Revision as of 17:16, 8 November 2017 editMrX (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,648 edits same← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:44, 23 December 2024 edit undo2601:248:c000:147a:c86:3ebf:c9fe:d503 (talk) →Overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{Old XfD multi | date = 14 January 2017 | result = '''Snow keep''' | page = Donald Trump Russia dossier}} | |||
{{Archive basics | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= | |||
|archive = Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier/Archive %(counter)d | |||
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} | |||
|counter = 4 | |||
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} | |||
{{WikiProject Espionage |importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=low |American=yes |American-importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Russia |importance=Mid |pol=yes |hist=}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States |USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=top|importance=Low |USGov=yes |USGov-importance=mid |USPE=yes}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
<!-- | |||
{{Old AfD multi | date = 14 January 2017 | result = '''keep''' | page = Donald Trump Russia dossier}} | |||
Don't archive live links. The reasons are listed at ], and they apply here just as well. See "Consensus 25: Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead." The archived discussions: | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |class=start |importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums |class=start |importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Espionage |class=start |importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject International relations |class=start |importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Journalism |class=start |importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics |class=start |importance=low |American=yes |American-importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Russia |class=start |importance=Mid |pol=yes |hist=}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States |class=start |importance= |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=mid |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{2016 US Election AE}} | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69#Archiving_of_live_links | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_74#Archive_links | |||
--> | |||
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|ap}} | |||
{{Warning RS and OR}} | |||
{{Merged-from|List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations|March 2, 2018}} | |||
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} | |||
== See also section == | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|algo = old(30d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Steele dossier/Archive %(counter)d | |||
|counter = 28 | |||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
}} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
== Second sentence of article "efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, is factually wrong, and contradicted by source material == | |||
*'']'' (film directly analyzes question of authenticity of the document as part of its main ]) | |||
The current statement in the article, "''The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation''," is not accurately supported by the cited source. The source cited, "Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities" from the Senate Intelligence Committee report, does not use the terms "short-lived," "limited," or "weak" to describe the FBI's corroboration efforts. Furthermore, it does not state that the FBI stopped all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017.The relevant quote from the report (page 847) states:"(U) ''The Committee found that, within the FBI, the dossier was given a veneer of credibility by lax procedures, and layered misunderstandings. Before corroborating the information in the dossier, FBI cited that information in a FISA application. After a summary of the uncorroborated information was later appended to the ICA, the FBI also briefed it to the President, President-elect, and Gang of Eight, while noting that it was unverified."'' This quote contradicts rather than supports the current statement in the article. It suggests that the FBI used the dossier before corroborating it, rather than making limited or weak efforts to corroborate it. The assertion "''efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017''" should be removed as it is not supported by the cited source and appears to be an interpretation rather than a fact stated in the report. ] (]) 14:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Therefore, it is directly relevant for the ''See also'' section. ] (]) 23:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Note: I've reverted my own edit, per ] ] (]) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:"Efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations were limited and weak." was added on , one of many recent changes by ]. Reverting will improve. ] (]) 16:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Sagecandor is referring to by me, deleting a number of links from the See also section which I felt were unrelated to the topic here. If in fact this film goes into detail about the dossier, it should probably be written about and linked in the body of the article. In which case it would not be in the "see also" section as well. --] (]) 00:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah I would support removal of unsourced or OR material. Also that is a primary source and should not be used that way. It looks like a lot of primary sources are used in violation to our basic sourcing polices. ] (]) 17:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:So, until such time, can it be in the ''See also'' section? ] (]) 00:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Those are synonyms and an accurate paraphrase, but only if one looks at the exact parts I cite. Unfortunately, I can't do that right now. I'll explain it when I'm back to civilization with wifi and my PC. -- ] (]) (PING me) 19:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::'''Done.''' Added. Written about and linked in the body of the article. . ] (]) 01:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
Okay, we are finally back from our camping trip in the ]. Very little internet coverage there. Usually, I can catch lots of trout, but this time no luck. We are usually there earlier in the season when the fish are plentiful, and there are lots of nice swimming holes. Otherwise, it's beautiful country with few people. | |||
== error-ridden, based on Google and cut and pasted from Misplaced Pages == | |||
I have split off other topics into their own sections to be dealt with separately. First of all, I will remove the latest version from the lead so we can analyze and discuss it here. I am not wedded to that exact wording. I just tried to summarize what the sources said, and that sourcing could be improved in the body. | |||
Please add: "error-ridden" and explain: "But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as “intelligence” was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted — replete with errors — from Misplaced Pages." → http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier - Cheerio --] (]) 14:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
Current wording (), now : | |||
:That does not seem to be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{blockquote| The ] of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the ] took over the Russia investigation.<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020">{{cite web | publisher=] (SIC) | date=August 18, 2020 | title=Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities | website=intelligence.senate.gov | url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf | access-date=December 27, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122003727/https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf | archive-date=January 22, 2021 | url-status=live}}</ref>}} | |||
I'll return to this section after leaving some remarks in the next sections. Please wait before adding more to this section. -- ] (]) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
There seems to be a general mis-understanding of the definition of the word "dossier". It is from the French for "folder" and refers to a collection of information. The word "dossier" doesn't imply that anything other than a list of Misplaced Pages pages is included in the dossier. As far as the specific source, Sławomir Biały is correct; it's not reliable and should not be included. ] (]) 18:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
Let's take a look at these complaints and see which ones have some merit and which don't. Right off the bat, I see two issues to deal with. Please use these numbers and keep discussion about each in its own thread. We may have to create separate sections. | |||
== Proposed Request: Claims verified and confirmed on July 10, 2017 after the publication of Junior's e-mails == | |||
'''Number 1.''' There may be merit to the complaint about my choice of words. These are issues that can be fixed, so let's discuss them and see if we can come up with a better description of what the sources say: | |||
* | |||
: (''"efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the ] took over the Russia investigation."'') Synonyms, paraphrasing, etc. are not exact sciences, and I certainly have no patent on always getting it right, so other editors' input is welcome. | |||
Here are some sources for 1: | |||
Inserted word "mostly" in front of "unverified" as the un-modified adjective is no longer true: some allegations have been verified in sworn testimony by principals involved. Unfortunately, what we've been needing for a quite a while now is a table of claims verified and unverified... but such a table would require repeating the claims. Possibly a shorter bullet list: "Allegations claimed verified & corroborating party", but even that might be unacceptable. Anyone have any brilliant ideas? | |||
: (U) In May 2017, the SCO was established, ending FBI's attempts to corroborate information in the dossier. In the end, few allegations were definitively corroborated, and SCO said its own leads and research overtook work to verify Steele's findings.<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|851}} | |||
Hmm, why is the "veracity" section devoid of citations to the claimed corroborations? | |||
: (U) A further restriction on the Committee's investigative efforts was the centralization of information regarding the dossier within the SCO and the SCO' s decision not to share that information with the Committee. '''FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI.''' After that point, the Committee has limited insights into how or whether SCO pursued the dossier at all. SCO did not share the results of any further inquiries, to the extent any were undertaken, with the Committee. Special Agent in Charge David Archey briefed the Committee in July 2019 on the SCO's investigative process and information management: | |||
* | |||
:: ''We hose allegations go to the heart of things that were in our mandate-but we believed our own investigation. The information that we collected would have superseded it, and been something we would have relied on more, and that's why you see what we did in the report and not the Steele dossier in the report.'' 5666 | |||
: Archey declined to provide further information on whether FBI or SCO attempted to verify information in the dossier, although he noted that the SCO did not draw on the dossier to support its conclusions.<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|852}} | |||
: (U) FBI Counterintelligence Division's efforts to investigate the allegations in the dossier were focused on identifying Steele's source network and recruiting those people to serve as sources for, or provide information to, the FBI. FBI also made efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor. The FBI pursued FISA coverage of Carter Page in October 2016, including information from the dossier, but at the time it had very little information on Steele's subsources or corroboration of Steele's information. | |||
Emails of Donald II confirm basically all clajms made in the dossier. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html | |||
: (U) As of May 2017, when the SCO began its own investigation, the FBI had taken the following investigative steps:<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|902}} | |||
: (U) The Committee reviewed a redacted version of that spreadsheet, which reflected progress made until May 2017, when the SCO began its work and FBI halted efforts on the dossier.<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|907}} | |||
I think we should update all the parts of the article that refer to the dossier as verified and replace them with the phrase "largely confirmed." Thoughts? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Not sure it does.] (]) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::NBC continues to describe the dossier as unproven, see here, as of July 27, 2017: "Simpson helped write the Trump-Russia dossier, the one compiled by a former British intelligence officer that includes unproven, salacious allegations about President Donald Trump and Russian prostitutes." Source --] (]) 16:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::: How do RS describe the corroboration, and lack of same, of the dossier? ], I have to agree with ]. What you say is not true. There are parts of the dossier which haven't been corroborated, at least not to the public. (What the intelligence community is keeping for later use in court will be surprising. They are no doubt laying traps, at least that's what former intelligence people say is happening.) For example, the salacious "golden showers" incident (the only "salacious" detail in the dossier, AFAI can remember) has not been corroborated publicly, although foreign intelligence agencies and Russian sources stated that this was not the only sexual incident. They claim that there were episodes in other cities, including St. Petersburg. | |||
::: On other matters, RS say that many meetings between Russians and named Trump people have been confirmed, right down to the times and places mentioned in the dossier, but that's not the same thing as "basically all claims". "Much of it", according to the FBI, would be more accurate. | |||
::: ], NBC is not the only RS to be cautious and accurate. That's what real news does, not fake news. I believe that all mainstream RS do that, and rightly so, because of what I've just described. Some information has been , and the FBI has corroborated "much of it", enough to get a FISA warrant. They trust it enough to use it as their . But, again, it has not been totally corroborated, as far as we know. | |||
::: One can quickly sense which side of the issues media sources are on. Trump friendly sources invariably describe the dossier as "discredited" and "fake news", when that is not true at all. They often cite one piece of information , about Trump's lawyer Cohen being in Prague to pay the hackers who hacked the DNC. , even though he was within reach of the area at the time, and they just take his word for it and thus consider the whole dossier as "discredited". That's a pretty naive position. My life in Europe over several decades has included travel all over the place, mostly within the ], where Prague is located, and my passports don't show all the countries I've visited. Only my early passports do that. After the Schengen Area was established, that gradually stopped, and I got fewer stamps in my passport. -- ] (]) 03:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::], I was agreeing with what ] observed on 12 July 2017, and providing additional information sourced from WP:RS as of 27 July 2017 from NBC News, in support of his observation. Also note that user ] has been BLOCKED as of 12 July 2017.--] (]) 09:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
My sources for the Senate Committee's criticizms of the FBI: | |||
Then you may not understand what I mean, I meant the article does not say it is proven as far as I am aware.] (]) 12:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
* "FBI also made efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|902}} | |||
: That editor is blocked and I think we're all on the same page. Can we just end this thread now? -- ] (]) 15:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
* "FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|852}} | |||
My wording was: "short-lived, limited, and weak" Feel free to improve on that. | |||
== Veracity == | |||
Those sources address 1. -- ] (]) (PING me) 02:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
A recent '']'' report on the Don Jr. situation includes this intriguing excerpt on Trump's 2013 trip to Moscow: | |||
: I developed the body by adding precise page numbers to sources and a quote as a note. See . -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote> | |||
:: Here's a new version, using exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources: | |||
A person with knowledge of the 2013 trip to Moscow said Emin Agalarov offered to send prostitutes to Trump’s hotel room, but the repeated offers were rejected by Keith Schiller, Trump’s longtime bodyguard. The person with knowledge of the trip insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized by Trump to publicly discuss the matter. | |||
::: {{blockquote | The ] of many of the allegations is still unknown. The ] criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor",<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|902}} with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the ] took over the Russia investigation.{{efn|"FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|852}}}}}} | |||
</blockquote> | |||
:: How's that? It is attributed and sourced better. -- ] (]) (PING me) 06:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Source: {{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/12/world/europe/ap-eu-trump-russia-probe-middlemen-.html|title=Unlikely Middlemen: Trump Jr. Emails Point to Father-Son Duo|work=] via ]|date=2017-07-12|accessdate=2017-07-13}} | |||
::: Since no one has objected or suggested other changes to this new version that resolves the old version's "short-lived, limited, and weak", I have It resolves the issues mentioned by adding attribution, exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources. -- ] (]) (PING me) 21:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
This can't be added to the article ''unless'' other reliable sources pick up on it specifically in relation to the dossier—but that may be something to look out for.] (]) 20:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::The current phrasing in the Steele Dossier article, specifically the statement “The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were ‘lacking in both thoroughness and rigor’,” is cherrypicking of statements stripped of the larger context of the Senate report. | |||
:That is indeed interesting, given the Agalarovs show up in Junior's emails and meeting with Kushner and Manafort. But you're right, let's wait to see if other sources pick this up.] (]) 22:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::First, the phrase “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown” offers an overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's credibility. The actual findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are more critical and suggest that key aspects of the dossier were found lacking in credibility. This wording gives undue weight to the idea that many of the dossier’s claims might still be credible, which is not fully supported by the available evidence. | |||
:: has compared some details of the dossier with Trump Jr.'s emails, though it doesn't mention prostitutes. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 00:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::Moreover, the criticism of the FBI’s efforts, as cited, is out of context. The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place. The exact wording from page XIV of the report's Findings section reads: | |||
::::“Regarding the Steele Dossier, FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record. FBI used the Dossier in a FISA application and renewals and advocated for it to be included in the ICA before taking the necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele's credibility. Further, FBI did not effectively adjust its approach to Steele's reporting once one of Steele's subsources provided information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier. The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing.” | |||
::::This makes clear that the report primarily criticized the FBI for placing undue trust in the dossier, rather than for a lack of thoroughness in corroborating it. The omission of this context in the article misleads readers into thinking the Senate’s critique was aimed at investigative shortcomings, when the real issue was the FBI’s initial overreliance on Steele’s reporting. | |||
::::For the sake of neutrality and accuracy, it is important that this section of the article be revisited and revised to reflect the full scope of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings. Misrepresentation of sources undermines the objectivity expected of Misplaced Pages articles, and this issue requires correction to maintain (at least some) the integrity of the entry. ] (]) 20:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: Welcome back! You mention "that many of the dossier’s claims might still be credible". I think "credible" is the wrong word, as it leans toward "probably true", or when you say "were found lacking in credibility", that leans too much toward "is probably not true". Isn't that the meaning? Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't read your mind. | |||
::::: In fact, we don't know for sure about many of them. The subject matter experts at ''Lawfare'' wrote: "There is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive," but "none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven".<ref name="Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2"/> So none has been disproven, and many proven true, but most are still "unproven". "Unproven" says nothing about their credibility one way or the other and is a better and more neutral word to use than various forms of "credible". | |||
::::: Giving too much "credence" in that FISA situation is a matter related to "an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record." He had a good reputation, but maybe it wasn't as good as some thought? They should have checked first. That was unrelated to the allegations in the dossier, but to Steele. (The reputation of the source affects the initial credence lent to the allegations.) Later, they learned that Danchenko's source network was exceptionally good, so Steele was supplied with information he still believes is basically true, but hard to verify as sources went to ground in fear over Putin taking revenge on them. Trump and Barr made sure that Putin learned about them by declassifying the classified info about sources and methods. Really patriotic! | |||
::::: The phrase “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown” simply doesn't lean either way and is a real attempt to remain neutral and not introduce editorial bias. You seem to want to word it so it leans toward "is likely untrue", but we don't know that. "Unproven" does not equal "untrue". Right? It could be true or false, so we say "unproven" or "uncorroborated". | |||
::::: The full context of "the FBI’s efforts" cannot be provided in the lead, but we could provide more in the body. There is already mention of the fact that it was very problematic for the FBI to use unproven dossier claims in their FISA applications. (FISA applications often use unproven suspicions. Suspicions do not have to be proven to justify opening an investigation. They are literally opening a fishing expedition.) I'm trying to find a way for your concerns to be included, so will, with this exact matter, include the quote you provided. It's good, and it's related to existing content: "Officials told CNN this information would have had to be independently corroborated by the FBI before being used to obtain the warrant,..." I put it there. Is that better? | |||
::::: "The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing." Indeed! Steele was not very cooperative, and the actions of Trump and Barr proved his caution was fully justified. Trump did indeed expose Steele's sources to danger. That he was reticent to reveal too much about them does not have anything to do with the quality of their reports. Those reports could still be true, but we don't always know enough to really know, do we? That is now included. | |||
::::: BTW, I'm glad you are reading the . It's pretty good stuff, far better than Mueller. -- ] (]) (PING me) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: You write: "The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place." Both are true. -- ] (]) (PING me) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::If both are true, why is the very first paragraph of this article only alluding to the FBI's failures to corroborate rather than also the issues with his dossier such as "one of Steele's subsources provided information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier"? It does no good to bury this fact thousands of words down in this overly long article, when the crucial introductory paragraphs remain biased and cherrypicked. ] (]) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: To make sure there is no misunderstanding, when I say "both are true", I mean that the FBI did criticize the FBI's lax investigation, AND, in relation to the FISA applications, the "FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence, '''based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record." at that time.''' (Bold added) Both are true. I explain why the focus is more on Steele than on the allegations, which were later shown to have come from a very good source network that had been reliable before, and the FBI hired Danchenko, who turned out to be a remarkably well-connected asset, one of the best they ever had. See ] | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017 == | |||
:::::::: We can't include too much detail in an already bloated lead. That is dealt with in the body. The description of Steele's sources was an issue in the trial of Danchenko by Durham. The right-wing media and Trump supporters tried to make a big deal out of it, so be careful you don't do that here, as it wasn't a big deal at all. | |||
:::::::: There were two things that happened that muddied up the reporting about individual sources: Steele and Danchenko tried to protect their sources, especially from Trump and Putin, as explained above, and the sources were scared and tried to backtrack and minimize what they had said, as noted by the report. (So the sources tried to lie their way out of it.) | |||
:::::::: Even right-wing conservative columnist and attorney ] reacted to what he described as the "if not irrational, then exaggerated" reactions by Trump supporters to these reports of arrests. He urged them to be cautious as Durham's indictments "narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI '''only about the identity or status''' of people from whom they were getting information, '''''not about the information itself''."'''<ref name="McCarthy_12/11/2021">{{cite web | last=McCarthy | first=Andrew C. | title=John Durham Probe: Michael Sussmann Case Collapsing? | date=December 11, 2021 | website=] | url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/is-durhams-case-on-clinton-tied-lawyer-michael-sussmann-collapsing/ | access-date=December 13, 2021 | quote=...the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated...Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus,... His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, ''not about the information itself''. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false. (italics original) }}</ref> '''(bold added)''' All charges against Danchenko for lying were dismissed and he was exonerated. The allegations ("information itself") themselves were not questioned, only the source descriptions. Durham's bogus investigation, a real cover-up operation for Trump, was a total failure, and is still a source of disinformation for those who don't understand the issues. -- ] (]) (PING me) 22:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Number 2.''' I'm not sure I understand this second complaint and therefore question its merits. Maybe it's just me, so help me understand it: (''"This quote contradicts rather than supports the current statement in the article. It suggests that the FBI used the dossier before corroborating it, rather than making limited or weak efforts to corroborate it."'') What comes before that does not relate to May 2017. It is a fact that the FBI made efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations, and my wording does not deny that. It also had to give up fairly quickly as it could not contact the original sources. (It also had a rather "devious" motive as it wanted to contact those sources and employ them as confidential human sources for the FBI to use.) It is also a fact that the FBI misused the dossier by using some of its words that were not as yet, and maybe never could be, corroborated to support the FISA warrants on Carter Page. (It is also a fact that some politicians and FBI personnel have asserted that the dossier was not essential to those applications, and that they were on the cusp (50/50) of doing it anyway, even without citing the dossier. While interesting, that is another matter and not relevant to this discussion.) So, I think this second complaint needs to be explained better. Boil it down. -- ] (]) (PING me) 02:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Donald Trump–Russia dossier|answered=yes}} | |||
At 9:00 AM - 11 July 2017, Donald Trump Jr tweeted an email exchange between Jared Kushner , Paul Manafort , and Rob Goldstone . On June 7, 2016, Goldstone emails Trump Jr. to schedule a meeting with a "Russian government attorney." Goldstone writes, "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin ." Two days later, Trump Jr. -- joined by Kushner and Manafort -- meets at Trump Tower with Goldstone, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and a Russian-American lobbyist named Rinat Akhmetshin. At least eight people attended the meeting, according to a CNN report on 14 July 2017. | |||
<!-- Please keep all comments above these codes. --> | |||
This meeting was alluded and is corroborated by the Donald Trump–Russia dossier under Details, as the second bullet point in the numbered list at the very beginning of the document posted by BuzzFeed. The passage, in full, reads: | |||
{{notelist}}{{reftalk}} | |||
== "Steele was the first..."? == | |||
→″2. In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years (see more below). This was confirmed by Source D, a close associate of TRUMP who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow, and who reported, also in June 2016, that this Russian intelligence had been "very helpful". The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had not taken up any of these.″ | |||
:2. In the second paragraph of the article it is stated ''"Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump."'' The source for this claim is an Op-ed written by Paul Wood in The Spectator's Coffee house section, . There doesn't appear to be any other source to back up this claim. | |||
This confirms that Source A, Source B, Source C and Source D gave, at least, some verifiable facts to the original author of Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Information from Source E, the most salacious informant in the dossier, has yet to be confirmed in any way by the email tweeted by Donald Trump Jr on 9:00 AM - 11 July 2017. ] (]) 05:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:The first report in the Steele Dossier was dated 20 June 2016.https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/02/steele-dossier-trump.pdf | |||
:What is your suggested edit?] (]) 09:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:However, on June 14 2016, The New York Times and other media reported; "two groups of Russian hackers, working for competing government intelligence agencies, penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to emails, chats and a trove of opposition research against Donald J. Trump, according to the party and a cybersecurity firm." | |||
:This looks like ] – {{re|Manthan23}} Do you have a source making the connections you are highlighting? — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:At this point it would have been apparent to some that this was part of an effort by Russia to assist Donald Trump, given the Kremlin's interest in him over Clinton. For example, see articles like "From Russia with love: why the Kremlin backs Trump" from Reuters, March 2016 - ] (]) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; color:#6babd6">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]) 19:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::You are quite correct about 2 -- I think this was raised before on this talk page, Steele was not the first. | |||
::In general, this whole article has issues with large swaths of OR from primary sources, and quoting opinions as facts in various places. ] (]) 09:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: {{ping|Endwise}}, I have started a new section to deal with your concerns. -- ] (]) (PING me) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes 2's been raised before on this talk page in and in but without effect. Re "In general, ...": in general attempts to fix are met with opposition and I'd not be optimistic. ] (]) 20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
BostonUniver, that's a good catch, but it's an apples vs oranges situation. A Russian preference is not the same as a "covert operation to elect" Trump. The Russians have always had "preferences", but have never cooperated with an entire presidential campaign that was willing to fully cooperate, both openly and covertly, with the Russians to get the Russian's preferred candidate elected. This was a new situation. Russian intelligence started preparations in early 2014 (or late 2013, see below) and expanded their efforts on all fronts, developing their election interference into the "sweeping and systematic" ]. When Trump became the GOP's chosen candidate, they focused their efforts to help him. Their efforts have never stopped, their preference is unchanged, but they are adding more facets to their efforts. The ] is just one facet. The Russians are pumping huge amounts of money into right and far-right media supportive of MAGA and Trump. | |||
== I updated the article lead == | |||
That NYTimes source says nothing about a Russian preference for Trump or any attempt to help him. If anything, it suggests that the Russians could exploit the DNC's opposition research on Trump, and that would not be good for him as a person, but it would enable them to better blackmail him as they support his candidacy. Be careful not to ] that source with your March 2016 source. That source expresses some Russian preference for Trump, but it says nothing about a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". That was Steele's contribution, and he was right. Here's the with proper attribution: | |||
Based on independent journalist reporting, see here ("News of the News: an oppo-research-for-hire outfit of former reporters tries to seed stories in the American press for global clients") and about the organization who commissioned the dossier, I updated the lead of the article. The dossier was part of a Russian smear campaign against both candidates in the 2016 U.S. general election for president.--] (]) 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{blockquote| According to ], "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's 'foundational initial assertion' and it was correct."<ref name="Wood_8/12/2020" />}} | |||
:Is tablemag an RS?] (]) 09:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Also it should not be in the lead, and you know this.] (]) 09:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::I object to including this anywhere in the article. The sentence, currently in the Reactions section, says {{tq|In July 2017, Lee Smith of Tablet considered the dossier a part of a "Kremlin information operation," which was "to defame both candidates, and sow chaos, and thereby to discredit the American system of government."}}. This is one person's opinion, from one questionably reliable source (we have no idea if Tablet has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" or not). The item is written in sensational tabloid style rather than a neutral news-report style. ("The scandal has also lifted the lid off a sewer of corporate information warfare and opposition research that the flailing institutions of the mainstream press now regularly re-package as news, without ever saying where it came from—or who paid for it.") I don't see any reason to give this report any credence. Earlier there was also a citation, now removed, to Thor Halvorssen's testimony before Congress, but that was a primary source, and his testimony does not seem to have been picked up by secondary sources (except non-RSs like the Washington Times), so it should not be here either. We already have an extensive paragraph about the doubts about Fusion GPS's motivation sown by Chuck Grassley, who is at least a player and entitled to have an opinion. I am going to remove this sentence and then let's talk about it. --] (]) 20:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
I totally agree. This is one of the most self-contradictory and desperate conspiracy theories I've seen in a long time, and it's now trying to gain traction, but RS hardly touch it. It has its origins in very unreliable sources. I mention it below. This theory is growing as a fringe GOP and extreme right-wing conspiracy theory, which is evidenced by the fact that the first two pages of a Google search about it only produced unreliable sources, unlike this one article, one of the only RS which mention the theory: | |||
Trump had obviously discussed his presidential plans with Russians when he was in Moscow for the November 2013 Miss Universe pageant, so Russians knew, long before Americans, that Trump was going to run for president in 2016, and they promised to help him. He was even photographed by Yulya Alferova (Yulya Klyushina) and others while huddling with some of those who later worked in the election interference efforts to aid Trump's campaign. This was potentially known by the few Americans who watched Yulya Alferova's tweets and pictures she posted during the pageant in early November 2013 and during January 2014. Yulya Alferova's significant is still available and quoted below. | |||
* | |||
Alferova worked for the Agalarovs and Crocus Group to help "organize Trump's Miss Universe contest". The ] implied that ] and his Crocus Group were part of a Russian intelligence effort to compromise and gain leverage over Trump.<ref name="Wittes_et_al_8/21/2020">{{cite web | last=Wittes | first=Benjamin | author-link=Benjamin Wittes | title=A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find? | website=] | date=August 21, 2020 | url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find | access-date=October 17, 2023}}</ref> | |||
To get an idea of how scatter-brained the smear tactic is (using mere mention of a word or association and throwing it out there to smear the Trump/Russia collusion narrative and the 35-page dossier), , and read the context. They are pushing the theory that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her IT guy (who just got arrested for theft) leaked the Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks: | |||
The Senate Intelligence Committee report's "Footnote 2510" mentioned her tweets, one shortly after the Miss Universe pageant, showing she had foreknowledge, long before the American public, of Trump's planned presidential run. She promised Russian support for his candidacy:<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|396}} | |||
: RIVERA: That's the easy part, that they colluded against Bernie Sanders. What if they were the source for WikiLeaks? What if the whole of Russia- gate story now hinges on this now investigation, the guy is now charged. | |||
{{blockquote| On January 22, 2014, Klyushina wrote on social media that, 'I'm sure @realDonaldTrump will be great president! We'll support you from Russia! America needs an ambitious leader!'; On January 28, 2015, Klyushina announced on Twitter that Trump would be running for President of the United States. Tweet, @AlferovaYulyaE, January 28, 2015. The Committee has no insight into the nature of Klyushina's knowledge of these matters or what prompted these statements.}} | |||
This Russian support was later manifested in the "sweeping and systematic" ], which included efforts by her then-husband, Artem Klyushin. The Senate Committee had "significant concerns regarding Klyushin"<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|396}} and devoted a whole section to him and his associates: "Artem Klyushin, ], and Associates".<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|395}} They were deeply involved in election interference efforts in Ukraine and later in the United States.<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020"/>{{rp|397}} -- ] (]) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
: HANNITY: Bingo. | |||
:Thank you for taking the time to revise the piece, but the new version still falls short in highlighting that Paul Wood’s op-ed in The Spectator is a rather unconventional interpretation of the Dossier. For example, a 2019 analysis by The Washington Post noted that "''a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee.''" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/ Given this, I’m uncertain why Wood’s opinion, published in a low-reliability outlet, is placed so prominently—appearing as early as the fourth sentence of the article. ] (]) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
That makes no sense, because the leaks placed the DNC and Clinton in a bad light, with zero benefit for the DNC or Hillary Clinton, not even a hope. It ONLY could help Trump, and ALL agree that it did. This is a desperate tactic to avoid admitting that Russia was behind the hacks (confirmed by all foreign and domestic intelligence agencies (except the FSB) and RS, and known ahead of time by GOP operatives like Roger Stone) which made the DNC look bad and made Trump look good, ultimately helping him win. Neither Trump nor the GOP will admit that. Now they are fighting back with this theory, and it's found only on fringe conservative websites like ] and ], and above mentioned by Fox. The conservative ] confirms that pretty much only conservative sources deal with this: "The ''Times'' gave Trump headlined treatment only because he retweeted a Thursday morning Townhall.com tweet about the press's failure to cover Awan's arrest:..." They then describe how the Daily Caller and Townhall did cover the story. | |||
:: {{ping|BostonUniver}} I like that you are taking the time to analyze this and also to speculate about it. That is allowed on talk pages. Speculation and SYNTH violations are allowed on this page. That's all part of how we try to figure out what really happened. Now do RS back up our speculations? In the end, it is what RS say that gets included, without any trace of the editorial discussions and speculations that occurred behind the scenes. So, press on. This is good. Let's analyze this. | |||
:: On May 18, 2016, the public are informed that BOTH presidential campaigns are targeted by hackers, but does not say if they were successful: | |||
:: {{blockquote| He did not indicate whether the attempted intrusions were successful or whether they were by foreign or domestic hackers. Nor did he specify whether the websites or campaign networks of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders or Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump were targeted.<br> We’re aware that campaigns and related organizations and individuals are targeted by actors with a variety of motivations — from philosophical differences to espionage — and capabilities — from defacements to intrusions,” said Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.<ref name="Nakashima_5/18/2016">{{cite web | last=Nakashima | first=Ellen | title=National intelligence director: Hackers have targeted 2016 presidential campaigns | website=] | date=May 18, 2016 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-intelligence-director-hackers-have-tried-to-spy-on-2016-presidential-campaigns/2016/05/18/2b1745c0-1d0d-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html | access-date=September 26, 2024}}</ref>}} | |||
:: On June 14, 2016, the public learns that Russians have hacked the DNC (and "gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump") and also targeted the Clinton and Trump campaigns, RNC, and Republican figures (they never succeeded in hacking Clinton's private server): | |||
:: {{blockquote| "The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available."<ref name=DNCHackedWapo20160614>{{cite news |title=Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html |newspaper=] |date=June 14, 2016|access-date=March 5, 2018 |last1=Nakashima |first1=Ellen}}</ref>}} | |||
:: So the public learns that BOTH parties are being attacked. There is no clear hint that Trump is being favored or helped, and certainly nothing like Steele's description of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". This June 14 report leaves the impression that the Russians were successful in all their attacks, something we later learn was not entirely true. The public just thinks the Russians are attacking the elections and both presidential campaigns, something they had already been told on May 18, 2016. | |||
:: The Republicans were also hacked to some degree, but we later learned that information was not released in the same way as the DNC material. From ]: | |||
::: On January 10, 2017, ] ] told the ] that Russia succeeded in "collecting some information from Republican-affiliated targets but did not leak it to the public".<ref name="radio_liberty">{{cite news |last1=Schreck |first1=Carl |title=FBI Director: No Evidence Russia Successfully Hacked Trump Campaign |url=https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-fbi-comey-evidence-trump-campaign-hacked/28224353.html |access-date=February 2, 2019 |agency=RFERL |date=January 10, 2017 |archive-date=February 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190203030514/https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-fbi-comey-evidence-trump-campaign-hacked/28224353.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In earlier statements, an FBI official stated Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful,<ref name="NYT Aid Trump" /> or had reportedly told the RNC chair that their servers were secure,<ref name="Priebus Not Hacked">{{cite news |last=Rossoll |first=Nicki |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reince-priebus-rnc-hacked/story?id=44110357 |title=Reince Priebus: 'RNC Was Not Hacked' |work=] |date=December 11, 2016 |access-date=December 12, 2016}}</ref> but that email accounts of individual Republicans (including ]) were breached. (Over 200 emails from Colin Powell were posted on the website ].)<ref name="NYT Aid Trump" /><ref name="wsj.com">cf. {{cite news |last=Tau |first=Byron |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/leaked-colin-powell-emails-lambaste-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-1473862328 |title=Colin Powell Blasts Donald Trump, Criticizes Hillary Clinton in Leaked Messages |work=] |date=September 14, 2016 |access-date=December 11, 2016 |archive-date=December 10, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161210140748/http://www.wsj.com/articles/leaked-colin-powell-emails-lambaste-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-1473862328 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Priebus Not Hacked" /><ref name="Johnstone">{{cite news |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/despite-cia-report-russia-priebus-says-he-doesn-t-know-n694541 |title=Priebus: "I Don't Know Whether It's True" Russia Is Responsible for Election Hacks |work=] |publisher=] |first=Liz |last=Johnstone |date=December 11, 2016 |access-date=March 6, 2017 |archive-date=March 6, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170306212045/http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/despite-cia-report-russia-priebus-says-he-doesn-t-know-n694541 |url-status=live }}</ref> One state Republican Party (Illinois) may have had some of its email accounts hacked.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Pearson|first1=Rick|title=FBI told state GOP in June its emails had been hacked|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-republican-party-email-hack-met-1212-20161211-story.html|newspaper=]|access-date=December 11, 2016|archive-date=December 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161211232735/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-republican-party-email-hack-met-1212-20161211-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
:: So, returning to your quote: "But a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee." Yes, such a case could be made, but the public learned about attacks on the DNC and the RNC. Both campaigns were attacked, and the public knew about it. So "a case could also be made", but a very weak one, that the public thought that the attacks were part of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". That part is Steele's interpretation, and he was right. | |||
:: (These timelines are very informative: ] and ].) | |||
:: So, do you still think that "case could also be made" is strong enough to be worth also mentioning Kessler's much later speculation from ? He's normally very good, but this time he seems to be "a bit off". I don't currently see it, but maybe you can persuade me. -- ] (]) (PING me) 18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Your argument to keep a op-ed from The Spectator on Steele being the first while dismissing the Washington Post analysis article as "a very weak " is interesting and original, and would be relevant as your original published research. Are you able to provide more high quality sources on the claim that Steele was "first to warn"? Perhaps as you insist on keeping this claim you should "persuade us", the readers of Misplaced Pages without resorting to your personal views? ] (]) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I've re-read your response multiple times and what I can understand is that you are not defending the point was "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump", which is what the page currently says. Instead you are defending the notion that Steele was first to warn of his theory of collusion, which is not what the page says, nor what I'm disputing. | |||
::::See your analysis of the contemporary new sources of the DNC hack "There is no clear hint that Trump is being favored or helped, and certainly nothing like Steele's description of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump"." | |||
::::It was not especially challenging to find the following from Vice's Motherboard from June 16, 2016: ''"But why would Russia want to hack the DNC? First of all, it would make sense just from an intelligence collection standpoint. That’s what spies do. But in this election cycle, there’s another reason: the Russian government would like to have Donald Trump as president. | |||
::::“Look, the coming elections is of high priority for Russia as many people close to the Kremlin believe that Trump could help to lift the sanctions and ease the tensions between Russia and the US,” Andrei Soldatov, an independent journalist who has written extensively about Russia’s surveillance powers, told Motherboard in an email. | |||
::::And hacking the DNC and embarrassing Hillary Clinton would help with that." ''https://www.vice.com/en/article/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack/ ] (]) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: ??? "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump" is what the lead ''used to'' say. Now it says "According to ], "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump." That's not really a "collusion" twist because it says nothing about Trump's involvment or collusion, only the Russian's actions. But you're right that Steele was indeed proposing that there was active cooperation between his campaign and the Kremlin, and that's described as collusion. Whether there was a "conspiracy" to cooperate has not been proven, but the cooperation has been proven in spades. | |||
::::: Your source<ref name="Franceschi-Bicchierai_6/16/2016">{{cite web | last=Franceschi-Bicchierai | first=Lorenzo | title=‘Guccifer 2.0’ Is Likely a Russian Government Attempt to Cover Up Its Own Hack | website=VICE | date=June 16, 2016 | url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack/ | access-date=September 26, 2024}}</ref> demonstrates that some sources were speculating at Russia's motives. The end of the article says: "Let’s spell this out,” Rid said. “We have a foreign intelligence agency that is picking sides, that is doing a sophisticated hack and influence operation in support of the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the US general elections. That’s craziness, if that’s actually the case." They were speculating. | |||
::::: Steele didn't guess or speculate. He said it to the FBI, with evidence besides just the hacking. Are you suggesting that he might have gotten the idea from stuff he read? That's certainly possible. I'm sure he read everything available. Yet his Russian sources were telling him stuff that confirmed those speculations, and he provided many unknown details to back them up. Those details were not what ''Vice'' or other sources were saying. | |||
::::: To see if we can find a way forward here, please propose improved wording, with sources (including Wood's source), that would resolve this to your satisfaction. -- ] (]) (PING me) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: | |||
::::::The claim that "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump" is misleading, as shown by the Motherboard source. While the current phrasing shifts this to Paul Wood's opinion that "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Trump," it's still not entirely accurate. I see the argument has now shifted to saying "Steele was the first to warn the FBI," which could be true—though it's possible other sources warned the FBI earlier, those weren't made public. | |||
::::::The point is, any sources who gave such warnings didn't actively publicize their findings by sharing them with the media in the way Steele's dossier was eventually leaked. This distinction matters when considering the dossier's visibility and influence. | |||
::::::My suggestion is to revise the passage to avoid overinflating the dossier's significance without clear justification. Cite a proper source that makes a verifiable, balanced point. Whether the dossier was "first" in any particular way isn't for me to decide, but the text should reflect a more cautious view. | |||
::::::I’m also not opposed to Paul Wood being cited, but balance is needed. For example, why not include this perspective from a CIA analyst who helped write the initial 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference? He recently told *Rolling Stone* that the Steele Dossier was "garbage" and "a joke" ]. It would provide a fuller picture of how the dossier was viewed by intelligence professionals. ] (]) 23:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Starting with the last... {{;)}}. We already include many very negative personal opinions, and many clearly false ones, about the unvetted allegations, and, unfortunately, those opinions are often used to judge the whole dossier, which is just plain careless and false. Even a judge ruled against Trump's nonsense denials. So we need to be careful to not overload the article with such opinions as people think that unproven equals false. None have been proven false. We already have many negative descriptions in the body, and a few examples in the lead. We also have an RfC that says not to say "unverified" allegations in the lead, at least not without clarification. | |||
::::::: Back to the analyst.... He was suddenly confronted with unvetted allegations and expected to include them in the ICA report, which would have been very wrong, and it didn't happen. His reaction was understandable at that time. I doubt he was used to seeing such raw intelligence. His reaction was similar to the reactions of those who describe the dossier as "discredited". That word has many meanings, but one aspect is false to apply to the dossier. It is not proven false. It is just disappointing to those who mistakenly think it's a collection of proven facts. It never was. It never pretended to be. The disappointment is then used as an accusation against the dossier, and that's unfair. It is the reader's fault. It is their false expectations that are "discredited". | |||
::::::: On January 4, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on Trump's repeated tweets describing the dossier as "fake" or "discredited": | |||
::::::: {{blockquote|None of the tweets inescapably lead to the inference that the President's statements about the Dossier are rooted in information he received from the law enforcement and intelligence communities.{{spaces}}... The President's statements may very well be based on media reports or his own personal knowledge, or could simply be viewed as political statements intended to counter media accounts about the Russia investigation, rather than assertions of pure fact.<ref name="Gerstein_1/4/2018">{{cite web |last=Gerstein |first=Josh |title=Judge: Trump tweets don't require more disclosure on dossier | website=] |date=January 4, 2018 |url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/01/04/trump-dossier-tweets-judge-ruling-326137 |access-date=August 18, 2018}}</ref>}} | |||
::::::: What we're dealing with here is not the general opinions of all stripes about the dossier, or even about the unproven allegations. We already deal with them. Here we are solely dealing with the allegations that turned out to be true, and only one of them. Let's stay on point here. | |||
::::::: Please attempt to formulate something that includes the various sources we mention above. Summarizing conflicting views can be difficult, but these are not really conflicting. They are more like variations on the same theme. -- ] (]) (PING me) 23:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
Conspiracy theories do get mentioned in articles here if multiple RS mention them (we also see this one mentioned by some editors, as above, who obviously believe those fringe websites), but this one is so nonsensical and desperate that it may not take off. Time will tell. -- ] (]) 05:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
''Edit conflict'' written while the 22:17, 26 September 2024 comment above was posted. I'll respond to it. | |||
:Tablet Magazine isn't a fringe website. The Wall Street Journal isn't either, see here, : "Fusion GPS. That’s the oppo-research outfit behind the infamous and discredited “Trump dossier,” ginned up by a former British spook... We know Fusion is a for-hire political outfit, paid to dig up dirt on targets... Thor Halvorssen, a prominent human-rights activist, has submitted sworn testimony outlining a Fusion attempt to undercut his investigation of Venezuelan corruption. Mr. Halvorssen claims Fusion “devised smear campaigns, prepared dossiers containing false information,” and “carefully placed slanderous news items” to malign him and his activity. William Browder, a banker who has worked to expose Mr. Putin’s crimes, testified to the Grassley committee on Thursday that he was the target of a similar campaign, saying that Fusion “spread false information” about him and his efforts. Fusion has admitted it was hired by a law firm representing a Russian company called Prevezon." The Wall Street Journal article is dated July 27, 2017.--] (]) 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The Halvorssen stuff is or should be irrelevant to this article. About the WSJ piece, I can't tell (paywall) if it is a news article or an op-ed, but the article's subtitle - "Democrats don't want you to find out - and that ought to be a scandal of its own." - suggest it is an op-ed and not news reporting. Likewise the second paragraph, which begins "Nevertheless, the Democrats have now meekly and noiselessly retreated...", sounds more like opinion than news reporting. The material you quote - such as "infamous and discredited" - suggests the same. We can't use something this opinionated as a fact source. As for Tablet, nobody has called it "fringe"; we are questioning whether it is "reliable" per Misplaced Pages's definition, which has nothing to do with whether its viewpoints and material are fringe or mainstream. (Some other sources here were described as "fringe conservative websites", but not Tablet. I for one have no idea whether they take a neutral view of the news or slant their coverage in one way or another. Our Misplaced Pages article describes it as "an American Jewish general interest online magazine" but there's nothing fringe about that, and their recent articles do not seem to be extreme.) Again, Misplaced Pages's definition of "reliable" is that the source "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I see no evidence that Tablet has such a reputation. --] (]) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::], you're right about the subheading in that WSJ article indicating that it may be more of an opinion or editorial piece than news. For similar reasons, I would object to inclusion of the HuffPo article, '''' with subheading, "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up". The article omits any mention of Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein who is also part of the committee and playing an important role in the investigation. The article says that Grassley's motive for the investigation is FARA agent registration in general (while unfairly picking on Fusion GPS in particular), whereas Grassley stated, on the record in March 2017 and repeatedly after that, that he was concerned that the FBI was using material to investigate Russian interference into the US elections (i.e. the Trump dossier) that was produced by Fusion GPS while Fusion GPS was simultaneously working for pro-Russian interests (stopping passage of the Magnitsky Act). The HuffPo piece is not included as a source in this Dossier article, although it is included as a source for ]. I will continue further comments in new section on that article's ], not here.--] (]) 06:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
::You are accusing me of acting in bad faith, ] ("...and you know this"). I object to that. It is not true.--] (]) 08:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::No I am saying you know policy, and it says that the lead should reflect the body. Thus you know full well that if it not in the body it should not be in the lead.] (]) 08:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Possible source == | |||
An interesting article: | |||
* | |||
There may well be something we can use here. -- ] (]) 04:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|BullRangifer}} Respectfully, why are you spamming this HuffPo article into the talk pages of various Trump–Russia talk pages? If you think there's something substantial to add to the articles, just be bold, add it and cite the source. Otherwise this looks like advocacy for a POV. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: That's not respectful. It assumes bad faith, as confirmed by the rest of your comment. I suggested it as a possible source on this and another article, both of which are specifically relevant for a RS speaking on this topic. What editors decide to do is up to them. That's a perfectly legitimate way to use a talk page. Attacking the motives of good faith editors is not. | |||
:: I may get around to doing something myself, depending on whether this conspiracy theory gains traction here. BTW, this topic is growing as a fringe GOP and extreme right-wing conspiracy theory, which is evidenced by the fact that its origins dominate the first two pages of a Google search and only produce unreliable sources, unlike this one article. Conspiracy theories do get mentioned here if multiple RS mention them, but this one is so nonsensical and desperate that it may not take off. Time will tell. -- ] (]) 16:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::: I do not doubt your good-faith motives, I said that adding the same comment to several talk pages ''looks like'' advocacy for a POV, not ''is'' advocacy for a POV. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::: Okay. Thanks. (BTW, I was adding more to my comment above while you were writing.) Provision of RS from any POV should be welcomed here. -- ] (]) 16:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::: Exactly. No worries. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
Did you notice the subtitle to that article: "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up." ? --] (]) 15:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
: Yes. That's the point of the article. This conspiracy theory is desperate, grabs at straws that are not connected, is self-contradictory, and makes no sense. That's why mainstream RS pretty much ignore it, but conservative sources are firmly imprinting it into the minds of those inclined to believe anything Trump says, regardless of the facts. -- ] (]) 15:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: ], but mainstream RS are not ''always'' liberal, and conservative RS are not always in the mainstream, so the terms "mainstream" and "conservative" are pretty far from being mutually exclusive. Regardless of which partisan source is doing the better job of brainwashing their reader/viewership, {{u|Atsme}} has started a robust discussion regarding the source of the dossier ], so your link would probably be much better received on ] (and more productive, as well). ] (]) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::HT, you just NOTAFORUMed somebody inappropriately (they were discussing a source) then went on a little NOTAFORUM rant yourself! Come on.] (]) 03:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::: ], I understand what you say about RS and largely agree. My descriptions in this case are generally accurate. As far as the other article, I don't see any connection between the dossier, Steele, or that meeting in Trump Tower. Please explain it. -- ] (]) 03:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Pissgate RfD == | |||
I have listed the redirect ], which redirects to this article, at redirects for discussion. All are welcome to participate at ]. ] (]) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Wording on Republican funding == | |||
The article currently states: | |||
:The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president. | |||
The "Stop Trump movement" is linked in the sentence. | |||
But the cited article (WP) actually says: | |||
:Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary. | |||
Note singular. One client. In fact, it's possible that client is Ted Cruz or a supporter of Ted Cruz, who was not involved in the Stop Trump movement per se (because he was running). | |||
Might seem like a semantic issue, but there's a pretty big distinction between attributing the funding to an anonymous Republican donor and attributing it to an entire movement of people including figures such as Mitt Romney. ] (]) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I've seen the phrase "anti-Trump Republicans" in , but most sources (like WaPo) mention one primary donor during the Republican primaries. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 16:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Dossier was not funded by Republican opposition according to WaPo == | |||
A distinction must be made between the dossier and the alternative opposition research conducted through FusionGPS. According to the Washington Post's recent report, a Republican conducting opposition research utilized FusionGPS prior to the dossier being created to investigate Trump's financial ties to Russia. The DNC / Clinton Campaign employed FusionGPS, afterwhich, the dossier author, Christopher Steele, was hired, and the dossier was created. This is an important distinction that needs to be addressed in the opening paragraph, where it is implied the dossier was partially funded by Republican opposition research -- which, as of present, is unfounded. Source: <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
: I'll have to admit that the IP has a point. What happened to the original research before Steele started creating the dossier? They aren't the same thing. Steele was hired '''by Fusion GPS''' after the Republican stopped funding research, and then he proceeded to write his reports, which ended up being a 35-page dossier. Those 35 pages are the subject of this article. What preceded them is not part of the dossier, but still is part of the history. -- ] (]) 05:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed. This is made clear in <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E">]<sup><small>])</small></sup></font> 07:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:The opening summary mentions the initial research but still does not specify that the dossier was created afterward, nor does it make clear that Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction, as outlined in the WaPo article. As it stands, the summary is ambiguous as to whether the dossier was begun under Republican opposition funding. Those are two separate events, and seeing as this article is specifically about the subsequent event (the dossier), I feel as if it should be clarified. -- ] (]) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::"does not specify that the dossier was created afterward, nor does it make clear that Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction," The article states: <blockquote>Some of the pushback on the left has focused on the fact that a still-unidentified Republican client retained Fusion GPS to do research on Trump before the Clinton campaign and the DNC did. Thus, they argue, it's wrong to say the dossier was just funded by Democrats. <BR>But the dossier's author, Steele, wasn't brought into the mix until after Democrats retained Fusion GPS. So while both sides paid Fusion GPS, Steele was only funded by Democrats.</blockquote> So I'd say that the article clearly states that "Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction" or did I misunderstand what your problem was?<font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E">]<sup><small>])</small></sup></font> 17:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::{{ping|Selfworm}} I think there's some confusion here. The IP contributor was probably talking about an early version of this Misplaced Pages article, not the WaPo report. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::I see. Thank you Falling Gravity.<font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E">]<sup><small>])</small></sup></font> 23:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::That's a valid point. How about something like this? <blockquote>The dossier was produced as part of ] during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A research firm, ], was initially hired and funded by an unnamed ] during the ]. After Trump won the primaries, attorney ] of the ] law firm took over the Fusion GPS contract on behalf of the DNC and ].<ref name="WaPo-paidresearch">{{cite web |last1=Entous |first1=Adam |last2=Barrett |first2=Devlin |last3=Helderman |first3=Rosalind |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html |title=Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier |date=October 24, 2017 |work=The Washington Post |accessdate=October 25, 2017}}</ref> Fusion GPS hired Steele to research any Russian connections shortly thereafter, when the Russian hacking of Democratic computers was revealed. Following Trump's election, Steele continued to research the subject with financing from ] of Fusion GPS,<ref name=Sampathkumar/> and he passed on the information to British and American intelligence services. | |||
{{sources-talk}} </blockquote> | |||
::Thoughts? --] (]) 20:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, that's much clearer and gives a more accurate portrayal of what we know as of this writing. It seems to be a distinction that some media organizations have had difficulty articulating and I read an article in Vanity Fair today that explained it in similar detail to yours above. As of present, it's certainly unclear what role the prior Republican-funded research played in Steele's subsequent investigation, but his hiring after DNC/Clinton involvement is an important characteristic as he is the author of the dossier. -- ] (]) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::: I agree. That's much better. What happened to the original, GOP-funded research? We don't seem to know. Did it become part of, or inform, Steele's research? We don't seem to know that either. All we know now is the sequence of events, and that the 35-page dossier was Steele's work. | |||
::: The GOP-funded research should still be mentioned as the historical prelude to the dossier. -- ] (]) 03:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
=== WaPo has updated their claims === | |||
According to the Washington Post: | |||
Unless the Clinton campaign and DNC isn't considered to be Republican opposition. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
=== Under the "Veracity" section === | |||
The section states: | |||
<blockquote>"On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released a report assessing "with high confidence" that Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Vladimir Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump. Gillette wrote: "Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20."</blockquote> | |||
It was already known that Russians had infiltrated DNC computer systems and accessed opposition research by June 20th. In fact, this had broken in the US media the week before (June 14th, 2016). Many news organizations were already posing the question / suggesting the possibility that Russia was actively assisting the Trump Campaign through the use of cyber espionage. Stories regarding Russian cyber-propaganda, attempts to influence the Brexit vote, and the Russian "Troll Army," were already rampant in the western press. Therefore, it can hardly be considered prophetic that Steele's dossier came to the same conclusion many independent sources had already surmised by June 20th. Should the timeline of this hack / news-break not be noted, lest readers believe the above statement occurred in a vacuum of Russian-related events? I mean honestly, how many of you believed the Russian hacking of the DNC's opposition research was anything but a blatant attempt to assist Trump's campaign? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
: Yes, it has been confirmed that Putin was trying to harm Clinton and help Trump. We already cover that in the article. -- ] (]) 06:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
== History section == | |||
The section sub headings don't really describe the contents of the subsections. For example in "Steele dossier funded by Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign", there's like one or two sentences about the funding, and the rest is the history and time line of the dossier. I suggest we just say something like "Since April 2016".<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I've removed those headings, mostly because they created a very short paragraph followed by a very long paragraph. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 02:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: Hmmm... I don't buy that reasoning. The first paragraph was the "lede" for the whole section, and the subheadings identified distinctly different phases in the history of the opposition research. Now it's just one very long section, with no indication that we're describing distinctly different things.. -- ] (]) 04:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
IMO that first paragraph "lede" is flawed and should be removed. It says: | |||
::According to reports, the dossier and the investigations preceding it were all part of opposition research on Trump. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by "Never Trump" Republicans and later by Democrats. | |||
* What does "investigations preceding it" mean? | |||
* "Never Trump Republicans" makes no sense; as far as we know it was funded by a single person, an unidentified donor who opposed Trump. | |||
* We already say all this (better) in the next paragraph, so this introductory paragraph is unnecessary. | |||
The paragraph is left over from when there were subheadings in the section - having been intended as a kind of lede paragraph. That is no longer needed and I think we should simply delete that two-sentence paragraph. Even if we restore the subsection headings, which I gather is under discussion here. We don't have to have a lede paragraph in a section, and this one is very poor. --] (]) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Well, at least we've been able to get rid of "Never Trump Republicans" now that we know who it was. --] (]) 01:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Corroborated information == | |||
I made a revision , removing synth from this article. I was reverted by ]. I contend since the CNN article says officials familiar with the process, not this specific case, say they think the FBI would only use the information if they had corroborated it. It is not the same as CNN saying " CNN reported that corroborated information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the ] warrant". It is a clear case of our article saying a+b=c. So since the CNN does not clearly state the information was corroborated vs what CNN actually said which was officials familiar with the process said they think if parts were used, it was corroborated. With the CNN article going on to say the officials would not say what or how much was actually corroborated. ] (]) 18:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I think we should just stick to the source. I've tried to avoid adding wordy explanations, but I guess it seems necessary here. I've updated the article accordingly. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Looks good to me. Thanks! ] (]) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
==Russian sources== | |||
The lead currently does not specify that many of the sources for the dossier were Russian nationals. I think this is important information for the reader to know, because, obviously, the conclusion is that the Clinton Campaign, via an intermediary, was colluding with the Russians to try to undermine Trump's election campaign. ] (]) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Please add it with a solid citation. The dossier was a document created from sources who were Russian nationals. It's an important fact that should be reflected in the lead. ] (]) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Agreed. This needs to be in here. ] (]) 23:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::Would we not then need to list all the sources, not just the Russian ones. We cannot single out one aspect of the dossier.] (]) 10:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::Steele has not revealed any of his sources... nor will he. It's a reasonable conclusion that many of them were Russian nationals, but that is guesswork / original research. Are there Reliable Sources making a point of this? --] (]) 01:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Change lede sentence from unverified allegations to partially verified == | |||
The current lede states the following: | |||
{{talkquote|The '''Donald Trump–Russia dossier''', also known as the '''Steele dossier''',<ref name="VogelHaberman">Kenneth P. Vogel & Maggie Haberman, , ''New York Times'' (October 27, 2017).</ref> is a ] ] that was written by ], a former British ] intelligence officer. It contains '''unverified allegations''' of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ] during the ] and the period preceding the election.}} | |||
(Bold part mine) Parts of the document HAVE been verified. See: | |||
*http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786 | |||
*http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html | |||
*http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html | |||
*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213800/U-S-officials-verify-Trump-dirty-dossier.html | |||
I suggest we change the lede either: | |||
'''Version A:''' | |||
{{talkquote|The '''Donald Trump–Russia dossier''', also known as the '''Steele dossier''',<ref name="VogelHaberman">Kenneth P. Vogel & Maggie Haberman, , ''New York Times'' (October 27, 2017).</ref> is a ] ] that was written by ], a former British ] intelligence officer. It contains '''partially verified allegations''' of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ] during the ] and the period preceding the election.}} | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
'''Version B:''' | |||
'''Change: ''' Per discussion below, this version seems to have support: | |||
{{talkquote|The '''Donald Trump–Russia dossier''', also known as the '''Steele dossier''',<ref name="VogelHaberman">Kenneth P. Vogel & Maggie Haberman, , ''New York Times'' (October 27, 2017).</ref> is a ] ] that was written by ], a former British ] intelligence officer. It contains '''allegations''' of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ] during the ] and the period preceding the election.}} | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
Please respond with '''Version A''' , '''Version B''', or keep current. ] (]) 19:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Casprings}} Why did you post a "support-or-oppose" question here and then immediately make the change anyhow? And in the lede? The appropriate way to make a significant change in the lede is to get some feedback, some support, and THEN change the longstanding wording. I am going to change it back until it become clear if this change has consensus. --] (]) 20:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|MelanieN}} Basically to trigger discussion among those who watched the page. It’s what I think it should be, so go ahead and do it and let the discussion occur. Happy to change it back until this is resolved.] (]) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Neither'''. It makes more sense just to say "allegations" without adding additional qualifiers. Some parts have been verified, while other parts remain unverified (most notably the most salacious details). According to ]: "{{tq|''alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined}}". Focusing on the verified or unverified parts also violates ]. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 20:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''', because absolutely no reliable sources claim to have confirmed ANY of Steele's {{tq|"allegations of misconduct and collusion"}} by Trump. (This is probably why Casprings provides only a series of links, without quoting any relevant portions to explain what, specifically, has supposedly been "corroborated.") From CNN's original : | |||
<blockquote> | |||
For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. ... '''None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier.''' Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs. ... '''CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.''' ... '''Officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump.''' One of the officials stressed to CNN they have not corroborated "the more salacious things" alleged in the dossier. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
:None of Casprings's other sources change this assessment. The ''Daily Mail'' he cites, for example, is from an unreliable source and is completely derivative of CNN's account. also contains no new information and was thoroughly refuted by independent journalist ]'s ; Sipher's primary argument is that the U.S. intelligence community "corroborated" Steele on Russian hacking, but as Wheeler notes: {{tq|"The Steele dossier was ''way behind'' contemporary reporting on the hack-and-leak campaign .. What the timeline of the hacking allegations in the Steele dossier (and therefore also 'predictions' about leaked documents) reveal is not that his sources predicted the hack-and-leak campaign, but on the contrary, he and his sources were unbelievably behind in their understanding of Russian hacking and the campaign generally (or his Russian sources were planting outright disinformation). Someone wanting to learn about the campaign would be better off simply hanging out on Twitter or reading the many security reports issued on the hack in real time."}} (I also particularly like the part where Sipher cites a ] report explicitly ''based'' on the dossier in order to "corroborate" the dossier!) Only the provides a specific "corroboration," namely {{tq|"that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy,"}} albeit with the caveat that {{tq|"So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency—nothing."}} In sum, Casprings's proposed edit is a bait-and-switch that misrepresents all of his sources; it would be more accurate to say that, whatever other unspecified details may have been confirmed, not a single one of Steele's allegations against Trump has been "corroborated" following over a year of frenzied investigation by media outlets and intelligence agencies.] (]) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|TheTimesAreAChanging}} Not the one playing with what sources say: | |||
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786 | |||
{{talkquote|Steele's work remains fiercely controversial, to some a "dodgy dossier" concocted by President Trump's enemies. | |||
'''But on this vitally important point - Kalugin's status as a "spy under diplomatic cover" - people who saw the intelligence agree with the dossier, adding weight to Steele's other claims.'''}} | |||
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html | |||
{{talkquote|The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. I'''t was also apparently news to investigators when the ''New York Times'' in July published Donald Trump Jr.’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton in a meeting that included Manafort. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton unless at least some of its information was correct? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?'''''' | |||
We have also subsequently learned of Trump’s long-standing interest in, and experience with Russia and Russians. A February ''New York Times'' article reported that phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election. The ''Times'' article was also corroborated by CNN and Reutersindependent reports. And even Russian officials have acknowledgedsome of these and other repeated contacts. Although Trump has denied the connections, numerous credible reports suggest that both he and Manafort have long-standing relationships with Russians, and pro-Putin groups. Last month, CNN reported on “intercepted communications that US intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort … to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospects” including “conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.” | |||
We learned that when Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, he met with close Putin ally and chairman of the Russian state oil company, Igor Sechin. A later Steele report also claimed that he met with parliamentary secretary Igor Divyekin while in Moscow. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 that U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that Page met with both Sechin and Divyekin during his July trip to Russia. What’s more, the Justice Department obtained a wiretap in summer 2016 on Page after satisfying for a court that there was sufficient evidence to show Page was operating as a Russian agent. | |||
}} | |||
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html | |||
{{talkquote|F'''or the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN.''' As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration. | |||
}} | |||
* Over and over WP:RS have stories saying parts of the document have been verified. We should reflect that fact.] (]) 21:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The lead already states that {{tq|"In February, it was reported that some details related to conversations between foreign nationals had been independently corroborated, giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued,"}} which has the merit of actually being true. Your revision—{{tq|"partially verified allegations of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ]"}}—is completely inaccurate, as anyone that takes the time to read CNN ''et al.'' can quickly confirm for themselves.] (]) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Neither''' makes sense to me. Just say "allegations". Some of the things in the dossier have been verified (like meetings between certain people); some have not (like the salacious stuff, which we do not include in our article anyhow). We can avoid endless arguments about whether some "independent journalist" is more reliable than a "former CIA official", or whether certain information has been confirmed but it's not specifically about Trump so it doesn't count, or whatever else would result in the article never being stable and all of us wasting enormous amounts of time over it. Just say "allegations" and be done with it. --] (]) 22:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The current lead has been stable for a long time and does a good job of explaining that some of the dossier's content {{tq|"related to conversations between foreign nationals"}} has been verified, while the allegations against Trump remain unverified. (If/when that changes, we can, of course, revisit Casprings's proposal.) I see no good reason to throw all of that out. The broader point is that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, which is why drive-by POV edits to the lead are particularly unhelpful absent any new reporting and any corresponding additions to the body.] (]) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Why not split it up?''' - We can take the second sentence and break it up into two. Something like | |||
{{talkquote|The '''Donald Trump–Russia dossier''', also known as the '''Steele dossier''',<ref name="VogelHaberman">Kenneth P. Vogel & Maggie Haberman, , ''New York Times'' (October 27, 2017).</ref> is a ] ] that was written by ], a former British ] intelligence officer. It contains '''allegations''' of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ] during the ] and the period preceding the election. Some of the <s>information</s> in the dossier <s>has</s> been independently corroborated.}} | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
<s>Note I purposefully used the word "information" not "allegations"</s>.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
Actually, screw it, it really should be "Some of the allegations in the dossier have been independently corroborated". The Manafort and Carter Page aspects most definitely qualify as "allegations" and these HAVE been confirmed.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Volunteer Marek makes a valid point: That a FISA court considered independently corroborated allegations from the dossier sufficient justification for the FBI to monitor Carter Page's communications probably should be in the lead, and certainly has more bearing on Trumpworld than conversations solely between foreign nationals. It is still worth noting, however, that whatever was confirmed—and whatever the FBI learned from spying on Page—has yet to result in an indictment, so we do need to be careful about stating or implying that Page is guilty of a crime.] (]) 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure that I know what Volunteer Marek's reference to Paul Manafort, above, may mean. An August 22, 2016 Steele memo states that {{tq|"YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorized kick-back payments to MANAFORT, '''as alleged in Western media''',"}} but that had already been reported by ''The New York Times'' on The allegation that Manafort recieved $12.7 million in illicit payments from Yanukovych is ; however, even if it is true, Steele was not the first to report it.] (]) 08:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Keep as is''' – The bulk of the dossier consists indeed of unverified allegations. Some facts about people mentioned in the dossier have been confirmed (Mr. X was a spy, Mr. Y met Mr. Z), but no evidence of "misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ]" has yet come to light, despite quite intense efforts to find such proof. — ] <sup>]</sup> 08:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Keep as is''' To describe a lengthy document that makes many allegations and statements in which only a few peripheral statements have been verified as "independently corroborated", even partially, leaves a misimpression. If we did use that language, we would have to thoroughly canvass the allegations of libel and the Cohen evidence in the lead if we were to have a neutral point of view. The current lede is the best option on the table. ] (]) 17:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
'''Comment: ''' I think I am going to start a formal RFC. It will be hard to get consensus without one.] (]) 07:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
== RfC about use of unverified == | |||
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=A00E3BF}} | |||
Per the discussion ], do you support: | |||
'''1.''' Removing the word '''unverified '''as a qualifier for the term allegations. An example of possible wording in the lede would be: | |||
{{talkquote|The '''Donald Trump–Russia dossier''', also known as the '''Steele dossier''',<ref name="VogelHaberman">Kenneth P. Vogel & Maggie Haberman, , ''New York Times'' (October 27, 2017).</ref> is a ] ] that was written by ], a former British ] intelligence officer. It contains '''allegations''' of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ] during the ] and the period preceding the election.}} | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
'''2. ''' In the lede, describing that some of the information in the document is verified. An example of possible wording is: | |||
{{talkquote|The '''Donald Trump–Russia dossier''', also known as the '''Steele dossier''',<ref name="VogelHaberman">Kenneth P. Vogel & Maggie Haberman, , ''New York Times'' (October 27, 2017).</ref> is a ] ] that was written by ], a former British ] intelligence officer. It contains '''allegations''' of misconduct and collusion between ] and his campaign and the ] during the ] and the period preceding the election. Some of the information in the dossier has been independently corroborated.}} | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
Please respond with: | |||
* '''Support Both''' Remove both unverified and also include that the some information is verified | |||
* '''Support 1, Oppose 2''' Remove unverified, but do not include in the lede that some information is verified | |||
* '''Oppose 1, Support 2''' Keep unverified, but support adding to the lede that some information is verified. | |||
* '''Oppose both''' Oppose changes. Keep unverified and do not include information in the lede that some of the information is independently verified | |||
] (]) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
===Survey=== | |||
* '''Support Both''': As OP - As mentioned above, large parts of the information in the document are now verified. We should reflect that fact. We should drop the use of unverified and include information that information in the document has been independently verified. Keep verified as a qualifier is unneeded, as an allegation suggests something is unverified per its definition, and pushes the article towards a POV as it adds an unneeded discrediting qualifier. We should not do that, especially when other information in the document is independently verified.] (]) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1, Oppose 2'''. Some of it's been verified, some of it's not been verified. Is there any source that describes the approximate verified to unverified ratio? Can we truly say "most of it's verified" or "most of it's unverified"? If not, then we shouldn't try to give either impression. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 08:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::The proposed wording does not say "most of it's verified". Nice try though.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose both''' The thrust of the dossier (and what everyone cares about) is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. None of those major allegations have been substantiated, and describing the dossier as unverified is clear and accurate. I could be convinced on the first suggested change, but to do both would be far out of bounds. ] (]) 16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support 1, Oppose 2''': I favor a simple "allegations" without opening the can-of-worms about verification - way too complex for the lede. --] (]) 17:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1'''. Version 2 includes unnecessary repeat (read 2nd paragraph currently in the lead). ] (]) 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support 1, Oppose 2''': ] assumes unproved. {{tq|Some…has been corroborated}} is problematic unless it is close to an explanation of "some". Keep the lead clean. ] (]) 17:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose both''': The current lede is preferable. Four options in this EfC will make evaluation difficult. It should be restructured. ] (]) 22:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::I have a feeling it will be possible to come up with a consensus even with four options. --] (]) 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::: Anything is possible but it is not ideal. Three of the four listed options include changing the lede. One of the three includes each of the other two - is rank implied e.g. if not A then B? Are options that support or oppose only A or B allowed? If some specify rank and others do not and oppose/support-only are allowed (we already have one) we have 10 possible options: A not B, B not A, A before B, B before A, A and B, A only, not A only, B only, not B only, neither. A yes/no question would be much more clear. ] (]) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1, Oppose 2''', without affirming WHAT has been verified, it's a bit pointless to say that 'some' is, apart from being unhelpfully 'muddling'.] (]) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose both''' – Most of the dossier is garbage, which is why no reputable newspaper wanted to touch it before BuzzFeed spilled the beans. The few things that have been confirmed are either of no importance or had been independently reported prior to being incorporated in the dossier. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
** Honeat question: has anything been shown as false?] (]) 00:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*** Can't prove a negative. Logic 101. We may as well say "my dossier asserts that Casprings had a glass of orange juice this morning", and ask skeptics "can you prove that Casprings did not drink that juice this morning?" — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::Bunkum. It is most certainly possible to prove something false. Hell, most logic and math theorems ]. In fact, there are lots of claims in the dossier that could easily be proven false ("Person A was in place X at time T") if they were indeed false. So asking "has anything been shown as false" is a perfectly legitimate question. You need to ]<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
**** It gives locations and times of meetings. You can certainly show you were not or couldn’t not have been at a location for a meeting. That is done all the time.] (]) 10:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*****See Anthony Cormier, ''] News'', May 5, 2017: {{tq|"Many news organizations attempted to verify or debunk claims in the dossier, including that Cohen was in Prague around that time. A ''BuzzFeed News'' reporter spent three days visiting about 45 hotels in the city and found no evidence Cohen had stayed in any of them during that period. Cohen has said that he couldn't have been in Prague because he was visiting the University of Southern California with his son on a college baseball recruiting trip. He posted on the final week of August."}} That said, Steele's time frame of "August/September 2016" is so vague that it is virtually impossible to definitively falsify.] (]) 11:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1, Oppose 2''' - Fallingravity's position is correct. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1, Oppose 2'''. Simple and neutrally conveys RS reporting. Editors, please, do not present your OR ruminations on the dossier here. They're quite corrigible, distracting, and irrelevant. ]] 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose both''' - keep the long-standing "unverified allegations" as the summary or bulk is that. The couple disproofs and couple supports are minor amounts that should be down in the detail section. They are not sufficient to move the overall view of mostly unverified. Also, the phrase more accurately portrays the dossier as it was constructed, a collection of rumors that is not within itself supported further. Can also support phraing from RS with NYT phrasing "unverified" or "unsupported" and Guardian 'dodgy dossier'. Also, "unverified" seems more neutral covering rather than listing various significant WEIGHT (by Google count) of phrasings to prefixes 'fake' or 'false' or 'politically motivated'. Cheers ] (]) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1, Oppose 2'''. For reasons described above. "Unverified" is not entirely correct, nor is "verified". Furthermore "unverified" is an unnecessary qualifier for "allegations". #2 too strongly implies to the average reader that the majority, if not entirety, of the dossier is factual. ] (]) 23:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''A big problem''' for this RfC is that it was started, and most !votes were made before the November 2nd testimony of Trump's former foreign policy adviser Carter page to the House Intelligence Committee, in which he corroborated parts of the dossier.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support both''' in light of Carter Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov 2, which further corroborated some of the info in the dossier.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support both''', per Carter Page's testimony, which confirmed several details in the dossier, such as the 19% of Rosneft to Trump if he lifted the sanctions. Some would call that $11 billion a bribe, others would call it a huge pay-to-play deal. Page confirmed it it happened, and Trump's own actions and declaration were very open about wanting to lift the sanctions. -- ] (]) 06:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose both''' rewrite per ] with inline-text attribution to RS and include updates that include factually accurate information less the editorialized opinions, innuendos and projections. Examples of sources to include: , and . <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font>]]</sup> 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Your first source is not RS. Neither of your sources actually support your !vote. And what in the world does WP:PUBLICFIGURE have to do with this? Are you just posting random sources and policies? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
===Threaded discussion=== | |||
*'''Comment'''. Casprings based on his own Although RfCs are supposed to be neutrally written, Casprings's description of the "Oppose" position ({{tq|"Keep unverified and do not include information in the lede that some of the information is independently verified"}}) is non-neutral and again seems to conflate the allegations against Trump with the parts of the dossier that have been corroborated (unspecified conversations between foreign nationals, a Russian diplomat's role as an undercover spy, and at least some of the content on ]). While I wouldn't fight too hard to retain the "unverified" adjective in the second sentence if editors consider it redundant, the lead already states that {{tq|"In February, it was reported that some details related to conversations between foreign nationals had been independently corroborated, giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued."}}] (]) 08:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' There are both NPOV issues with the lede, and some stylistic issues. Yes, it is a "private intelligence dossier" but it is also opposition research commissioned by political adversaries via a skeezy political outfit. The first sentence, apart from the term "unverified" puts the dossier in the most respectable light possible. The details of its release don't belong in the first paragraph, and arguably not in the lede at all. The prior opposition research by the Free Beacon - which did not include the dossier - is peripheral information and doesn't belong in the lede. We need to be wary of the lede reflecting the narrative of one side of a very divisive and partisan issue. ] (]) 17:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*{{ping|Volunteer Marek}} I support removing the word "unverified," as do you, but I think it was improper for you to remove the word from the lede while this RfC is going on. I am going to restore it until consensus is clear. --] (]) 20:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' This has been open for a week. Discussion has died down (the last comment was 3 days ago), and the option "support 1, oppose 2" has 8 supporters while "oppose both" has 4. IMO it's too early to do a final close of this RfC, but I think that trend is sufficiently strong to remove "unverified" for now, pending further discussion. --] (]) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
**'''Comment''' While this is hardly a hill to die on, I don't think removing "unverified" has generated a consensus. While what constitutes consensus can vary, there are a number of editors (quite apart from myself) who have given reasonable arguments, and I don't believe any minds have been changed. I don't think this merits changing the status quo. ] (]) 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''I have added my voice''' in support of BOTH, per Carter Page's testimony. That changes everything. -- ] (]) 06:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Added mine''' in opposition of BOTH per , all the anonymous sources that are providing the "so-called dirt" and to this day, there is nothing brought against Trump. All verifiable factual data predates the Trump campaign. It is time to be patient and not allow allegations to be stated in WikiVoice as fact. <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font>]]</sup> 17:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
== The Republicans never funded the dossier == | |||
{{ping|Al-Andalus}} You have added false information to the lede in this article. After I removed it, you restored it. You should not have done that since this article is covered by ], which include a warning that you "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." The false information you added is that the dossier "was commissioned and initially funded by The Washington Free Beacon for fellow Republican adversaries of then-primaries candidate Donald Trump". That is not true. The Free Beacon stopped funding any research on Trump in May, and the dossier was commissioned in June. Please self-revert this claim. (I cannot revert it again, because the Discretionary Sanctions also prohibit ]. But if you self-revert it you will no longer be in violation of the DS.) You can then discuss it here if you want. --] (]) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I restored an earlier version. ] (]) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Gabrielthursday}} Thanks, but the version you restored still contains the error about it being funded by the Washington Free Beacon. --] (]) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::<s>All fixed now.</s> --] (]) 20:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
No, it is NOT all fixed now. As soon as 24 hours had passed, ] re-inserted the information in slightly changed form. Now it does not say that the Free Beacon commissioned and funded the dossier, which was plainly false. Now it says {{tq|The investigation into Trump was initiated by Republican-backed conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon during the Republican primaries.}}, which is true but disingenuous: saying "the investigation into Trump" was initiated by them leaves a misleading impression that the "investigation" means the dossier. I think the lede should not mention the Republican funding or the Free Beacon at all, since it was peripheral to the subject of this article, namely, the dossier. The historical involvement of a Republican source is explained in the article text; it should not be in the lede because it is not a major part of the story. I am not going to remove the sentence again so as not to edit-war; instead I am seeking consensus about whether this sentence should or should not be included in the lede. --] (]) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Pinging other editors active on this page, for their opinions: {{ping|Gabrielthursday|Casprings|FallingGravity|My very best wishes|Objective3000|James J. Lambden|Pincrete|JFG|TheTimesAreAChanging|Neutrality|SPECIFICO|Markbassett}} --] (]) 19:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Reading through the sources, it appears clear that the Washington Free Beacon initially funded research and that the DNC continued the funding after the Beacon dropped out. What I can’t nail down is when Steele became involved or if either the Beacon or the DNC knew of his involvement or the likely end product at the time he began work. What seems clear is that both the Beacon and the DNC were performing opposition research and that the dossier was at least part of the end product. As far as I can see, there is nothing illegal about creating this document and opposition research is common practice. So, I’m not sure that trying to pin down who knew what when matters that much. Clearly both the Rs and Ds expected something to come from the funding. If RS nail this down at some point, it would be worth including. Until then, the finger-pointing is a bit annoying. Seems all we can do is point out that funding for opposition research came from two sources, and the dossier was commissioned by Fusion. Just some random thoughts. I’d like to hear from others before having a solid opinion. ] (]) 20:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::Objective, the timing is pretty clear. The Republicans stopped paying Fusion in May, and the counsel for the Dems took it over. The Russian hacking of the DNC was revealed in June. It was then - in June - that Fusion decided to do some Russia research and hired Steele. Since this article is specifically about the dossier - not the oppo research in general - then that timing matters. --] (]) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::OK. It’s likely that the dossier may have never been commissioned had the Beacon not originally hired Fusion. But, I suppose that’s happenstance and not worth mention in the lead. ] (]) 21:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: I agree and have (partially) reverted. The lede should focus on the subject of the article ''Donald Trump–Russia dossier.'' We do not know whether the opposition research conducted by Fusion prior to the hiring of Steele influenced or was included in his dossier. Elaboration is appropriate for the body but not the lede. ] (]) 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::] - I think the coverage ] is generally about that DNC or Clinton paying for it. The website payment mentions is down at the level of FBI payment mentions, too minor for even a tail mention in the lead. Seems often enough to deserve mention in the history. But the early details sound like it may not been 'the dossier' but rather a background on all Republican nominees, and then Fusion remade and re-marketed an effort for a negative dossier. For a feel of coverage, here are the top hits from misc British sites in general leftish to rightish order | |||
:::: BBC | |||
:::: Guardian | |||
:::: Mirror | |||
:::: Independent (#2) | |||
:::: Times | |||
:::: Telegraph (FBI was #3) | |||
:::: Sun | |||
:::: Daily Express | |||
:::: Daily Mail | |||
:::: (Daily mail next) | |||
:: Cheers ] (]) 21:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: {{pinged}} Agree with most commenters here: the timing is clear, Republican-funded opposition research predated the start of the ''dossier'', and is therefore off-topic / UNDUE for the lead section. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
This is not "original published research" in the article. On this talk page, we all express our opinions. The Spectator is a RS that mostly publishes opinions, which are perfectly acceptable content when attributed and framed properly, and more importantly, the author is a renowned correspondent, journalist, and subject matter expert. We value such opinions, and his opinion is worth documenting. I don't know if there are others who make the same claim, but neither have I seen any RS contradict it. Above, I have looked at the sources we know of on the topic of early reporting, and they don't contradict Wood's assertion either. In fact, they can't be used to build a case against it as it's an apples vs oranges situation. | |||
::: {{pinged}} Fully agree that this is barely relevant background information that deserves a mention in the body of the article, so long as there's no implication the previous opposition research informed the dossier. There isn't even any evidence afaik that Steele looked at the opposition research Fusion GPS had previously done on Trump, much less that it affected what he put together, much less that it was a significant influence. ] (]) 04:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
So, lacking anything else, we cite the opinion of an experienced expert on the topic. That's pretty much par for the course here. It's how we roll. We don't use our own opinions to undermine a source, unless we can use other RS to do it. If we had other RS that contradicted Wood, you'd have a strong case. I'd love to see other RS that can be used as evidence either way for this situation. | |||
It looks like we have consensus not to include anything about the Republican funding in the lede. ], please take note of this consensus and do not add it again. It would help if you would participate in these discussions, but in any case, do not violate consensus. --] (]) 18:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
While the mention in the lead was , the attributed mention in the body has been there since , so about 17 months. I added attribution to the lead after your reasonable request. | |||
It seems to me that the research that resulted in the document started here. Rather or not it predates it is not relavent, if this is the start of its development.] (])| | |||
This is worth mentioning in the lead as Steele's warning was just one of the notably true and "prescient" claims Steele made, and they show that Steele had some good sources, and, according to the FBI, Danchenko was also exceptionally well-connected. Steele, Danchenko, and Galkina all had sources in the Kremlin itself, and the CIA had a key one, mentioned below, whose reporting aligned with some of Steele's reporting. He was a mole who had to be extricated quickly, with his family, because of the danger posed by Trump.<ref>{{cite web | author=Agence France-Presse | title=Trump’s Loose Lips Force US to Extract Spy From Kremlin | website=Courthouse News Service | date=September 21, 2024 | url=https://www.courthousenews.com/trumps-loose-lips-force-cia-to-extract-spy-from-kremlin/ | access-date=September 26, 2024}}</ref> Trump would likely have told Putin about him, and he would have been killed. Several other key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient" because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and the Mueller Report. Simpson and Fritsch write that: | |||
Sources that show funding originated from GOP backed groups: | |||
{{blockquote| "a spy whose sources get it 70 percent right is considered to be one of the best,” and that, while reporters focussed on the most salacious details, they “tended to miss the central message,” about which they say Steele was largely correct. They note that, in his first report, in June, 2016, Steele warned that Russian election meddling was “endorsed by Putin” and “supported and directed” by him to “sow discord and disunity with the United States itself but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance”—six months before the U.S. intelligence community collectively embraced the same conclusion. Steele also was right, they argue, that “Putin wasn’t merely seeking to create a crisis of confidence in democratic elections. He was actively pulling strings to destroy Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump,” an assessment the U.S. intelligence community also came to accept. And they note that, as of September, 2019, U.S. officials confirmed that the C.I.A. had “a human source inside the Russian government during the campaign, who provided information that dovetailed with Steele’s reporting about Russia’s objective of electing Trump and Putin’s direct involvement in the operation."<ref name="Mayer_11/25/2019">{{cite magazine |last=Mayer |first=Jane |author-link=Jane Mayer |title=The Inside Story of Christopher Steele's Trump Dossier |magazine=] |date=November 25, 2019 |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-inside-story-of-christopher-steeles-trump-dossier |access-date=November 27, 2019}}</ref>}} | |||
BTW, Steele was not the first to "know" that there was a covert effort to support Trump. British intelligence (and seven allied foreign intelligence agencies) first knew (starting in 2015) and alerted the CIA chief, John Brennan: | |||
{{blockquote| | |||
"GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents,.." | |||
“It looks like the agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’ | |||
* Newsweek: | |||
* New York Times: | |||
* Britbart: | |||
“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’” | |||
This is a wide range of sources that show the same thing. This should certainly be in the lede. If the research that was foundational to the document started with Conservative media, that fact should not be hidden in the article and it should be included in the lede.] (]) 22:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation. | |||
:] that’s too low ] for lead, and note all 3 say they got a general internet survey — not Mr. Steele, nothing that was in or led to the dossier. These cites say they did not fund the dossier. ] (]) 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::''"that’s too low ] for lead"'' - but trying to push the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun, as you tried to do above, is legit for establishing due weight?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
In late August and September Brennan gave a series of classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. He told them the agency had evidence the Kremlin might be trying to help Trump to win the presidency, the New York Times reported.<ref name="Harding_11/15/2017" /><ref name="Harding_Kirchgaessner_Hopkins_4/13/2017">{{cite web |last1=Harding |first1=Luke |last2=Kirchgaessner |first2=Stephanie |last3=Hopkins |first3=Nick |title=British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia |website=] |date=April 13, 2017 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia |access-date=May 13, 2019}}</ref> with some Russian officials arguing about how much to interfere in the election.<ref name="Rosenberg_Goldman_Schmidt_3/1/2017" />}} | |||
:::I second ]’ argument. All sources of good repute, both from liberal and conservative media (even extreme right wing Breitbart), concede that research that was foundational to the dossier started with Republican-backed conservative media. Had it not been for that fact (i.e. some segments of the conservative camp dislike of Trump) the dossier would not even exist because of an interruption in the sequence of events to the coming into being of the dossier. Everyone had a hand in why the dossier came into existance; Republicans, Democrats, and an independent party. That fact is being hidden in the article by those who want to make it seem that 1) the funding of the dossier was somehow illegal, and 2) those responsible for funding it were Democrats, and that therefore 3) Democrats did something illegal. This is a fictitious point of view that one side is trying to paint. If funding of the dossier is going to be included in the lead at all, when It is entirely irrelevant who actually funded the dossier in any case (because there was nothing illegal about it in any event, and therefore that fact is not noteworthy), then it must be stressed that everyone had their hands in the pie. Or it should not be included at all. if it had been entirely the Democrats that were behind the funding of the dossier (which is not true) and if had it been the Democrats that started the sequence of events that led to the dossier’s creation (also not true), then that perhaps would be noteworthy even if not it was not illegal per se. However, that was not the sequence of events as per the facts themselves. It’s disingenuous to mention the Democrats in the lead, when they were merely the intermediate step in the sequence of events. There was a step before the Democrats (ie republicans) and a step after the Democrats (ie Fusion GPS themselves). ] (]) 02:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::Nobody is implying there was something illegal about the dossier. It was part of opposition research, which is legal and all candidates do it. The time sequence is what matters here. Some Republicans were doing opposition research on Trump during the primary, but they stopped doing it long before Russia became an issue or a subject to be researched. Questions about Russia arose on June 14, 2016, when it was revealed that (to quote the Washington Post) Russian government hackers penetrated the DNC. That's what gave Fusion the idea to investigate whether there was something going on with the Russians. That was a new idea; previous research had primarily focused on his business activities, and probably on attempts to find out if there had been any sexual hanky-panky or other embarrassing material that could be exposed. Russia was a new angle. So Fusion hired a Russia specialist, who focused his investigation on "has there been contact between Russian and the Trump campaign?" as well as "Do the Russians have something on Trump, have they compromised him?" That's the subject of this article - Steele's research and Steele's report. The fact that some other group had previously hired the same firm to do oppo research - but was long gone when Steele was hired - has no connection with this dossier. At least not enough of a connection to put in the lede. The previous Republican funding is clearly explained in the article text. --] (]) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::: The idea that the Republican funding was separate from the dossier is a recently clarified point, not understood until the last couple weeks. Now that we're getting the two phases of opposition research separated, the Republican part should still be included, but only as the historical precursor to what later led to the creation of the dossier. -- ] (]) 06:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::I would agree.] (]) 10:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::Can you provide a source which explicitly says that the Republican funding was separate from the dossier? From what I've read, while Steele came on board later, without the initial Republican funding there never would've been a dossier. So no, not separate.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
Read more here: ] | |||
== Reputation in the Intelligence Community == | |||
That information from GCHQ was part of the reason for opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but it wasn't enough on its own. It was the "intelligence from other partners" (Australian info about Papadopoulos) that provided the necessary legal probable cause to justify opening the investigation. Brennan's actions to protect America are part of the real reason that Trump removed Brennan's security clearance. He didn't want Brennan revealing anymore damning information about Trump's cooperation/collusion with Putin's attacks on America. Don't forget that Trump took top-secret Russia intelligence that is STILL missing since the end of his term. -- ] (]) (PING me) 22:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
This section has major NPOV problems. I haven't time at the moment, but we are missing quotations from Comey ("salacious and unverified) and Mike Morrell and James Clapper ("The has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.") These are all far more significant figures than the analysts currently quoted. ] (]) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Morrell is already quoted in the "Veracity" section. Note that one of Morrell's objections—that Steele paid his sources—is rather weak; it's normal for spies to pay their sources, and we should actually be more wary of the unsolicited information freely offered up to Steele in December 2016 (after ''both'' the election and ]'s October 31 '']'' report discussing the dossier).] (]) 03:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:The article quotes Paul Wood, stating, 'Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's "foundational initial assertion" and it was correct.' This is problematic for several reasons. First, Wood’s piece is an opinion, not an objective analysis, and yet it’s cited in a way that implies authoritative weight in the opening paragraph. Worse, it's a quote within a quote, relying on vague language like 'foundational initial assertion,' which adds little clarity. Why should an indirect defense of Steele and his dossier, quoted second-hand, be given such prominence? The lack of critical rigor and objectivity here is disappointing and undermines the credibility of the article ] (]) 17:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
] just nuked the whole section. ] restored it. Discussion time, folks. --] (]) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: That wording was first added as a solution to a discussion here with you. Here is the current version of that part: | |||
], you seem to be proposing that we should use old and outdated views based on lack of information instead of much newer and better views based on the fact that most of the dossier's claims have been verified. You should also read the dossier. The "salacious" golden showers part is on the first page. That's it. The sensational press reports have given undue weight to that, and ignored the rest of the much more serious content. We should not make that undue weight error here. It's quite inaccurate to label the whole thing as "salacious" when it's not. -- ] (]) 07:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::{{blockquote| According to ], "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's 'foundational initial assertion' and it was correct."<ref name="Wood_8/12/2020" />}} | |||
:What are RS NOW saying about this, what indeed do Comey and |Co now say?] (]) 10:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: Attributed opinions, especially from a subject matter expert like Wood, who is so well connected with the intelligence community, are allowed in Misplaced Pages articles, but.... I think we can live without it there. Does that help? -- ] (]) (PING me) 21:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{reftalk}} | |||
== First paragraph: need to clarify BuzzFeed's 'fair report privilege' defence was based on Steele Dossier being part of official proceedings == | |||
== Recent additions == | |||
In the opening paragraph of the article, it’s noted that the Steele Dossier “was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, without Steele's permission. Their decision to publish the reports without verifying the allegations was criticised by journalists. However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action, stating that the public has a right to know so it can ‘exercise effective oversight of the government.’” | |||
{{ping|Al-Andalus|Volunteer Marek}} Within the span of a few days, the "{{tq|'''It is unknown the extent to which the allegations in the dossier have formed a part of the ongoing 2017 Special Counsel investigation''' into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.}}" becomes the "{{tq|'''At least part of the dossier has formed a part of the ongoing 2017 Special Counsel investigation''' into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and a team of Special Council investigators has met with the dossier’s author, Christopher Steele.}}" I find it incredible that something that is ''unknown'' becomes ''known'' in the course of a few days. Does interviewing Steele somehow count as integrating the dossier into the investigation? Is there something here I'm missing? <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
While this passage correctly mentions the judicial defence of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish the Dossier, it leaves out some key legal context. The ruling wasn’t just about the public’s right to know, but was grounded in the "fair report privilege." This legal principle protects media outlets when they report on official proceedings, even if the information is unverified or part of a non-public investigation. Without this context, the passage risks giving the impression that the court broadly defended BuzzFeed’s actions, when in fact the protection came from this specific legal shield. | |||
::it is known that the dossier has formed a part of the investigations. What is unknown is the extent. What is difficult to understand about that? We know the earth is covered by water. What we don’t know is how many litres exactly. Just because we don’t know the exact amount doesn’t mean we shouldn’t mention the earth is covered with water. Some water-haters might want to pretend it’s actually liquid mercury. ] (]) 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Simply looking at cited source , it tells: ''The FBI has confirmed some parts of the dossier and Special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into other details as part of an investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign.'' So, I do not see any problems with both versions which are not mutually exclusive. ] (]) 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::If anything, Republican spinsters in the media over the last day have made it a talking point to paint the fact that the dossier has been included as any part of Mueller’s investigation as somehow being a wrongful act on muellers part. Yet here we have people trying to omit the fact that the dossier has formed a part of mueller’s investigation at all. Meanwhile, legal experts say that if mueller hadn’t or insnt including the leads in the dossier in his investigation he would be derelict in his duty. Which is it? ] (]) 03:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::You created duplicate content; FallingGravity removed it in both places . I think the dossier being used by Mueller certainly worth mentioning and well sourced. ] (]) 03:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think it could belong in the article, but it's already mentioned in the lead: "{{tq|giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as '''investigations''' continued.}}" Per ]: "{{tq|The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.}}" Adding an additional paragraph musing on how it's unknown how much the dossier factored into the investigation or the extent of the dossier played is unnecessary; maybe an additional sentence would do. I have no objection to restoring the paragraph to a different location, but I think somebody with more time should have a look at it and its sourcing. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 04:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::OK, I reincluded this as separate section. Welcome to fix if needed. There was also something about Mueller going interrogate a bodyguard of D. Trump about the "most salacious" claims in the dossier. ] (]) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
The source cited (Variety) clarifies this right at the beginning: “A federal judge ruled in favour of BuzzFeed in a defamation lawsuit over its publication of the so-called ‘Steele dossier’ in January 2017, ruling that because the document was part of an official proceeding, the site was protected by fair reporting privilege.” | |||
== "Corroborated" == | |||
To be accurate, the article should explain that the court’s ruling wasn’t a general defence of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish, but rather a legal protection based on the fair report privilege. This is a crucial distinction, as it shows that BuzzFeed was shielded because the Dossier was connected to an official proceeding, not because of a broad endorsement of the public interest. Full judgment: ] (]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
This edit summary ] suggests dossier claims were corroborated by Page's testimony. I assume this refers to the Sechin meeting from the (poor) Business Insider source. But CNN's take is different: ''"During his sworn testimony, Page denied a key claim from the infamous dossier but acknowledged talking to a high-ranking official from the Russian energy giant Rosneft."'', ''"No public evidence has emerged to corroborate this specific claim in the dossier."'' Thoughts? ] (]) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Too much detail for the lede. ] (]) 10:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not suggesting everything I wrote should be inserted instead, if the sentence could be changed to something like "However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action on the basis that the dossier was part of an official proceeding, and therefore protected by fair reporting privilege" ] (]) 10:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: I have now installed that version. Thanks! -- ] (]) (PING me) 14:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing == | |||
:It's based on several sources provided in the article. And it isn't limited to the Sechin meeting. Sources refer to key parts of his testimony as "corroboration". Now, can you self-revert and undo your 1RR violation? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: Which sources and which parts? Be specific. ] (]) 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::In addition to Business Insider, we also have (which you removed as a source - violating Misplaced Pages policy) (''"his comments also appear to corroborate sections of the controversial document and raise new questions over his meetings in Russia."'') | |||
You argue, “''We can't include too much detail in an already bloated lead. That is dealt with in the body.” If we cannot present the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions without cherry-picking and distorting them, then we should not reference the Committee’s findings in the lead at all''. | |||
:::Oh, and in the Daily Caller. Not a reliable source but worth quoting for illustrative purposes: | |||
:::''"Some of what former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page disclosed in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week matches up loosely with allegations made in the infamous Steele dossier"'' | |||
:::''"Page’s statements about a trip he made to Moscow in July 2016 included details that are laid out in the dirty document"'' | |||
:::''"Steele’s document did nail down something that Page revealed for the first time in his House testimony"'' | |||
:::''"Page revealed some new details about his Moscow visit that resemble other allegations in Steele’s report"'' | |||
:::''"While there is still no evidence to support the allegations made about Page in those two memos, parts of two other Steele reports ring true."'' | |||
:::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
The current phrase in the lead, ''“the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown,”'' is a wildly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing. The actual findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee paint a far more critical picture, especially concerning Steele’s sources. They did not merely criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier, as you suggest. The Committee’s core criticism lies in the fact that the FBI gave unjustified credence to Steele’s reporting, despite its clear lack of rigor and transparency. The report explicitly states: | |||
== 1RR and DS violation by Lambden == | |||
{{hat|Article talk pages are for discussing article improvements. ] is thataway→}} | |||
User:James J. Lambden violated 1RR as well as that restriction on consensus changes on this article; | |||
:''“The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing.”'' | |||
* | |||
* | |||
The second half of the first paragraph in the article is not logically consistent as a continuation of the previous sentences: | |||
Additionally, that second revert restores changes were made by consensus. | |||
:''“Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were ‘lacking in both thoroughness and rigor’,: 902 with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.”'' | |||
Since I expect there's gonna be some deflecting coming soon (Lambden has a tendency to accuse others of what he's guilty of himself) let me address my edit. In particular my adding of the "corroborated" to the lede. The addition of that word was based on new information - Carter Page's testimony on November 2nd - and new sources (Newsweek in lede, several other sources in the text). As such it's not a revert since it is based on new developments which have not been previously covered. Regardless, Lambden's reverts cover not just the use of that word in the lede but other changes to the article as well.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
This construction is misleading. It suggests that no one knows whether the Steele dossier's main claims are true or false. In reality, the dossier’s core claims have been widely debunked. As of 2024, outlets such as , the , have referred to the dossier as "discredited." Your version insinuates that the primary reason these claims remain unverified is due to the FBI’s poor efforts at corroboration. This is a distortion of the facts. The FBI’s failure was not merely in corroboration but in lending credibility to a flawed and unsubstantiated document in the first place. Misrepresenting the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings in this manner does a disservice to the actual evidence laid out in the report. Why not reduce the bloat in the lead and remove any distortions by taking out the following: "Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation." ] (]) 13:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
This violation of DS by Lambden, is also in addition to removal of well sourced information for... basically no reason what so ever. Except of course POV and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That in itself constitutes ] editing, discretionary sanctions or no discretionary sanctions.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
: We don't want to be overly optimistic nor overly negative, considering the dossier is an unfinished draft document that was never intended to be seen by the public and was submitted to the FBI for vetting: | |||
== 1RR and Consensus Required DS violation by Volunteer Marek == | |||
: {{blockquote| It was published without permission in 2017 as an unfinished {{Nowrap|35-page}} compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable"{{efn |''BuzzFeed'' said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".<ref name="Bensinger_1/10/2017" />}} memos that were considered by Steele "to be ] — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".<ref name="Shane_Goldman_Rosenberg_4/19/2019" /><ref name="Gross_Simpson_Fritsch_11/26/2019" /><ref name="Kessler_10/29/2017" />}} | |||
{{hat|Article talk pages are for discussing article improvements. ] is thataway→}} | |||
: My point is, don't make the mistake of sources that carelessly and baselessly throw around the word "discredited" as if that means "proven false", when they are unfairly blaming the dossier for their own failure to judge the dossier according to its actual unvetted, not disproven, draft status. Those careless sources are the ones at fault, but instead of admitting they have been careless, they unfairly blame the dossier for not being a fully finished and fully vetted product. | |||
In his recent series of edits VM violated 1RR and Consensus Required on this text: | |||
: People mistakenly get the impression that "discredited", which is a very vague word, means the allegations are proven false, but there is no evidence they have been proven false. None. A few RS have mistakenly used the word "false", but when one looks for evidence, they provide none. They should have written "unproven" or "uncorroborated", and many other sources have more accurately done that. It's better to cite the sources that do that, rather than those which have been careless. Here we look at all the sources and can choose the most accurate. | |||
* Version reverted to: | |||
: The "further investigation" by many over the years has finally settled down. Early reports, including the Mueller report and Senate report, did not have the benefit of the current status. We now have a much better idea of their current "verification status", which alludes to these three general possibilities: | |||
* VM's 1st revert: | |||
:# '''Proven true''': The dossier’s core claims have been resoundingly confirmed by the FBI, ODNI, and Mueller report, contrary to your claim above. (Maybe you consider some other claims as "core claims"? | |||
* VM's 2nd revert: | |||
:# '''Unproven''': Lots of them are still in limbo, neither proven nor disproven. Even the one about ] is in limbo, with Steele still believing it might be true, McClatchy, a very RS, refusing to retract the evidence the uncovered, and Cohen lying about it with a false alibi that was debunked, so that shows his ]. The pee tape allegation is also unproven and not disproven. Trump repeatedly lied about that, which Comey described as revealing his "consciousness of guilt". (Why do supposedly innocent people lie about these things? Hmmm.) So suspicions still linger. They are both "unproven" allegations. | |||
:# '''Proven false''': No serious allegation has been proven false. None.<ref name="Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2" /> | |||
: The lead must touch on the topic of the verification status of the allegations as they are always an important focus of commentary on the dossier and an important part of the body of this article. The question is where it should be covered here. We currently do it in two places (which I will mention later and deal with). | |||
: The subject matter experts at '']'' give us a great status report. In a December 2018 ''Lawfare'' report titled "The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective", the authors described how, after two years, they "wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele's original reporting." To make their judgments, they analyzed a number of "trustworthy and official government sources" and found that: | |||
: {{blockquote| "These materials buttress some of Steele's reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and '''none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."''' (bold added)<ref name="Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2" />}} | |||
: They concluded with: | |||
and Consensus required here with respect to the Business Insider paragraph: | |||
: {{blockquote| The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.<br> However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far.<ref name="Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2" />}} | |||
*VM's addition: | |||
: also this: | |||
*My removal: | |||
: {{blockquote| There is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive," but '''"none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven".''' (bold added)<ref name="Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2"/>}} | |||
*VM's restoration without consensus: | |||
: So none have been disproven, and many proven true, but most are still "unproven". "Unproven" says nothing about their credibility one way or the other and is a better and more neutral word to use than various forms of "credible". It is not overly optimistic or overly negative, but a good NPOV description. | |||
: The four sentences you are complaining about are: | |||
: {{blockquote| Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed.{{efn|name="some_confirmed"}} The ] of many of the allegations is still unknown. The ] criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor",<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020" />{{rp|902}} with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the ] took over the Russia investigation.{{efn|name="FBI_stop"|"FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020" />{{rp|852}} On standup of the SCO, the Committee lost access to all relevant information regarding FBI's efforts to verify the dossier, as it did with all information the SCO declared to touch its "equities."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020" />{{rp|903}}}}}} | |||
: Let's remove the part that explains one reason why their status is still "unknown" from the lead, making it simpler: | |||
: {{blockquote| The ] criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor",<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020" />{{rp|902}} with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the ] took over the Russia investigation.{{efn|name="FBI_stop"|"FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020" />{{rp|852}} On standup of the SCO, the Committee lost access to all relevant information regarding FBI's efforts to verify the dossier, as it did with all information the SCO declared to touch its "equities."<ref name="SICv5_8/18/2020" />{{rp|903}}}}}} | |||
: That was Maybe it's just created other issues by adding too much detail about something that we cover well in the body. That makes it much easier to get an overview of what's left. -- ] (]) (PING me) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
: That leaves our coverage of the "veracity status" in the lead with these two, widely separated, statements, and they should be grouped together: | |||
The edit VM complains about is the one in which I reverted his multiple DS violations. ] (]) 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
: From the first paragraph: | |||
: {{blockquote| Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed.{{efn|name="some_confirmed"}} The ] of many of the allegations is still unknown.}} | |||
: and this from the last paragraph: | |||
: {{blockquote| ... the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed,{{efn|name="some_confirmed"}} others are plausible but not specifically confirmed,<ref name="Lee_12/26/2017" /><ref name="Farhi_11/12/2021" /> and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.<ref name="MSNBC_5/22/2018" /><ref name="Hutzler_8//16/2018" /><ref name="Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2" />}} | |||
: Because the one from the first paragraph is covered in the last one, let's just remove it! | |||
: Conclusion: '''''' The "veracity status" is only mentioned in the last paragraph. Some may think it should be in the first paragraph, but let's wait to discuss that. What seems to have happened is some creep gradually occurred, with too much gradually added to the lead that should have just been kept in the body. Then it got to a critical level where it was noticed, criticized, discussed, and now, hopefully, resolved with a better lead. | |||
: Do those changes help to resolve some of your concerns? (Be careful to not get greedy now. {{;)}}) -- ] (]) (PING me) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I think removing those sentences was a good call. It reads much better now. Thanks ] (]) 17:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: You are very welcome, and a BIG thanks to YOU! No article here is ever "finished". They always need updating, and sometimes the due weight status changes after some history has passed by, and something should be downgraded from the lead to only the body. I think that's what happened here, but it took you to notice the problem. The rest of us are too close to the situation. -- ] (]) (PING me) 17:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Some editors fought tooth an nail over keeping a long stretched and tattered collection of rumor threads alive. Not even the author of the dossier wanted the credibility assigned that was given to the dossier by wikipedia "Reliable Sources". | |||
::::So much of this situation was third hand reporting of rumors and so much made wikipedia citations that lasted for better part of a decade. ] (]) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Please keep comments above this reftalk code. --> | |||
:Can you please stop mimicking my comments? It's an obvious taunt and a form of ]. And like I predicted above - you're trying to use the "I'm going to accuse you of what I'm guilty of myself" tactic as a way of deflecting attention from your own disruptive behavior.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{reftalk}} | |||
:: Notification of DS violations are not mimicry although they are inappropriate for an article talk page in my opinion. Can we agree to remove them? ] (]) 07:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::: You formatted and wrote your "notification" to exactly resemble mine. It's mimicry designed to provoke and taunt.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::: No editor who writes ] gets to complain about hurt feelings. Hat please. ] (]) 07:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::: You didn't hurt my feelings. You are however trying to ] me, just like you have tried to harass several other editors (], ], ] and a few others whom you've deemed to be "politically inappropriate" in your ] approach to editing Misplaced Pages). This kind of behavior short circuits collaborative efforts and makes it difficult to improve the encyclopedia. Hence, it is disruptive (and yes, it's also obnoxious and creepy). You have also been repeatedly asked to not comment on my talk page - leaving a notification, even if completely bad faithed, is one thing, but making taunts with full knowledge that you are not welcome there is also incivil and abusive behavior.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*Volunteer Marek's DS violation is clear and straightforward, and his aspersions against James J. Lambden are beyond the pale. (In addition, the canvassing above is questionable at best.) Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction Volunteer Marek. I did not comment in that particular case because I generally agreed with Volunteer Marek's edits and because I strongly believe that the "consensus required" DS should be rescinded from most articles; however, any honest observer can see that countless editors have been topic banned for a fraction of what Volunteer Marek alone is routinely allowed to get away with. Have we all just accepted that Volunteer Marek is above the law?] (]) 10:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Oh nonsense. I expected better from you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} |
Latest revision as of 21:44, 23 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steele dossier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2017. The result of the discussion was Snow keep. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
The contents of the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations page were merged into Steele dossier on March 2, 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Second sentence of article "efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, is factually wrong, and contradicted by source material
The current statement in the article, "The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation," is not accurately supported by the cited source. The source cited, "Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities" from the Senate Intelligence Committee report, does not use the terms "short-lived," "limited," or "weak" to describe the FBI's corroboration efforts. Furthermore, it does not state that the FBI stopped all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017.The relevant quote from the report (page 847) states:"(U) The Committee found that, within the FBI, the dossier was given a veneer of credibility by lax procedures, and layered misunderstandings. Before corroborating the information in the dossier, FBI cited that information in a FISA application. After a summary of the uncorroborated information was later appended to the ICA, the FBI also briefed it to the President, President-elect, and Gang of Eight, while noting that it was unverified." This quote contradicts rather than supports the current statement in the article. It suggests that the FBI used the dossier before corroborating it, rather than making limited or weak efforts to corroborate it. The assertion "efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017" should be removed as it is not supported by the cited source and appears to be an interpretation rather than a fact stated in the report. BostonUniver (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations were limited and weak." was added on 7 August 2024, one of many recent changes by Valjean. Reverting will improve. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I would support removal of unsourced or OR material. Also that is a primary source and should not be used that way. It looks like a lot of primary sources are used in violation to our basic sourcing polices. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those are synonyms and an accurate paraphrase, but only if one looks at the exact parts I cite. Unfortunately, I can't do that right now. I'll explain it when I'm back to civilization with wifi and my PC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, we are finally back from our camping trip in the Trinity Alps. Very little internet coverage there. Usually, I can catch lots of trout, but this time no luck. We are usually there earlier in the season when the fish are plentiful, and there are lots of nice swimming holes. Otherwise, it's beautiful country with few people.
I have split off other topics into their own sections to be dealt with separately. First of all, I will remove the latest version from the lead so we can analyze and discuss it here. I am not wedded to that exact wording. I just tried to summarize what the sources said, and that sourcing could be improved in the body.
Current wording (begun), now removed:
The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.
I'll return to this section after leaving some remarks in the next sections. Please wait before adding more to this section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Let's take a look at these complaints and see which ones have some merit and which don't. Right off the bat, I see two issues to deal with. Please use these numbers and keep discussion about each in its own thread. We may have to create separate sections.
Number 1. There may be merit to the complaint about my choice of words. These are issues that can be fixed, so let's discuss them and see if we can come up with a better description of what the sources say:
- ("efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.") Synonyms, paraphrasing, etc. are not exact sciences, and I certainly have no patent on always getting it right, so other editors' input is welcome.
Here are some sources for 1:
- (U) In May 2017, the SCO was established, ending FBI's attempts to corroborate information in the dossier. In the end, few allegations were definitively corroborated, and SCO said its own leads and research overtook work to verify Steele's findings.
- (U) A further restriction on the Committee's investigative efforts was the centralization of information regarding the dossier within the SCO and the SCO' s decision not to share that information with the Committee. FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI. After that point, the Committee has limited insights into how or whether SCO pursued the dossier at all. SCO did not share the results of any further inquiries, to the extent any were undertaken, with the Committee. Special Agent in Charge David Archey briefed the Committee in July 2019 on the SCO's investigative process and information management:
- We hose allegations go to the heart of things that were in our mandate-but we believed our own investigation. The information that we collected would have superseded it, and been something we would have relied on more, and that's why you see what we did in the report and not the Steele dossier in the report. 5666
- Archey declined to provide further information on whether FBI or SCO attempted to verify information in the dossier, although he noted that the SCO did not draw on the dossier to support its conclusions.
- (U) FBI Counterintelligence Division's efforts to investigate the allegations in the dossier were focused on identifying Steele's source network and recruiting those people to serve as sources for, or provide information to, the FBI. FBI also made efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor. The FBI pursued FISA coverage of Carter Page in October 2016, including information from the dossier, but at the time it had very little information on Steele's subsources or corroboration of Steele's information.
- (U) As of May 2017, when the SCO began its own investigation, the FBI had taken the following investigative steps:
- (U) The Committee reviewed a redacted version of that spreadsheet, which reflected progress made until May 2017, when the SCO began its work and FBI halted efforts on the dossier.
My sources for the Senate Committee's criticizms of the FBI:
- "FBI also made efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor."
- "FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."
My wording was: "short-lived, limited, and weak" Feel free to improve on that.
Those sources address 1. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I developed the body by adding precise page numbers to sources and a quote as a note. See here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a new version, using exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources:
The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.
- How's that? It is attributed and sourced better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since no one has objected or suggested other changes to this new version that resolves the old version's "short-lived, limited, and weak", I have now installed this new version It resolves the issues mentioned by adding attribution, exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- The current phrasing in the Steele Dossier article, specifically the statement “The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were ‘lacking in both thoroughness and rigor’,” is cherrypicking of statements stripped of the larger context of the Senate report.
- First, the phrase “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown” offers an overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's credibility. The actual findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are more critical and suggest that key aspects of the dossier were found lacking in credibility. This wording gives undue weight to the idea that many of the dossier’s claims might still be credible, which is not fully supported by the available evidence.
- Moreover, the criticism of the FBI’s efforts, as cited, is out of context. The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place. The exact wording from page XIV of the report's Findings section reads:
- “Regarding the Steele Dossier, FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record. FBI used the Dossier in a FISA application and renewals and advocated for it to be included in the ICA before taking the necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele's credibility. Further, FBI did not effectively adjust its approach to Steele's reporting once one of Steele's subsources provided information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier. The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing.”
- This makes clear that the report primarily criticized the FBI for placing undue trust in the dossier, rather than for a lack of thoroughness in corroborating it. The omission of this context in the article misleads readers into thinking the Senate’s critique was aimed at investigative shortcomings, when the real issue was the FBI’s initial overreliance on Steele’s reporting.
- For the sake of neutrality and accuracy, it is important that this section of the article be revisited and revised to reflect the full scope of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings. Misrepresentation of sources undermines the objectivity expected of Misplaced Pages articles, and this issue requires correction to maintain (at least some) the integrity of the entry. BostonUniver (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back! You mention "that many of the dossier’s claims might still be credible". I think "credible" is the wrong word, as it leans toward "probably true", or when you say "were found lacking in credibility", that leans too much toward "is probably not true". Isn't that the meaning? Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't read your mind.
- In fact, we don't know for sure about many of them. The subject matter experts at Lawfare wrote: "There is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive," but "none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven". So none has been disproven, and many proven true, but most are still "unproven". "Unproven" says nothing about their credibility one way or the other and is a better and more neutral word to use than various forms of "credible".
- Giving too much "credence" in that FISA situation is a matter related to "an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record." He had a good reputation, but maybe it wasn't as good as some thought? They should have checked first. That was unrelated to the allegations in the dossier, but to Steele. (The reputation of the source affects the initial credence lent to the allegations.) Later, they learned that Danchenko's source network was exceptionally good, so Steele was supplied with information he still believes is basically true, but hard to verify as sources went to ground in fear over Putin taking revenge on them. Trump and Barr made sure that Putin learned about them by declassifying the classified info about sources and methods. Really patriotic!
- The phrase “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown” simply doesn't lean either way and is a real attempt to remain neutral and not introduce editorial bias. You seem to want to word it so it leans toward "is likely untrue", but we don't know that. "Unproven" does not equal "untrue". Right? It could be true or false, so we say "unproven" or "uncorroborated".
- The full context of "the FBI’s efforts" cannot be provided in the lead, but we could provide more in the body. There is already mention of the fact that it was very problematic for the FBI to use unproven dossier claims in their FISA applications. (FISA applications often use unproven suspicions. Suspicions do not have to be proven to justify opening an investigation. They are literally opening a fishing expedition.) I'm trying to find a way for your concerns to be included, so will, with this exact matter, include the quote you provided. It's good, and it's related to existing content: "Officials told CNN this information would have had to be independently corroborated by the FBI before being used to obtain the warrant,..." I put it there. See here. Is that better?
- "The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing." Indeed! Steele was not very cooperative, and the actions of Trump and Barr proved his caution was fully justified. Trump did indeed expose Steele's sources to danger. That he was reticent to reveal too much about them does not have anything to do with the quality of their reports. Those reports could still be true, but we don't always know enough to really know, do we? That is now included.
- BTW, I'm glad you are reading the Senate Intelligence Committee report. It's pretty good stuff, far better than Mueller. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You write: "The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place." Both are true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- If both are true, why is the very first paragraph of this article only alluding to the FBI's failures to corroborate rather than also the issues with his dossier such as "one of Steele's subsources provided information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier"? It does no good to bury this fact thousands of words down in this overly long article, when the crucial introductory paragraphs remain biased and cherrypicked. BostonUniver (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You write: "The Senate Committee’s report did not criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier rigorously enough, but rather for giving the dossier unjustified credence in the first place." Both are true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Since no one has objected or suggested other changes to this new version that resolves the old version's "short-lived, limited, and weak", I have now installed this new version It resolves the issues mentioned by adding attribution, exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a new version, using exact quotes and exact page numbers in the sources:
- To make sure there is no misunderstanding, when I say "both are true", I mean that the FBI did criticize the FBI's lax investigation, AND, in relation to the FISA applications, the "FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record." at that time. (Bold added) Both are true. I explain why the focus is more on Steele than on the allegations, which were later shown to have come from a very good source network that had been reliable before, and the FBI hired Danchenko, who turned out to be a remarkably well-connected asset, one of the best they ever had. See Steele_dossier#Value_as_FBI_source
- We can't include too much detail in an already bloated lead. That is dealt with in the body. The description of Steele's sources was an issue in the trial of Danchenko by Durham. The right-wing media and Trump supporters tried to make a big deal out of it, so be careful you don't do that here, as it wasn't a big deal at all.
- There were two things that happened that muddied up the reporting about individual sources: Steele and Danchenko tried to protect their sources, especially from Trump and Putin, as explained above, and the sources were scared and tried to backtrack and minimize what they had said, as noted by the report. (So the sources tried to lie their way out of it.)
- Even right-wing conservative columnist and attorney Andrew C. McCarthy reacted to what he described as the "if not irrational, then exaggerated" reactions by Trump supporters to these reports of arrests. He urged them to be cautious as Durham's indictments "narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself." (bold added) All charges against Danchenko for lying were dismissed and he was exonerated. The allegations ("information itself") themselves were not questioned, only the source descriptions. Durham's bogus investigation, a real cover-up operation for Trump, was a total failure, and is still a source of disinformation for those who don't understand the issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Number 2. I'm not sure I understand this second complaint and therefore question its merits. Maybe it's just me, so help me understand it: ("This quote contradicts rather than supports the current statement in the article. It suggests that the FBI used the dossier before corroborating it, rather than making limited or weak efforts to corroborate it.") What comes before that does not relate to May 2017. It is a fact that the FBI made efforts to corroborate the dossier's allegations, and my wording does not deny that. It also had to give up fairly quickly as it could not contact the original sources. (It also had a rather "devious" motive as it wanted to contact those sources and employ them as confidential human sources for the FBI to use.) It is also a fact that the FBI misused the dossier by using some of its words that were not as yet, and maybe never could be, corroborated to support the FISA warrants on Carter Page. (It is also a fact that some politicians and FBI personnel have asserted that the dossier was not essential to those applications, and that they were on the cusp (50/50) of doing it anyway, even without citing the dossier. While interesting, that is another matter and not relevant to this discussion.) So, I think this second complaint needs to be explained better. Boil it down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- "FBI had begun efforts to corroborate accusations within the dossier in the fall of 2016, an effort that progressed slowly through the winter and into the spring of 2017. When the SCO began work in May 2017, however, all those efforts ceased at FBI."
References
- ^ "Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities" (PDF). intelligence.senate.gov. Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC). August 18, 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
- Cite error: The named reference
Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - McCarthy, Andrew C. (December 11, 2021). "John Durham Probe: Michael Sussmann Case Collapsing?". National Review. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
...the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated...Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus,... His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false. (italics original)
"Steele was the first..."?
- 2. In the second paragraph of the article it is stated "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump." The source for this claim is an Op-ed written by Paul Wood in The Spectator's Coffee house section, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/was-the-pee-tape-a-lie-all-along-/. There doesn't appear to be any other source to back up this claim.
- The first report in the Steele Dossier was dated 20 June 2016.https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/02/steele-dossier-trump.pdf
- However, on June 14 2016, The New York Times and other media reported; "two groups of Russian hackers, working for competing government intelligence agencies, penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to emails, chats and a trove of opposition research against Donald J. Trump, according to the party and a cybersecurity firm." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html
- At this point it would have been apparent to some that this was part of an effort by Russia to assist Donald Trump, given the Kremlin's interest in him over Clinton. For example, see articles like "From Russia with love: why the Kremlin backs Trump" from Reuters, March 2016 - https://www.reuters.com/article/world/from-russia-with-love-why-the-kremlin-backs-trump-idUSKCN0WQ1LY/ BostonUniver (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are quite correct about 2 -- I think this was raised before on this talk page, Steele was not the first.
- In general, this whole article has issues with large swaths of OR from primary sources, and quoting opinions as facts in various places. Endwise (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Endwise:, I have started a new section to deal with your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes 2's been raised before on this talk page in 2017 and in 2021 but without effect. Re "In general, ...": in general attempts to fix are met with opposition and I'd not be optimistic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
BostonUniver, that's a good catch, but it's an apples vs oranges situation. A Russian preference is not the same as a "covert operation to elect" Trump. The Russians have always had "preferences", but have never cooperated with an entire presidential campaign that was willing to fully cooperate, both openly and covertly, with the Russians to get the Russian's preferred candidate elected. This was a new situation. Russian intelligence started preparations in early 2014 (or late 2013, see below) and expanded their efforts on all fronts, developing their election interference into the "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 elections. When Trump became the GOP's chosen candidate, they focused their efforts to help him. Their efforts have never stopped, their preference is unchanged, but they are adding more facets to their efforts. The 2024 Tenet Media investigation is just one facet. The Russians are pumping huge amounts of money into right and far-right media supportive of MAGA and Trump.
That NYTimes source says nothing about a Russian preference for Trump or any attempt to help him. If anything, it suggests that the Russians could exploit the DNC's opposition research on Trump, and that would not be good for him as a person, but it would enable them to better blackmail him as they support his candidacy. Be careful not to synthesize that source with your March 2016 source. That source expresses some Russian preference for Trump, but it says nothing about a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". That was Steele's contribution, and he was right. Here's the new version with proper attribution:
According to Paul Wood, "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's 'foundational initial assertion' and it was correct."
Trump had obviously discussed his presidential plans with Russians when he was in Moscow for the November 2013 Miss Universe pageant, so Russians knew, long before Americans, that Trump was going to run for president in 2016, and they promised to help him. He was even photographed by Yulya Alferova (Yulya Klyushina) and others while huddling with some of those who later worked in the election interference efforts to aid Trump's campaign. This was potentially known by the few Americans who watched Yulya Alferova's tweets and pictures she posted during the pageant in early November 2013 and during January 2014. Yulya Alferova's significant January 22, 2014, tweet is still available and quoted below.
Alferova worked for the Agalarovs and Crocus Group to help "organize Trump's Miss Universe contest". The Senate Intelligence Committee report implied that Aras Agalarov and his Crocus Group were part of a Russian intelligence effort to compromise and gain leverage over Trump.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report's "Footnote 2510" mentioned her tweets, one shortly after the Miss Universe pageant, showing she had foreknowledge, long before the American public, of Trump's planned presidential run. She promised Russian support for his candidacy:
On January 22, 2014, Klyushina wrote on social media that, 'I'm sure @realDonaldTrump will be great president! We'll support you from Russia! America needs an ambitious leader!'; On January 28, 2015, Klyushina announced on Twitter that Trump would be running for President of the United States. Tweet, @AlferovaYulyaE, January 28, 2015. The Committee has no insight into the nature of Klyushina's knowledge of these matters or what prompted these statements.
This Russian support was later manifested in the "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 elections, which included efforts by her then-husband, Artem Klyushin. The Senate Committee had "significant concerns regarding Klyushin" and devoted a whole section to him and his associates: "Artem Klyushin, Konstantin Rykov, and Associates". They were deeply involved in election interference efforts in Ukraine and later in the United States. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to revise the piece, but the new version still falls short in highlighting that Paul Wood’s op-ed in The Spectator is a rather unconventional interpretation of the Dossier. For example, a 2019 analysis by The Washington Post noted that "a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/ Given this, I’m uncertain why Wood’s opinion, published in a low-reliability outlet, is placed so prominently—appearing as early as the fourth sentence of the article. BostonUniver (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @BostonUniver: I like that you are taking the time to analyze this and also to speculate about it. That is allowed on talk pages. Speculation and SYNTH violations are allowed on this page. That's all part of how we try to figure out what really happened. Now do RS back up our speculations? In the end, it is what RS say that gets included, without any trace of the editorial discussions and speculations that occurred behind the scenes. So, press on. This is good. Let's analyze this.
- On May 18, 2016, the public are informed that BOTH presidential campaigns are targeted by hackers, but does not say if they were successful:
He did not indicate whether the attempted intrusions were successful or whether they were by foreign or domestic hackers. Nor did he specify whether the websites or campaign networks of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders or Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump were targeted.
We’re aware that campaigns and related organizations and individuals are targeted by actors with a variety of motivations — from philosophical differences to espionage — and capabilities — from defacements to intrusions,” said Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.- On June 14, 2016, the public learns that Russians have hacked the DNC (and "gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump") and also targeted the Clinton and Trump campaigns, RNC, and Republican figures (they never succeeded in hacking Clinton's private server):
"The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available."
- So the public learns that BOTH parties are being attacked. There is no clear hint that Trump is being favored or helped, and certainly nothing like Steele's description of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". This June 14 report leaves the impression that the Russians were successful in all their attacks, something we later learn was not entirely true. The public just thinks the Russians are attacking the elections and both presidential campaigns, something they had already been told on May 18, 2016.
- The Republicans were also hacked to some degree, but we later learned that information was not released in the same way as the DNC material. From Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Hacking of Republicans:
- On January 10, 2017, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia succeeded in "collecting some information from Republican-affiliated targets but did not leak it to the public". In earlier statements, an FBI official stated Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful, or had reportedly told the RNC chair that their servers were secure, but that email accounts of individual Republicans (including Colin Powell) were breached. (Over 200 emails from Colin Powell were posted on the website DC Leaks.) One state Republican Party (Illinois) may have had some of its email accounts hacked.
- So, returning to your quote: "But a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee." Yes, such a case could be made, but the public learned about attacks on the DNC and the RNC. Both campaigns were attacked, and the public knew about it. So "a case could also be made", but a very weak one, that the public thought that the attacks were part of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump". That part is Steele's interpretation, and he was right.
- (These timelines are very informative: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#June_2016 and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day).)
- So, do you still think that "case could also be made" is strong enough to be worth also mentioning Kessler's much later speculation from April 24, 2019? He's normally very good, but this time he seems to be "a bit off". I don't currently see it, but maybe you can persuade me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument to keep a op-ed from The Spectator on Steele being the first while dismissing the Washington Post analysis article as "a very weak " is interesting and original, and would be relevant as your original published research. Are you able to provide more high quality sources on the claim that Steele was "first to warn"? Perhaps as you insist on keeping this claim you should "persuade us", the readers of Misplaced Pages without resorting to your personal views? BostonUniver (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've re-read your response multiple times and what I can understand is that you are not defending the point was "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump", which is what the page currently says. Instead you are defending the notion that Steele was first to warn of his theory of collusion, which is not what the page says, nor what I'm disputing.
- See your analysis of the contemporary new sources of the DNC hack "There is no clear hint that Trump is being favored or helped, and certainly nothing like Steele's description of a "covert operation to elect Donald Trump"."
- It was not especially challenging to find the following from Vice's Motherboard from June 16, 2016: "But why would Russia want to hack the DNC? First of all, it would make sense just from an intelligence collection standpoint. That’s what spies do. But in this election cycle, there’s another reason: the Russian government would like to have Donald Trump as president.
- “Look, the coming elections is of high priority for Russia as many people close to the Kremlin believe that Trump could help to lift the sanctions and ease the tensions between Russia and the US,” Andrei Soldatov, an independent journalist who has written extensively about Russia’s surveillance powers, told Motherboard in an email.
- And hacking the DNC and embarrassing Hillary Clinton would help with that." https://www.vice.com/en/article/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack/ BostonUniver (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- ??? "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump" is what the lead used to say. Now it says "According to Paul Wood, "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump." That's not really a "collusion" twist because it says nothing about Trump's involvment or collusion, only the Russian's actions. But you're right that Steele was indeed proposing that there was active cooperation between his campaign and the Kremlin, and that's described as collusion. Whether there was a "conspiracy" to cooperate has not been proven, but the cooperation has been proven in spades.
- Your source demonstrates that some sources were speculating at Russia's motives. The end of the article says: "Let’s spell this out,” Rid said. “We have a foreign intelligence agency that is picking sides, that is doing a sophisticated hack and influence operation in support of the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the US general elections. That’s craziness, if that’s actually the case." They were speculating.
- Steele didn't guess or speculate. He said it to the FBI, with evidence besides just the hacking. Are you suggesting that he might have gotten the idea from stuff he read? That's certainly possible. I'm sure he read everything available. Yet his Russian sources were telling him stuff that confirmed those speculations, and he provided many unknown details to back them up. Those details were not what Vice or other sources were saying.
- To see if we can find a way forward here, please propose improved wording, with sources (including Wood's source), that would resolve this to your satisfaction. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The claim that "Steele was the first to warn that Russia was seeking to elect Trump" is misleading, as shown by the Motherboard source. While the current phrasing shifts this to Paul Wood's opinion that "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Trump," it's still not entirely accurate. I see the argument has now shifted to saying "Steele was the first to warn the FBI," which could be true—though it's possible other sources warned the FBI earlier, those weren't made public.
- The point is, any sources who gave such warnings didn't actively publicize their findings by sharing them with the media in the way Steele's dossier was eventually leaked. This distinction matters when considering the dossier's visibility and influence.
- My suggestion is to revise the passage to avoid overinflating the dossier's significance without clear justification. Cite a proper source that makes a verifiable, balanced point. Whether the dossier was "first" in any particular way isn't for me to decide, but the text should reflect a more cautious view.
- I’m also not opposed to Paul Wood being cited, but balance is needed. For example, why not include this perspective from a CIA analyst who helped write the initial 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference? He recently told *Rolling Stone* that the Steele Dossier was "garbage" and "a joke" . It would provide a fuller picture of how the dossier was viewed by intelligence professionals. BostonUniver (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Starting with the last... . We already include many very negative personal opinions, and many clearly false ones, about the unvetted allegations, and, unfortunately, those opinions are often used to judge the whole dossier, which is just plain careless and false. Even a judge ruled against Trump's nonsense denials. So we need to be careful to not overload the article with such opinions as people think that unproven equals false. None have been proven false. We already have many negative descriptions in the body, and a few examples in the lead. We also have an RfC that says not to say "unverified" allegations in the lead, at least not without clarification.
- Back to the analyst.... He was suddenly confronted with unvetted allegations and expected to include them in the ICA report, which would have been very wrong, and it didn't happen. His reaction was understandable at that time. I doubt he was used to seeing such raw intelligence. His reaction was similar to the reactions of those who describe the dossier as "discredited". That word has many meanings, but one aspect is false to apply to the dossier. It is not proven false. It is just disappointing to those who mistakenly think it's a collection of proven facts. It never was. It never pretended to be. The disappointment is then used as an accusation against the dossier, and that's unfair. It is the reader's fault. It is their false expectations that are "discredited".
- On January 4, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on Trump's repeated tweets describing the dossier as "fake" or "discredited":
None of the tweets inescapably lead to the inference that the President's statements about the Dossier are rooted in information he received from the law enforcement and intelligence communities. ... The President's statements may very well be based on media reports or his own personal knowledge, or could simply be viewed as political statements intended to counter media accounts about the Russia investigation, rather than assertions of pure fact.
- What we're dealing with here is not the general opinions of all stripes about the dossier, or even about the unproven allegations. We already deal with them. Here we are solely dealing with the allegations that turned out to be true, and only one of them. Let's stay on point here.
- Please attempt to formulate something that includes the various sources we mention above. Summarizing conflicting views can be difficult, but these are not really conflicting. They are more like variations on the same theme. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument to keep a op-ed from The Spectator on Steele being the first while dismissing the Washington Post analysis article as "a very weak " is interesting and original, and would be relevant as your original published research. Are you able to provide more high quality sources on the claim that Steele was "first to warn"? Perhaps as you insist on keeping this claim you should "persuade us", the readers of Misplaced Pages without resorting to your personal views? BostonUniver (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Edit conflict written while the 22:17, 26 September 2024 comment above was posted. I'll respond to it.
This is not "original published research" in the article. On this talk page, we all express our opinions. The Spectator is a RS that mostly publishes opinions, which are perfectly acceptable content when attributed and framed properly, and more importantly, the author is a renowned correspondent, journalist, and subject matter expert. We value such opinions, and his opinion is worth documenting. I don't know if there are others who make the same claim, but neither have I seen any RS contradict it. Above, I have looked at the sources we know of on the topic of early reporting, and they don't contradict Wood's assertion either. In fact, they can't be used to build a case against it as it's an apples vs oranges situation.
So, lacking anything else, we cite the opinion of an experienced expert on the topic. That's pretty much par for the course here. It's how we roll. We don't use our own opinions to undermine a source, unless we can use other RS to do it. If we had other RS that contradicted Wood, you'd have a strong case. I'd love to see other RS that can be used as evidence either way for this situation.
While the mention in the lead was added on 15:51, 8 August 2024, the attributed mention in the body has been there since 19:03, 24 April 2023, so about 17 months. I added attribution to the lead on 21:34, 21 September 2024 after your reasonable request.
This is worth mentioning in the lead as Steele's warning was just one of the notably true and "prescient" claims Steele made, and they show that Steele had some good sources, and, according to the FBI, Danchenko was also exceptionally well-connected. Steele, Danchenko, and Galkina all had sources in the Kremlin itself, and the CIA had a key one, mentioned below, whose reporting aligned with some of Steele's reporting. He was a mole who had to be extricated quickly, with his family, because of the danger posed by Trump. Trump would likely have told Putin about him, and he would have been killed. Several other key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient" because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and the Mueller Report. Simpson and Fritsch write that:
"a spy whose sources get it 70 percent right is considered to be one of the best,” and that, while reporters focussed on the most salacious details, they “tended to miss the central message,” about which they say Steele was largely correct. They note that, in his first report, in June, 2016, Steele warned that Russian election meddling was “endorsed by Putin” and “supported and directed” by him to “sow discord and disunity with the United States itself but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance”—six months before the U.S. intelligence community collectively embraced the same conclusion. Steele also was right, they argue, that “Putin wasn’t merely seeking to create a crisis of confidence in democratic elections. He was actively pulling strings to destroy Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump,” an assessment the U.S. intelligence community also came to accept. And they note that, as of September, 2019, U.S. officials confirmed that the C.I.A. had “a human source inside the Russian government during the campaign, who provided information that dovetailed with Steele’s reporting about Russia’s objective of electing Trump and Putin’s direct involvement in the operation."
BTW, Steele was not the first to "know" that there was a covert effort to support Trump. British intelligence (and seven allied foreign intelligence agencies) first knew (starting in 2015) and alerted the CIA chief, John Brennan:
"GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents,.."
“It looks like the agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’
“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”
According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.
In late August and September Brennan gave a series of classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. He told them the agency had evidence the Kremlin might be trying to help Trump to win the presidency, the New York Times reported. with some Russian officials arguing about how much to interfere in the election.
Read more here: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#2015–2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets
That information from GCHQ was part of the reason for opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but it wasn't enough on its own. It was the "intelligence from other partners" (Australian info about Papadopoulos) that provided the necessary legal probable cause to justify opening the investigation. Brennan's actions to protect America are part of the real reason that Trump removed Brennan's security clearance. He didn't want Brennan revealing anymore damning information about Trump's cooperation/collusion with Putin's attacks on America. Don't forget that Trump took top-secret Russia intelligence that is STILL missing since the end of his term. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article quotes Paul Wood, stating, 'Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's "foundational initial assertion" and it was correct.' This is problematic for several reasons. First, Wood’s piece is an opinion, not an objective analysis, and yet it’s cited in a way that implies authoritative weight in the opening paragraph. Worse, it's a quote within a quote, relying on vague language like 'foundational initial assertion,' which adds little clarity. Why should an indirect defense of Steele and his dossier, quoted second-hand, be given such prominence? The lack of critical rigor and objectivity here is disappointing and undermines the credibility of the article BostonUniver (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- That wording was first added here as a solution to a discussion here with you. Here is the current version of that part:
According to Paul Wood, "Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's 'foundational initial assertion' and it was correct."
- Attributed opinions, especially from a subject matter expert like Wood, who is so well connected with the intelligence community, are allowed in Misplaced Pages articles, but.... let's simply remove that from the lead. I think we can live without it there. Does that help? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- That wording was first added here as a solution to a discussion here with you. Here is the current version of that part:
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Wood_8/12/2020
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Wittes, Benjamin (August 21, 2020). "A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?". Lawfare. Retrieved October 17, 2023.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
SICv5_8/18/2020
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Nakashima, Ellen (May 18, 2016). "National intelligence director: Hackers have targeted 2016 presidential campaigns". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 26, 2024.
- Nakashima, Ellen (June 14, 2016). "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
- Schreck, Carl (January 10, 2017). "FBI Director: No Evidence Russia Successfully Hacked Trump Campaign". RFERL. Archived from the original on February 3, 2019. Retrieved February 2, 2019.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
NYT Aid Trump
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Rossoll, Nicki (December 11, 2016). "Reince Priebus: 'RNC Was Not Hacked'". ABC News. Retrieved December 12, 2016.
- cf. Tau, Byron (September 14, 2016). "Colin Powell Blasts Donald Trump, Criticizes Hillary Clinton in Leaked Messages". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on December 10, 2016. Retrieved December 11, 2016.
- Johnstone, Liz (December 11, 2016). "Priebus: "I Don't Know Whether It's True" Russia Is Responsible for Election Hacks". Meet the Press. NBC News. Archived from the original on March 6, 2017. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
- Pearson, Rick. "FBI told state GOP in June its emails had been hacked". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on December 11, 2016. Retrieved December 11, 2016.
- Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo (June 16, 2016). "'Guccifer 2.0' Is Likely a Russian Government Attempt to Cover Up Its Own Hack". VICE. Retrieved September 26, 2024.
- Gerstein, Josh (January 4, 2018). "Judge: Trump tweets don't require more disclosure on dossier". Politico. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
- Agence France-Presse (September 21, 2024). "Trump's Loose Lips Force US to Extract Spy From Kremlin". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved September 26, 2024.
- Mayer, Jane (November 25, 2019). "The Inside Story of Christopher Steele's Trump Dossier". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
- Cite error: The named reference
Harding_11/15/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Harding, Luke; Kirchgaessner, Stephanie; Hopkins, Nick (April 13, 2017). "British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia". The Guardian. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- Cite error: The named reference
Rosenberg_Goldman_Schmidt_3/1/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
First paragraph: need to clarify BuzzFeed's 'fair report privilege' defence was based on Steele Dossier being part of official proceedings
In the opening paragraph of the article, it’s noted that the Steele Dossier “was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, without Steele's permission. Their decision to publish the reports without verifying the allegations was criticised by journalists. However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action, stating that the public has a right to know so it can ‘exercise effective oversight of the government.’”
While this passage correctly mentions the judicial defence of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish the Dossier, it leaves out some key legal context. The ruling wasn’t just about the public’s right to know, but was grounded in the "fair report privilege." This legal principle protects media outlets when they report on official proceedings, even if the information is unverified or part of a non-public investigation. Without this context, the passage risks giving the impression that the court broadly defended BuzzFeed’s actions, when in fact the protection came from this specific legal shield.
The source cited (Variety) clarifies this right at the beginning: “A federal judge ruled in favour of BuzzFeed in a defamation lawsuit over its publication of the so-called ‘Steele dossier’ in January 2017, ruling that because the document was part of an official proceeding, the site was protected by fair reporting privilege.” https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/buzzfeed-steele-dossier-trump-1203093603/
To be accurate, the article should explain that the court’s ruling wasn’t a general defence of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish, but rather a legal protection based on the fair report privilege. This is a crucial distinction, as it shows that BuzzFeed was shielded because the Dossier was connected to an official proceeding, not because of a broad endorsement of the public interest. Full judgment: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000167-c8cb-d657-a37f-dcff49f10000 BostonUniver (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Too much detail for the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting everything I wrote should be inserted instead, if the sentence could be changed to something like "However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action on the basis that the dossier was part of an official proceeding, and therefore protected by fair reporting privilege" BostonUniver (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have now installed that version. Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting everything I wrote should be inserted instead, if the sentence could be changed to something like "However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action on the basis that the dossier was part of an official proceeding, and therefore protected by fair reporting privilege" BostonUniver (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Overly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing
You argue, “We can't include too much detail in an already bloated lead. That is dealt with in the body.” If we cannot present the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions without cherry-picking and distorting them, then we should not reference the Committee’s findings in the lead at all.
The current phrase in the lead, “the veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown,” is a wildly optimistic interpretation of the dossier's standing. The actual findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee paint a far more critical picture, especially concerning Steele’s sources. They did not merely criticize the FBI for failing to corroborate the dossier, as you suggest. The Committee’s core criticism lies in the fact that the FBI gave unjustified credence to Steele’s reporting, despite its clear lack of rigor and transparency. The report explicitly states:
- “The Committee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing.”
The second half of the first paragraph in the article is not logically consistent as a continuation of the previous sentences:
- “Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were ‘lacking in both thoroughness and rigor’,: 902 with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.”
This construction is misleading. It suggests that no one knows whether the Steele dossier's main claims are true or false. In reality, the dossier’s core claims have been widely debunked. As of 2024, outlets such as The New York Times, the BBC, NPR have referred to the dossier as "discredited." Your version insinuates that the primary reason these claims remain unverified is due to the FBI’s poor efforts at corroboration. This is a distortion of the facts. The FBI’s failure was not merely in corroboration but in lending credibility to a flawed and unsubstantiated document in the first place. Misrepresenting the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings in this manner does a disservice to the actual evidence laid out in the report. Why not reduce the bloat in the lead and remove any distortions by taking out the following: "Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation." BostonUniver (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- We don't want to be overly optimistic nor overly negative, considering the dossier is an unfinished draft document that was never intended to be seen by the public and was submitted to the FBI for vetting:
It was published without permission in 2017 as an unfinished 35-page compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable" memos that were considered by Steele "to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".
- My point is, don't make the mistake of sources that carelessly and baselessly throw around the word "discredited" as if that means "proven false", when they are unfairly blaming the dossier for their own failure to judge the dossier according to its actual unvetted, not disproven, draft status. Those careless sources are the ones at fault, but instead of admitting they have been careless, they unfairly blame the dossier for not being a fully finished and fully vetted product.
- People mistakenly get the impression that "discredited", which is a very vague word, means the allegations are proven false, but there is no evidence they have been proven false. None. A few RS have mistakenly used the word "false", but when one looks for evidence, they provide none. They should have written "unproven" or "uncorroborated", and many other sources have more accurately done that. It's better to cite the sources that do that, rather than those which have been careless. Here we look at all the sources and can choose the most accurate.
- The "further investigation" by many over the years has finally settled down. Early reports, including the Mueller report and Senate report, did not have the benefit of the current status. We now have a much better idea of their current "verification status", which alludes to these three general possibilities:
- Proven true: The dossier’s core claims have been resoundingly confirmed by the FBI, ODNI, and Mueller report, contrary to your claim above. (Maybe you consider some other claims as "core claims"?
- Unproven: Lots of them are still in limbo, neither proven nor disproven. Even the one about Cohen in Prague is in limbo, with Steele still believing it might be true, McClatchy, a very RS, refusing to retract the evidence the uncovered, and Cohen lying about it with a false alibi that was debunked, so that shows his consciousness of guilt. The pee tape allegation is also unproven and not disproven. Trump repeatedly lied about that, which Comey described as revealing his "consciousness of guilt". (Why do supposedly innocent people lie about these things? Hmmm.) So suspicions still linger. They are both "unproven" allegations.
- Proven false: No serious allegation has been proven false. None.
- The lead must touch on the topic of the verification status of the allegations as they are always an important focus of commentary on the dossier and an important part of the body of this article. The question is where it should be covered here. We currently do it in two places (which I will mention later and deal with).
- The subject matter experts at Lawfare give us a great status report. In a December 2018 Lawfare report titled "The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective", the authors described how, after two years, they "wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele's original reporting." To make their judgments, they analyzed a number of "trustworthy and official government sources" and found that:
"These materials buttress some of Steele's reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." (bold added)
- They concluded with:
The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.
However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far.- also this:
There is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive," but "none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven". (bold added)
- So none have been disproven, and many proven true, but most are still "unproven". "Unproven" says nothing about their credibility one way or the other and is a better and more neutral word to use than various forms of "credible". It is not overly optimistic or overly negative, but a good NPOV description.
- The four sentences you are complaining about are:
Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown. The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.
- Let's remove the part that explains one reason why their status is still "unknown" from the lead, making it simpler:
The Senate Intelligence Committee criticized the FBI's efforts to corroborate the allegations because they were "lacking in both thoroughness and rigor", with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.
- That was added, after discussion here, to resolve some issues. Maybe it's just created other issues by adding too much detail about something that we cover well in the body. I just removed it. That makes it much easier to get an overview of what's left. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- That leaves our coverage of the "veracity status" in the lead with these two, widely separated, statements, and they should be grouped together:
- From the first paragraph:
Some allegations have since been publicly confirmed. The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown.
- and this from the last paragraph:
... the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed, others are plausible but not specifically confirmed, and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.
- Because the one from the first paragraph is covered in the last one, let's just remove it!
- Conclusion: A whole lot was removed. The "veracity status" is only mentioned in the last paragraph. Some may think it should be in the first paragraph, but let's wait to discuss that. What seems to have happened is some creep gradually occurred, with too much gradually added to the lead that should have just been kept in the body. Then it got to a critical level where it was noticed, criticized, discussed, and now, hopefully, resolved with a better lead.
- Do those changes help to resolve some of your concerns? (Be careful to not get greedy now. ) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think removing those sentences was a good call. It reads much better now. Thanks BostonUniver (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, and a BIG thanks to YOU! No article here is ever "finished". They always need updating, and sometimes the due weight status changes after some history has passed by, and something should be downgraded from the lead to only the body. I think that's what happened here, but it took you to notice the problem. The rest of us are too close to the situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Some editors fought tooth an nail over keeping a long stretched and tattered collection of rumor threads alive. Not even the author of the dossier wanted the credibility assigned that was given to the dossier by wikipedia "Reliable Sources".
- So much of this situation was third hand reporting of rumors and so much made wikipedia citations that lasted for better part of a decade. 2601:248:C000:147A:C86:3EBF:C9FE:D503 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, and a BIG thanks to YOU! No article here is ever "finished". They always need updating, and sometimes the due weight status changes after some history has passed by, and something should be downgraded from the lead to only the body. I think that's what happened here, but it took you to notice the problem. The rest of us are too close to the situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think removing those sentences was a good call. It reads much better now. Thanks BostonUniver (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
References
- Cite error: The named reference
Bensinger_1/10/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Shane_Goldman_Rosenberg_4/19/2019
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Gross_Simpson_Fritsch_11/26/2019
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Kessler_10/29/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Grant_Rosenberg_12/14/2018_2
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
SICv5_8/18/2020
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Lee_12/26/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Farhi_11/12/2021
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
MSNBC_5/22/2018
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Hutzler_8//16/2018
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- B-Class Espionage articles
- Mid-importance Espionage articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class United States Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Mid-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles