![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Trump lawsuit
Trump is suing a bunch of people. I glanced at the first few pages and the Steele Dossier and Christopher Steele are named. We ought to see how sources are framing the lawsuit in relation to the dossier and add some content at some point. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Politico story with a direct link to the lawsuit for those who need something to lighten their mood. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I saw there is a lawsuit that includes Steele, and so it's probably something that we should mention, even considering WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't read the stories yet though. Do you have text you'd like to propose adding? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mr Ernie. This is indeed worthy of mention, and there is a section for such lawsuits. Revelations during the discovery process will be interesting, as secrets from all the involved parties may come to light. -- Valjean (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- We know Giuliani won't be representing him. Is this a Sidney Powell item or is there a new name to add? I would wait until filings are available to RS for their comment in order to determine due weight. Trump has sued many people over the years. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Trump opens himself up to a vexatious litigation countersuit because courts have already ruled the dossier is protected free speech in the public interest. But... the damage is already done, as Trump and Giuliani learned a key lesson of Russian disinformation: "the allegation can be just as damaging as the action." That cuts in all directions, so Trump will have to prove malice and deliberate falsification, a pretty high bar. Get out the popcorn 🍿! Let's see how much guilt each side owns, as I doubt anybody will get away clean from this one. Political opposition research vs. collusion with a foreign enemy. I thought the dossier would just fade away, but this will put it on a pedestal. Ugh. Valjean (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The new guy is Peter Ticktin, hailing from Deerfield Beach, Florida. He's getting coverage. An article is probably coming soon, won't be pretty. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Wording in first sentence
- Some editors are very intent in hanging onto the enforcing the status quo unless you have evidence nothing happened an allegations in the report with minor press quoting the report support then the allegation must be true rule. The confidence factor of the New York Times is currently at a all time low in March of 2022 as they reverse themselves on election 2020 issues two years after initial reporting.
- The subject of this article is a piece of political paper, with a collection of allegations that were known true at the time of writing, and a collection of allegations that were known to the author as hearsay.
- From a truly NPV, This is a political document full of known coverage and conspiracy theories mixed together and sold as a opposition research collection. If that is the quality of opposition research in american politics all parties who paid for this materials should be embarrassed. A good amount of the reporters and the institutions have decaled reporting the dossier to be a mistake, they have tended no to bloviate on their mistakes.
- It is time to rewrite the first paragraph! Loopbackdude (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
hanging onto the enforcing the unless
Are you missing some words there?The confidence factor of the New York Times is currently at a all time low in March of 2022
This sounds like it could have come straight from one of Trump's press releases. Claiming they're at an "all time low" without any evidence that they are at an "all time low" is a waste of everybody's time.all parties who paid for this materials should be embarrassed
Your personal opinion is of no value here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)- Seems the March 22 edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_dossier&oldid=1078537965) matching the Associated Press style guide in the first paragraph has made the mark. Further edits are just modifying implied tone of certainly of other sources.
- The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier, is a "largely discredited" political opposition research report written from June to December 2016, containing allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign.
- What remains for open for debate within the original steele dossier contents mostly open source information and digests found in other parties opposition research at the time. Steele Dossier is only significant factual in the CHANGE it provided to the coverage amd reaction to by the media and the administration. Many other topics cover the possible role the steele dossier played in several probes and the investigation it may have inspired and those should provide inspiration for more consensus on this article. Loopbackdude (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why did we walk on the AP style guide on the lead sentence again?
- When you walk on a modern AP source in favor of more tortured language please form CONSENSUS.
- largely discredited is the term the AP carefully chose, it is the corrective term. We can discuss what was accurate and/or just a media reporting POV.
- "The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier, is a largely discredited political opposition research report written from June to December 2016."
- It is not controversial that the lead of the Trump–Russia dossier reportage was incorrect. Encyclopedic editing requires things be reported with the the current status.
- Current understanding is Abraham Lincoln is dead, his impact on society is alive. Abraham Lincoln Statue Looks upon the Washington Monument, but Abraham Lincoln is still dead. Loopbackdude (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Loopbackdude, you haven't responded to Muboshgu's concerns and fixed your wording in the beginning. Now you are repeating this tortured language again. I don't know what you mean by "walk on the AP style guide". Please explain "walk on".
Changes to the lead are even more sensitive and contentious than changes to the body of the article, and there should be nothing in the lead that isn't first mentioned in the body of the article. That's why I placed your addition with similar content further down in the lead, and also restored another comment. (My edit summary indicated that I was allowing a violation of LEAD by even adding that content to the lead, but we really shouldn't do that. It should be in the body first.)
Note that I will not discuss this with you until you respond to our concerns about your choice of language. What do you mean? We must prevent any misunderstandings before moving forward. -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Abraham Lincoln or the Washington Monument have to do with anything here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delay, I am not constantly contributing to an encyclopedic open source project over a weekend on a now 6 year old document that is tied to so many peoples political inner child POV.
- Please read the lincoln line in the context of this article, the subject of the article is certainly currently discredited from many media POVs.
- My position document is a dead document, that is discredited. Additional investigations of the the FBI/DOJ response to this discredited remain ongoing. The polical firestorm caused by the document still has burning embers, but the major media outlets have walked away from their "lean in" efforts.
- "Current understanding is Abraham Lincoln is dead, his (poltical) impact on society is alive".
- "Abraham Lincoln Statue Looks upon the Washington Monument, but Abraham Lincoln is still dead."
- Exactness in use of "Abraham Lincoln ....dead" as opposed to "Stone Version of Old Abe reflects on the Washington Monument"
- Now I ask the reader of what is status of Lincoln?
- The correct lead answer is Deceased with the question lacking any context of Lincoln, Rippon WI, Grave Robbery by James "Big Jim" Kennally, the civil war, the Washington Mall, or Kelly Ann Conway's Husband poltical group.
- The steele dossier is clearly a dead and buried collection of misinformation with trival threads of truth, with the only factors matching reality were POV that were verifications from a now untrusted set of closed sources as opposed to the open source of the time. The dossier had been shopped and rejected around DC. but once reported, the coverage was full force because it had the coverage of the coverage hook for the media outlets. The failures of reportage are of the same league as Killian documents controversy, and there are 40+ still working Mary Mapes in the media still purporting the document has their selected abosoulty true novel findings as published. As the media has blind spot in coverage of their own failures there is not a lot of material that isnt from one set or the other set of sycophants.
- Support - "largely discredited political opposition research report" be returned with the AP story being in the first section.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_dossier&oldid=1078537965 Loopbackdude (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect you will be pleased with my lastest reworking of the criticism in the lead. It was spread out in mainly two different areas and even duplicated one comment. Now it's collected in the first paragraph.
- Whether the dossier is dead or not, Steele's sources were right about some very important things, and they were way ahead of U.S intelligence. Six months ahead of the official declaration by U.S. intelligence, they reported that Putin's goals with his election interference were to disrupt American society, weaken Clinton, and help Trump win. That was the main theme of the dossier and it is still true. Some other allegations were proven true and most others are unverified (IOW not necessarily false), with very few being discarded as inaccurate or discredited. That has no effect on the accuracy of its central claims. Steele's warnings to America were true and necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still very weak reference using
- FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe - ABC News.
- The only thing I find that isn't reprocessed from mass media status of that day in the entire citation.
- "There may be 90 percent of that dossier that is a complete bunch of [baloney]," said Bob Anderson, who oversaw counterintelligence cases for the FBI before heading its cyber and criminal branch. "But a piece matches with other potentially credible sources that [FBI agents] have ... so now they’re going to dig a little more."
- Anderson was not even in the counter intelligence division in 2016, so the quote for public consumption was using a creditable source for a statement that is an investigation technique generalization. I did not find another quote by someone natural in the validity of the steele dossier as of the date of publication.
- Potential suspects with a ton of fiction surrounding them require better than standard FBI investigation techniques. This is why RICO cases take 7+ years to prepare.
- This is my evaluation of the quality of a citation used in a lead paragraph and not anything else. In historical context, Neutral Point of View reviews of the Steele Dossier are still years away in media. Loopbackdude (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I have requested help with improvement of the Litigation section
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Please improve Steele dossier#Litigation -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC over Trump-Russia dossier research
We should probably be able to pull some content from sources reporting some fines related to potential funding of the Dossier. Per CNN or WaPo for starters. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that can be a sentence in some article, I'm not sure if it's best here or Hillary's 2016 campaign article, or both. Something like:
The FEC fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 in March 2022 for declaring the money spent on research that comprised the Steele dossier as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than opposition research.
– Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) - I'm thinking it doesn't belong on this page, because it has nothing to do with the dossier itself but rather with how Hillary 2016 disclosed the payment(s). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fines by the FEC for misrepresenting the financing of the dossier have nothing to do with the dossier? PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Only indirectly related as far as I can tell. It has nothing directly to do with Steele's work or even his payment for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article is about more than just Steele, it is about the dossier as a whole. The initial funding for it is important, as noted by its inclusion in the article already. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the section titled “Research funded by Democrats produces dossier” would be an appropriate place to put that the funders misrepresented the funding and were fined. No need to make it complicated. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Only indirectly related as far as I can tell. It has nothing directly to do with Steele's work or even his payment for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fines by the FEC for misrepresenting the financing of the dossier have nothing to do with the dossier? PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that "The Federal Election Commission has fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for lying about funding the Steele Dossier"[1] should be included as the last sentence of the opening ChaseF (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that they "lied" and using a deprecated source to do so will not fly. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is true that the WP bends over backwards to avoid using the term "lied". To be specific, the WP says:
As for myself, is it a violation of how I describe myself if I say I am the Pope? Maybe we should deprecate the WP? XavierItzm (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)The FEC said the manner in which payments to Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, were funneled — through a law firm — violated strict rules on how to describe election expenditures.
[2]
- It is true that the WP bends over backwards to avoid using the term "lied". To be specific, the WP says:
I think this should be mentioned in both articles and have made a this bold edit:
- In March 2022, the FEC fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 for misreporting those fees and expenses as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than "opposition research".[3][4]
Feel free to suggest improvements. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe put it the other way round. The Clinton campaign misrepresented their funding of the report as legal services and were later fined. TFD (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please try to state that in a way that reflects the text of the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- ec... TFD, maybe so. Technically it was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie who did this, and the leadership of the Clinton campaign and DNC did not know about the dossier until later. They paid the lawyers, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Orbis/Steele. The legal plausible deniability/undue influence firewall established by Elias created this situation by the indirect funding of the dossier. Ultimately, the buck stops with the employer, IOW Clinton Campaign and DNC, so they got fined. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, that's what I did. "Misreporting" is the word from one of the two sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- TFD's proposed revision is unnecessarily biased/opinionated in that it repeats the
"misreported"
allegation in wikivoice, even strengthening it by using"misrepresented"
instead, even though that does not appear to be the language favored by the FEC or reliable sources (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). WaPo seems to make clear that the DNC/Clinton campaign settled without admitting wrongdoing:"According to a conciliation agreement individuals affiliated with both organizations signed last month, the Clinton campaign and DNC argue that they were justified in stating that their payment was for 'legal advice and services' since Perkins Coie [i.e., their law firm] hired Fusion GPS [i.e., the firm that gathered the opposition research]. ... The conciliation agreement states that the DNC and the Clinton campaign will neither contest the [FEC's] finding nor concede to them, 'solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs.'"
The FEC dismissed several other claims against the DNC et al. at the same time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- Misrepresented and misreported don't necessarily imply any intent or wrongdoing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's right. And we can always add the DNC's defense that they were unaware. TheTimesAreAChanging, we should of course state facts in Wikivoice, because otherwise they appear as opinions rather than facts. Is anyone still claiming that the Steele dossier was a legal expense? Specifico, can you state the policy or guidline that facts should be reported in the same order as sources? That would lead to a convoluted timeline when past events are reported. Take for example the article about horses. The second sentence says they have "evolved over the past 45 to 55 million years." Should we move that because we didn't know that until the last century or so? TFD (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The guideline is "don't mislead our readers." We write for the general public, not for WP editors who will dance on the head of a pin to assert plausible interpretations that might not be misleading if the stars are aligned with Pluto. That means when text might mislead even 1/4 of the total readers, a better wording must be found. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Misreported" is directly from the CNN source. It's the conclusion from the FEC. If you're unable to read the source, I'll quote it here.
The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research.
There's no issue with taking that text to say "The Clinton campaign and DNC were fined for misreporting the funding..." It's a factual statement from RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- Cherrypicking is the most powerful form of misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:SPECIFICO, in what way does my cherrypicking misrepresent anything? BTW, you're getting too abrasive and needlessly offensive. There is no need for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was addressing Ernie concerning his comment above. Cherrypicking prevention is why we have NPOV and ONUS rules. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO often follows me around making off topic or irrelevant comments like that. They seem to find that a productive use of their time, so I (and most everyone else) usually just ignore it. There has clearly been no cherrypicking or misrepresenting anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:SPECIFICO, in what way does my cherrypicking misrepresent anything? BTW, you're getting too abrasive and needlessly offensive. There is no need for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cherrypicking is the most powerful form of misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Misreported" is directly from the CNN source. It's the conclusion from the FEC. If you're unable to read the source, I'll quote it here.
- The guideline is "don't mislead our readers." We write for the general public, not for WP editors who will dance on the head of a pin to assert plausible interpretations that might not be misleading if the stars are aligned with Pluto. That means when text might mislead even 1/4 of the total readers, a better wording must be found. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's right. And we can always add the DNC's defense that they were unaware. TheTimesAreAChanging, we should of course state facts in Wikivoice, because otherwise they appear as opinions rather than facts. Is anyone still claiming that the Steele dossier was a legal expense? Specifico, can you state the policy or guidline that facts should be reported in the same order as sources? That would lead to a convoluted timeline when past events are reported. Take for example the article about horses. The second sentence says they have "evolved over the past 45 to 55 million years." Should we move that because we didn't know that until the last century or so? TFD (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Misrepresented and misreported don't necessarily imply any intent or wrongdoing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- TFD's proposed revision is unnecessarily biased/opinionated in that it repeats the
- SPECIFICO, that's what I did. "Misreporting" is the word from one of the two sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The fines are for violations of reporting rules for payments made in July and August 2016, i.e., they would have been reported to the FEC after the 2016 election. (BTW, there's a pretty good chance that those were accounting errors. The law firm probably submitted many bills to the DNC and the campaign, and somebody entered them as "legal services" in the books, as in "sh*t happens".) Since the FEC found no wrongdoing on the part of the law firm, the lawyer, and Fusion GPS, this doesn't belong in this article or in the article on Clinton's 2016 campaign, for that matter. Reminder—Steele_dossier#What_the_DNC,_Clinton_campaign,_and_Steele_knew says that
A spokesperson for Perkins Coie said the campaign and the DNC were unaware Fusion GPS "had been hired to conduct the research".[91] The Washington Post reported that it is not clear how much of the research Elias received from Fusion GPS he shared with the campaign and the DNC. It is also not clear who in those organizations knew about the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele, but one person "close to the matter" said the organizations were "not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role".
This is what WaPo says (I added the bolding):The conciliation agreement states that the DNC and the Clinton campaign will neither contest the commission’s finding nor concede to them, "solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs."
Newsmax is a deprecated source, BTW, and cites 2 and 3 are the same WaPo article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)- The WaPo source is pretty clear, even using the word "masking" to describe the FEC's conclusion about the misreporting of the money. The first half of your comment is OR, so it's better to just stick to what the sources say. We don't call it a wrongdoing in the article or blame anyone for anything improper. This absolutely belongs in the Steele Dossier article, as the funding, in particular who was funding it, is a critical topic to it's notability (and notoriety). Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, the WaPo clearly indicates the parties fined by the government "masked" their activities.XavierItzm (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
You're both citing CNN, not WaPo. The NY Times says that So-called conciliation agreements attached to the letter sent to Mr. Backer showed that the campaign and the party disagreed that they had inaccurately described the purpose of their spending.
They also say that The commission has not yet made public the findings of its investigation.
[5] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we cover this already. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "FEC Fines Clinton Campaign, DNC for Funding Steele Dossier". Newsmax. 2022-03-30. Retrieved 2022-03-31.
- ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fec-fines-dnc-and-clinton-for-violating-rules-to-fund-steele-dossier/ar-AAVGWvw
- ^ Scott, Eugene (March 30, 2022). "FEC fines DNC, Clinton for violating rules in funding Steele dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
- ^ Cohen, Marshall (March 30, 2022). "FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC over Trump-Russia dossier research". CNN. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
- ^ Savage, Charlie (March 30, 2022). "Democrats Agree to Pay $113,000 to Settle Campaign Spending Inquiry". The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2022.