This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article state that "To date, news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign." per [1] Casprings (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Sourced content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Collusion claimsTo date, news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The New York Times has said there is no known evidence of clandestine discussions about disseminating the hacked emails, but noted that Trump had publicly urged Russia to hack Clinton's emails, which his son claimed was a joke.[1] The Times also reported that despite extensive evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives, there is no known evidence of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin.[7] Newsweek has said that it is proven that Trump maintained ties to wealthy businessmen in Azerbaijan, but that it was unproven that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump other than attempting to contact him during the 2016 campaign; or that it had offered him lucrative real estate deals; or that there was any evidence the "golden showers" tape existed.[8] Politicial figures and other commentators have disagreed on the significance of existing public evidence. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat, and some critics have argued that the evidence already known shows collusion, with Schiff further saying that additional non-public evidence further supports the allegations. Early investigations and beginning of formal probesSoon after the allegations of collusion surfaced, former DNI Clapper said in March 2017 that a report assembled by the NSA, FBI, and CIA under his supervision as Director of National Intelligence included no evidence "that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians", and that to his knowledge, none existed during his time as Director.[9] He later clarified that he would not be aware of any matters arising after his tenure, and that he had not been aware of a separate investigation by the FBI that had existed at the time.[10] Still later, in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, he said that the Russian effort to meet with Trump's son was a "classic, textbook Soviet and now Russian tradecraft" whereby they confirmed that those close to Trump would be interested in receiving information damaging to Hillary Clinton.[11] In November 2017, Clapper told CNN's Jake Tapper that since his earlier reports, "a lot more has come out that raises, I think, circumstantial questions if nothing else".[12] As questions about possible Trump links to Russian leadership mounted, separate investigations by the Department of Justice and both houses of Congress began. Partisan division on House Intelligence Committee; Republicans end investigation saying no evidence of collusionThe proceedings and conclusion of the House Intelligence Committee in its investigation were marked by partisan division. The New York Times wrote that "the day-to-day reality of running a closely watched investigation potentially implicating a sitting president left the committee badly frayed", and noted that Democrats on the committee had accused Republicans of hindering the investigation to protect Trump, while Republicans had complained that Democrats were turning the investigation into a TV spectacle to earn political points.[13] In early 2018, as the special counsel investigation continued, the Republican majority on the house committee ended its investigation—declaring in press statements, and a memo authored without Democratic input, that no evidence of collusion had emerged.[14] Republicans also seized on what they said were efforts by investigators to conceal the association between the document and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign from a FISA court considering a warrant for a wiretap against Carter Page, an argument buttressing Republican claims that the surveillance and Russia investigation were based on the dossier, at its roots a Democratic political document.[15][16] Regarding the collusion accusations, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), who oversees the committee’s Russia probe, said that they had found "perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings, inappropriate judgment at taking meetings", and that the Trump tower meeting with the Russian lawyer "shouldn’t have happened, no doubt about that", but said that they had found no evidence of collusion.[14] The end of the investigation and dissemination of the memo were met with skepticism and criticism by Congressional Democrats and others who said the moves amounted to a premature end to a flawed investigative process which failed to adequately obtain witness testimony that would implicate Trump,[17] due to Republican control of the committee's subpoena power.[18][19] Democrats pointed to multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia and said they had seen too few witnesses to make a judgment on collusion; one Republican panel member complained that the probe was "poison" for the previously bipartisan panel.[20] Dissemination of the memo by Nunes also generated an outcry by Democrats,[21] law enforcement officials,[22] and intelligence experts,[23] who said its release would harm national security. The Republican majority also disagreed with the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Putin had a preference for Trump to become President, drawing further criticism.[17][14] Ranking Democrat Adam Schiff released a memo for the minority on the intelligence committee, summarizing the case against Trump. Schiff told NBC that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial", and that there was direct evidence of deception.[24] He later insisted in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that already-public information—particularly about the campaign's discussions and meeting with Russians regarding the hacked Clinton and DNC emails, and the conversations between George Papadopoulos and Russian government agents—amounted to evidence of collusion, though not necessarily proof of a criminal conspiracy.[25] Schiff also said he thought that some of the non-public evidence in front of the committee was evidence of collusion.[26] Others have argued that Republican actions such as the release of the Nunes memo and calls for Mueller to step down showed an attempt to discredit his probe into Russian election interference.[27] USA Today said: "The investigation's abrupt end underscores the bitter partisan divide that has plagued the committee's work. And it increases pressure on the collegial Senate Intelligence Committee to come out with a credible bipartisan report from its own Russia probe." [28] The Senate Intelligence Committee probe continues. CommentaryPublic commentary has been largely divided among partisan lines, though prominent Republicans have found the allegations credible while some Democrats have expressed doubt. Critics have said that there is mounting evidence of collusion, while supporters and skeptics have either expressed doubt that collusion actually occurred or have said that there was no evidence to prove the allegation. Commentators have also disagreed on the importance of the fact that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as well as what some regarded as a lack of transparency in a Carter Page FISA warrant application that referenced the dossier. Commentary suggesting collusion claims are trueThis section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (April 2018)
Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee told The Hill in an interview that there was "a lot of evidence of collusion, despite what the president and everyone else says."[29] Colin Kahl argued in Foreign Policy magazine that circumstantial evidence suggesting collusion continued to mount, but said that even if there was no collusion, Trump's efforts to minimize the U.S. response against Moscow's interference were "incredibly troubling".[30] Los Angeles Times former D.C. bureau chief Doyle McManus wrote: "So while there is not conclusive public evidence of direct collaboration between the campaign and the Kremlin, there's mounting evidence that both sides wanted to cooperate and actively explored what they could do for each other." [6] Commentators from NBC news argued that "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation".[31] Republican commentators David French[32] and Charles Krauthammer[33] both said that Trump Jr.'s conversations with the Russians were proof of attempted collusion. Krauthammer wrote, "What Donald Jr.—and Kushner and Manafort—did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor." David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic that "the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret."[34] Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank said that as evidence of the Trump campaign's "entanglement with Russia" continued to emerge, Trump and his advisors were forced to come up with "revised talking points" as part of a "veritable Marshall Plan for the moving of goal posts".[35] Commentary skeptical of collusion claimsAs the story of collusion claims broke, Scott Shane of The New York Times wrote: "Under the circumstances, many in Washington expected the agencies to make a strong public case to erase any uncertainty. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.' There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery."[36] Jason Kirchick, a Brookings Institution visiting fellow, wrote in Washington Post that "Trump's Defense Department in 2017 proposed a boost in financial support for [NATO]; he's announced the sale of antitank weapons to Ukraine; and, according to reports, U.S. military forces recently killed 'at least 100' Russian mercenaries in Syria. Yet so attached to the collusion narrative are some Trump critics that their theories are impervious to countervailing data."[37] Richard A. Epstein, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, law professor at New York University and senior lecturer at The University of Chicago, wrote in Newsweek: "I agree with the Hoover Institution’s Paul Gregory, who has extensively studied Russian propaganda tactics, that the Russians knew that they could not influence the outcome of the election with a few well timed tweets. But they understood that a disinformation campaign could raise the specter of collusion with either party, which would then weaken the presidency no matter which candidate won."[38] Jonathan Turley, a law professor specializing in public interest law at George Washington University, said in The Hill that "[i]t takes willful blindness not to acknowledge either the lack of direct evidence of collusion or the implausibility of many of the theories abounding on cable news programs."[39] Writers for The New Republic and The Atlantic suggested that it was likely Mueller had not found evidence to implicate Trump.[40][41] James S. Robbins, national security expert and member of USA Today's Board of Contributors, called the dossier a "sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources" and said its use to authorize surveillance on Trump campaign members "was an unprecedented investigative intrusion into the American political process that makes Watergate look like amateur hour."[42] Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson argued in National Review that "[a]side from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a few minor and transitory campaign officials have been indicted or have pleaded guilty to a variety of transgressions other than collusion."[43] Aaron Maté, writing in The Nation, argued that officials had acknowledged they had seen no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing, and that "[w]ell-placed critics of Trump—including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein—concur to date."[44] "[T]he relentless pursuit of this narrative above all else has had dangerous consequences," he later wrote.[45] References
|
What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?
"no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been made public". The rest of my sources above are specifically related to dossier. If you don't like specific wording, you can make constructive suggestions instead of opposing the proposal. Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"news agencies"? We could simply say
"There is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign."or, if the question is specifically about the dossier allegations,
"The dossier's allegations of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia have not been corroborated."Which source says there is evidence? Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Just how many threads do we have on this? Can we keep this all in one place?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As an RFC is now open the other thread should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Would it alleviate your SYNTH concerns If the text were changed to match the source exactly, so it simply reads, "There is no public evidence that . . ." without the initial language attributing it to news agency reporting? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose As not all the sources say this "no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed." is not saying there is none, just that it is not strong. "We hasten to note that there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid..." does not say there is no evidence of collusion, just no evidence of direct collusion to aid the attempts. "So while there is not conclusive public evidence of direct collaboration", again this is not saying there is no public evidence of collusion. Sorry the sourcing is not strong enough to say this in wiki's voice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Per my comment ("There are two separate questions
) above, which question is more relevant to this article? Should we have two separate RFCs if one group is answering to question (a) and another to question (b)? Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
As Jimmy Dore would say, what collusion? What does that mean? Where's this evidence at? GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It's time to close this RfC and possibly start another one. We've been chasing the wrong rabbit down the wrong path.
Politrukki made some very good points here.
This RfC is about the wrong question, one better suited for the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections articles. We should not be discussing the broader question of whether there is evidence of collusion.
Instead we should be discussing whether there is evidence for the narrower allegation of "conspiracy" (and other allegations which could be included under the "collusion" umbrella) found in the dossier.
The dossier does not mention Papadopoulos or the Trump Tower meeting, two factors which many consider evidence of collusion. IIRC, many RS note that Mueller may consider the Trump Tower meeting the strongest evidence of collusion that the public knows about. There Trump himself wrote a deceptive press release, and signed it with his son's name. That tied Trump into what happened; because he wrote a press release which was a cover-up of what actually happened, he could not claim to be uninvolved or ignorant. The act of lying was evidence of a guilty conscience.
There are many activities which, seen together, are interpreted by many to be evidence of collusion: the activities of Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, and Cohen; other secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russians; intercepted conversation between Russian nationals discussing their contacts with Trump campaign members; and other information shared by friendly foreign intelligence sources. All of this started the CIA/NSA/FBI investigation into Russian intervention before the dossier mentioned Carter Page.
Trump's own actions are also suspiciou: his odd refusals to condemn Putin; his refusal to take action to prevent further cyber attacks, even though $120 million has been granted to fight Russian meddling (none has been used); his refusal to do anything to improve election security; and his refusal to definitively accuse Russia of interfering in the election to help him. This is interpreted as evidence that he is controlled by Putin, IOW that he is being blackmailed.
The dossier covers some things which have been confirmed, and others not, at least not publicly. Not all things in the dossier are related to collusion, and it never deals with questions of treason, as those are legal questions. Collusion is not illegal when it does not involve secrecy to commit illegal actions, but it is equal to conspiracy (which is illegal) when it does involve secrecy to commit illegal actions.
So we've been discussing the wrong question. We need to focus on what's relevant for this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"Outdated sources" were included just to show you that fact sources have consistently reported the lack of evidence for over a year now.
I didn't "misrepresent" any reliable sources. If you think better wording could be used for what the RS's say there is no evidence of, I'm all ears. But I don't see how you can argue that RS fact statements like the following are not saying there's a lack of collusion evidence.
"no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed"
"there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin"
"there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts"
"There’s no public evidence that Trump is connected to any collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 vote."
Factchecker_atyourservice 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I think given the levels of sniping going on this has gone way beyond constructive and should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Per NYT yesterday, Mueller question for Trump: "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" Prior to this disclosure, there had been no publicly available information indicating any such outreach. Now there is. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The story is at least starting to develop though, with some juicy crystal balling from the NYT editorial board explicitly speculating Mueller may know "a great deal more than he's letting on". Although the bulk of the questions relate to obstruction, a couple of them about Manafort and Stone suggest Mueller might have some collusion evidence. It will be very interesting to see whether Trump agrees to answer any or all of them and if he refuses, there's a possibility we may get to hear what evidence there is, although there is also a possibility Mueller will continue to keep it secret and maintain an active investigation. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This edit request to Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
skripal - steele - connection https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/07/poisoned-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-close-consultant-linked/ 78.104.181.71 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It's all over the internet that Steele has done business with Sergei Skripal's minder, Pablo Miller, and that Skripal probably gathered material for the dossier on his visit to Estonia in the month following Trump's nomination by the Republicans. Any reliable sources for this? Shtove (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Done
Has anyone seen any info on the following?
The dossier, according to the paging (80-135, 166), contains only a small fraction of Steele's research, but RS don't help us with how to describe it or what's happened to it. Pages 1-79, and 136-165, aren't in the dossier we have. Where are they? I suspect intelligence agencies and Mueller have all of them, but that's just speculation and unusable here. We may find out from future court proceedings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Done Mark Warner is quoted as "little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven". Reading Warner's full statements, this is misleading. I suggest to write:
On January 29, 2018, Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said "A lot of it has turned out to be true", but also cautioned that "little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.41.181 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"Rep. Adam Schiff of California,... complained, “Those who attack the dossier and Christopher Steele would like you to believe that if they can discredit the dossier, then you should ignore everything else that we’ve learned,” even while insisting, “A lot of it has turned out to be true.” Yet this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat told POLITICO, “little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven.”[1]
[Schiff] "... saying that its allegations that Russia sought to help elect Mr. Trump “turned out to be true.”
In a Wall Street Journal interview Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) said that much of the 35-page dossier, compiled by ex-British intelligence official Christopher Steele, is about Russian efforts to boost Mr. Trump, which U.S. intelligence agencies later affirmed in a report."[2]
On November 15, 2017, Adam Schiff stated that much of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true", something later affirmed by the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment released by the ODNI.[2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Interesting: Why Team Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and that secret warrant -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that my addition of Paul Krugman's description of Trump's position on Ukraine was deleted, with an odd edit summary. The statement is an opinion that is properly attributed. That's what we do here. What gives? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What has been verified on the dossier? 146.88.224.53 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you." [6]
Done
This edit request to Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the intro to the history section.
Delete: "There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase, which was funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, produced the Steele dossier.[22][23]"
Add: "The opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS on Donald Trump was completed in two phases with separate funders. The first research phase, from October 2015 to May 2016, was funded by The Washington Free Beacon. The second research phase, from June 2016 to December 2016, was funded by the DNC and Clinton Campaign, unrelated to the Washington Free Beacon request. The second phase produced the dossier and utilized research from the first phase."
Notes:
Sources
|
---|
|
The AP writes that in the 18 months since the publication of the dossier, "As a whole, the Steele dossier now appears to be a murky mixture of authentic revelations and repurposed history, likely interspersed with snippets of fiction or disinformation".[7] I don't edit this article, but I'm sure this 1hr old AP piece deserves a mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This may be relevant here.[1]
References
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Instead of stating the facts article tries really hard to hide the fact that Steele was paid by Democrats and biased. For example: "Steele was hired without knowing, or ever having direct contact with, his ultimate clients," Yeez I wonder who may want dirt(real or invented) on Trump? The tone of the question also does not give any hints(""Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?"") 46.188.138.239 20:47 July 17, 2018 (UTC)
My command of English is fine, this article is pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.32.157 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Stupid minor change, but I believe that "written from June to December 2016" in the lede should be changed to "written between June and December 2016" -- thanks. 60.248.185.19 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Discusses a new book by Craig Unger: House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia
Also mentions coverage by Newsweek at the time.
It turns out that Trump was already openly discussing running for the presidency at the time, making him even more a target for surveillance and cultivation than he already was as an ordinary rich American who voiced anti-American sentiments. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)