Talk:Trump Tower wiretapping allegations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPECIFICO (talk | contribs) at 12:25, 1 July 2022 (→Please explain revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:25, 1 July 2022 by SPECIFICO (talk | contribs) (→Please explain revert)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unpacking this

Some notes/thoughts that aren't well enough formed to put in main space yet.

Everything seems to trace back to Louise Mensch's article, but that article differs from later claims in several respects:

It does not mention Obama, the White House, or the like, but only says the FBI obtained a warrant.
It talks about e-mail with banks, and doesn't mention "wiretaps" at all. Mensch pointed this out in a tweet.

It would be nice to figure out where these claims were added. A Guardian article cited by WaPo also has some useful information. The Washington Post fact checker article definitely seems to be one of the best sources. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Article name

I'm thinking that this article should be possessive, as in, "Donald Trump's wiretapping claim" or "Donald Trump's wiretapping accusations". Or maybe "Alleged Trump Tower wiretap", or some variation. If nobody has strong feelings about the current title then I'll probably be bold and move it. _Gravity 05:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A move seems like a sensible idea. How about Trump Tower wiretap allegations or Trump Tower wiretapping allegations? It hasn't earned a -gate suffix yet, but I've no doubt that'll happen eventually. This is Paul (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Another quick thought. Not sure it should be possessive, since not all the claims appear to come from Trump, the Fox News allegations about GCHQ for example (see here). This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't put a lot of thought into a name before putting this article up. Agree either "accusations" or "allegations" would be an improvement. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The heart of the claim or accusation is that Trump blames Obama. If I put on my "I'm just a reader" cap I think I would search for a Trump Tower title. It differentiates this from other White house/campaign/Russian/transition team/etc surveillance articles. Buster Seven Talk 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely support Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, as the claim has clearly gone beyond Trump. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 21:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections, or strong preferences, then I'll move the page to "Trump Tower wiretapping allegations" soon. _Gravity 00:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Article structure & origin

While this is as of today still an emerging issue, the current WP article does not represent this topic in the most accurate way. The core issue here is Trump's statements (initially on Twitter, backed up with interviews later) on alleged wiretapping at Trump Tower. There is still considerably ambiguity and lack of clarity on the reasons / sources behind these claims: whether they are based on some classified intelligence reports, or news articles in media outlets, etc. The Trump Tower wiretapping allegations are very specific, and different from "possible surveillance on Trump associates" - so articles like Heat Street or even the BBC report, currently cited in the lede, cannot be considered as the basis for these allegations. The article, especially the lede, needs significant changes. Aurorion (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The issue is Trumps claim that Obama bugged Trump Tower. Conflating that with all the other surveillance stories that are in the news just adds to the confusion in the lead and causes distraction. I do support the addition of the actual twitter page. It's the first use of that type of image i have seen and it goes a long way to bring clarity and direction. Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This habit of creating an article about every Trump tweet, stumble, or bad hair day is getting ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Other Tweets have not accused the former president of a felonious act. This one is just a wee bit different. Buster Seven Talk 07:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but he also accused him of being Kenyan. No doubt more is to come. Misplaced Pages is going to have an article about every random accusation. Sad.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A bit of Wiki-surveillance should keep the useless stuff to a minimum. This story just keeps rumbling on, so by now it's met the notability guidelines for events, but I agree other stuff he says and does may not. This is Paul (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Those outlets are in the lede because Trump specifically cited them. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, everything about the "origin," the articles that prompted Trump to make the accusation, is well documented in the "origin" section, and it doesn't belong in the lede. I removed that portion of the lede and moved the citation down to where it's re-cited. There are still a lot of aspects of this page that need consideration and editing for it to be balanced and informative. Right now it seems a little too much like a dump of news clippings. We need to decide how important each piece is, how best to structure it, and how to avoid being repetitive. J TerMaat (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Justice Department

I made several changes in the lede section and the text. I gave what I thought was a better wording of the lede, and I added the important information that Comey included the Justice Department, not just the FBI, as having no evidence to support the claim. User:Epicgenius immediately reverted my changes, while making other changes to the article, with the uninformative edit summary "clean up". Epic, could you explain why you reverted my changes? In particular, why you removed the inclusion of the Justice Department in Comey's denial? Or was this an accident due to overlapping of our two changes? --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Sorry, it was an accident. I've restored your changes, but not before my computer crashed. If I forgot to reinstate any of them, let me know. epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

LOL, not your morning, huh? No problem, I thought it might have been an accident.--MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed information

I added a disputed template because some of the claims made in the article are false, in particular, the opening paragraph:

Representative Devin Nunes, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, vowed to investigate the claim, later stating that the committee had found no evidence for Trump's statement. At a House Intelligence Committee open hearing on March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey stated that neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice possessed any information to support Donald Trump's wiretapping allegations.

The Hill's article from today directly contradicts what's written above:

"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.

Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports. He indicated that Trump's communications may have been swept up.

The chairman of the House intelligence committee said Wednesday that the communications of Trump transition officials — possibly including President Donald Trump himself — may have been "monitored" after the election as part of an "incidental collection."

Bolded statement is key here. Nunes no longer denys wiretapping claims.

Nunes said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He said that he believes the information was legally collected.

The article fails to adequately explain (at all) that the FBI were monitoring "Russian crime organization working out of a unit three floors below President Trump’s penthouse".

This is important because it's clear that the FBI was monitoring Trump tower. Which explained Nunes change of claims that they may have accidentally wiretapped Trump as well.

Note that

Listening in on the Russians’ happenings resulted in more than 30 people being indicted in April 2013, with federal agents raiding the Trump Tower apartment. But the mastermind, Alimzhan Tokhtakhunov, got away and has since fled the United States justice system.

Takeaway:

Trump Tower was wiretapped
Communications of Trump transition officials was collected
President Donald Trump's communication may have been "monitored" as part of "incidental collection"
FBI was already wiretapping Trump Tower for nothing to do with Trump relating to Russia Gambling Ring that was headquartered a few floors below

4) Refs

--CyberXRef 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding takeaway number 4 (which seems to be redundant with takeaway number 1), it should be noted that the wiretap was from 2011 to 2013 if it's included in the article, not "just before the victory" as Trump claimed. Also according to the Star Tribune article you reference, "Nunes said the new information did not change his assessment that the wiretapping allegations were false." So how is this disputed? _Gravity 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is a bit clearer http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366 Nunes' statements directly contradicts comey and the Misplaced Pages statements claiming no wiretapping took place. Wiretapping took place and this article needs to be very clear about it - even if through "incidental collection". To what extent is a different subject. --CyberXRef 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@CyberXRef: Please read carefully: The White House and Trump’s allies immediately seized on the statement as vindication of the president’s much-maligned claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phones — even though Nunes himself said that’s not what his new information shows. _Gravity 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

tl;dr version: Incidental collection could have very well been done by the federal government. But there's no evidence for the claim that Obama tapped Trump's devices.I don't see a contradiction here. epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with epicgenius. Trump's allegations, which are the subject of this article, have several core aspects:

(a) Obama was responsible: President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election; Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory
(b) The alleged action was telephone tapping / wiretapping: President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election
(c) Trump's phones in Trump Tower were tapped: President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election; Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory
(d) That the alleged wiretapping took place in October, during or just prior to the election: President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election; How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process

This is a literal reading of the allegations - but considering that these effectively contitute a series of written statements by the President, the highest political office of the US, and that they are about his predecessor, that is important. Considering these aspects, in my opinion current version of the lede quite accurately summarizes this subject. More details about various statements made by officials such as Devin Nunes can be included in the sections, such as reactions from politicians. Aurorion (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we remove the {{disputed}} tag, then? I'm not sure that the statement is contradictory or factually incorrect. epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Susan Rice involvement

Numerous sources revealed yesterday and today that Susan Rice was the one who ordered information from Obama's wiretapping of Trump to be distributed throughout the federal government: Fox, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg. 96.255.240.103 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where those sources back up IP's claims, but what I see is that Rice requested unmasking at least one of Trump's transition team. This seems to be in line with Nunes' previous statements about incidental surveillance. _Gravity 01:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This, and the Farkas MSNBC interview from early March, appear to confirm that the Obama administration was collecting intelligence, via electronic surveillance, on Trump since at least 2015. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Rice's unmasking of names of transition officials who were talking to foreign nationals under surveillance involved information collected after the election; the initial allegations were about direct surveillance before ("just before the victory"). grendel|khan 16:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article which first reported the unmasking also stated flat out that Rice unmasking members of the Trump transition does not prove Trump's accusation. Requesting US persons to be unmasked is was within her authority and is not the same thing as the President ordering surveillance. Trump also alleged it was wiretapping of Trump Towers specifically. I'm fine mentioning Rice in the article because she had been brought into the story but with reliable sources explaining the context. Knope7 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article should be updated to at the very least mention Susan Rice (it currently doesn't).FinalForm (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs in the Susan Rice article that I think could fit in this article (possibly as a sub-section of the "Extension of claim" section). I think they just need to be edited to focus more on how this relates to the wiretapping claims. _Gravity 05:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Can the information about Carter Page be added?

It seems to me there is a common sense connection here. The FBI performed surveillance of Carter Page a member of the President's transition team, which matches with at least part of the modified claims by the administration. Thoughts? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Carter Page wasn't a member of Trump's transition team, he was a campaign foreign policy adviser who left last September. If there are reliable sources which connect this warrant too Trump's allegations then it can be included. _Gravity 14:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Claim of British involvement

Should these articles discussing GCHQ's role in spying on the Trump campaign be included in this section? The Guardian: British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia CNN: British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts--Terrorist96 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include David Bromwich's allegations from the London Review of Books?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing RFC as per WP:SNOW; the only editor to propose including the statement has withdrawn the request.--Aervanath (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Should this article include the following attributed claims made by David Bromwich in the London Review of Books?:

David Bromwich, writing in the London Review of Books, commented: "Obama, of course, didn't order a wiretap of Trump by name, but the Trump campaign, including Trump Tower facilities, was under NSA surveillance; that would have included Trump, and it would have included phones: Obama could know this by deduction even if he wasn't directly informed." Bromwich noted that neither Obama nor Trump, as President, had disavowed the PRISM or XKeyscore surveillance programs—under which "everyone is surveyed." (Source: Bromwich, David (2017-07-13). "The Age of Detesting Trump". London Review of Books. 39 (14): 9–12.)

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

'Include' as a notable, attributed, well-sourced allegation, along with any rebuttals that may come along. This seems to fall clearly within the scope of an article titled "Trump Tower wiretapping allegations." TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Exclude Most definitely not a reliable source; if you read carefully, you'll see this is an opinion source, and a misinformed one at that. The author has no expertise in national security nor anything else related to the subject matter and clearly misunderstands what has been made public about the NSA's mass surveillance activities. I mean, just for starters, Trump said Obama tapped his phones, but neither Prism nor XKeyScore were about phones. "Everyone is surveyed?" Well, sort of at one time, but that doesn't mean that the contents of Americans' domestic phone calls were being wiretapped, even before the bulk metadata program was changed in 2015. And does he mean surveilled? Clearly Bromwich's editor was asleep at the wheel here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Exclude - agree with DrFleischman's well-made points. Opinion source from commentator with no expertise in subject. Neutrality 14:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Exclude Per above. The paragraph is confused or misleading, and lacking reliable, secondary sources explaining why Bromwich's flawed opinion matters, it's not clear why this is encyclopedically relevant. Not every source improves the article, and not every published opinion is significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Exclude per everyone above. This is not "reliable source" information. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Exclude. I am not seeing any evidence that the opinion of Bromwich is anything but that; an opinion, expressed in an article with no research and no oversight. Vanamonde (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Exclude per everyone above. Not a RS by any means, and opinion pieces should not be presented as fact. Dschslava parlez moi 04:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I was surprised to see Bromwich's allegations in a periodical as prestigious as the London Review of Books, and initially could not see any reason why they should not be included along with similar assertions by Mensch, Napolitano, and (of course) Trump himself. However, on reflection, it seems clear that Bromwich's specific claims lack independent notability as demonstrated by secondary coverage (something that certainly cannot be said for the other analyses mentioned); his article would therefore constitute a WP:PRIMARY source for said claims, and quoting it in isolation would tend to give WP:UNDUE weight to the notion that these claims are true, when in fact their veracity has not been established (even given what is publicly known about NSA/GCHQ "incidental" surveillance of the Trump campaign). Finally, like DrFleischman, I suspect that Bromwich has bungled some of the relevant facts, although my own speculation is of course immaterial. Barring the release of new information, and considering the overwhelmingly one-sided response above, I would be content with a WP:SNOW close for this RfC—if anyone reading this knows how to do that. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manafort wiretapping

News just broke that campaign chairman Paul Manafort was being wiretapped "before and after the election." Is this relevant to Trump's wiretapping allegations? Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 00:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Laurel Wreath of Victors: I think it is WP:SYNTH to put it in the article unless a reliable source has made the link. Until then it should stay out of the article in my view. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Uh, have you read the source? "For that reason, speculation has run rampant about whether Manafort or others associated with Trump were under surveillance. The President himself fueled the speculation when in March he used his Twitter account to accuse former President Barack Obama of having his 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower. The Justice Department and the FBI have denied that Trump's own 'wires' were tapped. While Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, it's unclear whether FBI surveillance of him took place there."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't read the source, but I just know that with Trump people are quicker to jump to unsubstantiated or misinterpreted conclusions than when discussing other people. And in the bit you highlighted it says While Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, it's unclear whether FBI surveillance of him took place there.". This could be worth including if we change the scope of this article to wiretapping allegations in Trump Tower to something broader. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

References

CNN, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown,. "US government wiretapped Trump campaign chair". CNN. Retrieved 2017-09-19. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Actually it's already in the article, along with the Carter Page wiretapping, in a small section at the end called "Related reports". The two reports are short, factual, relevant, and neutral, and I see no problem with keeping them there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New DOJ FOIA response: Cannot confirm or deny that Trump Tower was wiretapped

Hours before CNN's bombshell report on Manafort broke, the DOJ responded to a new FOIA request and argued in court that it should not be forced to confirm or deny any FBI wiretaps on Trump Tower. Amazingly, this has received near zero media attention, in marked contrast to the massive publicity the DOJ's earlier (and apparently false) September 2 court filing received. If and when RS choose to report this story, Misplaced Pages will have to follow suit: Mentioning only the September 2 filing leaves a misleading impression.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This is already mostly mentioned in the article. It says the FBI "cannot confirm or deny" claims of surveillance beyond Trump's tweets. USA Today has covered (what I assume are) the recent filings. _Gravity 15:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That the DOJ changed its response hours before the Manafort story broke strongly suggests what CNN was unable to confirm: That Manafort's residence in Trump Tower was tapped. Next question: Were other lines in Trump Tower tapped as well, or was Manafort's the extent of it?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says the DOJ changed its response? It could be that they're just responding to two similar but different FOIA requests. For example, the earlier FOIA request specifically mentions Trump's tweets, while the more recent one is just about "Trump Tower Wiretap". _Gravity 23:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

I'm infuriated by this edit by SPECIFICO, which reverted the entire article back to an earlier version and eliminated a good deal of careful copyediting. Combined with this edit, SPECIFICO also removed everything related to the Obama camp's non-denial denials:

Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau cautioned: "I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the White House ordered it." Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review considered Lewis's statement "disingenuous," because "under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that 'orders' surveillance." When asked by ABC News's Martha Raddatz "can you deny that the Obama Justice Department did not seek and obtain a FISA court-ordered wiretap of the Trump campaign?," the Obama administration's former press secretary, Josh Earnest, responded: "I don't know ... The president was not giving marching orders to the FBI about how to conduct their investigations."Sources: "'This Week' Transcript 3-5-17: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Josh Earnest, and Sen. Al Franken". ABC News. March 5, 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2017.; McCarthy, Andrew C. (March 5, 2017). "The Obama Camp's Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump". National Review. Retrieved September 24, 2017.; Dukakis, Ali (March 5, 2017). "Former Obama spokesman: Trump 'working very hard' to distract from 'growing scandal'". ABC News. Retrieved September 24, 2017.

(SPECIFICO also, perhaps inadvertently, removed the most important part of Lewis's official statement: "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.")

This content is impeccably sourced, and there are many other RS that made the same point about Lewis's non-denial. It also seems more notable in light of recent developments. I can see no reason to keep it out, and SPECIFICO did not even bother to give a reason, but Discretionary Sanctions mean that it cannot be restored without consensus. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO also restored "unmasking" to the lead, even though Nunes's claims are almost completely unrelated to the article topic and covered in only one paragraph in the body. Is that appropriate?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging all of the active editors in the last 50 edits to try to get a quick local consensus: SPECIFICO, MelanieN, Emir of Misplaced Pages, FallingGravity, Terrorist96, Marteau, El cid, el campeador.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with putting less weight on Nunes's claims. I also don't see a problem with adding more stuff about Obama or his associates' responses, since they're at the center of the allegations and have a right to respond. Maybe they could go in a new section of the "Reactions" section, aside from the random politicians who weighed in on the matter. _Gravity 20:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get a ping notification for some reason (maybe because you edited it to fix it). But the edits by SPECIFICO were quite disruptive and WP:BABY.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Any innocuous copyedits can be reinserted easily enough. The two substantive changes I made are important and appropriate. Incidentally, you violated 1RR with your second round of edits, so except for what I presume was an oversight, they would not have occurred anyway. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So, what is your problem with the full statement from Lewis and the deleted paragraph above? It's fine to say "I challenge this material under DS," but it would be better if you had a reason. (BTW, I do insist that you could have deleted that paragraph manually without restoring an earlier version of the article.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Lewis no good. I erroneously did not restore the Josh Earnest quote. That should have been evident from my edit summary, so I'm sorry my error caused you so much anger. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you restored the Earnest bit, but I still don't see what was wrong with the rest of the text you deleted; "Lewis no good" isn't much to go on. The article already states: "Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis refuted the claim in a statement later that day saying: 'A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.'" What's wrong with including the rest of Lewis's statement, from the source? ("As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the rest of Lewis's statement ("never ordered surveillance") should be restored. That statement is forthright and addresses only what the White House could be expected to know. I think we should leave out Favreau and McCarthy; they seem to be implying that there is something wrong or "disingenuous" about the Obama administration only addressing what they actually know about. We can keep the reporter demanding that Obama's spokesman deny there was a FISA warrant, even though that was an unanswerable question. Obviously the White House cannot confirm or deny (because they would not know) what the FBI or the FISA court might have done; "I don't know" is not an evasion, it's the only possible answer. BTW I have paraphrased the reporter's question, which she posed with a double negative that made it incomprehensible. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, it's far from axiomatic that the Obama administration had absolutely no idea what its own DOJ/FBI were doing. DOJ/FBI are, after all, still part of the Executive Branch (for better or worse); presidents have directed DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute individuals and classes of individuals throughout American history, and personally ordered wiretapping prior to 1978. (Remember LBJ ordering wiretaps of the Nixon campaign due to its collusion with South Vietnam prior to the 1968 election?) There have certainly been strong institutional barriers put in place over the past several decades to minimize political interference with DOJ, but it's hardly impossible to imagine that President Obama at least knew of any FISA warrants to investigate the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia. At a minimum, that is the argument of McCarthy, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York: "Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about ... it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX - not for this talk page, and it's pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel to cite this partisan speculation. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear for all the pingee's -- My mistake: I apparently made my edit from an old version, causing some problems and losing part of what I intended to restore to the article. I removed the Favreau bit, which, as I said, was used SYNTHY-style and I restored the Josh Earnest statement from his interview on ABC TV - I think Earnest gave a succinct statement of all that's appropriate here. I also restored the brief substantive comment from Nunes that had been removed from the lede. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

NSA Records all telephone traffic crossing border. Why isn't that addressed?

My understanding is that the NSA (National Security Agency) records all cross-border telephone traffic, and has for years. It also did this for domestic calls, until and through the time that NSA head James Clapper lied about this practice at a Congressional hearing in 2013, yet was never prosecuted for such a lie. That domestic recording eventually ceased, by law. I also understand that this recorded traffic is mostly merely recorded and not transcribed or listened to, mostly due to its huge volume. However, if later the government develops a need to listen to examples of this traffic, they can get a FISA warrant to do so. If this is true, it presumably means that much telephone traffic for Donald Trump and his staff (and perhaps anyone they talk to by telephone, if the call is routed over a national border) remains available in the government. Donald Trump, and his staff, might not have realized that these practices were and still are going on, at least for international traffic. If somebody in Government obtained a FISA warrant to access Trump's, or his staff's, phone calls, and somehow news of that access were leaked, they might conclude that they were wiretapped. This article should not take a stilted, limited definition of "wiretapped". No "wires" need actually be tapped, and in fact that process hasn't been necessary for decades. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:6C24:308D:26CE:6918 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any source for this? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you even know how media cores of providers work? It is all voice over internet now. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/Room_641A 2A00:1370:812C:1791:9487:26F:610E:A55E (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Huge SYNTH violation?

Is the inclusion of this whole section a huge SYNTH violation?

Surveillance of Trump associates

We need to stay on the topic of the original allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain revert

Hey @TheTimesAreAChanging: please explain. Nweil (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As Muboshgu and I already stated, it is inappropriate for you to add off-topic material to this article just because it contains a reference to "Trump Tower," but has no discernible relation to Trump's thoroughly debunked and nonsensical allegation "that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory." Unless very solid reliable sources make the connection, this content is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH as well as needlessly confusing for readers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I can tell by your response that you have an axe to grind here per WP:TENDENTIOUS, @TheTimesAreAChanging:, but let me give this a shot. This article describes the origin of this topic as "suspected activity between the server and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank". The New York Times source I attached to my edit is perfectly in line: "suspicions about possible covert communications between Russia’s Alfa Bank and Mr. Trump’s company". So to satisfy your concerns, I'll phrase my edit as a continuation of earlier items in the article. Nweil (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nweil: FYI, TTAC has an extensive familiarity with the sources and the range of narratives relating to national security issues, so the personal accusation is quite unwarranted, excuse the pun. NWeil, I am having a hard time understanding what you are hoping to contribute with your edits. They seem to be unbalancing the narrative by introducing somewhat random snippets, extended UNDUE quotations, etc. What are you trying to accomplish with your edits here? What's the overview? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Once again, explain reverts

@SPECIFICO: This definitely does not feel in the spirit of WP:ROWN and that further editing on your part would be a much better option. However, willing to discuss any issues you or anyone else has with my edits here. Please help me understand what the issue is, in detail, so I can address. Nweil (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't make personal remarks on the article talk page. I have rarely edited this page, if ever. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my edits on this article this morning. Nweil (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that SPECIFICO may have confused the WP:ROWN link above with the more widely-cited WP:OWN. The latter, a policy, is clearly inapplicable to these circumstances. The former, an essay, does not persuade me that SPECIFICO's rollback to the last stable version of this article is anything other than fully justified.

Given that your edits have now been reverted by three separate users, Nweil, perhaps you should reconsider your approach, rather than suggesting that everyone else is at fault. Your original edit was a straightforward violation of WP:SYNTH and was reverted accordingly. In your subsequent revisions, you have selectively used a Washington Post debunking of a right-wing conspiracy theory related to the trial of Michael Sussmann, who was unanimously acquitted, to make the connection that your original edit left to innuendo. Nevertheless, you have failed to establish WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, let alone at the detail/length of your proposed revision, which places considerably more emphasis on the conspiracy theory than the debunking. Moreover, your edits dramatically muddied the waters with unencyclopedic (e.g., "hese explosive revelations") and WP:WEASEL language: e.g., ~~"the claims were labeled conspiracy theories by CNN and The Los Angeles Times" (unnecessary attribution, as no reliable sources dispute the label)~~; "nonymous sources claimed to CNN" (completely unnecessary in context, and the unnamed sources are known to CNN); "there has been discussion of how literal to take the wiretapping allegations" (unnecessary, overly broad editorial statement in wikivoice); and my personal favorite "The Washington Post blogger Glenn Kessler claimed that an anonymous White House spokesperson told him" (demoting The Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning fact checker Glenn Kessler to a mere "blogger" and introducing unsourced doubt that a Trump administration spokesman "provided a list of five articles" to Kessler, which is far from an extraordinary claim). Additionally, as SPECIFICO noted in her edit summary, Maddow covering a New York Times article that was misrepresented two months later to provide threadbare "support" for Trump's tweets is not itself relevant to the "Origin" section of this article, especially without a secondary source. In sum, Nweil (and speaking from experience), if I were you then I would carefully review WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROFRINGE before continuing down this path in the American Politics topic area, which is subject to discretionary sanctions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific recommendations. I will take those to heart and re-submit my edits accordingly. Nweil (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like one area where we disagree, Specifico is that you want zero focus on the tweets themselves and how they impacted people, relationships, and the public discourse. You want all the focus on the content of the tweets, as if they were a white house press release. They were not, they are part of Trump's viral moments. And that's why this event was included in the list of Social media use by Donald Trump and in fact one of the only items in the list to have it's own separate page. Nweil (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Regarding the sentence which reads: The claims were labeled conspiracy theories by CNN and The Los Angeles Times.. Its unclear what claims or theory this sentence refers to. And the CNN source used to support it is calling the wiretap tweets as the conspiracy theory. This seems to be referring to something else? What is it? Nweil (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Andrew McCarthy article, its commentary, not any sort original research. In fact, he mostly seems to be trying to give some technical response to David French's post which was basically a round up of the BBC and Guardian articles and expressing dismay. McCarthy was trying to caution circumspection based on his legal background. The way that it is currently included in the article is misleading. Nweil (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are trying to achieve with your edits. If you wish to pursue them, please give a succinct and specific summary as to why you think they are improvements and accurate reflections of the best RS narratives available. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My edits are integrating RS that have been released approximately 2018 through the present. The vast majority of this article and sources were published in the weeks directly after the event. It has not evolved with better RS with hindsight. You seem married to the WP:BNS heavy version of this article. Nweil (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Quote box

The quote in the quote box that says "If the telephone rang in GCHQ from the White House, that in itself would be unheard of. The director would then ring his US counterpart, the director of the NSA—there's a hotline on his desk—to ask if it was a hoax..." is not found at the link. Here is an archived version of it: https://archive.ph/31Fk4 Nweil (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You're linking to a different article, on a different date, with a different title. The quote is in the cited article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed revert of long-standing version

TheTimesAreAChanging decided to reject an April 27 version of mine with this edit summary:

"I disagree with these drafting changes by User:Valjean, as they are not directly supported by the PolitiFact citation and serve to distance Trump from the conspiracy theories that he himself amplified and sometimes originated. In any case, exactly what prompted these bizarre tweets cannot be stated with certainty."

It seems to ignore my original edit summary which showed I was not depending on the PolitiFact reference:

"Context is needed: conspiracy theories and source of his information established by sources above; better flow by removing duplicate name and honorific; "claims" is justified here"

I'd like to hear more explanation about why this change was necessary. PolitiFact does in fact state that multiple RS pointed to Breitbart as the original "inspiration" for Trump's remarks: "Before we get into those, it’s worth noting that many news outlets have suggested Trump’s remark was inspired by a March 3 post on Breitbart News."

My version stated: "He did not reveal he had received his information from Breitbart News."

The new version states: "He did not say where he had obtained the information."

The new version is true, but leaves out the fact that RS have told us that Trump received his information from Breitbart's March 3 article and tweeted about that info on March 4. That information is good and should be kept. The "Origins" section contains detailed explanations and sourcing to show that Trump got it from Breitbart:

"The Breitbart article was subsequently circulated among White House staffers, and was reportedly given to Trump on the following day, together with his morning newspapers and printouts.

Why leave out that information? My version in the "Initial claim" section carried on the flow of the story from the previous section. The new version breaks that flow. It doesn't seem like an improvement to me and is actually less informative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Breitbart connection is contradicted by other RS. It should not be stated as a fact. Nweil (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You used, and then deleted, this ref:

They're both business insider, I copied the wrong one. Nweil (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the other sources refer to Trump's later claims, and he is rarely a RS. The timing works for Breitbart but not for the other sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Fire and Fury is not sourced to Trump. Nweil (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

At best we could use them to say that Trump later claimed he got his views from mainstream sources and did not mention Breitbart as his source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a page number and quote from Wolff? I have the book. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

pp. 157-160 discuss it and end with mentioning Breitbart. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

excerpt from book: "a sudden effort to find something that might be (true), and a frantic White House dished up a Breitbart article." So Breitbart wasnt the origin as our wikipedia article claims it was the coverup Nweil (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically, Valjean, the content that you modified was just as long-standing as your revision; if I had been aware of your edit, I would have challenged it sooner. Regardless, the article makes clear that there were two main sources that motivated Trump's tweets, namely the Breitbart article and a misinterpreted exchange on Fox News between Bret Baier and Paul Ryan which aired the evening prior to the tweets. Importantly, the Breitbart article was itself derivative of claims previously made by right-wing talk radio host Mark Levin. While I will not link to Breitbart directly as it is a deprecated source, even the Breitbart article did not make claims as outlandish as those in Trump's tweets. Therefore, while there is a section specifically devoted to examining the murky "Origin" of this conspiracy theory/urban legend, the "Accusation" section reads better by simply focusing on that topic—Trump's accusation against President Obama, and the many shocked reactions to it, as no previous president had ever made comparable claims in such a cavalier manner—as in the older long-standing version: "In a succession of tweets on March 4, 2017, Trump stated he had 'just found out' that former president Barack Obama had wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower during the last month of the 2016 election. He did not say where he had obtained the information and offered no evidence to support it." Your version—"Trump responded to the conspiracy theories in a succession of tweets on March 4, 2017 ..."—has the unfortunate implication that Trump passively "responded" to an already widely-circulating conspiracy theory, when in fact he amplified and exaggerated a few (often contradictory) fringe claims which until then had gone almost unnoticed in mainstream discourse.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the good explanation. Since we have RS for both aspects, it sounds to me like we should mention both Breitbart and Baier.

I also think you make a good point about the "unfortunate implication that Trump passively "responded" to an already widely-circulating conspiracy theory". Thanks again. It's been a pleasure doing business with you!

-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding one more RS to this with a third take. Washington Post Factchecking staff released a book in 2020 which says "This tale stems from a January 2017 New York Times report that investigators were examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of the probe into possible links between Russian officials and Trump associates. The headline was dramatic: 'Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.' Then, on March 4, Trump tweeting his own allegation." Wouldn't a book released 3 years after the fact, after everything has settled, actually be the best source here per WP:RSBREAKING? Nweil (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

EC: I don't necessarily think so. If that is the entire synopsis, then it is rather abbreviated and certainly less thorough than many of the sources already cited in the article. Again, Ryan's "non-denial" on Fox was the night before, and the Breitbart article was reportedly included in Trump's morning papers. Even if Trump read about "Wiretapped Data" in The New York Times two months earlier, the timing suggests that something else must have triggered his tweetstorm. If anything, The New York Times article seems more likely to have been one of the sources that was seized on by administration officials during the subsequent scramble to find something, anything, that would provide Trump's accusations with a veneer of credibility, and indeed it was one of the five reports provided to Kessler by a White House spokesman. (As Kessler observed: "We recall that the president has previously deemed Times reporting on this matter as 'fake news.'")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging you say the timing with Breitbart/Fox makes perfect sense but that makes no sense. The NYT article was the one mentioned on Fox, not Breitbart. So the way it stands now, the Fox interview is not integrated into the lede at all. Furthermore, and maybe this is venting, but I'm sure you all can see that Ms. Mensch was attempting to gain notoriety for her nascent publication, which clearly was not doing well as it shuttered shortly after. She had an incentive to say it was from her, not the New York Times and she wasted no time spiking the football on that one. It very much feels like she played quite a few people inside and outside the government and I'm quite bothered that she seems to be playing quite a few Misplaced Pages editors as well. Finally, Trump was at Mar-a-Lago with his kids and went to an event the evening before, not at the White House. And the tweets occured way before anyone was up. So this image of white house staffers placing the breitbart article on the resolute desk and then trump tweeting about it is extremely misleading, but again, thats how the article reads. Nweil (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anything about Trump's schedule, but the aforementioned White House spokesman cited Mensch's Heat Street as a primary source for the wiretap allegation, handing her plenty of notoriety independently of her own efforts. It is a fair point that "the Fox interview is not integrated into the lede at all," but the reason for that is because we only have one source on the topic, which acknowledges that the interview went "little-noticed." I would not be against adding a brief mention of the Ryan-Baier exchange to the lede, but we should avoid placing excessive WP:WEIGHT on this factor, as neither the preponderance of the sources nor our article body assigns it the same prominence as Heat Street/Breitbart. Furthermore, your assertion that "The NYT article was the one mentioned on Fox, not Breitbart" is inconsistent with the excerpt provided in our source:

"'There's a report that June 2016, there's a FISA request by the Obama administration, foreign intelligence surveillance court, to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several other campaign officials,' Baier said. 'Then they get turned down, and then in October they renew it and they do start a wiretap at Trump Tower with some computer and Russian banks and it doesn't show up anything, by reporting. Have you heard that?' Ryan, speaking from Janesville, Wisconsin, answered that he had no proof any Trump officials had colluded with Russia."

Those details seem clearly to come from Heat Street/Breitbart; by contrast, The New York Times referred to "Intercepted Russian Communications."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging What you wrote above is wrong. We have three sources saying he got it from the Baier interview (US News, Business Insider, and Fire and Fury). And only two which say its from a Breitbart article on his desk (CNN and AP). The WaPo article only says that the article circulated internally (which actually matches Fire and Fury), not that the tweets are based on it. Nweil (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

All of this seems like a craziness to differentiate between which false story it was. The Heat Street article was false. The BBC article was false. The Guardian article was false. The McClatchy article was false. All of the articles saying that Manafort has a FISA were proven false. Why are we comparing and contrasting all the different ways they were false. Nweil (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

?? Nweil, Manafort was indeed surveiled under TWO FISA warrants. A good analytical source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, your derivative 2017 source has been directly contradicted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, whose team concluded in 2019 that "we are aware of no information indicating that the Crossfire Hurricane team requested or seriously considered FISA surveillance of Manafort or Flynn." Additionally, while CNN declined to retract their original report (and was criticized for not doing so), it did add the following "Editor's Note": "On December 9, 2019, the Justice Department Inspector General released a report regarding the opening of the investigation on Russian election interference and Donald Trump's campaign. In the report, the IG contradicts what CNN was told in 2017, noting that the FBI team overseeing the investigation did not seek FISA surveillance of Paul Manafort: 'We were also told that the team also did not seek FISA surveillance of Manafort ... and we are aware of no information indicating that the Crossfire Hurricane team requested or seriously considered FISA surveillance of Manafort.'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that there is no more recent FISA on Manafort seems cut and dried. I can't even find a source for the 2014 supposed earlier FISA on Manafort. Nweil (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ugh! You're right. I wasn't thinking clearly.(I'm severely jetlagged.) I confused the surveillance of Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Papadopoulos for FISA warrants. Page got the FISA warrants. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, Kessler made a point of distinguishing Heat Street from the other sources, and the relevant paragraph is based on his analysis. Manafort is a separate issue: There was only one credible report alleging a wiretap on Manafort (long after Trump's initial tweets), from CNN (and which CNN never retracted despite it being directly contradicted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz two years later), plus a few derivative mentions explicitly citing CNN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference HtStreetcopypasta was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
"Media the enemy? Trump sure is an insatiable consumer". AP News. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
"Trump's Twitter frenzy on wiretapping came after an aide placed an explosive Breitbart story in his reading pile". Business Insider. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
Levy, Gabrielle. "Trump Says NYT, Fox News Sources for Wiretapping Claims". U.S. News & World Report. US News. Retrieved March 17, 2017.
"Trump suggests little-noticed interview between Fox News host and Paul Ryan helped fuel his explosive wiretap claims". Business Insider. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
Wolff, Michael (5 January 2018). Fire and Fury. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 9780815730644.
"Trump's Twitter frenzy on wiretapping came after an aide placed an explosive Breitbart story in his reading pile". Business Insider. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
The Washington Post Fact Checker Staff (2 June 2020). Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth. Scribner. ISBN 9781982151072. The tweet may have been a Trumpian extrapolation based on the president learning that March that the U.S. government had supposedly wiretapped his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who had an apartment in Trump tower.

Pop culture section

It seems that Nweil's proposed "In popular culture" section has become a matter of contention. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: