Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 300: | Line 300: | ||
:Oh no, let me try that ping again. Stupid me. {{ping|Mr. Daniel Plainview}} are you there? — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|talk]]; please [[Template:Reply_to|ping me in your reply]] on this page) 02:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
:Oh no, let me try that ping again. Stupid me. {{ping|Mr. Daniel Plainview}} are you there? — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|talk]]; please [[Template:Reply_to|ping me in your reply]] on this page) 02:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for the ping {{u|Javert2113}}. Frankly I think the article from The Hill is somewhat sloppily written. The first line is {{tq|"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s legal team that they can’t indict a sitting president, '''CNN reported''' Wednesday."}} (emphasis mine) But then the very next line reads: {{tq|"Rudy Giuliani, who is leading Trump’s legal team in the Russia probe, '''told the network''' that when it comes to the president, Mueller’s team can only write a report at the conclusion of its investigation."}} So it's not a "report," and this information has not been independently confirmed (as of now) by any news org that I am aware of. I based the material off the first line in The Hill article, but it's clear that so far the only verification we have of this is Giuliani himself. Fox News confirms this ([http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/16/mueller-told-trumps-legal-team-will-not-indict-president-giuliani-tells-fox-news.html Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News]). I think the version currently in the article is fine, personally. I have a feeling that more information will be coming out relatively shortly that will confirm or deny Giuliani's assertion, and of course the imminent OIG report will likely have ramifications across dozens of related articles. No rush! [[User:Mr. Daniel Plainview|Mr. Daniel Plainview]] ([[User talk:Mr. Daniel Plainview|talk]]) 14:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
::Thanks for the ping {{u|Javert2113}}. Frankly I think the article from The Hill is somewhat sloppily written. The first line is {{tq|"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s legal team that they can’t indict a sitting president, '''CNN reported''' Wednesday."}} (emphasis mine) But then the very next line reads: {{tq|"Rudy Giuliani, who is leading Trump’s legal team in the Russia probe, '''told the network''' that when it comes to the president, Mueller’s team can only write a report at the conclusion of its investigation."}} So it's not a "report," and this information has not been independently confirmed (as of now) by any news org that I am aware of. I based the material off the first line in The Hill article, but it's clear that so far the only verification we have of this is Giuliani himself. Fox News confirms this ([http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/16/mueller-told-trumps-legal-team-will-not-indict-president-giuliani-tells-fox-news.html Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News]). I think the version currently in the article is fine, personally. I have a feeling that more information will be coming out relatively shortly that will confirm or deny Giuliani's assertion, and of course the imminent OIG report will likely have ramifications across dozens of related articles. No rush! [[User:Mr. Daniel Plainview|Mr. Daniel Plainview]] ([[User talk:Mr. Daniel Plainview|talk]]) 14:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::That's more or less the story in a nutshell. Speaking of which, Giuliani has been rather, um, erratic of late -- so his comments are subject to interday fluxuation. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 14:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:51, 17 May 2018
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Open RFCs and Surveys
Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Current consensus
Cambridge Analytica
I suggest this section:
• lead with the WSJ story of Dec 15th (Vox got the date wrong) or this story (unpaywalled)
• be trimmed of substantial material from Cambridge Analytica
• be moved to below "Financial investigations" soibangla (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @DuckyWhucky9:'s additions are egregiously excessive. There's no need to present the entire case about Trump here, please note WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I highly recommend they attempt to explain their changes here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Two of us have now removed the entire large sections about Cambridge Analytica and about Trump's disclosure of classified information. I have posted on DuckyWhucky's talk page to explain the Discretionary Sanctions. IMO this material has nothing to do with the Special Counsel investigation, which is the subject of this article, and does not even deserve a mention here. At most there could be a sentence about Mueller requesting Cambridge Analytica records. If we have a sentence about Trump's disclosure (which I don't favor), it would have to be more neutral than what was proposed here and sourced to a more Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Very weak connection. I'm sure the investigation has requested a ton of info. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Is the Cambridge Analytica scandal connected to the Russia scandal in any way? How is it connected? Is Mueller investigating Cambridge Analytica? Does anyone have any citations which mention a Russia/Cambridge Analytica connection? I think this should be deleted if it is not demonstrably connected to Russia or the Mueller investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justaskinya (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Justaskinya: "The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested that a data analytics company called Cambridge Analytica turn over internal documents as part of its investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Does Cohen belong in the "defense team" section?
Is Michael Cohen not a member of "President Trump's legal team"? If he is a member shouldn't he be listed in this section? It seems like a pretty big omission so I assume there is some reason not clear to me for why he is not included. If there is a reason like that, is there a source that supports this reason so it can be included in that section as well? Either way I think it is appropriate to have some mention of Cohen in that section. - PaulT/C 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are there any reports that Michael Cohen is representing Trump with respect to this particular matter? I'm sure Trump has a wide array of lawyers representing him on trademark, real estate, tort, contract, and media matters, who are not involved in this particular criminal defense matter. bd2412 T 17:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Without good RS saying it explicitly, he remains Trump's personal lawyer and fixer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't want to say one way or the other without a source. Is there a source either way? I added a sentence:
It is unclear if Michael Cohen is or was part of Trump's defense team with regard to the Special Counsel.
to try and illustrate this uncertainty. If there is a better source out there please include it, but I don't think it should be omitted entirely. - PaulT/C 18:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't want to say one way or the other without a source. Is there a source either way? I added a sentence:
- Absent a source, I do think that it should be omitted entirely. There are probably dozens of lawyers associated with Trump in some way, about whom this could be said. bd2412 T 19:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sources refer to him as "Trump's longtime personal lawyer." I haven't seen any saying he is part of the Russia defense. Is that what our section is trying to list, or are we listing any attorney who serves Trump in a personal capacity (as opposed to White House attorneys)? --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Absent a source, I do think that it should be omitted entirely. There are probably dozens of lawyers associated with Trump in some way, about whom this could be said. bd2412 T 19:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- There have been a number of sources discussing Trumps trouble finding lawyers for the Mueller probe. None I've seen said Cohan was on this case. Now that Cohan needs a lawyer he is unable to represent Trump on the Mueller probe (this is from both news commentary and my legal knowledge of conflict of interest issues). Because Cohan is being investigated too his interests may diverge from Trump's interests so he is VERY conflicted out now. Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, Legacypac makes a good point about Cohen's conflict of interest that prevents him entirely from being a part of the team. Are there sources supporting that? - PaulT/C 01:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I heard the point about him being unable to represent on TV news the night the story of the Cohan raid came out. I've not found it in print yet but this is an interesting read [1] Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I just removed
Michael Cohen: a personal lawyer of Trump.[1]
from the article. We are going to continue to get good-faith contributions from people adding him as part of Trump's team until we get an appropriately sourced comment about Cohen and his potential conflict of interest, which presumably would preclude him from representing Trump with regard to the special counsel. - PaulT/C 06:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I just removed
References
- ^ "Michael D. Cohen". The Real Deal. Retrieved January 15, 2016.
I think I found a source "Unfortunately for Trump, he can’t retain Michael Cohen to represent him in this case (Mueller investigation) because Cohen has been subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee." [1] Washington Monthly. If someone wants to confirm my reading is correct, they can add something to the page. There is also good info on Cohan threatening a reporter that could be added to his page. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How about Hendon?
We list Joanna Hendon as part of his defense team, but sources seem to say she is only representing him in the Michael Cohen matter. What do people think about including her in this article? --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would continue my objection to including too much information about the Michael Cohen matter here, as it is apparently not part of the Special Counsel investigation. bd2412 T 16:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Lawyers who declined to represent Trump
Done
- Content under discussion:
Prominent lawyers and law firms that have declined offers to join Trump's legal team include:[2][3]
- Robert S. Bennett: Bill Clinton's attorney in the Paula Jones litigation, now Senior Counsel at Hogan Lovells.[4]
- Tom Buchanan: a white-collar criminal defense attorney and partner at Winston & Strawn.[5]
- William Burck: a white-collar criminal defense attorney and partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.[6]
- Paul Clement: a former United States Solicitor General, now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.[7]
- Joseph diGenova: a former US Attorney. diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing withdrew their services from Trump in March 2018, citing conflicts of interest.[8]
- Mark Filip: a former US Deputy Attorney General, now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis specializing in white-collar criminal defense.[7]
- Robert Giuffra Jr.: a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.[4]
- Frederick Hafetz: a former chief of the criminal division of the US attorney’s office in Manhattan, now a partner at Hafetz & Necheles.[9][10][11]
- Steven Molo: a former prosecutor specializing in white collar defense, and founding partner at MoloLamken.[4]
- Theodore B. Olson: a former US Solicitor General, now a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.[12]
- Brendan V. Sullivan Jr.: a white-collar criminal defense attorney best known for defending Oliver North regarding the Iran-Contra scandal; now a partner at Williams & Connolly.[7]
- Dan K. Webb: a former US Attorney, now a partner at Winston & Strawn.[5]
- Reid Weingarten: a white-collar criminal defense attorney and partner at Steptoe & Johnson.[6]
(I'm starting a new section because I think this proposal deserves more discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC))
- I think that it is altogether too much to list all the people who have declined to be on Trump's defense team. It is not something worth mentioning, other than perhaps to have one line stating that a number of prominent attorneys had so declined. bd2412 T 02:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- It is absolutely remarkable that all these lawyers have declined to represent Trump. Unprecidented actually. I favor inclusion of sourced names. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that remarkable. It seems that many of these lawyers have asserted conflicts, meaning that they can't represent Trump even if they want to, due to obligations to existing clients. That might be just an excuse, but we don't know that for a fact. When I was a practicing intellectual property attorney, we had several large corporate clients who would "collect" conflicts, by hiring several different prominent firms to hire them in different legal matters, so that those firms could not later represent parties against those corporations. A small business that tried to sue one of those corporations would therefore find that dozens of the biggest and most reputable firms could not represent them due to conflicts. Not that this happened here, but it is not all that unusual for a party to be declined to be represented by a large number of big-name lawyers. bd2412 T 13:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, except that maybe the more prominent attorneys should be mentioned, such as Bennett, Clement, Olson and Sullivan. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is absolutely remarkable that all these lawyers have declined to represent Trump. Unprecidented actually. I favor inclusion of sourced names. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what User:Bd2412 said above. I propose to delete the entire listing of “Prominent lawyers and law firms that have declined offers to join Trump’s legal team”. It is reasonably well sourced and all, but it’s trivia. I’m not aware of any such listing in any other article. (“Lawyers who turned down Bill Cosby?” “Lawyers who refused to handle Bill Clinton’s impeachment”? I really think this kind of listing is unprecedented for WP.) A list of lawyers who declined to represent Trump adds nothing to this article about the investigation - except perhaps a chance to sneer at Trump. I can sneer at Trump with the best of them, but I don’t think we should be doing it in the pages of Wikipedia. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is actually worth covering as it's a remarkable situation, thus making it quite notable. Any lawyer would die to have the President of the United States of America as their client. When law firms turn down requests to represent Trump, there's something really wrong. Normally they would clean their slate, remove all obstacles, and hire extra staff so they can have the President as their client. That is not happening. This hasn't happened for others because it wouldn't happen for anyone other than Trump. This is covered in RS for a reason, and it's our job to document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes User:MelanieN and User:Bd2412 I agree with you and I'm on the verge of making the deletion, because I think we have a winning argument. Brian Everlasting (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- You just did it without a good discussion. 3-2 isn't a convincing consensus, and I've reverted you. Per DS, don't try to delete again without a clear consensus. You did that on the Trump-Russian dossier article, even though my previous edit summary was clear. I left a note on your talk page to give you a chance to not get in trouble, but you haven't responded. Under DS ruless, MelanieN or any other admin should block you without further warning, since you have been notified of DS rules, and yet you made the edit against a clear edit summary. What you've done is worse than edit warring. Please be collaborative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that further discussion is needed to establish a consensus on this matter, but I question whether the default should be to include the content in the article while that discussion is underway. I also note that half of the listed attorneys have no Wikipedia article of their own, so I wonder about the value of listing non-notable people to whom this applies. I am equally concerned that the list dominates the section, even though the information about the attorneys who are working for Trump is more important to the topic of the investigation. I therefore propose as a compromise that we replace the bulleted list of non-representing attorneys with the following mention of notable attorneys who have declined to represent Trump:
- You just did it without a good discussion. 3-2 isn't a convincing consensus, and I've reverted you. Per DS, don't try to delete again without a clear consensus. You did that on the Trump-Russian dossier article, even though my previous edit summary was clear. I left a note on your talk page to give you a chance to not get in trouble, but you haven't responded. Under DS ruless, MelanieN or any other admin should block you without further warning, since you have been notified of DS rules, and yet you made the edit against a clear edit summary. What you've done is worse than edit warring. Please be collaborative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes User:MelanieN and User:Bd2412 I agree with you and I'm on the verge of making the deletion, because I think we have a winning argument. Brian Everlasting (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
A number of prominent lawyers and law firms have declined offers to join Trump's legal team,[1][2] including Robert S. Bennett,[3] Paul Clement,[4] Mark Filip,[4] Robert Giuffra Jr.,[3] Theodore B. Olson,[5] and Brendan V. Sullivan Jr.[4] Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were also briefly slated to join Trump's legal team, but withdrew their services from Trump in March 2018, citing conflicts of interest.[6]
Sources
- ^ Kranish, Michael (June 6, 2017). "Trump's legal dream team falters as D.C. heavyweights take a pass". The Washington Post.
- ^ Isikoff, Michael (June 6, 2017). "Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump". Yahoo News.
- ^ a b Scannell, Carol (April 15, 2018). "Another white collar lawyer turns down Trump". CNN.
- ^ a b c Linsky, Annie (2018-04-21). "Why the most powerful man in the world has struggled to assemble a legal team - The Boston Globe". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 2018-04-21.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help)- ^ Costa, Robert; Leonnig, Carol D. (March 20, 2018). "Star GOP lawyer Theodore B. Olson declines offer to join Trump legal team". The Washington Post.
- ^ Haberman, Maggie; Schmidt, Michael S.; Landler, Mark (March 25, 2018). "Trump Won't Hire 2 Lawyers Whose Appointments Were Announced Days Ago". The New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
- The DS restriction (NeilN's interpretation) against repeated deletion of long-standing content is to promote article stability. It also counteracts a problem on some articles (not referring to this one) where enemies of the article or friends of the criticized subject game the system by exploiting 1RR and/or "consensus required for restoring". They can successfully start discussions and RfCs and literally keep large quantities of content out of the article, sometimes for a long time. That's not right. Long-standing content should not be treated the same as new content added without any consensus.
- The individual attorney is not the issue here, it is the legal firm, all of which have articles here. Any legal firm would love to have the President as a client, except Trump. He's a nightmare client who is notorious for not listening to his attorneys. This is a very remarkable situation, never seen before for such a high-profile client. These legal firms are weighing the merits and demerits of representing him, and they see a net loss to their reputation. They would immediately lose many clients if they represented Trump, and their reputations would be permanently damaged. Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then how about if we have a sentence like the one I proposed, but naming the firms rather than the lawyers? Or, alternately, one sentence listing lawyers, and a second listing firms? I think the presentation as a bulleted list of names with descriptions is more of an overkill than just the inclusion of the information. bd2412 T 15:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's a possibility, but the disadvantage is that context and reasons provided would be hard to add in a sentence, and they should be provided. It would be very long too, so a paragraph would be better. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then how about if we have a sentence like the one I proposed, but naming the firms rather than the lawyers? Or, alternately, one sentence listing lawyers, and a second listing firms? I think the presentation as a bulleted list of names with descriptions is more of an overkill than just the inclusion of the information. bd2412 T 15:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Brian Everlasting, good removal. This is UNDUE trivia if it is not even mostly known why they have declined. (One source says Democrat "temper tantrums" has something to do with it.) Politrukki (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say remove the list. Mostly non-notable people turning down a job is not noteworthy. So far I am seeing rough consensus to remove and unless there is an objection I will remove it later tonight. PackMecEng (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is strong objection. This is a very notable situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the removal was premature; we need a clearer consensus to remove longstanding content like this, and there's no hurry. I still do hope we will decide to remove it. For one thing, the way we list it and the very existence of this list implies that the firms refused to handle Trump's case out of distaste for him or a belief that he had a losing case - as I said above, listing it as a kind of sneer at Trump - rather than (as in many cases) having a conflict of interest or other perfectly valid reason. And I disagree with the assertion that "any law firm would die to have the president as their client". Many of these firms prefer to keep a low profile rather than get embroiled in controversial or political cases. It takes a special kind of lawyer, and a special kind of firm, to welcome involvement in the political fray, no matter who the client is. I would bet, although history does not record and Wikipedia does not say, that there were many attorneys who declined to take on Clinton's impeachment case for similar reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, we could either choose to mention why they refused, if it's mentioned in the source, or just list them totally neutrally. (The current lead sentence seems fine to me.) Readers can then follow the sources if they are curious. I favor the latter approach. I see no reason to balloon this content. The list is enough. This is a notable subject we should cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the removal was premature; we need a clearer consensus to remove longstanding content like this, and there's no hurry. I still do hope we will decide to remove it. For one thing, the way we list it and the very existence of this list implies that the firms refused to handle Trump's case out of distaste for him or a belief that he had a losing case - as I said above, listing it as a kind of sneer at Trump - rather than (as in many cases) having a conflict of interest or other perfectly valid reason. And I disagree with the assertion that "any law firm would die to have the president as their client". Many of these firms prefer to keep a low profile rather than get embroiled in controversial or political cases. It takes a special kind of lawyer, and a special kind of firm, to welcome involvement in the political fray, no matter who the client is. I would bet, although history does not record and Wikipedia does not say, that there were many attorneys who declined to take on Clinton's impeachment case for similar reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- PackMecEng - Paul Clement and Ted Olson are not "non-notable people." They are, in fact, some of the most well-known living attorneys in America. Neutralitytalk 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: That is correct, what about the 11 others? "Mostly non-notable people" is correct here, as I am sure you are aware. Also in regards to your comment below, "I agree with the majority here" you do know you are actually in the minority right? Current count stands at 5 delete and 4 keep. PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- PackMecEng - Paul Clement and Ted Olson are not "non-notable people." They are, in fact, some of the most well-known living attorneys in America. Neutralitytalk 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The list of lawyers who declined should be included because multiple reliable sources have discussed this at length over many weeks. There is no list of lawyers who declined Cosby because as far as I know no reliable sources have discussed that. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the majority here -- this has been the subject of multiple and often fairly detailed reports by high-quality sources, and so should be included here. (It is not surprising that this topic has been the subject of substantial interest - it is extremely unusual for so many attorneys to decline opportunities to represent a president of the United States.) As to the format, I have a slight preference for a narrative description over a list without context, but both are fine with me. Neutralitytalk 04:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Current tally
- Keep: 4 Legacypac, soibangla, BullRangifer, Neutrality
- Delete: 5 MelanieN, BD2412, Brian Everlasting, Politrukki, PackMecEng
There is no consensus to delete. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- That is not how consensus works. This material is not "longstanding content", since it has only been added over the past few weeks - the bullet-point format was introduced with this edit about two weeks ago, and was immediately contentious. Absent consensus, we revert to the year-long status quo ante, which is removal of the material. bd2412 T 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see what you mean, but rather than "longstanding" and stable content, it has been constantly growing content. The change since April 1 (to pick an arbitrary date) to now is radical. To me that means that WP:PRESERVE (a policy, not guideline) should be respected. We are here to build content, not prevent that process, or worse yet, undo it. We should focus on preserving what we have, adding to it, and improving it. That implies that improvement through change is always welcome, whereas deletion is counterproductive. The subject has been covered enough in RS to be worth documenting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Possible changes while we discuss keep-or-delete
If we decide to keep this (and the default is to keep, since longstanding content cannot be removed without consensus), I would suggest a couple of changes. I would omit the attorneys that do not have Wikipedia articles, while indicating their presence by a count such as “more than a dozen”. I prefer to say they “were approached,” because we don’t know if they actually “declined” a specific offer or were simply felt out - probably the latter in most cases. So the opening sentence could read “More than a dozen attorneys have been approached to join Trump’s legal team but have declined. They include:...” Then the bulleted list of the ones that have Wikipedia articles, keeping the existing descriptions and names of firms. All of the other subsections in this article use bulleted lists, which are easier to read when presenting this much information. What would people think about making those changes - i.e., a slight rewording of the opening sentence, and removing the ones without Wikipedia articles - even before the keep-or-delete issue is resolved? --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- As a compromise position, I propose replacing the bulleted list with the following:
A number of prominent lawyers and law firms have declined offers to join Trump's legal team,[1][2] including Robert S. Bennett of Hogan Lovells,[3] Paul Clement and Mark Filip, both with Kirkland & Ellis,[4] ,[4] Robert Giuffra Jr. of Sullivan & Cromwell,[3] Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,[5] and Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. of Williams & Connolly.[4] Other firms with attorneys who have declined to represent Trump include Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,[6] Steptoe & Johnson,[6] and Winston & Strawn.[7] Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were also briefly slated to join Trump's legal team, but withdrew their services from Trump in March 2018, citing conflicts of interest.[8]
- This version associates the notable attorneys with their notable law firms, and adds three notable firms for which non-notable attorneys have declined representation. Left out are Frederick Hafetz of Hafetz & Necheles and Steven Molo of MoloLamken (neither the people nor the firms have an article; if one is made for either person, that person can be added back). bd2412 T 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Boldly implementing. The bulleted list suggests that the persons on the list are people to watch for further developments, and that the information presented about them is relevant to the article. The fact that an attorney who declined representation is a former prosecutor or a white-collar crime specialist is beyond the scope of an article on the Special Counsel investigation. bd2412 T 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously? How about waiting until the discussion has produced a result. This type of jumping the gun is what causes edit wars. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Boldly implementing. The bulleted list suggests that the persons on the list are people to watch for further developments, and that the information presented about them is relevant to the article. The fact that an attorney who declined representation is a former prosecutor or a white-collar crime specialist is beyond the scope of an article on the Special Counsel investigation. bd2412 T 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I like MelanieN's idea, including keeping the bulleted list. This content shouldn't be treated any differently than the other lists. Per BD2412, add the other law firms. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- The implication of that is that people who have declined representation - including non-notable people working for non-notable law firms - are as important to the Special Counsel investigation as people who are actually on the teams. bd2412 T 14:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, you make a good point about the notable law firms. That would suggest removing only the two for which neither the attorney nor the law firm is notable. I agree with that change. As for the question of whether to retain the bulleted list or convert it to a paragraph, I prefer the bulleted list. It is easier to read, and it allows for a brief description of the attorney's experience or expertise. Plus, it follows the same format as the other subsections of that topic, and I can see no good reason to convert it to prose. We have two proposals here - removing some names from the list, and converting to prose - and neither should be implemented until there has been a chance for the community to discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- What is the relevance of the experience or expertise of lawyers who are not involved in the subject matter of the article? We might as well list their ages or how many children they have. bd2412 T 15:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to agree about that. We don't really need anymore details. If any detail is relevant, it's the reason why they can't or won't do this. In some cases this may be known and could be included. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think much of maintaining this list in an article, but I think it was generally reported that Ted Olson cited conflicts, e.g. a Mother Jones writer said "On Monday, I bumped into GOP super-lawyer Ted Olson. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Trump’s legal crew had asked Olson if he would join its ranks. His law firm quickly shot down the possibility of Olson riding to Trump’s rescue, noting that there were too many potential conflicts of interest.". Kind of sounds like a PR line emanating from the other partners, but nonetheless . . . Factchecker_atyourservice 20:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN, those are excellent considerations. The existing list format for ALL the lawyers should be maintained, including for this grouping. You may want to read my comment above and factor in those concerns. We should seek to build, not break down. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- This format has allowed for an insidious creeping growth of information irrelevant to the special counsel investigation, and is now basically an invitation for this article to be spammed with claims of non-notable lawyers having declined to represent Trump. bd2412 T
- The inclusion of reliably sourced content should not be considered spamming. If you feel this isn't relevant in this article, do you have a suggestion for a better article to house it? This information is part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document, so where should we put it, if not here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just because something can be found in a reliable source doesn't mean we should be indiscriminate about including it here. I'm sure we can find reliable sources for all the birth dates and law schools attended by these people. Should we add that information, because it is part of the "sum total of human knowledge"? Again, this is an article on the Special Counsel investigation. The refusal of lawyers to represent Trump may be relevant to Trump's public image, but has nothing to do with the charges being investigated, or the people actually doing that investigation, or defending Trump from it. Rather, listing people uninvolved in the investigation detracts from the importance of the investigation itself. If you want to house it somewhere, make an article on Lawyers who have publicly declined to represent Donald Trump. bd2412 T 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- BD2412, I can see what you mean. This is only tangentially related, so, as a compromise, why don't we just go with your suggestion above: "As a compromise position, I propose replacing the bulleted list with the following:..." By using prose format, it "demotes" their significance in relation to the investigation. That seems proper. Keep it a simple, bare bones, documentation.
- If you'll go along with that, I'll change my !vote to favor your compromise version, and hope that we all can meet in the middle and close this thread.
- Pinging the others to see what they think of this compromise: Legacypac, soibangla,Neutrality, MelanieN, Brian Everlasting, Politrukki, PackMecEng
- The history of this article is interesting, as it started as your article about the team members, not an article about the investigation, and it morphed into a full article about the whole investigation. Who knew what you started would become? Kudos for starting this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with that proposal. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President. bd2412 T 01:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just because something can be found in a reliable source doesn't mean we should be indiscriminate about including it here. I'm sure we can find reliable sources for all the birth dates and law schools attended by these people. Should we add that information, because it is part of the "sum total of human knowledge"? Again, this is an article on the Special Counsel investigation. The refusal of lawyers to represent Trump may be relevant to Trump's public image, but has nothing to do with the charges being investigated, or the people actually doing that investigation, or defending Trump from it. Rather, listing people uninvolved in the investigation detracts from the importance of the investigation itself. If you want to house it somewhere, make an article on Lawyers who have publicly declined to represent Donald Trump. bd2412 T 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- The inclusion of reliably sourced content should not be considered spamming. If you feel this isn't relevant in this article, do you have a suggestion for a better article to house it? This information is part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document, so where should we put it, if not here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- This format has allowed for an insidious creeping growth of information irrelevant to the special counsel investigation, and is now basically an invitation for this article to be spammed with claims of non-notable lawyers having declined to represent Trump. bd2412 T
I still favor the bulleted list as easier to read and more informative, as well as comparable to the other subsections in this section. (If we are going to include this content at all, which it appears we are.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't more informative about the investigation, is it? Also, the bulleted list is a recent addition to the article; the information was originally introduced as a prose paragraph. bd2412 T 01:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is one of those situations where the visible presentation can give or take away from the "weight" given to the subject. By "demoting" it to a prose section, we show that it's a slightly different class of information. Because it's "tangentially" related to the investigation, it deserves this demotion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing to represent Trump in the Russia case
I have created the following in response to this call for the creation of this type of content by BD2412: "I absolutely agree with that proposition. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President."[3]
This subject is especially important because Trump himself has mentioned it in connection with the "Russia case" (this article's subject) and labeled this view a "Fake News narrative". That makes this content directly on-topic here. Naturally many RS have responded to his accusation. I suggest it get its own section, as these attorneys are not part of the Trump team.
If there is an interest in shortening my version below, the last quote could be tucked into the reference so it only appears in the references' section, but it's important because it mentions the deeper moral and ethical implications, important aspects of the subject which are often ignored.
When considering the many RS which mention this subject, I settled on these legal sources because the lawyers and authors on legal websites are subject experts who tend to have a much more informed and less sensational way of expressing themselves than popular pundits found on TV and popular news sources. That keeps this a serious and sober discussion of the issues. When dealing with such opinions, we could choose to include speculations from non-experts, and our policies do allow that, but I prefer to use expert opinions when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
In an article describing the "unique circumstance" of Rudy Giuliani's unpaid leave of absence from Greenberg Traurig while representing Trump, possibly because of "potential conflicts", Christine Simmons referred to how some other law firms may have turned down representing Trump in the Russia case due to "public relations headaches or business and recruitment concerns".[1] Trump has called such views a "Fake News narrative",[2][3] but, according to Ryan Lovelace, "many Washington defense attorneys aren't so sure".[3]
In an article for The National Law Journal, Lovelace described how white-collar lawyers must weigh the "risks" and "stigma" of joining the Trump team.[3] The article quotes Barry Boss, co-chair of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations Practice:
"Obviously, given the constant shuffle of attorneys in and out of the president's legal team, one would be reticent to focus a significant portion of your practice on representing the president, only to find yourself on the sidelines a short time later because the president saw someone he liked better on Fox News. There is also definitely a stigma to being linked to this president.... [A]ny attorney is going to consider whether a connection to this case will result in other clients not wanting to hire him or her in the future, especially if the representation of the president is going to be short-lived."[3]
A list of other reasons is provided by Jill Abramson for The Guardian:
"The problem for the white-collar defense bar’s crème de la crème is that Donald Trump is so blatantly the client from hell. He won’t listen. He won’t obey instructions. He is headstrong. He is a bully. Sometimes, he doesn’t pay his bills. Most of all, it’s possible that he isn’t capable of discerning fact from fiction. This last foible could get any lawyer who represents him into very deep legal hot water. No one wants to get disbarred for the fame and fortune of representing President Trump. Then there’s the justifiable concern over all the unforced legal errors that the defense side, led by Trump himself, has already committed."[4]
In an article for Above the Law, Elie Mystal described how some law firms have refused to represent the President of the United States because "Donald Trump has somehow turned POTUS into a dog of a client self-respecting lawyers do not want to touch.":
"While it's, frankly, hilarious to look at all the well-respected attorneys who don't want to get Donald Trump all over them, there is potentially a deeper issue. If all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is."[5]
Sources
- ^ Simmons, Christine (May 4, 2018). "Citing 'Potential Conflicts,' Greenberg Traurig Says Giuliani on Unpaid Leave". New York Law Journal. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
- ^ "Donald J. Trump on Twitter". Twitter. March 27, 2018. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case...don't believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted....- ^ a b c d Lovelace, Ryan (March 26, 2018). "White-Collar Pros Weigh Risks, 'Stigma' of Joining Trump Team". The National Law Journal. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
- ^ Abramson, Jill (March 28, 2018). "Lawyers, lawyers everywhere. And none to represent Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved May 7, 2018.
- ^ Mystal, Elie (March 26, 2018). "A Running List Of Lawyers And Law Firms Who Have Refused To Represent The President Of The United States". Above the Law. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
I like it. We can put the paragraph listing the declining attorneys at the end, although we should note that many of them have at least claimed conflicts as the reason. One quibble: who is Elie Mystal? If they are not a particularly notable person, I would word it as "An Above the Law article described..." bd2412 T 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- He's a lawyer and writer. That can certainly be reworded. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Way, way TMI. We don't give this much detail and this many quotes to matters in this article of far more significance to the subject. If this is the direction we are going, I prefer to endorse BD2412's proposed brief paragraph in the section above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not really comfortable with including any rationales. Any firm turning him down is going to be polite about it. RS can't really know. O3000 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Law firms often word things very carefully and politely, but RS describe what's really going on, and we ascribe such content to the authors. We're not claiming that some lawyer or law firm said this. If a law firm has described their own rationale, we can quote them for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not really comfortable with including any rationales. Any firm turning him down is going to be polite about it. RS can't really know. O3000 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
RS suggest Trump is being turned down for three key reasons - citing conflicts, does not listen to his lawyers, and failure to pay his bills. It's highly unusual. I'm confident that can all be worded concisely and sourced without long quotes. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good point about not paying his bills. That should be added. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Does not listen to his lawyers" has a subtopic, "talks too much". Factchecker_atyourservice 04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This content is especially suited for its own section, and thus doesn't need to be abbreviated. Trump has addressed it in the context of the Trump Russia investigation, and numerous RS have also done so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- BD2412, I've done a lot of the leg work. Now this needs to be refined into actual content, with the list of law firms. Would you, and others, like to propose full sections below, with tweaks and titles? Call them versions 2, 3, etc. Then we can all !vote on our favorite version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Version 2
I have worked these together into a less fluffy option three, which I think captures the essence of the matter:
In an article describing the "unique circumstance" of Rudy Giuliani's unpaid leave of absence from Greenberg Traurig while representing Trump, possibly because of "potential conflicts", Christine Simmons referred to how some other law firms may have turned down representing Trump in the Russia case due to "public relations headaches or business and recruitment concerns".[1] Trump has called such views a "Fake News narrative",[2][3] but, according to Ryan Lovelace, "many Washington defense attorneys aren't so sure".[3]
A number of prominent lawyers and law firms are known to have declined offers to join Trump's legal team,[4][5] including Robert S. Bennett of Hogan Lovells,[6] Paul Clement and Mark Filip, both with Kirkland & Ellis,[7] ,[7] Robert Giuffra Jr. of Sullivan & Cromwell,[6] Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,[8] and Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. of Williams & Connolly.[7] Other firms with attorneys who have declined to represent Trump include Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,[9] Steptoe & Johnson,[9] and Winston & Strawn.[10] Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were also briefly slated to join Trump's legal team, but withdrew their services from Trump in March 2018, citing conflicts of interest.[11]
In a National Law Journal article, Lovelace described how white-collar lawyers must weigh the "risks" and "stigma" of joining the Trump team,[3] quoting another prominent defense attorney's concerns about "the constant shuffle of attorneys in and out of the president's legal team", and the possibility that an attorney could invest resources and reputation in such representation "only to find yourself on the sidelines a short time later because the president saw someone he liked better on Fox News".[3] The quoted attorney also noted "a stigma to being linked to this president" that might impact business with other clients.[3] A list of other reasons is provided by Jill Abramson for The Guardian:
The problem for the white-collar defense bar’s crème de la crème is that Donald Trump is so blatantly the client from hell. He won’t listen. He won’t obey instructions. He is headstrong. He is a bully. Sometimes, he doesn’t pay his bills. Most of all, it’s possible that he isn’t capable of discerning fact from fiction. This last foible could get any lawyer who represents him into very deep legal hot water. No one wants to get disbarred for the fame and fortune of representing President Trump. Then there’s the justifiable concern over all the unforced legal errors that the defense side, led by Trump himself, has already committed.[12]
An Above the Law article states that some law firms have refused to represent the President of the United States because "Donald Trump has somehow turned POTUS into a dog of a client self-respecting lawyers do not want to touch", expressing concern that "[i]f all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is".[13]
Sources
- ^ Simmons, Christine (May 4, 2018). "Citing 'Potential Conflicts,' Greenberg Traurig Says Giuliani on Unpaid Leave". New York Law Journal. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
- ^ "Donald J. Trump on Twitter". Twitter. March 27, 2018. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case...don't believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted....- ^ a b c d e Lovelace, Ryan (March 26, 2018). "White-Collar Pros Weigh Risks, 'Stigma' of Joining Trump Team". The National Law Journal. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
- ^ Kranish, Michael (June 6, 2017). "Trump's legal dream team falters as D.C. heavyweights take a pass". The Washington Post.
- ^ Isikoff, Michael (June 6, 2017). "Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump". Yahoo News.
- ^ a b Scannell, Carol (April 15, 2018). "Another white collar lawyer turns down Trump". CNN.
- ^ a b c Linsky, Annie (2018-04-21). "Why the most powerful man in the world has struggled to assemble a legal team - The Boston Globe". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 2018-04-21.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help)- ^ Costa, Robert; Leonnig, Carol D. (March 20, 2018). "Star GOP lawyer Theodore B. Olson declines offer to join Trump legal team". The Washington Post.
- ^ a b Samuelsohn, Darren (April 16, 2018). "Cohen crisis shows short-handed Trump legal team's scramble". Politico.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
cnn20180327
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Haberman, Maggie; Schmidt, Michael S.; Landler, Mark (March 25, 2018). "Trump Won't Hire 2 Lawyers Whose Appointments Were Announced Days Ago". The New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
- ^ Abramson, Jill (March 28, 2018). "Lawyers, lawyers everywhere. And none to represent Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved May 7, 2018.
- ^ Mystal, Elie (March 26, 2018). "A Running List Of Lawyers And Law Firms Who Have Refused To Represent The President Of The United States". Above the Law. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
Cheers! bd2412 T 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I love it! It flows much better. I'd sure !vote for this version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's an improvement, I would still rather see trivia like lawyers turning down a job removed entirely. But even though there is consensus for that it has not happened yet. For this version you might consider removing the last two paragraphs since they do not add to much new information past what is already presented in paragraph three. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Jill Abramson quote highlights what I don't think is anywhere else in the article, that lawyers may avoid Trump as a client not merely because he is unpopular or has said offensive things, but because he doesn't listen to advice of counsel, and may lead his counsel into legal jeopardy. The fourth cites a source for the concern that Trump is dissuading good lawyers, and thereby attracting bad ones. I think both add something unique, although I suppose the last sentence could be shortened to something like: An Above the Law article states the concern that "[i]f all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is". bd2412 T 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but I am not sure the speculation adds value. With the Guardian opinion article just guessing and the Above the Law article being an opinion piece as well making a rather odd overly broad statement. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Worse than ever. Way too much UNDUE detail. Keep the second paragraph, dump the rest. This article is supposed to be about the special counsel investigation, not about still another personal failing of Donald Trump. If you want an article about "Legal defense of Donald Trump" or "Donald Trump as a legal client", start one. If you think this article about the special counsel investigation should contain an expansive detailed critique like this, I suggest an RfC - perhaps offering a choice between 1) no mention of the subject at all, 2) a single paragraph just naming the attorneys, and 3) an extended section like this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. This is related, and Trump explicitly tied this "Fake News narrative" to this investigation.
- If it's not allowed here, then a separate article about Lawyers affiliated with Donald Trump could be started, and we move ALL the lawyers there. Then we could have sections about various types of issues and the lawyers involved, and those known to have resisted involvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is actually a Legal affairs of Donald Trump. It seems well suited for that purpose. The asserted problems with Trump as a client would apply to all of these issues. bd2412 T 20:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I like it. A section about his various lawyers could be started there and this content moved. Shall we start moving in that direction? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that the word Russia only appears once, in the infobox, on that page. A section needs to be started which mentions this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- True, because what's a Trump page without Russia? PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- LOL. Who'da thunk? His Russian ties were pretty much ignored before he ran for president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously though, the Legal affairs of Donald Trump does seem like a better home for this content. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think we keep the first two paragraphs here, and move the rest to the legal affairs article with a section hatnote to that corresponding section. Oddly, I don't think the legal affairs article mentions the Special Counsel investigation at all, so we can tie them together this way. bd2412 T 01:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. It's a serious lack to not even mention the investigation. A hatnote with a short summary should be included, along with the content moved from here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think we keep the first two paragraphs here, and move the rest to the legal affairs article with a section hatnote to that corresponding section. Oddly, I don't think the legal affairs article mentions the Special Counsel investigation at all, so we can tie them together this way. bd2412 T 01:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously though, the Legal affairs of Donald Trump does seem like a better home for this content. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- LOL. Who'da thunk? His Russian ties were pretty much ignored before he ran for president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- True, because what's a Trump page without Russia? PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that the word Russia only appears once, in the infobox, on that page. A section needs to be started which mentions this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I like it. A section about his various lawyers could be started there and this content moved. Shall we start moving in that direction? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is actually a Legal affairs of Donald Trump. It seems well suited for that purpose. The asserted problems with Trump as a client would apply to all of these issues. bd2412 T 20:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, I have started the process here: Legal affairs of Donald Trump#Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Would you like to finish it? Feel free to move the section and/or tweak as needed. I have followed my usual practice for SPINOFF articles, by using content from the lead of the main article as the summary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, let me know what you think of my implementation. bd2412 T 23:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Very nice. If I'm not mistaken, that wraps up this thread and I'll tag it "done".
- Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Viktor Vekselberg
If this edit...
were a bolt from the blue without any context, I might agree it should be removed
But as indicated in the context of the paragraph, it's a new development in a story first reported over one month ago, and it appears to be quite significant.
Consequently I believe the edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Important story, which is likely to expand over the next day or two. I won't argue with restoration. Just think we should wait for it to flesh out for at least a day. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see a logical reason for throwing it into purgatory here. It's a significant development in a topic that's already part of the article, and it's been confirmed and extensively reported-on by at least two reliable sources. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore it. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll remember. soibangla (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Possibility of Indictment
Calling you in because I changed your wording, and I want you to opine, if you don't mind.
As it currently stands, I've changed Mr. Plainview's original statement, "Mueller's team told President Trump's legal team that they cannot indict a sitting president; they can only write a report at the conclusion of the investigation.", to the following:
According to Rudy Giuliani, a member of President Trump's legal team, Mueller's team told him that they cannot indict a sitting president; they can only write a report at the conclusion of the investigation.
The facts are the following:
- Mr. Giuliani, on May 16, 2018, said that he had been told by the Special Counsel's team that they could not indict the President, as a matter of law, and that, to quote Mr. Giuliani directly, "All they get to do is write a report" (per CNN) at the end of the investigation. (This is from The Hill, as cited in citation 17.)
- Mr. Giuliani, in a later interview with Robert Costa, a reporter for the Washington Post, implied that the statement regarding indictment was nonverbal at the time, but that Mr. Giuliani's understanding was "acknowledged [to be correct]" within a few days. Mr. Mueller explicitly "didn't say that" he would not be charging the President; at this point, Mr. Giuliani notes that he'd "would have to check with Jay [Sekulow, another one of the President's lawyers [...] One of his [Mr. Sekulow's] top people told him that." Finally, according to Mr Giuliani, again, Mr. Mueller "was coy", and "didn't seem to want to give the answer".
- Mr. Giuliani may well be mistaken on two fronts: the former being hearsay, and the latter being a misinterpretation of Mr. Mueller's demeanor.
- Lastly, Mr. Mueller's team has not commented on this, as usual, as reported by CNN, The Hill, et al.
While both of the above statements rely on the same facts, Wikipedians, of course, strive for neutrality, and I'm of the opinion that my restatement is somewhat biased, that it raises issues of credibility regarding Mr. Giuliani; and I'd like to find some sort of compromise opinion, if possible.
I am open to suggestions, naturally. Thoughts?
- Oh no, let me try that ping again. Stupid me. @Mr. Daniel Plainview: are you there? — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Javert2113. Frankly I think the article from The Hill is somewhat sloppily written. The first line is
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s legal team that they can’t indict a sitting president, CNN reported Wednesday."
(emphasis mine) But then the very next line reads:"Rudy Giuliani, who is leading Trump’s legal team in the Russia probe, told the network that when it comes to the president, Mueller’s team can only write a report at the conclusion of its investigation."
So it's not a "report," and this information has not been independently confirmed (as of now) by any news org that I am aware of. I based the material off the first line in The Hill article, but it's clear that so far the only verification we have of this is Giuliani himself. Fox News confirms this (Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News). I think the version currently in the article is fine, personally. I have a feeling that more information will be coming out relatively shortly that will confirm or deny Giuliani's assertion, and of course the imminent OIG report will likely have ramifications across dozens of related articles. No rush! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Javert2113. Frankly I think the article from The Hill is somewhat sloppily written. The first line is