→Propose removing "Possible earlier interest in Trump" subsection from the Allegations section: Remove Harding's speculation |
→Let's talk about the pee tape: Delete BLP-violating allegations about Page and Millian. Courtesy ping User:BullRangifer |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
According to the IG Report, {{tq|WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."}} So it is now clear that the infamous Pee Tape allegation came out of a conversation with friends over beers and was made in jest. How should we integrate this information into the article? It is a fundamental change from what we've had so far. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
According to the IG Report, {{tq|WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."}} So it is now clear that the infamous Pee Tape allegation came out of a conversation with friends over beers and was made in jest. How should we integrate this information into the article? It is a fundamental change from what we've had so far. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
: Good question. It has been a rumor in Moscow for several years, long before the dossier, and commonly used in jest when Russians make fun of Trump. |
: Good question. It has been a rumor in Moscow for several years, long before the dossier, and commonly used in jest when Russians make fun of Trump. |
||
: (Also keep in mind that Steele's sources were both witting and unwitting, and a few have been interviewed by the FBI and IG. Some are hostile witnesses who are known for dissembling and false statements who then muddy the waters in their interviews with the IG. Page and Millian come to mind. Page is known to be untrustworthy and use false statements until forced to tell the truth, and even then not telling the full truth. Both Page and Millian are also known as boasters and exaggerators of their own importance. What they told the IG must be taken with many grains of salt. Hostile witnesses are not good sources.) |
|||
: Now find RS which deal with the pee tape rumors and allegation. We have to resist the temptation of quoting directly from the IG report without using secondary sources. That would be forbidden OR use of a primary source. The Mueller Report, dossier, and IG report are sources we can't use directly. |
: Now find RS which deal with the pee tape rumors and allegation. We have to resist the temptation of quoting directly from the IG report without using secondary sources. That would be forbidden OR use of a primary source. The Mueller Report, dossier, and IG report are sources we can't use directly. |
||
: Bring whatever RS you find here and let's develop something. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
: Bring whatever RS you find here and let's develop something. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:39, 13 December 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
What to trim?
So this article is already bigger than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It is way more bloated than it needs to be. What are some suggestions to trim it down? It looks like it could be about half the size it currently is. PackMecEng (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if the allegations were removed (most of which I've long forgotten) it would probably reduce this article to a stub. Even if consensus decided a merge was necessary, there are no target articles to merge to - they also need trimming. Atsme Talk 📧 05:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- There are also a lot of useless quotes that could be removed from people and sources that are not really due. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's smaller than Trump's and only slightly larger than Clinton's. Both of them make abundant use of WP:SPINOFF to keep their size what it is. That is not done here, although the allegations were originally a sub-article, but a community consensus merged them here. After all, an article about a book that only discusses the publicity about the book, the beautiful cover, the author, etc., doesn't make sense if it never discusses its content. That's why the merge made sense. The content/allegations are what makes it notable.
- A return to deletion attempts would be disruptive, and I suspect that editors are aware of the DS sanctions which discourage such disruption. I believe one editor was warned specifically against returning to such behavior, which was most notable at this article. Caution is advised. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- No it is not. It is larger both in size and prose than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as see by here. Trump is 16,033 words and 410,069 bytes, Clinton is 16,729 words and 311,845 bytes, and dossier is 18,880 words and 329,410 bytes. Truly a ridiculous size for such a topic. As I said I plan on trimming down the excessive quotes and less notable sources to help this article comply with WP:SIZE. Where would you like to hit first? It could be cut in half just about to comply with the guideline. PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your other stuff exists logic is not a legitimate argument. Each article stands on its own merits, and those are determined by coverage in RS. Those other articles make liberal use of spinoff sub-articles and this one does not, so they cannot be compared on a strictly one-articles-size basis. Stop comparing articles that are widely different. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- That was not the argument, the argument was WP:SIZE. I just gave examples for context. This article had spin offs but the community deemed them not notable enough to stand of their own. With that being the case, many parts of this article have way to much filler and non-notable information. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I understood your SIZE argument to be used as an OTHERTHINGS type of argument.
- You write that "this article had spin offs." What were they? (I wasn't involved in the beginnings of this article, so I don't know.)
- As you may have noticed, I'm trying to reduce duplication, and that should help. I'll keep working on that. When I'm finished with that, it'll be easier to see what's left to consider for trimming. Any fluff and duplication should be removed first. Fair enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- That was not the argument, the argument was WP:SIZE. I just gave examples for context. This article had spin offs but the community deemed them not notable enough to stand of their own. With that being the case, many parts of this article have way to much filler and non-notable information. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your other stuff exists logic is not a legitimate argument. Each article stands on its own merits, and those are determined by coverage in RS. Those other articles make liberal use of spinoff sub-articles and this one does not, so they cannot be compared on a strictly one-articles-size basis. Stop comparing articles that are widely different. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- No it is not. It is larger both in size and prose than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as see by here. Trump is 16,033 words and 410,069 bytes, Clinton is 16,729 words and 311,845 bytes, and dossier is 18,880 words and 329,410 bytes. Truly a ridiculous size for such a topic. As I said I plan on trimming down the excessive quotes and less notable sources to help this article comply with WP:SIZE. Where would you like to hit first? It could be cut in half just about to comply with the guideline. PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
False Info by Latest Editor
The following: “ Contrary to a conspiracy theory[25][26] pushed by Trump,[27] Fox News,[28] and many of his supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[29][30]” is not factual and cites numerous biased media articles. In fact, the latest 456-page report by IG Horowitz released just today provides ample evidence for the Trump-Russia “Steele” Dossier being the basis for FISA warrant in Carter Page. Joesirianni (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- You just literally said that the article is correct - the dossier was used in one part of the investigation, but it was not the basis for originally opening the investigation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The dossier had ZERO part as a trigger for starting the Russia investigation in July 2016, and the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court.
- The idea that the dossier is "the basis for FISA warrant in Carter Page" is an old, and long-since debunked, conspiracy theory without evidence. It's the GOP/Trump/Putin/Fox party line and believed only by Trump's small base of supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Now that I have seen the final IG Horowitz report, released today, I have added this content:
The Inspector General's report was released on December 9, 2019, and states "We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order."[1] The exact role played was in how "the Steele reporting 'pushed [the FISA proposal] over the line' in terms of establishing probable cause."[2]
- We also have this related content:
Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) disagreed, stating on February 4 on CBS' Face the Nation: "I actually don't think it has any impact on the Russia probe." He went on to say:
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said. "So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."[3]
Gowdy was dissatisfied with the process of seeking the warrant: "I say investigate everything Russia did but admit that this was a really sloppy process that you engaged in to surveil a U.S. citizen." When questioned, he said the FISA warrant on Carter Page would not have been authorized without the dossier.[4]
- This comment by Gowdy ("FISA warrant on Carter Page would not have been authorized without the dossier") now makes more sense. While the basis for the FISA warrant was lots of other information already possessed by the FBI, the dossier, when it arrived much later, served a "central role" by pushing "[the FISA proposal] over the line' in terms of establishing probable cause." It was the single drop that made the cup overflow. It was a small, but vital, role.
- Have fun with that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm not buying that. The IG report says "We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order." Central and essential role is a lot bigger than a single, small drop, as you characterize.
- The report also reveals that the sub-source disavowed the dossier, and goes into detail the issues with Steele, including his bias and history with the "facts." This article needs a serious re-write, based on the IG report, and leaving the false or misleading media reports out.
- We also need to revisit the Nunes memo section, and include something about how the IG report validated the Nunes memo, and even though we don't include the Schiff memo, it may be good to include how Schiff's memo was largely not supported by the IG report. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- What a luxury, one I do not possess, the ability to deny what a RS says. Pushed over the line is accurate. (Note what the sources say and my interpretation. The former is in the article, the latter is here on the talk page.)
- Also, "disavowed"? I didn't read that. Please provide an exact quote and source, not your own hyperbole.
- The other things we'll get to as RS start to comment on them. Until then the document is a primary source, so we must avoid OR.
- Which sources are the "false or misleading media reports" you'd like to leave out? Please be precise. Aspersions against RS is a strike directly at the heart of what we do here and our RS policy.
- If you have something about the Nunes memo and the dossier, please provide a suggested improvement. We're always interested in that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Every RS that attacked the Nunes memo was wrong. Every RS that praised the Schiff memo is wrong. Every RS that said the dossier played no or a limited role in the FISA process is wrong. These lies were pushed by RS and key members of the intelligence community. We know that now, clearly, from the IG report. I don’t even know where to begin - this thing honestly needs to be rewritten from the ground up per TNT, with the IG findings presented first and foremost, as that is the only accurate and researched point of data for the dossier. You can almost entirely discount the rest. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you start writing a suggested improvemnt using RS. If it's better than what we have, then we'll use it. Deal with single items, not whole sentences and paragraphs. Be very specific in your criticisms.
- I can see from your comments that you have missed some major conclusions from the IG report.
- No one has claimed that the dossier played no role in the FISA warrent. It definitely did. We have known that for a long time, and the IG report reconfirms what we knew and what this article says.
- The IG report also confirms that the dossier played no role at all in the start of the Russia investigation. You seem to be confusing those two issues, which is common among people who read unreliable sources. Trump's conspiracy theories muddy those waters quite a bit. They are a repetition of Russian propaganda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Every RS that attacked the Nunes memo was wrong. Every RS that praised the Schiff memo is wrong. Every RS that said the dossier played no or a limited role in the FISA process is wrong. These lies were pushed by RS and key members of the intelligence community. We know that now, clearly, from the IG report. I don’t even know where to begin - this thing honestly needs to be rewritten from the ground up per TNT, with the IG findings presented first and foremost, as that is the only accurate and researched point of data for the dossier. You can almost entirely discount the rest. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Scary to see such blatant lies from partisans provided editing powers on Wikipedia, where do many people get their “facts,” although unsurprising. Joesirianni (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Joesirianni, please provide evidence of these "blatant lies" in the form of reliable sources. That excludes sources known to peddle in partisanship and falsehoods, such as Breitbart or John Solomon's columns from The Hill. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I get where you are coming from, but these comments don't help us improve. I agree that this article needs to be improved. Help me come up with suggestions for how we can do that. The challenge with this topic, in particular, is that reliable sources don't seem to want to dig into the details. A good example of this are fact checking some of the claims. It should have been easy to dig into the claim that Cohen was in Prague, and interesting for reporters to look into. I only found one RS that looked into it and they couldn't find any evidence that he was there, disproving a key point of the dossier. Additionally, the dossier claimed Cohen's wife was Russian, but she was actually Ukranian. So there's 2 points in the dossier that could have been easily checked and refuted, had RS had an interest in doing so. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, please bring suggestions for improvement.
- There is a whole section dealing with the "Cohen was in Prague" allegation, which is as yet unproven. (What really irks me is why he had to tell several different lies about if he was innocent? That's suspicious.) Read it before accusing the article of a lack in this area. If you have other RS which deal with it, please suggest improvements. They'll be welcome.
- Cohen's wife is Ukrainian, and lots of them are of Russian descent. No big deal, and no evidence the statement is wrong. Even if it were, it would be an inconsequential and minor error. BTW, we're going to be seeing more content about inaccuracies and differences of opinion between Steele's primary sources, and the sub-sources. Steele may have exaggerated or been imprecise, which should come as no surprise if you have read this article. The dossier was not intended for publication and was not ready for the public to see. It's raw intelligence, and inaccuracies are expected. Steele said it was probably about 70-90% accurate, so there is a large margin for error. No one claims that every allegation is complete truth. That accusation is a straw man argument. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Bull this is the problem with your approach. You accept the statements in the dossier as gospel that must be disproven. There has never been a single piece of evidence that Cohen was in Prague. Yet you call that “as yet unproven,” as if there’s some secret evidence waiting to be discovered that wasn’t found by the exhaustive and comprehensive efforts of Mueller or the IG. IT IS NOT TRUE. It is not “unproven” - it is FALSE. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you have such confidence without evidence. I don't have that luxury. I don't know if it's true or not. One of his phones pinged on cell towers there at the time, and he lied multiple times about it. That's just suspicious. If not for that I would have discounted that allegation a long time ago. So far it's in the "unproven" category. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- A reliable source reported his cell phone pinged towers near Prague, and that foreign intel intercepted Russians saying he was there. So Cohen could "truthfully" assert he wasn't in Prague, but maybe he was in some village miles outside the city limits. soibangla (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Bull this is the problem with your approach. You accept the statements in the dossier as gospel that must be disproven. There has never been a single piece of evidence that Cohen was in Prague. Yet you call that “as yet unproven,” as if there’s some secret evidence waiting to be discovered that wasn’t found by the exhaustive and comprehensive efforts of Mueller or the IG. IT IS NOT TRUE. It is not “unproven” - it is FALSE. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, please read what RS say before commenting. "An anonymous source" is far from the truth. Unfortunately, Mueller never investigated this allegation.
Here's what we have from RS:
In August 2018, BBC correspondent Paul Wood wrote: "I have spoken to one intelligence source who says Mueller is examining 'electronic records' that would place Cohen in Prague."[1] McClatchy reported in December 2018 that a mobile phone traced to Cohen had "pinged" cellphone towers around Prague in late summer 2016, and that the signal was "picked up by a foreign intelligence agency ..." raising "the possibility that Cohen was not there but one of the many phones he used was".[2] McClatchy reported that their December 2018 report was "based on information from five individuals with foreign intelligence connections, ..." and that each "obtained their information independently from each other. McClatchy stands by the reporting."[2]
McClatchy also reported that during that time an Eastern European intelligence agency had intercepted communications between Russians, one of whom mentioned that Cohen was in Prague.[3] Cohen reasserted that he has never been to Prague, adding "Mueller knows everything!"[4]
BullRangifer (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The McClatchy source credits the claim to " four people with knowledge of the matter say." Those people are anonymous and there's no way to validate what they say, and there was no attempt. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wood spoke to "one intelligence source".
- McClatchy mentions
fourfive: Their report was "was "based on information from five individuals with foreign intelligence connections, ..." and that each "obtained their information independently from each other." - A "foreign intelligence agency" caught that ping.
- "an Eastern European intelligence agency had intercepted communications between Russians, one of whom mentioned that Cohen was in Prague."
- We can't add that up to eight because there is likely duplication, but it's obviously several independent sources.
- Don't get hung up on "anonymous". It does not mean non-existent. Even Steele's sources, who are mostly anonymous to us, are known to Steele and he gave their names to the FBI. Some of them are very well-known unwitting witnesses/participants, such as Trump, Putin, Sechin (and many named Russians), Carter Page, Millian, Cohen, Manafort, etc. Many of these people were overheard by sources who passed on their knowledge to Steele. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
using Cohen's own words
this reverted edit:
is actually correct. The Mueller Report contains a footnote about the allegation Cohen was in Prague that cites only Cohen's own testimony saying he wasn't, but the Report did not say it had independently confirmed Cohen was not in Prague. The edit should be restored.soibangla (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten to include information from the IG
The information in this wiki is outdated and is flawed down to its central premise. I noted numerous inaccuracies but will only highlight one primary one. The intro to this article states: "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[18][19] in particular its main allegations: that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton,[20][13] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians."
This is false because that is not the main allegation of the Steele Dossier, which was uncorroborated and disproven. The main allegation was that Page was working for Putin and Russia. Page was allegedly involved in both corruption as well as coordinating the email release with the Trump campaign, as well as being involved in an agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign to help the campaign in exchange for easing sanctions on Russia. None of these allegations are true, and thus I suggest an entire rewrite of the dossier that quotes heavily from the IG report directly rather than media sources and pundits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Parts of the dossier have been corroborated. Please provide reliable sources to support any edits you wish to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I did so below. It should also be added that the CIA intel chief said the CIA viewed the dossier as "internet rumors" in the IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have searched the whole report and do not find those words. Please provide the source (URL), exact wording, and context where you found that wording. I suspect that is out of context and exaggerated. One comment might say that, but lots of other comments say the CIA and FBI had other opinions which were much more nuanced. That's why they took the allegations seriously and investigated them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is listed multiple times, I am surprised you couldn't find it. Page 384 footnote 507: "...However, according to the Intel Section Chief and Supervisory Intel Analyst, as the interagency editing process for the ICA progressed, the CIA expressed concern about using the Steele election reporting in the body of the ICA, and recommended that it be moved to an appendix. In a December 28, 2016 email to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Principal Deputy Director, McCabe objected to this recommendation, stating, "We oppose CIA's current plan to include [the election reporting] as an appendix." However, the FBI Intel Section Chief told us that the CIA viewed the Steele reporting as "internet rumor." The FBI's view did not prevail, and the final ICA report included a short summary of the Steele election reporting in an appendix." I agree with the other editors who suggest a total rewrite in light of the IG report revelations into the dossier and its relation to the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, now I found it. By using your terms (plural "internet rumors"), I couldn't find it. By using the right term (singular "internet rumor"), I could. It was the Rolling Stone article which gave me that cue.
- A complete rewrite is out of the question. That's not how Wikipedia works. We revise inaccurate information, and where there is disagreement, as in these cases, we document the discrepancy, IOW we document the historical development, including the inaccuracies in previous reportings. It's embarrassing to the original sources which got it wrong. Tough luck for them.
- The IG report mostly provides insights into sloppiness, failures to follow protocols, exaggerations, miscommunications, and how one of Steele's witnesses turns hostile and disputes the reports. That's to be expected. Now we wait and see how RS report it, and then we document what they say. We do NOT go directly to the IG report and find what we want and include it. That violates WP:OR. The same has been done with this article. There is much in the dossier that is not mentioned in this article because it didn't have due weight in RS. If RS don't mention it, we are not allowed to do it either. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The IG report listed seventeen serious violations of the FISA process that led to an audit and potential reform of the whole process. It found a lawyer fraudulently altered critical documents concerning Page's past work with US intelligence in order to get a warrant and is now being prosecuted. Steele's witness turning hostile and disputing the report? Care to cite me what page in the IG report that describes the emotional state or motivations of the Primary Sub source to dispute what Steele claimed the PSS told him? I must have missed that part. Sure you aren't "misusing a primary source?" Or are you basing your statement on your personal conjecture? I believe that's discouraged here. But more importantly, since you seem to be the most involved in editing and reverting edits to this page, are you going to add the characterization of the dossier as an "internet rumor? Here is the quote from the BBC which I believe is a reliable source: "The report noted the CIA itself viewed the Steele dossier as little more than "an internet rumour". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50720350 I feel this merits inclusion at the top section or at least in the veracity section. 173.154.128.33 (talk) 08:35, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
- It is listed multiple times, I am surprised you couldn't find it. Page 384 footnote 507: "...However, according to the Intel Section Chief and Supervisory Intel Analyst, as the interagency editing process for the ICA progressed, the CIA expressed concern about using the Steele election reporting in the body of the ICA, and recommended that it be moved to an appendix. In a December 28, 2016 email to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Principal Deputy Director, McCabe objected to this recommendation, stating, "We oppose CIA's current plan to include [the election reporting] as an appendix." However, the FBI Intel Section Chief told us that the CIA viewed the Steele reporting as "internet rumor." The FBI's view did not prevail, and the final ICA report included a short summary of the Steele election reporting in an appendix." I agree with the other editors who suggest a total rewrite in light of the IG report revelations into the dossier and its relation to the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have searched the whole report and do not find those words. Please provide the source (URL), exact wording, and context where you found that wording. I suspect that is out of context and exaggerated. One comment might say that, but lots of other comments say the CIA and FBI had other opinions which were much more nuanced. That's why they took the allegations seriously and investigated them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I did so below. It should also be added that the CIA intel chief said the CIA viewed the dossier as "internet rumors" in the IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Opinions may vary as to which allegation is the main one or "central premise", but the allegations all center on concerns about the proven Russian interferene and Trump's proven co-operation with those efforts. That's the red thread, and it's been proven beyond all doubt...among reasonable people who don't believe Russian propaganda. Mueller even called it "Steele's central claim":
While a formal written or oral "conspiracy" was never proven by the Mueller investigation,[1][2][3] some consider the actions of Manafort,[4] Trump, who welcomed Russian help,[5] and other Trump campaign members and associates[6] as "co-operation" with the Russian's "'sweeping and systematic' operation in 2016 to help Trump win",[7] described in the Mueller Report as "Steele's central claim".[7][8]
- BullRangifer (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- You need to be careful about making false claims. You’ve done it before. The Mueller Report did not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or coordinated with Russia. Why do you keep saying that? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't say that. I have replied and explained terminology in a section on your talk page. I try to be precise in my terminology. I wrote "co-operation", not "conspiracy". The first is proven, the latter is not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- You need to be careful about making false claims. You’ve done it before. The Mueller Report did not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or coordinated with Russia. Why do you keep saying that? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Rather than making such strong assertions, please make very specific suggestions for improvement, including exact wordings and exact RS you'll use. That is something we can use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Footnote 259 of the Horowitz Report expressly refutes the claim in Steele's memos that there was a connection between Alfa Bank and the campaign. This should be added. In the intro to the wiki it states: "That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had "managed" a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership", and that he used Trump's foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others, "as intermediaries".[150][152] (Dossier, p. 7)" These are all false claims. Next: "That Page had "conceived and promoted" the timing of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks[153][139] for the purpose of swinging supporters of Bernie Sanders "away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP".[153][151] (Dossier, pp. 7, 17) This is a false claim. "That "the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team."[4][160] (Dossier, p. 8) This is a false claim (referring to the dnc leak) "That Page had secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin in Moscow on "either 7 or 8 July",[135] together with a "senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN."[163][138][133][164][165] (Dossier, pp. 9, 30–32) That Sechin "offered PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for Trump lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election.[163][138][133][164][165] (Dossier, pp. 9, 30–32)" These are all false claims also listed in the allegations section.
Also, the wiki needs to be updated to include mention that Steele's primary sub-source denies telling Steele much of what he told the FBI that his source told him.
173.154.193.132 (talk) 05:33, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
- We only deal with the allegations, true or false, which are dealt with in secondary sources. We do do not deal with, or even mention, other allegations. That an allegation might be false is no reason not to mention it. We document what RS say about it. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The allegations you consider as "false" are also considered "unproven". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Page 147 of the IG report: "Page also told the CHS during the meeting that the "core lie" against him in the media "is that [Page] met with these sanctioned Russian officials, several of which I've never met in my entire life." Page said that the "core lie" concerned "Sechin [who] is the main guy, the head of Rosneft ... [and] there's another guy I had never even heard of, you know he's like, in the inner circle." When asked about that person's name, Page said "I can't even remember, it's just so outrageous." This needs to be added concerning the Rosneft allegations, as does the reference on pg 187 primary sub source showing texts which disprove Steele's allegation that there were bribes involved between Page and Rosneft: "Application No. 1 and months prior to Renewal Application No. 2, raised doubts about the reliability of Steele's descriptions of information in his election reports. During the FBI's January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been "confirmed" by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was "rumor and speculation" and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story. A second example provided by the Primary Sub-source was Report 134's description of a meeting allegedly held between Carter Page and Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, a Russian energy conglomerate. 337 Report 134 stated that, according to a "close associate" of Sechin, Sechin offered "PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft" in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. 338 The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/ her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. 339 We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a "brokerage."340
- Whoa! Stop now. You're engaging in OR and misusing a primary source. Wait til RS deal with it and then document what they say. That's how we work here. We are REQUIRED to be "behind the curve." -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
- How am I misusing a primary source? Why do you consider the IG report to not be a RS? If you want the refutation of the Rosneft allegation quoted from a mainstream publication, here is the WSJ on the subject: "On the surveillance warrant on the peripheral and unimportant Carter Page, we learn that a host of mistakes, omissions and outright fabrications “made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.” Exculpatory evidence was ignored. Mr. Page conveyed persuasively that he had never spoken to or communicated with Paul Manafort whose intermediary with Russian co-conspirators Mr. Page was supposed to be. Mr. Steele’s implausible claim of a giant dangled Rosneft bribe was denied even by Mr. Steele’s own source as the inspector general was able to confirm by looking at the source’s text messages. Still unexplained, and inexplicable, is why the FBI was in a panic to eavesdrop on Mr. Page at all. Nobody could have believed Mr. Steele’s story about him. More than ever it seems FBI headquarters, from which the demand originated, was under some unidentified outside pressure to spy on the Trump campaign." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-horowitz-horror-show-11576022683 This clearly states that the allegation of a Rosneft bribe was found by the IG to be without merit. Will you add the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.136.28.10 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be woven throughout the article that the dossier had little to no role in getting surveillance on Page. That no longer seems to be the case. The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page.
[1] There is actually all kinds of stuff in that article that is rather interesting. Also from the report itself things like FBI documents reflect that another of Steele's sub-sources who reviewed the election reporting told the FBI in August 2017 that whatever information in the Steele reports that was attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated" and that he/she did not recognize anything as originating specifically from him/her.
which seems to be a common thread though the whole report.[2][3] PackMecEng (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Also the report states "it was just talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/ her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."
in regards to the golden shower stuff from the Rolling Stone article and the IG report. PackMecEng (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- This new information is going to be exciting, and we'll be adding more to the article, and because some of it is negative toward Steele, I suspect you and Atsme won't object to including it.
- Because the IG report is a primary source, we must avoid OR and wait for RS, not fringe sources, to deal with it. It will come. There is work to do! I'm creating more Google Alerts for this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Dubious deletion
This content:
According to former federal prosecutor Pete Zeidenberg, those "false statements to Comey about the trip could demonstrate that Trump has 'consciousness of guilt'."[1]
was deleted, with this edit summary: "so? not relevant to this article and arguably not relevant at all"
- I strongly disagree. The former federal prosecutor's analysis of the false statement is directly relevant to the dossier claim and the denial. The source is also impeccable for this purpose, and the statement is clearly attributed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the above edit. What does Pete Zeidenberg or his opinion have to the Steele? There are too many quotes in this wiki from people who are sharing their opinion yet not directly related. This wiki is too long and taking out some quotes by people not directly related but just sharing opinions would help. 173.154.128.33 (talk) 09:06, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion about how we do things here. Our sources usually have nothing to do with the subject, person, event, etc. Our sources are whoever writes or speaks about the subject of the article, whether it's a statements of fact or an opinion. Controversial opinions must be attributed to the source. We include it all, as our job is to document the "sum total of human knowledge" as found in RS, and opinions are part of that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the above edit. What does Pete Zeidenberg or his opinion have to the Steele? There are too many quotes in this wiki from people who are sharing their opinion yet not directly related. This wiki is too long and taking out some quotes by people not directly related but just sharing opinions would help. 173.154.128.33 (talk) 09:06, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
- There are tons of former federal prosecutors and not all of their opinions matter. In this case its kind of a "yeah so?" situation. Some guy thinking Trump is guilty of a crime is not super relevant to the dossier as a whole. PackMecEng (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is directly relevant to the denial of an allegation in the dossier, and sadly, the most sensational and best-known allegation. The denial is relevant, and so is the analysis. Try to build and not break down. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am trying to build a encyclopedia. Not a random assortment of undue opinions. Unfortunately this is that, and as I stated in my edit summary I am not sure where it would be relevant. PackMecEng (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's relevant exactly where it was. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am trying to build a encyclopedia. Not a random assortment of undue opinions. Unfortunately this is that, and as I stated in my edit summary I am not sure where it would be relevant. PackMecEng (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is directly relevant to the denial of an allegation in the dossier, and sadly, the most sensational and best-known allegation. The denial is relevant, and so is the analysis. Try to build and not break down. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
In this deletion] you took out too much, even by your own edit summary. All three sources complement each other and tell the whole story. As it is now, it is not clear to what degree the denial is false, and that this places him in Rome, not Capri, at the time of the alleged Prague visit, enabling him to easily make a quick and undetected trip to Prague.
You have removed that information, and that leaves a hole in our coverage, a hole which is filled by the RS which you removed. Not good. False alibis are incriminating. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is a "false alibi" according to no RS. We use RS here especially when making exceptional claims about a BLP. As I stated neither source measured up to that and other RS do not make mention of it. What did you mean when you said
even by your own edit summary
? My summary only mentioned why I took out what I did, not that I took out to much. PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Propose removing "Possible earlier interest in Trump" subsection from the Allegations section
There is a paragraph inserted at the end of the allegations section that states "Although the dossier alleged in June 2016 that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump for "at least five years", Luke Harding wrote that the Soviet Union had been interested in him since 1987. In his book Collusion, Harding asserts that the "top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB." Then-KGB head Vladimir Kryuchkov "wanted KGB staff abroad to recruit more Americans." Harding proceeds to describe the KGB's cultivation process, and posits that they may have opened a file on Trump as early as 1977, when he married Czech model Ivana Zelníčková; the Soviet spies may have closely observed and analyzed the couple from that time on.[171][172]"
This paragraph does not fit in the allegations section because it breaks the pattern of that section and does not relate to allegations found in the dossier. Literally every other bullet point in the allegations section details solely allegations made by Steele and not anyone else. What Luke Harding thinks about collusion is irrelevant to a section that is listing streamlined bulletpoints of the allegations found in Steele's Dossier. I propose removing this section entirely as it does not have enough relation to the article. At the very least the analysis from Harding needs to be removed and put somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.128.33 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The reason we have it is because it is connected to the "cultivation" allegation by Harding (and others). Historical background is legitimate content in our articles, and this fits that purpose.
- Another location might be a good solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, the allegations were not made by Steele. Instead, he compiled allegations provided by his sources. The word "allegation" is used many times in the dossier, but not all allegations are framed using that word. We do it as a uniform treatment to remove all doubt that Wikipedia is making an accusation; it is the sources who are making the allegations. This is related to our BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy. Accusations must be labeled properly, and we chose to use the word "allegation", most likely because many RS do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have argued earlier that Harding's speculation does not belong in this article. Harding himself admits in his book that he is only speculating. Put that in Harding's article or delete it entirely. — JFG talk 13:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Proposed addition to veracity of specific claims
The article is written as if there may be allegations that are unproven or uncorroborated in the Dossier, but that no claims have been proven false or that there are no factual inaccuracies. I also note that there is no mention of the false statement in the Dossier that there is a Russian consulate in Miami. I propose to add in the Veracity of Specific Claims the following subsection
Existence of Russian Consulate in Miami
In Steele's meme 2016/95, he states that there is an "extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US...Mechanism for transmitting this intelligence involves ‘pension’ disbursements to Russian emigres living in US as cover, using consular officials in New York, DC and Miami." However, there is no Russian consulate in Miami, which discounts the credibility of his sources or his actual knowledge of any alleged disbursement payments or intelligence transmission.
RS https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/09/matt_gaetz_confronts_democratic_counsel_with_poster_of_his_tweet_at_trump.html OS https://themoscowproject.org/dossier/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.128.33 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- A section for inaccuracies might be appropriate, if editors consider the subject to have due weight. As most RS generally ignore them because they are so minor, and therefore might not have the due weight necessary for mention here, some may not have been mentioned here (yet), but they are mentioned in some RS. RealClearPolitics is not a RS, so find better sources.
- Let's start a list of possible inaccuracies mentioned in RS right here. This could be a good addition.
- Alfa Bank, also Alfa Group, can legitimately be transliterated from Russian as Alpha or Alfa. Steele's source chose Alpha. Some find fault with this.
- Cohen's wife. The dossier says she's Russian. She is Ukrainian, and many of them are of Russian descent. At the time she was born in Ukraine, it was part of what the West commonly called "Russia".
- Consular officials in Miami. There is no Russian consulate in Miami.
- Cohen's father-in-law. See this unreliale source we can't use. RS might mention this.
- Others...
- Those are some I can remember right now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's talk about the pee tape
According to the IG Report, WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."
So it is now clear that the infamous Pee Tape allegation came out of a conversation with friends over beers and was made in jest. How should we integrate this information into the article? It is a fundamental change from what we've had so far. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Good question. It has been a rumor in Moscow for several years, long before the dossier, and commonly used in jest when Russians make fun of Trump.
- Now find RS which deal with the pee tape rumors and allegation. We have to resist the temptation of quoting directly from the IG report without using secondary sources. That would be forbidden OR use of a primary source. The Mueller Report, dossier, and IG report are sources we can't use directly.
- Bring whatever RS you find here and let's develop something. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- RS are not interested in this because it dispels the narrative that's been pushed by many, many people for years now. A lot of reporters would look foolish. Those who criticized the Nunes memo look foolish, those who insisted the dossier was not part of the FISA applications for Page look foolish, those pushing the false rumor that Page was a foreign agent look foolish (he was actually working for another US agency), etc. So how are we supposed to handle that? Taibbi wrote an opinion piece over at Rolling Stone - here, and here are some pieces from the Federalist that cover the IG's testimony today here here and here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ernie, are you telling us there cannot be such a thing as a Reliable Source? That would more or less invalidate Wikipedia, among other things. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure where you got that. I'm saying RS seem reluctant to cover this because it will discredit or dispel what a lot of them wrote back a year or two ago about this topic. Let's see which RS come out and say, actually the Nunes memo was largely accurate, and yes the FISA warrant against Page heavily relied on the Steele dossier which had big issues and which was misrepresented to the court. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Those who criticized the Nunes memo look foolish
With the exception of confirming Crossfire was opened because of the Downer tip and not the dossier, the Nunes memo was loaded with trash.those who insisted the dossier was not part of the FISA applications
People correctly said the dossier was not the driver of the FISA applications, not that it wasn't included in them.the false rumor that Page was a foreign agent look foolish (he was actually working for another US agency)
He worked for the CIA from 2008 to 2013, then they put a FISA tap on him in 2013 or 2014, evidently on concerns he had switched sides. And that FISA tap was years before the dossier. soibangla (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)- According to the IG, the Steele Dossier played a "central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order." There's no other way to read that. Central and essential role "to seek," that is, without the dossier, they may not have sought it. It absolutely was the driver behind the FISA application. Also I'm not sure you are correct with your timing of the FISA warrant on Page - It was done in 2016. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but they sought the warrant in August 2016, before they acquired the dossier the next month. Their suspicions were not triggered by the dossier. soibangla (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are correct with your timing of the FISA warrant
Reports: Carter Page Was Subject to FISA Warrant in 2013/2014 soibangla (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- According to the IG, the Steele Dossier played a "central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order." There's no other way to read that. Central and essential role "to seek," that is, without the dossier, they may not have sought it. It absolutely was the driver behind the FISA application. Also I'm not sure you are correct with your timing of the FISA warrant on Page - It was done in 2016. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- These statements that you're making about the reliable sources not wanting to look foolish are quite loaded and not backed up by anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ernie, if the publications were to behave as you speculate, they would not be considered Reliable Sources, hence my initial comment about invalidating all our efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ernie, are you telling us there cannot be such a thing as a Reliable Source? That would more or less invalidate Wikipedia, among other things. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- RS are not interested in this because it dispels the narrative that's been pushed by many, many people for years now. A lot of reporters would look foolish. Those who criticized the Nunes memo look foolish, those who insisted the dossier was not part of the FISA applications for Page look foolish, those pushing the false rumor that Page was a foreign agent look foolish (he was actually working for another US agency), etc. So how are we supposed to handle that? Taibbi wrote an opinion piece over at Rolling Stone - here, and here are some pieces from the Federalist that cover the IG's testimony today here here and here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Proposed article name change
In recognition of reality, shouldn’t the title be changed to “The Steele Dossier”? Wikipedia mandates that article names should reflect the most common usage. (As I don’t hear anyone referring to it as “The Trump-Russia Dossier,” I don’t even see the need to flip the ordering as opposed to eliminating “The Trump-…” altogether.) In today’s senate hearing with Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, everyone refers to it as The Steele Dossier with numerous usages thereof.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do think Steele dossier is the best possible title. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu Thank you. Can you do this RFC thingy that BullRanifer refers to and make the change if supported? I'm uncertain how, but obviously I'll vote yes! Thank you again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- We have been here before and, at that time, we decided to keep this title. I too tend toward Steele dossier. After a few more comments, you might get enough support that it would be worth starting a new RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think Steele Dossier makes the most sense and would support the change. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- See Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 15#Requested move 28 December 2018 and earlier Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 7#Rename this page to Steele Dossier ? (February 2018). X1\ (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Seeing as most of the opposes rationale have been solved at this point, not knowing at the time what the most common name is, I assume there is no issue with another request move? Especially since the most recent one was a no consensus almost a year ago. It certainly appears now that Steele Dossier is the most common name for it. "Steele dossier" at 831,000 results, "Trump dossier" at 368,000 results, "Russia dossier" at 337,000 results, and "Trump-Russia dossier" at 274,000 results. PackMecEng (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- See Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 15#Requested move 28 December 2018 and earlier Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 7#Rename this page to Steele Dossier ? (February 2018). X1\ (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think we've gotten some good feedback here, enough to indicate that an RfC wouldn't be frivolous or a waste of time. Someone who really feels strongly about the suggested title should be the one to start the RfC. I have nothing against keeping the current title, but would likely support Steele dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Shane article in NYTimes
This[1] article describes a major finding in the IG report's coverage of the dossier. It found "a bungled relationship between Mr. Steele and the bureau." It describes how Steele's "alarming description never made it to the Justice Department, where officials were using some of Mr. Steele’s reports to support a secret court order authorizing surveillance on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page."
This article is a good secondary source which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Coming changes.....
Without citing any sources right now, but just from my reading and news coverage, I can see that there will be changes to this article, and that's good. As is required by our policies, articles are written based on the RS available at the time, but not for future events. As time passes and sources describe those events, we can then add them and use them to modify existing content. Yes, it's frustrating, but we are supposed to be behind the curve here.
Some of the changes will be about Christopher Steele (some not very flattering), others about the dossier, and yet others about the Nunes memo, IG report, Russia investigation, Carter Page and the FISA warrants, FBI, etc. I hope that editors will place the content in the proper articles, because not all will belong here. As more RS write about the IG report, we'll have more RS we can use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)