". That's it. Calm down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescart (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is now official that it is not a "conspiracy theory" but an "investigation" based on The New York Times and Fox News articles cited in other sections. This story has been ongoing for some time, but it is headline news today and will be more so in the weeks and months ahead, except "Spygate" is only a small part of it. Nunes mentioned the conspiracy statute (18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 16:53, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

Show me where any source says there is any evidence that Obama paid a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Clinton. And don't use the word "scandal" in edit summaries. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, the claim is that Obama Admin ordered FBI agents to infiltrate Trump's campaign, not that a spy was privately hired by Obama SK8RBOI (talk) 23:26, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)

Objective3000, you are anything but objective. The issue has been, and stills continues to be, the initial paragraph. You can't label something as false before an investigation has been concluded. With the new report, confirming that Trump was spied on, this over-reach is doubly egregious. False should be removed entirely or replaced with unproven. Anything else violates npov. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. Two investigations have been concluded. No charges. And what new report are you talking about? I have seen no claim that any report claims Spygate is real. O3000 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Plot twist

Agents involved in the Russia investigation asked Mr. Halper, an American academic who teaches in Britain, to gather information on Mr. Page and George Papadopoulos, another former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. However, Mr. Halper also had additional contacts with other Trump officials that have raised concerns about his activities. In one instance, Mr. Halper reached out to Sam Clovis, a Trump campaign aide; it was not clear whether Mr. Halper had the F.B.I.’s blessing to contact Mr. Clovis. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

About the only thing of relevance to this article is: “Mr. Halper’s contacts have prompted Republicans and the president to incorrectly accuse the F.B.I. of spying on the campaign” as it may be related to the genesis of this conspiracy theory. But, I wouldn’t look at including anything from this article until the review is completed – assuming RS get to see it. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday Barr reframed "spying" as "unauthorized surveillance." it was not clear whether Mr. Halper had the F.B.I.’s blessing to contact Mr. Clovis soibangla (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The term "unauthorized surveillance" is actually more damning than "spying;" nothing about the term "spying" implies improper conduct. "unauthorized surveillance" is no different in terms of meaning than "unauthorized spying," I fail to see why we need to make such pointless distinctions here.SIPPINONTECH (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IP's comment

Wikipedia has become nothing more than CNN. Spygate is real and unraveling before our eyes. The FBI under Obama was weaponized. The democrats used the FISA courts under Obama to spy on Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.34.147 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• This comment (and so many recently prior) made me reflect on the lede of the article. People seem to think Spygate isn't a conspiracy theory. Maybe it isn't, for them. But this article is about the May 2018 and June 2018 stuff that Trump said, and Trump called that Spygate. So, I've edited the lede. This article is accurate, the claims he made were debunked, and are still debunked right now. But the thing is, maybe there is really a Spygate scandal out there, but whatever Spygate scandal some people are thinking of certainly isn't about what he said in May 2018 and June 2018. So the Spygate scandal should really be another article - go create one and see if it's well sourced enough (will there be enough reliable sources?), or coherent enough (will reliable sources even agree what Spygate is?) not to be deleted. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't encourage these editors to create a new article. We already have an article it would neatly fit into, namely Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. That article could really benefit from a section on the Comey-led (pre-Mueller) FBI investigation, and a reference to Spygate would fit in nicely there. There's also James Comey#Russian election interference investigation, which doesn't link to this article, but probably should (consistent with WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE). R2 (bleep) 17:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is incorrect as to the definition of what "Spygate" actually is. "Spygate," as it is understood among the people who actually use the term in a contemporary sense, refers to supposed abuses of power by the Obama Administration against the Trump Campaign, including 1) the use of Opposition Research materials to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page, 2) the use of the FISA warrant against Page to gather "incidental" communications of officials in Trump's campaign who were not under investigation, and 3) the unmasking of senior Trump Campaign/Trump Transition officials by Cabinet level officials in the Obama Administration including Susan Rice and Samantha Power. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SIPPINONTECH, please define "the people who actually use the term in a contemporary sense" and their sources. Please tell me it's something better than Breitbart or Infowars. Because none of the three points you mention above are indicative of abuses of power. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Page needs to be moved

I'm coming here from a 3RR report and only intrigued by the name. This current disambiguation is inappropriate as it could either read "A conspiracy theory propagated by Trump" or "a conspiracy theory about Trump" (the latter which is absolutely wrong against BLP). I understand the conflict with the NFL term to make "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" a potential conflict, but searching Google, there's far far less connection of the term "conspiracy theory" to the NFL incident compared to the Trump situation. News hits are also also double for Trump and Spygate than the NFL.

This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction. --Masem (t) 01:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support It needs to be moved to Spygate investigation because the term is in mainstream use to encompass the failed coup d'etat against Trump rather than just Trump's claims. See Dan Bongino's book Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump. There is also an excellent infographic that is referenced in various media.Phmoreno (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, lol, "failed coup". 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Moreno, please quit citing unreliable sources like Bongino and The Epoch Times. You have been instructed on this many times. Your refusal to learn our RS policy is damning. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support It needs to be moved to Spygate. Enough of the two year WP campaign pushing the Trump is a Russian agent POV. The President accused former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI agent Peter Strzok and "hundreds of others" of treason and implied they could be punished for it.

PingMe, Have you read Spygate: The True Story of Collusion]? I have. It has 24 PAGES of end notes pp 235-259. It's documented with literally hundreds of mainstream articles. Unreliable? Says who??? I'm really getting tired of your slanted opinion calling this book "unreliable". I'm giving you three days to get over your non-neutral POV. kgrr ^talk 01:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/trump-mueller-attempted-takeover-government/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources, including the Washington Post, regarding declassification of the FISA warrants covered by Spygate, plus discussion of the FBI spies interacting with the Trump campaign.Phmoreno (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem: It's pretty clear that we can't take those two "support" comments above seriously, and why. This is "a conspiracy theory propagated by Trump", but of course it's also about him because everything he says and does is about him. I don't see how it's a BLP violation though. He's the one who put this out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not considering those !votes. But as I said, one possible interpretation of the disambiguation phrase is "a conspiracy theory directly about Trump", rather than a BLP that involves events that include Trump but are not directly about him, or a conspiracy theory created by him. Add that the phrase can be naturally condensed down to "conspiracy theory" without disrupting any other pages, and the easy means to implement the clarification with the NFL event, and that basically would make it clear that the page should be moved back. There is strong BLP and article titling policy reasons to move the page, with very little reason to retain at this point. --Masem (t) 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. Not really sure what the best title for this should be, but I'm open to reasonable NPOV possibilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
      • That's why I've said "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is fine. no BLP issues, is concise, and there's far less connection of the term "conspiracy theory" to the NFL Spygate such that a hatnote is sufficient to redirect a searcher to the right page. --Masem (t) 05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support As far as I can tell, the goalposts have shifted far enough at this point that it requires a fairly "out there" conspiracy theory to believe that Obama's administration didn't spy on the Trump campaign. Furthermore, even though left leaning sources dislike it, official opprobrium (POTUS and much of federal legislature) is directed against rogue deep state elements that aggressively investigated Trump/Russian collusion without a good reason to do so, which in connection to the painfully clear anti-Trump animus of the parties involved (Strzok, McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Clapper), abundantly substantiates the political angle of the Spygate accusation. Time for POV conflicted editors to "let it go" and acknowledge that this encyclopedia shouldn't adopt a leftist slant on this issue. I would favor a title of "Spygate" even though the trend of putting "gate" on things is silly - that's what the Spygate accusers are calling it, so that is its name. Wookian (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wookian, you write "without a good reason to do so". How many suspicious and secret contacts, which were lied about by Trump and his campaign, again and again and again, would constitute a "good reason" to start an investigation? Are you serious, or just baiting us?

Before the dossier, there were already several suspicious things happening: Papadopoulos's actions showed the Trump campaign knew about the DNC hacked emails before anyone else, ergo they had Russian contacts they shouldn't have had. Several allied foreign intelligence agencies were reporting to the FBI and CIA that they were listening in on Russians talking about how they were discussing the election with Trump campaign members. They were alarmed by this illegal coordination and the Russian interference in the election. The Trump Tower meeting was filled with suspicious elements and people, a very well-planned and coordinated meeting, and Trump even trumped his own son and son-in-law (who had a prepared statement telling the truth) by issuing a false press release, which of course was exposed as a lie. (That false release is seen as evidence of guilt, collusion, and obstruction.) Flynn, Stone, Page, and others in the campaign were having all kinds of secret contacts with Russians that had no legitimate purpose, all relating to the campaign. That's seen as evidence of possible collusion.

So HOW MUCH of this type of activity is a "good reason"? This has nothing to do with the dossier. This was all activity known by American and foreign intelligence agencies, who were all justifiably very alarmed by the Russian hacks, leaks, and penetration of voting machines and voter rolls. Even more worrying was that all that illegal activity was being sought after and accepted by the Trump campaign. Never once did they do the only right thing (which Steele immediately did) by turning over that information to the FBI. Instead, they cooperated with the Russians by accepting, and not refusing and reporting. Even now Trump refuses to accept that the Russians interfered in the election to help him win. That's seen as aiding and abetting a crime. It's also seen as treason by many. So how much of that should they have ignored and just allowed? Seriously. Can you imagine what the GOP would have done if Obama had done that, instead of running an honest campaign? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose and procedural objection. Aside from the arguments I already made on this page, this move is procedurally defective. The OP is seeking to overturn consensus that was obtained one month ago to move from Spygate (conspiracy theory) to Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory). The consensus was based primarily on the fact that the "(conspiracy theory)" parenthetical was confusing (and therefore ineffective) since Spygate is commonly associated with the NFL scandal, and it did in fact have a conspiracy theory component to it. More concerning, however, is that, as far as I can tell, not a single participant in the prior move discussion was alerted to this one. Then we have a series of apparent "Support" votes that aren't actually in support. One says we should move the article to Spygate investigation even though that's not the proposal. A second says we should move the article to Spygate, even though that's not the proposal either. The third says we should move the article to Spygate (conspiracy theory) while arguing that Spygate isn't a conspiracy theory. That's totally nonsensical. The merits of these !voters' arguments aside, clearly they do not understand what has been proposed here. If Masem really wants to pursue this, I suggest they start fresh with a {{requested move}} template, explicitly state what title they want the article moved to, acknowledge the prior consensus, and notify all of the editors who were involved in it. R2 (bleep) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I understand Masem's concern and wouldn't be opposed to a change. I just don't think that we should go back to Spygate (conspiracy theory). R2 (bleep) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per R2. Very good reasons for not making a change right now. None of the support !votes can be counted anyway, due to complete confusion.

I understand the desire for a less confusing title, so a possible move might be wanted, but this needs to be done properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not actually nor was attempted to start a proper RM, just trying to figure out why there's a reason to have a BLP violation in the title (the last RM close doesn't really consider that , and I was hoping someone would have a potential reason). Yes, a proper RM needs to be started, and given that the only argument give to keep it at this current name is "it could be confused with NFL Spygate" while there are several strong reasons to move, another RM disicussion should be started. --Masem (t) 17:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I tend to agree, but before going to RM, where any confusion or lack of consensus will just create a failed clusterf##k, we should reach a consensus here on a good replacement title. We need to brainstorm for ideas. I'll be watching this space. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem: - if you’re concerned about BLP then I propose “Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)”. starship.paint ~ KO 04:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The only argument I am seeing right now against using "(conspiracy theory)" as the disambiguation phrase is "it might be confused with the NFL thing". But 1) we have HATNOTES to direct people that might be looking for the NFL thing by searching on "Spygate conspiracy theory" and end up here to get to them to the NFL one, 2) it is a more concise disambiguation phrase, and 3) to some degree, this political thing does have about twice as much connection to the word "Spygate" over the NFL in Google and Google News searching. --Masem (t) 04:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that based on the discussion going on below this, maybe "(conspiracy theory)" is necessarily the right phase, but whatever phrase is given, as long as it avoids naming Trump and stays as concise as possible, the same logic above (as to distinguish from the NFL topic) applies. --Masem (t) 14:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

When done properly, IOW reflecting what RS say, I don't see the inclusion of Trump's name in the title as a BLP violation. Only when negative information is unsourced is there a problem, and that's not the case here. Just make sure the title has (1) no ambiguity and (2) accurately describes the content of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• It really does depend on what disambiguation phrase is picked. As I've said, as it is right now, it could read as a conspiracy theory raised by Trump (true), or could be read as a conspiracy theory about Trump (not really true), and this latter is what tends into BLP. I don't recommend this but if the term was "Spygate (Donald Trump presidency)" that's not a BLP problem. But the other thing again to keep in mind that we want the most concise term; if we are just adding Trump's name to distinguish, that's probably a problem. But I can't saying for certain until a better term is settled on; only that if it stays at "conspiracy theory", removing Trump's name meets both naming and BLP policy issues. --Masem (t) 03:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

* Supportish the longer title seems awkward and confusing to me, so I’d prefer something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Support** Since it's up for debate, it should simply be Spygate, not this ridiculous title. If it is proven to be a "conspiracy theory" (lie?), it's a ridiculous title. Miserlou (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

page isn't even marked

Normally a page with such an extreme level of dispute would be marked as such, right at the top of the page. The lack of any such marker is shameful. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

BARR has literally just announced that there was spying on Trump campaign

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/william-barr-testimony-today-spying-did-occur-trump-campaign-2019-04-10/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soviet union comrade (talk • contribs) 21:55, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

"litterly" - Interesting choice of words.- MrX 🖋 22:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I know right? D--- Russians... Don't mind me if I correct that. SK8RBOI (talk) 23:11, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe SK8RBOI (talk) 23:12, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)
This source shows AG Barr is reviewing the various claims regarding abuse of power by investigatory agencies under the Obama Administration. Is this new information reflected in the article, and if not, would an extended editor or Administrator care to rectify that? IMHO this article is lacking even in basic grammatical quality, let alone a comprehensive coverage of the topic, and to me the protected status given to it here appears to be stifling its development rather than fostering it. SK8RBOI (talk) 23:38, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)
“I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I'm saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that's all” - Barr starship.paint ~ KO 13:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint
"This source shows AG Barr is reviewing the various claims regarding abuse of power by investigatory agencies under the Obama Administration." -Me
Can we continue to declare it a definitively "false" conspiracy theory if the AG is "concerned about it and looking into it"? How best to incorporate this new information into the article? I reiterate my concern that the unusually stringent protected status given to this article appears to be stifling its development rather than fostering it. SK8RBOI 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Spygate originated with Louise Mensch and the NY Times in November of 2016

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a Times op-ed posted online Friday, Louise Mensch, a writer and former member of the UK Parliament, gives her suggestion for what questions the House Intelligence Committee should ask as it holds hearings on Russia’s influence in the US election. Mensch offers Times readers reason to trust her expertise: “In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between ‘U.S. persons’ in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks," she writes. “In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between ‘U.S. persons’ in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks," she writes. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk • contribs) 10:51, March 28, 2019‎ (UTC) This is the no evidence that Trump possessed. The above is the genesis of the public including Donald Trump knowing that the FBI was spying on his campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC) This Mensch (she is a conspiracy theorist) matter is about the well-documented surveillance of Carter Page after he left the campaign, starting in October 2016. This was based on three court-ordered FISA warrants. He had also been the subject of a FISA warrant in 2014, before joining the campaign. He was warned about Russian spies trying to recruit him, and then he kept up his contacts with them, anti-American speech, etc. He was asking to be surveilled. It was the right thing to do. The surveillance of Carter Page is not part of Spygate, which is about Stefan Halper's contacts with three campaign members: Carter Page, a campaign foreign policy adviser who "had extensive discussions" with Halper, starting on July 11-12, 2016, on "a bunch of different foreign-policy-related topics," ending in September 2017. Sam Clovis, national co-chair of Trump's election campaign, in August 31 or September 1, 2016. George Papadopoulos, a campaign foreign policy adviser, on September 15, 2016, and September 25, 2016. BullRangifer (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Sources

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

April 2019

On April 10, 2019 – Attorney General William P. Barr, while appearing in front of Congress said the government did spy on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and continued that he would be looking into whether or not any rules or laws were violated. Ptelesca (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: "Did potentially"? He has no evidence of anything improper. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for your claim that the AG "has no evidence of anything improper"? Just because he has not revealed evidence publicly from an ongoing investigation does not imply the AG has no evidence, as you claim. Wookian (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I gave it to you in the above section! The Axios link! SMH. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to shake your head, then shake away, my friend. Here's the money quote from Axios: "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now." Not seing how that justifies your claim that he has no evidence. At the least, you should include the same qualifier. Wookian (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you put the emphasis on the wrong clause. "I have no specific evidence" is him saying he has no specific evidence. The second clause refers to the imaginary evidence he believes is out there, but even though he has the whole Mueller Report, can't find. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, you are incorrect in your parsing of his sentence. This clearly could mean that he doesn't have anything that he wants to share at the present time. I agree that it could also mean that he doesn't have anything, however your analysis here is extremely POV driven. Question: how come I get threatened over potential BLP violations above for making completely factual, sourceable statements about Strzok, McCabe and Comey, but you are making wild claims about AG Barr's internal thought process here that reflect horribly on him as a law enforcement official? Are there different rules for the two sides of this debate? Wookian (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, if he had any evidence, he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "I have no specific evidence" means "I have no specific evidence". The BLP warning is because Strzok, McCabe, Page, and Comey have all been inappropriately slandered over this. There is no evidence they did anything improper. (Except Comey's October 2016 presser to say there was new evidence on Hillary's emails when there wasn't.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:Again, you're just cherry-picking Barr's words and making assumptions. The full quote is "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now.", thus there is no conclusion to whether the claims are false. It would be irresponsible of him to give any specific evidence until he has thoroughly investigated the claims. We are to assume that the possibility that the Trump campaign may have been improperly spied on is nothing more than a false conspiracy theory, but for the past two years the Russian collusion theory has been totally creditable (even though Mueller's report now suggests it is false). This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of journalists over that of the Attorney General. A truly neutral statement would be something along the lines of "the allegations have neither been proved or disproved."--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an important part of Barr's testimony that is being missed in this discussion: "There is a basis for my concern, but I'm not going to discuss the basis". You can search for that phrase and find many references to it.

Rusf10 is correct. And it seems a violation of BLP to claim that the US AG would "shout from the rooftops" evidence pertinent to an incomplete investigation. At any rate, it's just Muboshgu's opinion and irrelevant on Wikipedia. Clearly, the phrase "that I would cite right now" means "that I would cite right now" and Muboshgo would do better to acknowledge its ambiguity than to make wild claims about what goes on inside the AG's head. Wookian (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, the conclusion was made, long before Barr came along. Trump made up a bogus conspiracy theory about Obama paying people to sabotage his 2016 campaign. That's not at all what happened. The FBI began investigating the Trump campaign due to their sketchy ties to Russia. It's that simple. Ergo, this conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. It is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"The FBI began investigating the Trump campaign due to their sketchy ties to Russia." The same sketchy ties which now do not appear to exist. According to the Mueller Report, "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" So what it sounds like to me is the real conspiracy theory is that Trump colluded with Russia.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, wrong. That's not the Mueller Report. That's the letter Barr wrote allegedly summarizing the Mueller Report. Nobody (save Barr and Rosenstein) has seen the Mueller Report yet. And from some leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post, it seems like some members of Mueller's team are quite unhappy with how Barr presented that conclusion. Further, we know that the investigation began because George Papadopoulos told an Australian that he had access to Russian dirt on Hillary, and that Australian told the FBI. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that Barr incorrectly summarized major elements of the Mueller Report is a wild conspiracy theory and doesn't belong here. Per the NYT, the unhappy anonymous persons you are referencing are not even from Mueller's team, just people who claim to be familiar with their thinking. In other words, mere gossip and hearsay. Wookian (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Show one single piece of evidence that Obama paid a spy to infiltrate Trump's campaign. That is the conspiracy theory, and after two investigations, it turned out to be false. Barr is referring to the Russia investigation and saying he wants to review the FISA request. Nothing to do with Spygate. 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

I read my paragraph... then I read your reply... you appear to be changing the subject. Anyway. It is fascinating that Papadopoulos claims that Mifsud was an undercover FBI asset. If true, that would make the whole affair start and end with the FBI. Presumably if Trump declassifies the FISA warrants that particular question would be answered. Since Barr also mentioned in his remarks today that he doesn't believe the rank and file of the FBI did anything wrong, just some of the top brass, this interpretation would be consistent with his intention to review the FISA etc. Personally, Barr's remarks make sense to me. I think only if someone was still somehow stubbornly hanging on to the Trump campaign Russia collusion conspiracy theory would Barr's remarks not make sense. Wookian (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Updated with "did spy" Ptelesca (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ptelesca... which is factually inaccurate based on all that we know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The original article that I linked stated their was potential improper spying, I see Barr has since walked back those comments. Regardless this should be included in the article as it directly related to DJT's claims of being spied on. Ptelesca (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Barr testified that he thinks spying occurred. If this article is solely about Trump’s claim that someone tried to infiltrate his campaign, then it may be time to start another article about the Obama administrations larger attempts to spy on Trump’s campaign. If we have the AG openly testifying that it occurred we need to think about what we should do with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is above. Please don't split it into two sections. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000 has proven himself to be biased and should not be allowed to edit this page any further. Your changes were partisan and now, with recent reports, have been proven erroneous, which gives the entire site a bad look. Instead of maintaining the neutrality that was needed, an assumption of falsity was created. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

TheMemeMonarch, nothing in this page has been "proven erroneous" as far as I'm aware. Please point out specific things you think are inaccurate, with reliable sources to demonstrate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, The issue is with the quote "false conspiracy". Barr has confirmed that Trump was spied on, criminal referrals are being made. Saying that it was "false" was even over-reaching at the time. It should be labeled "unproven" until such investigations are done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMemeMonarch (talk • contribs) 18:42, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

TheMemeMonarch At no point did Barr "confirm" Trump was "spied on". He said "I THINK". He provided no evidence of it. And even then, he was not talking about Obama putting a mole in the Trump campaign. He's talking about alleged FISA abuse. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I agree confirmed is putting it too strong. However, the issue is not on whether the spygate conspiracy is true, at least, not at this time. This issue is whether it has been debunked. The answer to that is a resounding no. Journalists do not get to decide something is debunked before an official investigation is done. Considering criminal referrals are being filed, it is clear that this issue is not decided. To maintain npov, "false" should be removed or replaced with unproven. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Adam Schiff just issued a stark warning about William Barr, The Washington Post. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

TheMemeMonarch, I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We really do follow what the news reports and other reliable sources say. If they say the theory was debunked, then we say it was debunked. If they say it wasn’t debunked, then we say it wasn’t debunked. That’s how our community standards were made, for American politics as well as every other part of Wikipedia, in part to avoid these very sorts of acrimonious debates. If you have a problem with what the newspapers have written, then you can write letters to their editors or blog or tweet about it. But trying to depart from the reliable sources here on Wikipedia will be an exercise in frustration for everyone. R2 (bleep) 23:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ahrtoodeetoo: - in my opinion, you could copy virtually the entirety of your comment for the RFC. starship.paint ~ KO 23:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Why don't you guys rename the article to Spygate (Conspiracy theory by the President of the United States of America)? 205.175.106.13 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would we? R2 (bleep) 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed first paragraph of the lede

I have changed the first paragraph of the lede. [1]. The previous one was just triggering too many Trump supporters, who read “Spygate is a false conspiracy theory” and get triggered because they have their own idea of what Spygate is. However, Spygate in this article refers to the allegations or May 2016 and June 2016. So I have framed that first. As for what Spygate is about, that is already described in the lede via paragraph two and four. So I have removed the summary (second half of first paragraph) of the summary (lede) as essentially duplicate info in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 13:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Good change. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This article's significant flaws and inappropriate slant still remain after your change. The term "Spygate" gets to be defined by the accusers, not by lawyering words from the anti-Trump side. A congresswoman challenged AG Barr over the term "spy" yesterday, and he replied that we could call it "unauthorized surveillance" if she preferred. The term "spy" is a term in popular use and must be interpreted that way, just like Trump's claim that Trump Tower was "wire tapped" (quotes his) should be interpreted broadly to include the two hop surveillance (of both past and ongoing communications) that arose from the Carter Page FISA. Wookian (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He said that he wasn't saying improper surveillance occurred. In no manner did he suggest that the claim promulgated by Trump that Obama ordered spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton is anything other than a false conspiracy theory. And please AGF and stop with these "anti-Trump" claims. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points here: Your comment "AGF and stop with these anti-Trump claims" is a bit tone deaf in light of the comment above suggesting that editors who disagree with this article's slant are "trigger[ed]...Trump supporters." I wasn't even talking about Wikipedia editors, but rather chosen sources, which are anti-Trump. Maybe we could just build an encyclopedia here and focus on the content and not each other.

Also, WaPo suggests that AG Barr strongly implied he believes wrongdoing was committed by the "upper echelons" of the FBI and potentially wider in the intelligence community. Wookian (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He specifically stated that he was not investigating the FBI. O3000 (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. He is not investigating the FBI as a whole. Here's a quote[2]:

I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon. So I don't like to hear attacks about the FBI because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I think Chris Wray is a great partner for me. I'm very pleased he's there as the director. If it becomes necessary to look over some former officials' activities, I expect I'll be relying heavily on Chris and work closely with him in looking at that information. But that's what I'm doing. I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused. I think that's one of the principal roles of the attorney general. Wookian (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to make "Spygate" mean whatever the hell you want to it mean whenever it's convenient. The claim was that there was a conspiracy of Obama administration officials to spy on Trump's campaign for political purposes — that claim has been proven false. You can't turn around and go "Well but now I mean it's just that someone spied on the Trump campaign at all!!1!1? SCANDAL! TREASON! OBUMMER!" No, that's not a scandal — that was a legitimate counterintelligence investigation based on lawful warrants and reasonable suspicion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it’s worth it to put a note at the top of the page stating this article is about the theory that Obama tried to put a spy in the Trump Campaign. For information about the Obama Administration’s investigations into the Trump Campaign see the Special Counsel page, for example. A lot of readers seem to be coming to this article expecting to be related to what Barr testified about. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, that is because the definition of "Spygate" includes far more than what the Wikipedia article is suggesting here. "Spygate" is not just about Trump's claims that they put a spy in his campaign, it's about the entire FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page and how that warrant was used as the basis for a Counterintelligence Investigation. Outside of this specific Wikipedia article, I have never seen anyone define "Spygate" so narrowly.

Your edit does absolutely nothing to correct the problem. You're just just carve something out to continue the narrative you want to present. Rather than, "false conspiracy theory", words like unproven or disputed would be acceptable. Bill Barr suggested that spying took place (whether it was legal or not is another question that has not been settled), so is Bill Barr now a conspiracy theorist? I dispute the neutrality of this article and in particular the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wookian - replying to your quote: The term "Spygate" gets to be defined by the accusers, not by lawyering words from the anti-Trump side. - no, the term Spygate gets to be defined by reliable sources. starship.paint ~ KO 01:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also Wookian: Your comment "AGF and stop with these anti-Trump claims" is a bit tone deaf in light of the comment above suggesting that editors who disagree with this article's slant are "trigger[ed]...Trump supporters." - when I mentioned Trump supporters, I was referring to people on /r/the_donald [3], not editors here. Maybe some editors are Trump supporters, but I don't know and that doesn't matter. starship.paint ~ KO 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mr Ernie: quoting you - Maybe it’s worth it to put a note at the top of the page stating this article is about the theory that Obama tried to put a spy in the Trump Campaign. - that's really the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lede right? If readers can't even get to the second sentence of the whole article.... shake my head. starship.paint ~ KO 01:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Rusf10: You're just just carve something out to continue the narrative you want to present. That's what reliable sources are presenting, so we do that. Rather than, "false conspiracy theory", words like unproven or disputed would be acceptable. If reliable sources say unproven or disputed, provide them. starship.paint ~ KO 01:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint:Those are opinion sources which create an issue of WP:UNDUE since you're including it in the lead and you're presenting those opinions as facts rather than attributing them. Furthermore, those opinion pieces were all written before Bill Barr said he though spying did occur.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Here are some more recent opinions in reliable sources that say the opposite: Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out (USA Today), Barr hammered for stating ‘spying did occur,’ despite confirmation of Trump team surveillance (Fox News)

Can someone point out where in the three sources cited the word "false" is applied to the allegations? The only pace I see is in the Vox headline (not the body of that piece), which says that the allegation is false. But even that piece repeatedly says that there is "no evidence", just as the other pieces do, and Vox is obviously the most partisan of the three sources cited. Given that the piece itself (along with the other two pieces) criticize the theory as being unsupported by evidence, it seems to me that the description as "false" gives undue weight to the one Vox headline. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Others (including myself) have been pointing that out for a while, and urging that we temper the language to that of the NYT or WaPo rather than the Vox opinion piece. It is difficult to make any reasonable, encyclopedic changes here when a Wikipedia moderator who endorses conspiracy theories (e.g. that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election) is holding the keys and blocking encyclopedic neutrality. The reliable sources who actually talk about Spygate and give it the credibility that the AG's comments clearly justify giving it get rejected as unreliable (e.g. Solomon). I'm not aware that any right leaning source is being allowed here, only left leaning ones (could be wrong on that, happy to be corrected). Edit to add note: referring to sources used to justify speaking in Wikipedia's voice and characterizing Spygate in the first sentence. Clearly only left leaning sources are used for that. Wookian (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS

If there was ever a time when WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply, it is now. Comments by Barr are being taken as the final arbiter of truth, even though they were uncertain, off-hand, without evidence, spoken to please his boss, and he's pulled back on what he said. Sheesh!

Give the guy a chance to perform the investigation he said he'd perform. Then we might have something that will change what's in the article, but since Congress has already performed such investigations and the Republicans admitted they found nothing, there isn't much chance he'll have any success. He's just riled up Trump's base, the ones who believe this and other conspiracy theories, and who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda. We need to see some of these WP:NOTHERE accounts blocked and/or topic banned.

We do not base content on such off-hand remarks. Nothing Barr has said disproves the fact that Trump pushed a conspiracy theory without evidence. RS labeled his claims as false, and we base our content on those RS. He said a spy was planted in his campaign. There is no evidence that it ever happened. Halper did poke around the edges of the campaign by seeking information from three persons, but he was never part of the campaign.

Legitimate counterintelligence efforts directed at certain persons in the campaign suspected of crimes are off-topic here. Trump was not talking about them. Just because he throws around the term "spying" doesn't make it so. He likes to create confusion, and editors who allow him to do that to them should know better.

There are other articles about the various counterintelligence investigations. Manafort and Page had their own issues and whenever they secretly met with (and they lied about it) and communicated with Russian and Ukrainian assets under observation, their interactions with them were picked up by several foreign, and later American, intelligence agencies. That is not "spying on the Trump campaign", and it is not what Trump was talking about when he was referring to Halper.

Summary: "A spy", as in ONE person, planted "IN" the campaign, is what Spygate is about. It never happened. Do you have RS documenting other things considered spying on the campaign? Then start a new article about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Absurd claim here. Specifically which part of WP:NOTNEWS does this fall under? You're trying to tell us that when the Attorney General of the United States makes a statement to congress about a serious allegation, something he clearly thinks should be investigated, we are just to ignore it? Just because you don't like or agree with what he said, doesn't mean it gets ignored. The man is the attorney general, his opinion actually deserves more weight in this article than that of opinion journalists who are routinely cited without second thought.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Attorney General of the United States is a subject matter expert on this very topic. What he said just made the title of this article ("conspiracy theory") false. The title of this article needs to be change or it makes Wikipedia look very biased and foolish. If the AG later comes out and says that it was, in fact, a conspiracy theory, then the title can be changed back. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bill Barr is a political appointee of Donald Trump, and we've already seen how Trump goes through cabinet officials like Kleenex if they slightly displease him. Barr's opinion, like that of all political officials of any stripe, must be taken with that consideration in mind. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yet other political appointees words and opinions by Clapper, Comey, Lynch, Brennan, etc are taken as gospel. Got it. Barr's the Attorney General of the USA, what he says actually does have relevance. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• When did I say that Clapper and Comey's opinion should be taken as gospel? I said no such thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• When Mueller's report is released, and it states that clandestine surveillance (another way of saying "spying") was conducted on the Trump campaign, will you still say that it's a "conspiracy theory" because Mueller was a political appointee? AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• That report is going to make a LOT of editors (and reporters) look very foolish, on one side or the other... I can't wait. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Again, the conspiracy theory is not that there was "spying" on the Trump campaign. There was clearly surveillance of people associated with the campaign, because those people had known contacts with agents of hostile foreign powers. That surveillance was, per the sources, entirely legitimate and legal under the law - there is a damned good reason we have laws like FISA and that is that there are people out there who want harm to come to our nation. The conspiracy theory is that this surveillance was illegal or done for political purposes to aid the Clinton campaign. Sources are essentially unanimous in declaring that false. So we follow the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• You just confirmed that the title of this article is false. So, there WAS spying on the campaign, what's controversial is whether it was legal and/or ethical. That's not a "conspiracy theory." That's a legal controversy. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Again, there is no "controversy" in mainstream reliable sources about whether it was legal. Donald Trump declaring something does not make it so. That you may personally disagree with these sources or think they are "biased" is not relevant here. Wikipedia views mainstream news organizations such as The Washington Post and The New York Times as gold-standard reliable sources. To change that consensus, you'd need to head over to WP:RSN and open a thread. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not just President Trump who is saying so. Barr and a number of Republican officials have also said so, as well as some media pundits (mainly on Fox). So, the title of the article is wrong on that point also. The title would need to mention every single name who agrees with the President. As it stands, it's a BLP violation. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, and no, it's not a BLP violation to call something false that reliable sources call false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, we probably should find a way to add into this article that Barr and Trump have resurrected this conspiracy theory, after things have calmed down. I'm not sure what wording we should use though, and certainly we need to let the test of time tell us. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As Bill Kristol said today, it’ll probably last 24-48 hours, and it’s already fading. If it does have legs, we can add something after the dust settles. O3000 (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, I can't imagine the AG undermining the FBI, or accurately calling out an improper investigation, won't have legs, but I agree we should wait and see. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If this gets legs, then we add it. We have done the same on the Trump–Russia dossier article and article about the Russia investigation. We document that Trump continues to lie about these things. He still denies that the Russians interfered in the election to help him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie and AppliedCharisma, stay on-topic. This article is about a specific claim made by Trump. He claimed that "a spy", as in ONE person, was planted "IN" the campaign. That's what Spygate is about. It never happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL, you regulars are moving the goalposts. If President Trump says that a spy was planted in his campaign, placement of a wiretap counts as a spy. Apparently, there was a wiretap, which is why the Trump staff moved their transition headquarters from the Trump Tower to his resort after the NSA director told them about it (and was subsequently fired by Obama for doing so). By the way, is stalking a normal behavior for Wikipedia editors? AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AppliedCharisma, some of what you are saying makes sense. A couple disagreements, however. The phrase "spy planted in his campaign" does imply human intelligence gathering rather than digital surveillance. People could argue whether "in the campaign" implies a paid member of the campaign or officially affiliated volunteer. I find it a red herring, though, as the bigger question is whether they spied on the campaign, which without solid predicate is scandal enough for any reasonable person. Finally, you are mistaken that NSA Director Mike Rogers was fired for meeting with Trump. Immediately after his meeting, top intelligence officials including Clapper tried to get Rogers fired, however President Obama declined to do so. Wookian (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

When the facts change the article should reflect the new facts. Facts do not support calling spying a "conspiracy theory". That Trump was a Russian agent or that his campaign colluded with Russia was a conspiracy theory. Barr is just confirming the suspicious circumstances of they spying. The accusations have been there for two years and the evidence is that spying did in fact occur.Phmoreno (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, facts have not changed. Barr presented no facts. He said "I think" and then he walked it back. Barr didn't confirm anything about spying. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

He said "Yes, I think spying did occur"...and followed it with the question whether it was predicated. See AP article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme:, and since he presented no facts, the facts have not changed. From the AP article you presented:

Barr provided no details about what “spying” may have taken place but appeared to be alluding to a surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on a former Trump associate. He later said during the hearing that he wasn’t sure there had been improper surveillance and wants to ensure all proper procedures were followed.

– Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You are referring to the "details" of Barr's investigation, which comes after the fact he acknowledged the basis for it; i.e., that spying, surveillance or investigating (whichever you prefer to call it) did occur. We don't have all the facts about his investigation in order to make a determination as to whether or not the spying was "adequately predicated". Barr was quite clear he was not suggesting that the spying was not adequately predicated, but felt it was his obligation to explore it...and so we wait. I'm guessing there may be quite a few WP articles that would need updating contingent upon the findings of Barr and Horowitz, of course, but that's what happens when we don't closely adhere to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The point is, he's not an independent source from the subject, so his opinions don't pass WP:RS or WP:V to use for statements of fact. We can report his opinions on the conspiracy theory somewhere in the article, but currently there's no reason to think they change anything - we would need independent sources treating them as facts before they would have any real weight outside of "here's an opinion presented by someone in the Trump administration, used to represent the position of the Trump administration on the topic." I agree that we have to be cautious about WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, but the basic outline of this conspiracy theory and the comments that led to it are well-established (and date back nearly a year at this point.) It's been thoroughly debunked by every source that examined it, and extensively examined as a conspiracy theory by virtually all mainstream sources, so for now we obviously have to stick with that rather than radically swerving based on the opinions of one administration official. --Aquillion (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the AP that Barr was talking about the Page wiretap, but rather Halper talking to Page, especially before July 31, and to Clovis, perhaps without prior approval: Mr. Halper reached out to Sam Clovis, a Trump campaign aide; it was not clear whether Mr. Halper had the F.B.I.’s blessing to contact Mr. Clovis. He indicated that at issue was not the act of surveilling but whether officials followed proper procedures when they decided to gather intelligence on Trump’s associates in 2016 soibangla (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Attorney General of the United States: "I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. [...] spying on a political campaign is a big deal."

AG Barr's testimony today shows that Donald Trump's accusation that his campaign was spied on in 2016 was true. He furthermore says that such spying is suspicious, its justifiability is in question, and this is being investigated. [4] This should not be surprising, since such investigations would have been difficult while the SCI was ongoing. Wookian (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So my intent is to highlight the above prominently in the article. It is clearly relevant, solidly sourced and essential to understanding the material in the article. Any objections before I do so? Wookian (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, sigh. He later said "I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying that I am concerned about it and I’m looking into it." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Surveillance does not need to be improper to fit the definition of "spying." This is s a pointless semantic distinction that has no bearing on the merit of the claims presented. I will also point out that neither did William Barr say that it was proper. He said he was investigating it. Meaning that, at the very least, William Barr has at least some indication that it may not have been proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.180.146 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, do you see how the headline "Barr testifies 'spying did occur' on Trump campaign, amid reported review of informant's role" is disingenuous, since it leaves out the key qualifier "I think"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

In no way does this indicate Trump's accusations were true. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It does indicate that the assertions made article's opening words "Spygate is a false conspiracy theory" are, at the least, disputable.<Periander6 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)>

In the same way that modern flat Earth societies would dispute that the Earth is round. Yet, our article opening for Earth won't give that false theory the time of day. We won't give credence to the idea that the FBI did anything inappropriate until we see incontrovertible evidence of it. Even Barr admits he has no evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He went on to say: “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred". The Spygate conspiracy theory claims that Obama spied on Trump's campaign to help Hillary in the election. There is no such evidence and it was not suggested by the AG. O3000 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The beginning sentence about the theory being false should, by the same token, be deleted due to incontrovertible evidence, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.48.19.246 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The incontrovertible evidence is that it is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe there is clear and concise evidence either way. Investigations are happening in both directions. According to US Code, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and thus a statement is true until proven false. One can't say this is a false conspiracy until it is incontrovertibly proven false. (written by IP editor - please sign next time?)

It is puzzling to me, Muboshgu why you would equate suspicions that the FBI's spying was inappropriate with flat earth conspiracies. "One of these things is not like the other." Multiple FBI people involved, including Strzok, McCabe, and Comey were extremely anti-Trump and have been fired. The Attorney General does not investigate whether the earth is flat, however he is investigating whether this surveillance was improper. You should stop upholding the frankly unsustainable anti-Trump slant of this article with your biased POV. Wookian (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you're clearly taking my comparison too literally. The point is that you're bringing the most frayed threads and claiming them to be proof. You said in the first edit of this section "AG Barr's testimony today shows that Donald Trump's accusation that his campaign was spied on in 2016 was true", and I showed you that this is not at all the case. Barr's testimony shows that he has a predetermined belief and he's looking for "facts" to verify it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong! How do you know Barr's intentions? Can you read minds? At this point, we can only say that it has neither been proven nor disproven. Just because you found a bunch of left-leaning opinion pieces that assert Donald Trump made it up, does not mean anything. The fact that Bill Barr, the attorney general of the United States, thinks that there was spying means it is at least possible. What Barr actually said was "“I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated" “I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.” He did not say there is no evidence, so I don't know where you're getting that from. What it appears he is suggesting is that this needs to be investigated.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Rusf10, of course the spying did occur. You would have to be a fringe conspiracy theorist at this point to claim it didn't. The only remaining questions relate to the extent and justifiability of such spying. Wookian (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory pushed by Trump stated it was predicated. And listen to Barr's testimony. He clearly backed off. Indeed, he said there was no evidence that the FBI did anything wrong -- the opposite of what was suggested above about Strzok, McCabe, and Comey. And, investigation is not "spying". O3000 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people are trying to short circuit the discussion and preempt the scandal by saying that the FBI doesn't classify it as spying. However, our intelligence community doesn't use the words "spy" or "spying" to describe their undercover assets' human intelligence gathering at all, so that's just sort of a red herring. The term "spy" here means whatever those making the "Spygate" accusations intend it to mean. Something can be "breathing related" even though medical professionals would call it "pulmonary," and it's silly to claim that the first usage is factually incorrect. Do you understand the point I am making here? Wookian (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any “intelligence” about the Trump campaign was being gathered. And please be careful about accusations against Strzok, McCabe, Comey and others. WP:BLP O3000 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see ‎Isothermic's block has expired and they are continuing the edit war. I can't revert. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, I dealt with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• The AG made no “announcement”. He was being questioned and made an unprepared response. He then backed off and later, given the opportunity to clarify, used far less inflammatory language. One of the reasons we don’t jump to put stuff into an encyclopedia is to give some time for the dust to settle. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  How can we write this is a false conspiracy theory when it’s clearly under investigation? We have a few biased news sources who seem to know more than the Justice Department. Let’s save the judgment until after the investigation concludes. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Later clarifying, he said he was not suggesting that rules were violated. He noted that Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general have already completed investigations of that matter, and that after reviewing those investigations he would be able to see whether there were any “remaining questions to be addressed.” In no manner did he suggest that Spygate was anything other than a false conspiracy theory or that it was even under investigation. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, he’s pretty much backed off everything now. There were two investigations, and no evidence was found that Obama paid to plant a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist Clinton to win the presidency as claimed by Trump in a false conspiracy theory named Spygate. O3000 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, hi there. Although I lean conservative in my politics, I'm mostly neutral with all things regarding to Spygate as I actually have not done my research thereof; in fact after reading some of the comments in defense of the contents on the article I'm, if anything, more convinced that Spygate is falser than I had initially thought. However I can't help but notice that, no matter your political biases, it is difficult to read the article without feeling an obvious agenda behind the article contents, either with a total dismissal of the allegations or with a premature conclusion to the allegations themselves. I would like to ask though: what would have to come out in order for you personally to be convinced that perhaps the rhetoric on the article regarding *conspiracy theory* or *falseness* be either curbed or entirely removed? I genuinely wish to hear specific answers and not cop-outs such as, "for *evidence* to come out. Thanks! -- Jeremy Ahn ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ummm....our content is based on RS, not editor's opinions. RS have examined the allegations and issues, discovered what was really happening, and found there was no evidence behind Trump's claims (nothing new there), so RS called it a conspiracy theory, and rightly so. When RS change their minds, we will also change the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy Ahn, and thanks for a polite response. What I believe is not relevant. I’m just a lowly editor. We use reliable sources. When they say something, we will document it. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if the Spying was legal it clearly happened and is not merely a 'theory". The AG said he thinks it happened, that is a pretty major source. The discussion in this thread reveals mods who are too heavily biased. There needs to be a way for a vote of no confidence of the editors of this page and for new people to come in and take the reigns. Justncase80 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Spygate theory is not that there was surveillance, but that there was surveillance within the Trump campaign for an improper purpose. R2 (bleep) 23:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to redefine Spygate / If you think Spygate is NOT a false conspiracy theory

Then please provide reliable sources that explicitly mention what Spygate is. You can find reliable (or unreliable) sources at WP:RSP, and discussions at WP:RSN can point to the reliability of a source. How Wikipedia works is that we reflect what reliable sources say, and the more reliable sources agree, the more we will reflect it. Reliable sources, per WP:RS, are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So if a reliable source, say, the Associated Press, says: “Spygate is a dolphin”, and Reuters, AFP etc. agree, then we at Wikipedia report “Spygate is a dolphin”. If you want to redefine Spygate, you have to have reliable sources explicitly giving the alternate definition for Spygate. I’m not seeing that in many (or even any) proposals on this page. starship.paint ~ KO 22:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, reliable sources do not need to be provided to show that Spygate is not a false conspiracy theory. The burden of proof lies with making the assertion that it is a conspiracy theory (and hence false). If we do not have reliable sources demonstrating this, then the article needs to be edited to say only this is a theory of alleged spying, without taking a position on whether it is true or false. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• You really should read the article and sources before speaking. The RS say it's false and a conspiracy theory, which Trump pushed without evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, if reliable sources say Spygate is false, we report it to be false. This is how Wikipedia works. starship.paint ~ KO 03:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hypothetical example 1 - reliable source: “Susan Rice watered the plants” - not acceptable, no mentioned link to Spygate
• Hypothetical example 2 - reliable source: “Susan Rice watered the plants, and that is Spygate” - acceptable, linked to Spygate
• Hypothetical example 3 - unreliable source: “Susan Rice watered the plants, and that is Spygate” - not acceptable, unreliable source
• Hypothetical example 4 - reliable source: “Susan Corn authorised paying a spy who was implanted into the Trump campaign for political purposes” - acceptable, relevant to May 2018 allegations
• Hypothetical example 5 - reliable source: “Susan Corn authorised the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign to start in June 2018” - acceptable, relevant to June 2018 allegations. starship.paint ~ KO 23:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source from Aug 11, 2019, that refers to "Spygate" in the title. Notice that the source doesn't mention a single thing about Halper or other spies planted in the Trump campaign. It is strictly about the electronic surveillance of the Trump Campaign/Transition Team by Obama era Cabinet level officials. It's you, who is trying to redefine what "spygate" means. Nobody who actually refers to Spygate in contemporary sources and articles conceives of it as being strictly limited to Trump's claims in 2016/17. Nobody outside of this article, anyway. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised he didn't mention Halper. You linked to an opinion column by James S. Robbins. Opinion pieces are not RS. Halper doesn't fit his narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it is an opinion piece has literally nothing at all to do with the point I am making, which is that Spygate is understood to mean something different than what you're saying it means. What are you even arguing here? Are you trying to tell me that the writer of the article doesn't understand what Spygate is really about, he's using the term incorrectly? Someone should tell the editor... Regardless, your point is entirely moot. Here is another source, that isn't filed under opinion (that I can tell,) which defines "Spygate" as the following: "The Russian probe led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Use of the word “spying" to describe that initial investigation echoes the language of President Trump and some of his more strident supporters who call the probe 'Spygate.'" You are completely off base here. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• *@SIPPINONTECH: Sorry I'm trying to keep up with your old statements. For your second link above (NY Daily News), per WP:RSP, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. A more reliable source is preferred. starship.paint ~ KO 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - thank you for your effort. For your first link, see: WP:RSOPINION - Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. - You're using an opinion for a statement of fact. starship.paint ~ KO 01:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, here is a non-opinion article, both contemporary and not an opinion piece, in a reputable source, that defines Spygate as the broader investigation - and not specifically about claims that spies were planted in the campaign (although that is a part of spygate.) This article defines Spygate as follows: "a term referring to allegations the FBI spied on (Trump's) 2016 campaign." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is yet another article, both contemporary and not an opinion piece in a reputable source, that defines "Spygate" as the following: "Last year, the president tweeted about “Spygate,” a term referring to allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign." No mention of spies being planted in the campaign specifically, it's referring to the broader investigation. You are narrowing the definition of "Spygate" well beyond its usage. Spygate is about Halper and Mifsud, yes, but it's also a more general term used to refer, as the article says, to "allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign." The article is redefining "Spygate" in a way that is incoherent with its colloquial usage. As a general comment, if you don't even understand what "Spygate" is, you probably shouldn't be contributing to articles that talk about it. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• This (Newsweek) appears to be alright. There should be further discussion on how to incorporate this "“Spygate,” a term referring to allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign." starship.paint ~ KO 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And for good measure another contemporary, non-opinion, reputable source referring to "Spygate" as follows: "The so-called "spygate" scandal, which relates to alleged FISA abuses by the intelligence community, has been frequently promoted by defenders of President Trump. It has not been corroborated." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - Axios' reliability hasn't been really discussed in WP:RSN / WP:RSP. I know that Axios has broken some news regarding the Trump administration. If we at Wikipedia can reach a position on Axios' reliability, and agree that it is reliable, then yes, this source, and this definition, can be looked for inclusion. This isn't a rejection of this source. starship.paint ~ KO 01:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to the people reading through this, I am still getting a hang of how Wikipedia works in terms of sourcing. I will refer to the source list before I claim another one is reputable. Here is a 2nd Newsweek article that refers to "Spygate" as follows: "The president has repeated addressed the matter several times since taking office in January 2017. Last year, Trump tweeted about “Spygate,” a term he apparently coined to refer to allegations that the FBI spied on his 20116 campaign team." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - That's also okay, just a note that that is the same Newsweek author (Christina Zhao) on a different article. Same as above, this does appear reliable, discussion is needed on how to incorporate this.. starship.paint ~ KO 01:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH:, context matters. Keep in mind that contemporary sources do not define what THIS "Spygate" refers to. It is the original assertions by Trump on May 22 which do that, and he referred to a spy (who was Halper), and claimed the spy was planted inside the campaign. There is no evidence any spy, especially Halper, was part of the campaign. None. Trump made a very specific claim which was false, and myriad RS said so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: .... but perhaps this article can mention alternate definitions of Spygate, which were also based on Trump's campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 04:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that context matters is precisely why it is important to properly define what "Spygate" means. You are basing your definition off of information that is both incomplete and outdated. "Spygate" includes the Halper and Mifsud allegations, but as is abundantly clear based on the articles I have here provided, it also includes other aspects of the wide-ranging FBI investigation into Trump's Campaign/Transition. If anyone is ignoring context here, it would be the authors of the article, who narrowly focus on outdated sources to narrow the definition of "Spygate" beyond its colloquial usage and meaning, to such an extent that one wonders if it is intentionally ignorant in order to avoid discussion of some very real, proven and concerning aspects of the far-reaching counterintelligence operation conducted against a political campaign by the Obama Administration. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the new sources that keep being brought up, what exactly does anyone think they show? It's journalists documenting that the usual suspects are having the usual debate. The conservative talking heads are jumping all over Barr's statement, the democrats are pushing back, and various sites are documenting the debate. Spygate doesn't stop being a conspiracy theory as far as Wikipedia is concerned simply because Tucker Carlson said so, even if Newsweek reports that he said it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you having difficulty understanding what this subheading is about? The articles provided by me and others in this section show that the definition of "Spygate" used by the author of this Wikipedia article is incorrect. The authors of the article are saying "Spygate" is specifically about the FBI planting, or trying to plant, human intelligence sources inside Trump's campaign. In reality, "Spygate" refers to the wide-ranging efforts by the FBI to surveil the Trump Campaign/Transition, including the (proven) use of FISA warrants, (proven) electronic surveillance, (proven) unmasking of Trump Campaign officials who were not under FBI investigation by senior members of Obama's Cabinet (See "Susan Rice" section above this,) etc. The authors of this article are essentially constructing a strawman here by using an extremely narrow definition of "Spygate" that only focuses on the unproven aspects of a larger unfolding scandal for which there is ample public evidence - some of which I have provided above concerning senior officials in Obama's cabinet reading the private communications of senior Trump Campaign officials who were not under FBI investigation. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• What about USA Today? This mentions both the subject of Barr's investigation and "Spygate" as regarding the same entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's already been explained to you that that is not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

... unreliable for statements of fact but reliable for the author's opinion, it must be presented as the author's opinion. starship.paint ~ KO 23:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Susan Rice Unmasking of Senior Trump Campaign Officials

This article is extremely biased - primarily in the assertion that Trump's claims that he was spied on have no merit. Susan Rice, President Obama's National Security Adviser (a senior Cabinet official and a political appointee,) was receiving intelligence reports on senior staff inside Trump's campaign, which she unmasked (de-anonymized.) Source. Rice was not only receiving briefings on the private communications of senior Transition Officials gathered via FISA surveillance warrant; she was also seeking identifying information on them. Source. It seems rather obvious that a Cabinet level political appointee inside the Obama Administration reading unredacted intelligence reports on the opposing Party's nominee is consistent with "Spying," and certainly would render Trump's Tweets, which this article claims are "false," at least partially based in reality. I feel that this article does an extremely poor job of representing some very concerning aspects of "Spygate," which do in fact raise suspicion that it is a bit more than a "conspiracy theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From your source: "I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican helping to lead the panel's Russia invesigation, told CNN of Rice's testimony...Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is your assertion that spying must be illegal in order to be properly defined as spying? Even if such surveillance was conducted in accordance with the Law, the fact that Cabinet level appointees in the Obama Administration were reading unredacted intelligence briefings on the opposing Party's campaign without their knowledge using a surveillance warrant issued by a secret court is absolutely consistent with "Spying." Whether that surveillance was conducted properly or improperly (itself a matter of debate) is irrelevant in terms of characterizing the underlying behavior as spying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Agree with soibangla. This is old news. A few folks tried to make something out of what turned out to be common practice and part of her job. It was not spying on the campaign in any meaning of the word. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Saying something is old news does not change the substance of my argument, which is that regardless of the legality of Cabinet level officials reading unredacted intelligence reports on the private communications between members of the opposing Party's campaign, such behavior can nevertheless still be construed as "spying." The definition of spying makes no reference to its legality. Reading the private communications of Campaign officials without their knowledge using electronic surveillance is completely consistent with any reasonable definition of "spying." That the National Security Adviser routinely engages in behavior that can be construed as "spying" is equally irrelevant to the point I am making here.SIPPINONTECH (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)— SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Taking commonplace incidents and interpreting them in malevolent ways is at the heart of conspiracy thinking. And as our article on Conspiracy theory states about such: “… unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable Evidence showing it to be false, or the absence of proof of the conspiracy, is interpreted by believers as evidence of its truth, thus insulating it from refutation.” Let us not try to find conspiracy in every news item. There is nothing in your sources that indicate that the Obama admin was spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton, as posited by Spygate. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I find the assertion that having Cabinet level appointees reading unredacted intelligence reports on the political campaign of the opposing Party is somehow "commonplace" to be thoroughly unconvincing. There is only one other time in American history when surveillance was conducted against a rival political campaign - and it forced a sitting President to resign from office. I also think it is interesting that you inserted the caveat bolded in the following quote: "There is nothing in your sources that indicate that the Obama admin was spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton, as posited by Spygate." Are you under the impression that spying on the private communications of a political rival during an election would not reasonably benefit the party in power? Because that is an absurd argument. There is no need to prove intent here. The very existence of the spying in the first place would by definition help Clinton by harming her opponent. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're making an assertion without any evidence that "the Obama admin was spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton". Please stop making unfounded claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have provided sources where, in Congressional testimony, senior officials in the Obama Administration literally admit that they were reading unredacted intelligence reports on Trump Campaign/Trump Transition officials without their knowledge. This is consistent with the definition of spying. And as I have said elsewhere in this section, by definition, conducting a wide-ranging surveillance operation against a political campaign helps the opponent's campaign. Nothing I have said is the slightest bit unfounded, I think you are having difficulty separating your political beliefs from your ability to objectively evaluate the evidence I have provided. Especially considering your comments elsewhere in this article. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you're suggesting that Susan Rice did something wrong or illegal, when there's no evidence of that at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's how you are interpreting what I'm saying - I never said Susan Rice did something wrong or illegal. In fact, I said that regardless of the legality, the fact that Susan Rice was reading the unredacted private communications of Senior Officials in Trump's Campaign/Transition can be construed as spying. Spying in and of itself is neither illegal nor immoral. Having said that, I think it's telling that you seem to see the behavior that Susan Rice herself admitted she engaged in was improper or illegal. It's kind of hard to avoid jumping to those conclusions when discussing a Cabinet level political appointee using the power of their office to conduct surveillance against members of the opposing Party's political campaign who are not under criminal investigation. Which is why it is relevant to begin with. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SIPPINONTECH, I don't think she did anything improper or illegal. I'm used to editors coming to this talk page and other suggesting that. So, perhaps I am being too defensive and am misinterpreting what you're suggesting. But, what are you suggesting? We had an unprecedented situation in 2016 where Russia was interfering in our elections, and there was (and still is) good reason to think the Trump campaign was actively colluding with Russia to do it. So, Susan Rice took unusual actions for an unusual situation. None of them deal with "Spygate" as far as I'm aware, they deal with the Russia investigation. So, based on your bringing up Susan Rice in discussion, what changes to this article do you think should be made? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting that in actual point of fact Trump was spied on. That specific claim is absolutely not a "conspiracy theory." Susan Rice literally said in Congressional testimony that she was reading the unredacted private communications of Senior Trump Campaign/Transition members. The specific edit I would suggest here would be to include the articles I linked above in the "Background" section of the article, as the fact that Susan Rice has testified that she was reading unredacted intel on Senior Trump Campaign/Transition members is directly opposed to the following excerpt from that subsection: "Trump also made his Trump Tower wiretapping allegations in 2017, for which the Department of Justice has said evidence has yet to be provided." Regardless of what the Justice Department said, Susan Rice herself has testified that, not only was Trump's Senior Staff under electronic surveillance, that she herself was personally involved in said surveillance. There needs to be an excerpt in the background section that includes this information. Because it lends credence to Trump's claim that he was "wiretapped." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Did Susan Rice say that there was wiretapping of Trump Tower, in the manner that Trump alleged? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as detailed in the sources above. Susan Rice testified before Congress that she unmasked the communications of Senior Trump Campaign officials (Trump's campaign HQ was located in Trump Tower.) So by definition there was wiretapping on Trump Tower, unless you want to play semantic games about the technical definition of "wiretapping."SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Susan Rice was doing her job. If there wasn't concern about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, she wouldn't have done what she did. There's no evidence that suggests that she passed along information to the Clinton campaign, that would be a serious breach. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She did not need to pass information along to the Clinton Campaign in order to damage Trump's - the existence of a covert surveillance operation against a political campaign is by its very nature damaging to that campaign. You are setting the bar unreasonably high.SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It wasn't an investigation of the Trump campaign. It was a counterintelligence investigation. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What's your point? Counterintelligence, if anything, implies spying. Certainly nobody inside Trump's Campaign or Transition was aware that widespread surveillance was being conducted against senior officials inside the campaign. That is consistent with the definition of spying. Regardless of how you want to label it, there were cabinet level officials inside the Obama Administration who were reading unredacted intelligence reports on senior Trump Campaign and Trump Transition officials. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not make unfounded accusations. WP:BLP applies. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made no unfounded accusations whatsoever. All of my claims are sourced in the articles linked at the top of this heading (CNN and Politico articles.) Cabinet level officials inside the Obama Administration - specifically Susan Rice - was reading unredacted intelligence reports on senior Trump Campaign/Transition officials. These officials were unaware that they were being surveilled (by definition - FISA warrants are issued in secret.) If you feel I have made an unfounded accusation would you point out which specific "accusation" you are referring to? SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are pushing nonsense that was debunked long ago, after some concocted yet another fake scandal, in furtherance of their previous fake scandal that Rice lied about Benghazi to smear her. Have you ever considered the possibility that the people you believe and trust are lying to you? soibangla (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are bringing in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the subject of our discussion. Susan Rice, a Cabinet level political appointee in the Obama Administration was reading the unredacted private communications of senior Trump Campaign/Transition officials, who were not under FBI investigation. If you want to accuse me of being partisan or misguided, I suppose that is your prerogative. However, I have provided reputable sources for my assertions and you have failed to explain why those assertions are invalid. Obama Administration officials admitted in their own words to reading the campaign emails of their political enemies before Congress. In their own words. It wasn't the Republicans saying it, it was Susan Rice saying it. I believe that fact is significantly at odds with the tone and the tenor of this article. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that Susan Rice did anything other than her job. You're talking about the counterintelligence operation as though it was illegal spying. It wasn't. Bringing up Benghazi was, I assume, a way of pointing out that Susan Rice has been a target of conspiracy theories from some on the right-wing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Benghazi is completely extraneous to our discussion here and has no bearing on Susan Rice's testimony before Congress, in which she admitted to reading the unredacted private communications of senior officials inside the Trump Campaign/Transition Team. I never said anything about the legality of the spying, only that, in Susan Rice's own words, she did, in fact, engage in spying against the Trump Campaign. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What you and right-wing sources (like Fox News and Breitbart) are calling "spying", reliable sources call "countersurveillance" as a result of Russian interference. These are not the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how countersurveillance is inconsistent with the definition of spying? The definition of spy(ing) in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is as follows: "to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes." Either way this is a pointless semantic argument - electronic surveillance was conducted against Trump's Campaign/Transition, full stop. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What hostile purposes? You keep suggesting conspiratorial stuff that has been firmly debunked. And none of your sources say anything like what you are posting here. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The definition reads: usually for hostile purposes. The purposes being hostile aren't a necessary condition for behavior to be consistent with spying. But I would argue that any counterintelligence investigation is hostile because by its very nature it is antagonistic toward the parties being investigated. 50.232.180.146 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Some further reading on this can be found here. I would ask the reader of this article to take a pause, and consider if perhaps having open testimony in Congress that the "Right Hand Woman" of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, accessing the private campaign emails of his political rivals unredacted in an election year, merits a bit more serious treatment than it is getting in this article. It is extremely, extremely disingenuous to call this a "conspiracy theory" in the title, accuse the sitting President of a lie in the first paragraph, and then quietly mention in your third paragraph the one thing about "Spygate" that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt happened: the Obama Administration did actually spy on Donald Trump's Campaign/Transition. Spygate isn't about Trump being a serial liar (despite its Background section,) it's a conspiracy theory that accuses the Obama Administration of conducting a far reaching surveillance operation into the Trump Campaign/Transition Team for political gain. I believe that in order to preserve a neutral point of view it at least bears mentioning that the "Right Hand Woman" of a Sitting President was engaged in spying on the rival campaign. No?

This information should be included in the background section. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"the one thing about "Spygate" that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt happened: the Obama Administration did actually spy on Donald Trump's Campaign/Transition" Your flat assertion is flatly false and your contributions here are disruptive and nonconstructive. Please stop. soibangla (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Point of order: I have just presented clear evidence that my "flat assertion" is, in fact, true. Susan Rice was a member of the Obama Administration, and she spied on Trump's Transition team. She literally told Congress she received classified intelligence briefings that contained their private information. You need to remove your personal political preferences from this and instead of trying to lash out maybe explain specifically what you disagree with about my characterization of the reliable sources I have presented here. Would you prefer I used a euphemism for "spied?" SIPPINONTECH (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• SIPPINONTECH, I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We follow what the news reports and other reliable sources say. If they say the Rice unmasking was evidence of Spygate, then we say that. If they say the theory was debunked, then we say that too. That’s how our community standards were made, for American politics as well as every other part of Wikipedia, in part to avoid these very sorts of acrimonious debates. If you have a problem with how the newspapers have handled Sygate, then you can write letters to their editors or blog or tweet about it. But trying to depart from the reliable sources here on Wikipedia, or drawing connections here that are not made by the reliable sources, will be an exercise in frustration for everyone. This is why you are encountering such stiff resistance. R2 (bleep) 00:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"false conspiracy theory"

Wiki needs to remove the proven false conspiracy theory for Spygate. We no know for 100% certainty that the Trump Campaign was spied on. This is not in question. The3taveren (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources disagree. The claim that Obama administration officials spied on the campaign for political purposes is, indeed, false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not false anymore. There's plenty of evidence, including FISA warrants, and text messages saying: "POTUS wants to know everything". Lots of "credible" sources call Spygate a false conspiracy theory, but they are wrong. KeithCu (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, please provide evidence from reliable sources (i.e., not Breitbart or any other conspiracy theory site) that verifies that "Spygate" was real, as opposed to actual, legal countersurveillance. I can see in a source like this one how we can come to different conclusions. Note, regarding the "POTUS" text message: "But it is not clear that the text message between the two refers to the FBI's investigation of Clinton. Johnson's report only says that the text "may relate" to the FBI’s Clinton investigation, since the Justice Department had redacted other text messages that related to other investigations. " – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't a conspiracy theory site. Sorry to read you believe that because I lose confidence in Wikipedia. This book lays it out in great detail: https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989 Here's an article that explains some history about the FISA warrants https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html The NYT has done a bunch of reporting about the FISA warrants.

There's tons of evidence Trump was spied on. The editors need to wake up and realize that most of the mainstream media have been lying about this for 2 years, and calling the truth a conspiracy theory. Just imagine if Bush 43 had been embedding spies and wiretapping Obama. The media would treat it as a massive scandal instead of a conspiracy theory. KeithCu (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, Please check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Breitbart is absolutely, 100% a conspiracy theory-based site and it is wholly unreliable for Wikipedia. If we can't agree on that, it's unlikely we'll agree on much else. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that there existed any embedded spies. Please be careful. You are making vile accusations against living people. Read WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling Breitbart a conspiracy theory based site is ridiculous. Of course, I'm just here to point out that Spygate is not a false conspiracy theory. One can't hope to fix all the incorrect ideas believed by Wikipedia editors in one day. Too many here clearly live in the mainstream media bubble. There is plenty evidence of spies embedded in the Trump campaign, and that there was surveillance of basically everyone via the FISA 2-hop warrants. It's amazing people are cautioning me about making vile accusations of spying, instead of actually realizing it is true. Anyway, more evidence will come out, with future IG reports and declassifications. Don't expect to get admissions from the mainstream media who were wrong for 2 years on the Russia Collusion hoax.

The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that the "reliable sources" are in many cases just pushing official government storylines. It's amazing to see how many people here are implicitly defending unauthorized surveillance (by saying it didn't happen) and defending the politicization and weaponization of the US intelligence community for political purposes. Is it just a coincidence that so many here refuse to admit crimes by those agencies? Maybe they aren't paid, they've just had their minds manipulated by deep state leaks to the mainstream media, as Glenn Greenwald explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enqRAmtfwqo KeithCu (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, there is no evidence of unauthorized surveillance. Period. Therefore, this is a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an entire book written about it, I posted a link above. I'll bet reading it would blow your mind. Give it a shot, rather than being part of a mob defending crimes by the FBI and CIA. KeithCu (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino is not credible, he is a clown. Stop watching Fox News, they are lying to you. Are you among those who enjoy being lied to? soibangla (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"There is plenty evidence of spies embedded in the Trump campaign, and that there was surveillance of basically everyone via the FISA 2-hop warrants" Where?

"Don't expect to get admissions from the mainstream media who were wrong for 2 years on the Russia Collusion hoax" I have yet to see any conservative sources provide a list of "all the things the MSM got wrong." Why is that? Surely they would've pounced on it by now. There are many, many indicators of Trump associates in contact with Russians in peculiar ways, but evidently (from what Barr has told us) Mueller was unable to connect the dots and hopefully his report will show why. Greenwald's relevance began and ended with Snowden. soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dan Bongino, a Republican (who has run for office in two different states), is not someone to be believed. He has willingly gone onto Infowars. Here's an Associated Press fact check that debunks one of Bongino's claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow! KeithCu, I'm not sure how this would apply to Trump or this article (unless one believes in conspiracy theories that make such undocumented connections):

1. "embedding spies" (No evidence that ever happened to Trump or his campaign.)
2. "wiretapping Obama, and Wikipedia refused to acknowledge it, and only called it a conspiracy theory." (Trump was never wiretapped, but some of his campaign members were exposed because of electronic surveillance by multiple allied foreign intelligence agencies. They were listening in on conversations between Russian assets (this is real spying), and they incidentally heard them describe their secret dealings with Trump campaign members. Those contacts and coordination were not legitimate, and that's why those campaign members constantly lied about it, and some have been convicted for telling such lies. Manafort, Page, and Cohen were possibly surveilled because of such contacts, all legitimately and legally. If you are suspected of committing crimes, you get investigated. That's not political, but a national security and criminal investigation matter. Don't excuse such behavior. There was some discussion of wearing wires when meeting with Trump, but no evidence that ever happened. Everything about him, both his open and his secretive interactions with Russians and Putin, and his constant lying about all of it, created strong suspicions that he might be a witting or unwitting Russian asset. Surveillance was and is justified in such cases, but we have no evidence they did it. Maybe we'll find out. When RS say it happened, we'll include it at Wikipedia, but not likely in this article.)
3. "unauthorized surveillance" (Any surveillance of Trump campaign members was legal and authorized. We know that Carter Page was the subject of a FISA warrant in 2013/2014, long before the Trump campaign, because of his suspicious dealings with Russian agents. In 2016, his actions and lies got him in trouble again, and after he left the Trump campaign he was again the subject of FISA warrants. Page, not the campaign, was surveilled.)

Seriously, Bongino is a horrible source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotefarm

A couple of inspirational quotes.

Whoever wrote this pathetic article (I'm talking about prose-quality, solely) might wish to read WP:QUOTEFARM. Someone please paraphrase the comments and bind them in a coherent fashion. ∯WBG^converse 17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

WBG - I share your pain. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, on an already quite heated and messy talk page, it is not good practice to be unnecessarily inflammatory with a drive-by "pathetic article," noting a problem as well as possible solution without making an effort at fixing it. If people revert your efforts, then you are entitled to gripe about it here. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I probably wrote the majority of the article, I'm sorry but that was my best effort. If you feel you can improve the situation, please try. starship.paint ~ KO 23:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good luck, I don't want to touch this with a ten foot pool, I'd prefer to keep my sanity. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, right or wrong, this is not good timing. The TP is currently under massive attack by off-wiki canvassing and an off-the-cuff comment made by a high-ranking official, later backed off, with reports on innumerable sites that somehow missed the later explanations. When the dust settles, we will have to begin sweeping it up. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Objective3000: - could you link me to a website with a full explanation? Thanks. starship.paint ~ KO 00:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

They aren't RS. We have seen many comments saying Barr said spying happened missing any of his further clarifications. And, the off-site canvassing is at ANI. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I just think the dust should settle before anyone looks to a rewrite, assuming it's needed. I don't have an opinion on the latter. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was looking for the quotes. Found them. Just wanted to leave them on record. "I'm not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it's important to look at that. And I'm not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly ... I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I'm saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that's all ... I just want to satisfy myself that there were no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. ... I'm not saying improper surveillance occurred, I am looking into it”. starship.paint ~ KO 00:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A few concerns

I’m not here at the behest or to weigh in on any of the present RFCs, or commenting on them generally. But I will note that it seems there is some overlap between them, which likely requires some uninvolved administrator(s) oversight. And while I’m sure some might welcome such, wherever they might happen to blow in the ideological wind, the fact that there’s an obvious large scale off-Wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry concern should give regular editors pause. I’m not sure whether there’s any remedy to this, to be honest, but I’m sure it’s been a topic of some precedent. Perhaps more veteran editors than myself can enlighten me. Regardless, all these changes seem premature, and given the obvious political trenches for some, couldn’t we err on the side of caution and wait just a few days? If not for more information, than for a breather. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - Agree, slow things down. I'm generally in favor of the RFCs taking the full 30 days, and a 48-hour waiting period for any breaking news. To me allowing time is a practical necessity because it takes time for responses to show up, and for whatever the WEIGHT will be to become apparent. Slowing things down curbing mob enthusiasms or puppetry seems a likely side benefit. But I haven't seen such be put in as a control, there is a large following (on all sides) that hate to wait, and admins seem to go for availability of discretionary sanctions. Stay tuned -- it's an interesting case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

President Trump's theory....

Conspiracy theories based on interpretations found in unreliable sources.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
President Trump's theory is not a theory. After FBI Agent Strzok, FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, and DOJ official Bruce Ohr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, that theory becomes fact. Conspiracy theory by Donald Trump misleads the reader into believing President Trump's assertions were fictional. We now know this not to be the case. One need not go past page 7 of Bruce Ohr's transcript https://dougcollins.house.gov/sites/dougcollins.house.gov/files/Ohr%20Interview%20Transcript%208.28.18.pdf to comprehend that Christopher Steele provided Bruce Ohr with information. Page https://dougcollins.house.gov/page, former Lawyer with the FBI, transcript outlines the FBI's role in spying on candidate Trump and her close relationship with former FBI Agent Strzok. It also outlines the fact that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was indeed instrumental, not only in the Hillary Clinton investigation, but overseeing the investigation into candidate Donald Trump. Lisa Page, from transcript provided above, asserts that former President Barack Hussein Obama wanted to be kept abreast of all that was going on. It does not require a PHD to determine President Obama was aware of the spying on candidate Trump. Former FBI Agent, Peter Strzok's testimony is easily obtained https://dougcollins.house.gov/strzok and shows a bias so blatant it would cloud any investigators better judgement. So your assertion that President elect Trump made said claims without any proof are now proven to be false. It is now well known that President Elect Trump was visited at Trump Tower by Mike Rogers, Chief at the time of NSA's Central Security Service, ten days after the 2016 Presidential election. Why did Rogers visit President Elect Trump? He was concerned about the unusual amount of Unmasking and About Queries within the NSA's database, he knows President Elect Trump is being spied on. The very next day President Elect Trump announces on Twitter that the Obama Administration had wiretapped or bugged him, he also leaves Trump Tower. A day after President Elect Trump evacuates Trump Tower, Mike Rogers is fired by President Obama. Do you honestly believe Mike Rogers was fired out of the blue and there was no connection to his firing and his meeting with President Elect Trump? The Obama administration, history will show, started a politically motivated spying campaign against candidate Trump. This spying bypassed normal U.S. law at first. It then used the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Fusion GPS funded, Christopher Steel Dossier to obtain FISA warrants to legitimize this spying. The Dossier also quoted leaked information to Main Stream Media news sources, which means the News Sources were complicit in this Conspiracy. From the transcripts above to further information gathered, it's now known Top officials of the FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe and others) did not verify the Dossier's legitimacy. They basically swore under oath to the FISA Courts that the information they were providing (the probable cause for these warrants) was accurate to the best of their knowledge. This goes against ALL Law Enforcement practices, you verify what you're swearing by before any court, whether a search warrant or arrest. Otherwise you commit perjury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy0217 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC) That's an awful lot of original research based on views found only in fringe, unreliable sources. The essence of many conspiracy theories is the connection of lots of "dots". Those "dots" are factual events, but the connections, which are not justified in reality, show the bias of the author(s) of the theory. That's what you're describing. Most of your "dots" are well-documented facts found in many of our articles here. Here's the problem. You are at the article about Trump's "Spygate" conspiracy theory. It has a historical origin, and reliable sources show that he made a number of false statements, exaggerations, and "connections" between "dots" in his tweets. That has not been changed by the "revelations" (many of which we already know and document here) in the Mueller Report. So please stay on-topic. I'm hatting this thread as it is a violation of our talk page guidelines and an example of advocacy of fringe positions. We don's allow that in articles, and definitely not on talk pages. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)