This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Links between Trump associates and Russian officials article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was copied or moved into Links between Trump associates and Russian officials on 20:48, 30 May 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article title was moved from Links between Trump associates and Russian officials to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies without discussion. I don't believe the move could be considered uncontroversial, and hence I have reverted the move. The only discussion about the title I can see is a brief discussion in 2017 (note that one major participant in that discussion is a blocked sock account). Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
"that the Trump campaign had close ties to Russian intelligence"(per WSJ) is a
"debunked"narrative. The Journal also mentions Strzok's notes in the margin of print copy of NYT, notes which undercut the NYT's anonymous sources:
"we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials". So it's sketchy for BLP reasons to make an unsubstantiated claim "and spies". Politrukki (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
"Trump supporters". If Trump supporters decide to show up in this discussion, they should make policy-based arguments. Politrukki (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I discussed this issue with Valjean about one year ago, and I don't believe that anything new has broken since that time. Like Politrukki, I am struck (pun possibly intended) by the evidence that the senior leadership of the FBI, specifically Peter Strzok, who authored the (now-declassified) electronic communication (EC) that initiated the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane probe and was consequently unfairly maligned by Trump during Trump's presidency, saw no evidence to substantiate thinly-sourced contemporaneous reports of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence:
Mr. Strzok's skeptical annotations of the [February 2017] Times article, headlined "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence," were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information. Mr. Strzok's annotations disputed the article's premise and other aspects. He wrote, "We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials."—"F.B.I. Agent in Russia Inquiry Saw Basis in Early 2017 to Doubt Dossier," The New York Times, July 17, 2020.
To my knowledge, the only case that has been reliably documented (and cited as retroactive vindication for The New York Times article in question) is Paul Manafort's interaction with Konstantin Kilimnik, who was sanctioned by the United States Department of the Treasury for his connection to Russian intelligence in 2021, long after the events in question; even then, it is not clear that "spy" would be the most accurate descriptor for Kilimnik (we do not describe him as such in his WP:BLP). In my view, these established facts are not sufficient justification for the proposed (now-contested) page move at this time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
As is, this entry paints the picture that the Mueller investigation exonerated the President when in fact, it laid out instances of Obstruction of Justice that it was not authorized to prosecute.
Therefore the section on that subject needs to elaborate on the conclusions of the report and link to best available source for report (least redacted.) 2605:59C8:70A7:8410:242F:316A:F2C8:9330 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed the Seth Hettena book is listed. I don't know how to add links, but these two other books should also be presented if someone could please add them.
American Kompromat” by Craig Unger "House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia" by Craig Unger 2601:18C:8200:B0C0:94E:245F:6ACC:13E5 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the section for Paul Manafort includes the statement: “Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, who is believed to be linked to Russian intelligence”.
In fact, Kilimnik’s link to Russian intelligence has been firmly established. It was revealed in April 2021 by the U.S. Department of the Treasury that Kilimnik is a “known Russian Intelligence Services agent”. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126
This information was also reported by the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/us/politics/russian-intelligence-trump-campaign.html
The sentence I quoted above should be edited to reflect this. 100.11.96.78 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)