Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Attribution

Material on this page was initially broken out of Robert Mueller. bd2412 T 01:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @BD2412: and @Econterms: - How does this mesh with Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Investigation_by_special_counsel? -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

To begin with, that section is incorrect. Rosenstein is not part of the team at all, and should not be mentioned other than in his capacity as the person who appointed Mueller. The role from which he would potentially recuse himself is one of authority over the team. Also, the team itself is an entity, a thing separate from the investigation. The team has the authority to investigate and prosecute all crimes they come across during the course of their investigation, not merely those involving Russian interference. Having a separate article is useful because it allows us space to more broadly present thumbnail biographies of the people involved, and to document potential comings and goings. bd2412 T 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That second part represents my view too. Readers should have a named page to find this special counsel investigation, apart from the details of the interference. The special counsel gets a lot of news now, and will get lots more, some of which is not closely associated with interference. The other page, also, is long and has lots of history and analysis that is not closely associated with the DOJ side of things now. Thank you for pointing us to that particular section though; I had missed it or it's new, and it has useful sources. -- econterms (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Team members

Mueller has assembled a prosecution team consisting of:

• Andrew Weissmann, head of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud unit
• James Quarles (attorney), an assistant Watergate prosecutor
• Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s FBI chief of staff
• Jeannie Rhee, a former DOJ attorney
• Michael Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General. Oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket.
• Lisa Page, Justice Department trial attorney

BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I think a bulleted list is preferable to the discursive paragraphs in the section.--Gciriani (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think a bulleted list is fine, but the discursive paragraphs are also useful to describe the context in which additions were made. bd2412 T 11:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a bulleted list of just the names then, and after the list a paragraph describing the context and previous relevant experience?--Gciriani (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Too barren. It would be better to have a list with a brief description following the names, and then a paragraph of exposition about the chronology of assembly. bd2412 T 12:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

All good suggestions: (1) Bulleted list; (2) description, qualifications, and experience of each person after their name; (3) paragraph of chronology and context, etc. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Campaign Contributions

Campaign contributions are in the public domain, and can be easily obtained by going to the F.E.C.. So instead of relying on news sources that are unreliable, this could be verified with 100% certainty. The result would be encyclopedic in nature, but I'm having second thoughts.--Gciriani (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be OR by using primary sources. We must depend on secondary and tertiary sources. They do exist. More below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to mention under reactions, since this has only been raised by opponents of the investigation. bd2412 T 19:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Prosecutors rely on evidence, but judges are the ones in the position of potentially having a COI. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This should be a decent source for it. [1]. It mentions the campaign contributions from Rhee as well as two others on the team. Also Rhee representing Clinton in the past. PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added PolitiFact's coverage and debunking of the objections. They are groundless, but since they have been raised, we should mention them, so I did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD nomination

The case for deletion is WP:UNDUE. This information is trivial. It is merely a list of press releases about people being hired for a committee. Both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Dismissal_of_James_Comey are large and unwieldy as-is, and I don't believe either page would be improved by merging this content. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I closed it as a SNOW keep. Jdcomix (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Good close. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was a disallowed close by an involved non-admin who had !voted in the AfD. I have reverted the close. No prejudice against a similar close by an uninvolved admin. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

IBD/TIPP

I've removed some recently added text about an IBD/TIPP poll. Some of the text wasn't verified by the source (e.g., the claim that "support dramatically decreased by July 2017" - not clearly backed by the source, and also incorrect because it's based one a single poll with a different methodology from previous polls). The cite is also to an opinion piece (see last three paragraphs). Neutrality^talk 20:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Now to complete the official spin-off

We need to include ALL of the content from here: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Investigation_by_special_counsel, then leave a proper summary and main link there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Article about the investigation itself

Where are we supposed to put information about the actual course of the special counsel's investigation? It wouldn't be appropriate for Mueller's biography, and it is broader than the various components that have their own articles, such as Russian interference and Dismissal of Comey. The reason I ask is, I am looking for where to put the information about the probe's expansion to include the business transactions of Trump and his associates.[2] Manafort was already under the microscope on that matter, and I think Flynn was too, but this implies more people, possibly Trump himself. IMO we really need someplace to pull all these threads together. There was speculation that this article would eventually expand its scope and title, to be about the actual investigation; is this the time to consider doing that? Or starting a separate article about the investigation? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just change the name of this article and add information about the investigation itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

Move this page, then, to something like 2017 Special Counsel investigation (assuming there is no other investigation to render this title ambiguous), and make the information about the team and its formation into a subsection of the whole? bd2412 T 03:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed this before:

• Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_10#Scope_of_this_article
• Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_12#.22Obstruction_of_justice_investigation.22_subsection
• Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_12#Duty_to_PRESERVE_properly_sourced_content_and_BUILD.2C_not_break_down.2C_the_encyclopedia

It's time to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, page moved to 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Sagecandor (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That was fast! All my next comment was totally lost. We hadn't decided on a satisfactory title yet. We had a suggestion above, but it's not specific enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there other 2017 Special Counsel investigations ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not yet, but, on second thought, this may be inclusive enough. Its vagueness may be an advantage. It's about the Russian interference, but has already been broadened, so let's stick with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep this. The investigation is aimed at the Russian interference and can expand in any direction. This title seems inclusive enough. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Title

I do not that the title should be about investaagating Russian interference. The memo makes it clear what they are investigating and that is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.Casprings (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well we certainly do need to come to a consensus on a title. It is not good for it to jump around. bd2412 T 17:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Procedural note: Following a series of moves to various long titles in the last few hours, I have reverted the article to the last title that was actually discussed in section #Article about the investigation itself above: "2017 Special Counsel investigation". Please open a regular WP:move request to discuss any further changes with the community before proceeding. — JFG ^talk 22:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this party (it's been a busy 24 hours here since I asked about an article about the investigation), but I think the current title, "2017 Special Counsel investigation", is best. Mueller has already indicated he intends to take a broad view of what he is looking into - including some non-Russia related items relating to Manafort and Flynn, the indications yesterday that he is looking into the finances of Trump himself as well as some of his associates (in some cases going back years), and the rumored investigation into obstruction of justice. We have no idea where this investigation is going to go, and we should not have too limiting a title. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by MelanieN. Simpler is better. Shorter is better. KISS principle. Sagecandor (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I like short and simple. But do keep in mind that this investigation will almost certainly stretch into 2018 and possibly 2019, and we will need to adjust accordingly. Neutrality^talk 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. By then there may be some clear, overarching theme that will suggest a name. For now 2017 works well. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We have a good five months and a week before we need to worry about this investigation stretching into another calendar year. bd2412 T 14:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, oh! Math alert! Math alert! Are we allowed to do that here, or is it Original research? --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It was started in 2017. I'd say it can always stay at this title. Sagecandor (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Transferring and copying content

As you can see I have been working on documenting the various things the special counsel is investigating. Any help with this would be welcome. If you copy significantly from another article, as I did, be sure to say in edit summary "Some content copied from [[name of article]], see that page's history for attribution." --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Good work. This process should make this a very significant (and large) article among the many sub-articles dealing with Trump. When the copying and transferring is done, this section (Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Investigation_by_special_counsel) should be smaller, and we can essentially use the lead from this article as the summary there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer. I've also added the Attribution complete with DIFF LINKS, at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid I've always been bad about dotting i's and crossing t's. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator, considering SNOW opposition.

2017 Special Counsel investigation → Trump campaign–Russian Special Counsel investigation – The rationale is 2-fold. 1. The title provides greater WP:PRECISION. Per the appointment memo, this is the subject of the investigation. The year doesn't provide the needed information on the subject. 2. Still maintains Wikipedia:CONCISE Casprings (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed target is confusing, and seems to be missing something. To me it reads is if the investigation involves a Russian Special Counsel. bd2412 T 23:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- there's only one 2017 Special Counsel investigation; the name is intuitive and concise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Is there a Russian special counsel now? — JFG ^talk 00:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. This is a totally confusing title - especially since we already have an article called Trump campaign-Russian meeting. "Special counsel" needs to be the focus because that's what this article is about. LOL about the Russian special counsel! BTW - based on this and some other article talk pages - it would be a really good idea to discuss possible new titles and get a little feedback before formally proposing them. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there's only one 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Simpler is better. Sagecandor (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, target is poorly worded.--Gciriani (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is inclusive enough, and its vagueness is an advantage. The investigation started in 2017 because of the Russian interference, but its scope has already been broadened, so let's stick with this title which allows inclusion of the many aspects of the investigation. Too precise a title ties our hands and requires many articles on each investigation carried on by the same people. That won't work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Withdrawn, given opposition. Casprings (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump's team of lawyers

We have a list on some article, and we should put it here. They have been hired expressly for the purpose of dealing with these investigations and discrediting the investigation. The members should be listed, including past members and changes as they occur. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a sort-of list at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It now says (after I trimmed it)

"Trump has engaged several attorneys to represent and advise him, including his longtime personal attorney Marc Kasowitz as well as Jay Sekulow, Michael Bowe, and John M. Dowd. "

Sources

Previously it said

"On May 24, Trump hired his personal attorney Marc Kasowitz to represent him in the investigation. Trump has also hired Jay Sekulow and Michael Bowe as defense team members. On June 16 it was reported that Trump had added John M. Dowd to his legal team."

Sources

I agree this information should be in this article and I'll leave it up to you to decide where to put it and how much. The investigation attorneys are each listed including a brief summary of their specialty or qualifications; we could do something similar for the Trump lawyers. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a lot harder to pin down the identities of members of Trump's defense team, and the degree to which specific lawyers defending Trump are defending him from this specific investigation. A textual paragraph is probably better, in this case, than a bulleted list. bd2412 T 23:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It might make sense, for NPOV, to list the lawyers in a similar bulleted list style to the Special Counsel team. Or to convert the Special Counsel team to paragraph format. Either way. Sagecandor (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I also favor keeping the bulleted list format. That makes it easier: to add details because each member essentially has their own "section"; to alphabetize; to make changes; it's visually better organized because it really is a list, and lists are usually in bulleted format. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The edit summary indicates some of the types of improvements to make. Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:Looks good so far, good job with NPOV ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Update

This article is about a current affair and needs updating. The information is very out of date. Maybe when investigation completely failed to incriminate Trump it stopped being interesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAR-Ink (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a reliably sourced item of information that should be in the article and is not? bd2412 T 14:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Shift to Podesta Group

According to several news sources [3] [4] [5] [6] Mueller's team has shifted their investigation from Russia's alleged communication with the Trump campaign, to attempts by Russian government and business officials to establish ties, via Paul Manafort and the Podesta Group, with the Clintons starting around 2011, because they expected Hillary Clinton to be the next president. The Uranium One scandal may be related. If this is true, the wording of the intro may need to be changed. 152.130.15.30 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The lobbying and FARA stuff is already in the article. I have not seen any reliable source reporting that Mueller is even looking into the uranium question. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

First charges filed in Mueller investigation

Just FYI. Article may need significant updating starting Monday. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

I would add the information, but I am unsure what the appropriate section would be (or if a new one needs to be created). Master of Time (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If indictments are actually issued, we will need a section about that. So far all we have is a flurry of rumors. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should not only wait until the accused is announced, but that we should have a new section about charges. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

By rumors, are we talking about reports from two (Reuters also reporting) sources? Not normally treated like a rumor.Casprings (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Manafort will be the first charge, and will turn himself in today.Theoallen1 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Rick Gates also.Casprings (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Article may need protection too.[7]. I think this shouldn't be added until the indictment is unsealed; which is expected later today. O3000 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Should the charges be mentioned in the lead paragraph? Manafort and Gates haven't been found guilty so WP:BLPCRIME applies here, and George Papadopoulos's guilty plea may or may not have wider implications in the wider investigation. ^Falling_Gravity 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Create "Timeline of the Special Counsel investigation" ?

Create "Timeline of the Special Counsel investigation" ? X1\ (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There would be too much overlap with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, I think. Neutrality^talk 21:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The lack of clear borders is an issue there too. X1\ (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The best place for this discussion would be Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States electionsTheoallen1 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion below. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Special Counsel investigation → United States Special Counsel investigation – Likely to go well past 2017, tip of the iceberg? X1\ (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is still the 2017 investigation, even if it drags on. — JFG ^talk 20:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - This is also confusing with the 2003 Special Counsel investigation over the 2003 US Attorney firing scandal. Theoallen1 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the article name for the "2003 Special Counsel investigation"? X1\ (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Couldn't the article just be renamed "2017–18 Special Counsel investigation" at the year's end? Master of Time (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That is assuming that it does carry on. WP:TOOSOON to rename right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It very probably will, and anyway, I said "at the year's end" for a reason. Master of Time (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this obviously won't work; if you're insistent on removing 2017 you should include "Trump" or "Mueller" in the title. There have been other US Special Counsel investigations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Too vague, and somehow longer title too. But I think the current name isn't that good (but atleast it isn't that controversial compared with having russia or something in the title). Something with "Trump" "Mueller" or "Russia" seems to be used more in sources. Galobtter (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The investigation is ongoing and we do not know how long it will last. It will likely be renamed, but we don't have our crystal ball handy to see how it will play out. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Proposed title is too ambiguous. Perhaps the title could be "Special Counsel investigation into 2016 U.S. election", avoiding references in the title to specific persons who might not stay involved with it. I know the subject is more narrowly interference into the election but that's long. -- econterms (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that the name needs to be changed, but this is way too vague. Something more specific (like Plame affair grand jury investigation) is probably a better choice. cnzx (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How bad is this name?

It doesn't give the country. It doesn't give the subject of the investigation. The year will soon be obsolete. 2600:1002:B112:D620:392D:53D6:9B25:CDC3 (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

US investigation of Russian interference in 2016 presidential election.--Gciriani (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not really the US, though, just a pocket. The entire US is officially led by Donald Trump (for some reason or another). His investigation, as head of state and government and Verified Twitter User, concluded no foul before this section even existed. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplication of content.

The paragraph under "Opposition" and the last paragraph under "Reactions" are basically repetitive retellings of the GSA emails issue. This should be in one place in the article, probably under reactions, and the paragraphs should be merged to avoid overlap in content. bd2412 T 04:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Separate "Criticism" section needed

Hello. I was reviewing this article and noticed that the "Reactions" section is somewhat lengthy and discombobulated. Since we have learned much in recent weeks about certain allegations of bias (Peter Strzok's exchange of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton text messages with Lisa Page, Andrew Weissmann's effusive praise of Sally Yates for defying President Trump's directives, 9 out of 16 of Mueller's attorneys making campaign donations to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in particular), can we create a separate section to consolidate and clarify these complaints? Bruce Ohr's connections to the so-called "dossier" packed with false information and salacious material are also related to the investigation and could go in this section as well. All of these revelations may not be enough to warrant a separate article, but a section on this one would be helpful to keep it all straight. 17.255.232.153 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't do that here. We try to avoid such sections. BTW, the Strozok/Page emails criticized plenty of left-wing figures, or did Fox News "forget" to mention that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Sandstein 13:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Special Counsel investigation → ? – Since this name will soon be obsolete, it's obvious that there needs to be a name change. Ideally, any new name needs to convey what's being investigated ("Russian interference"), who's doing the investigating ("Special Counsel"), and when such activity took place ("in the 2016 US Elections"): something like "Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections". But in this case that becomes unacceptably verbose, and I think that a much better alternative is to use colloquialisms like Russia investigation or Mueller Probe. The downside is that the former is ambiguous and the latter is potentially unrepresentative of the content of the article, but I think both of these concerns are offset by the fact that these phrases are extensively used by the media: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], respectively. There are precedents on Wikipedia for using colloquialisms to refer to these sorts of investigations, see "Plame affair", "Filegate", and "Travelgate", among others. If you have better ideas, feel free to bring them up. —cnzx (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Most outlets including the BBC, seem to be increasingly referring to the whole mess as 'Trump Russia', and sometimes 'Russia-Trump'. 'Trump Russia Investigation'? Slightly silly, maybe, but no different to the 'Iran-Contra Affair'. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Why would this name become obsolete? Even if the investigation continues into 2018, it's still the only Special Counsel investigation launched in 2017. The name remains valid. There does not seem to be a dominant common name in sources. — JFG ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Necessary for clarity, and consistent with our usual practice. See, e.g., Yemeni Civil War (2015–present); History of the United States (2008–present); U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present); Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), etc. Neutrality^talk 05:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) per Neutrality. Trump has unequivocally stated that he will not fire Mueller, and there are still numerous witnesses to be interviewed (including Pence and Trump), so this investigation will not be over anytime soon. bd2412 T 04:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. BTW, that he said that indicates that he probably WILL do it soon. His history indicates such actions are likely to happen. Just sayin'... Otherwise you're right. There is plenty to investigate for a long time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify a legal point, if Trump were to attempt to fire Mueller, that would not by itself end the investigation. Someone on the team will have been designated as Mueller's second-in-command, who will assume leadership of the investigation until another special counsel is formally appointed. Criminal indictments have issued in this case, and those do not disappear due to a change in personnel. Furthermore, Trump has no more power to fire Mueller than he does to fire a random janitor sweeping the floors in the J. Edgar Hoover Building. bd2412 T 12:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Alternate support: Mueller probe – The OP mentions that recent sources mostly use the names Russia investigation or Mueller probe, that sounds to me like a strong argument for using one of those as the investigation's established common name instead of a descriptive title. — JFG ^talk 09:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • To me, "Mueller probe" overemphasizes the role of the lead investigator. bd2412 T 19:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support for Special counsel investigation (2017–present) because "special counsel" does not need to be a proper noun. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lowercase amendment (2018)

I came across this article and moved it because it looked silly, then noticed this move just happened last year. From the looks of things, nobody was particularly supportive of the caps for caps' sake and one guy didn't like them, so hopefully this was uncontroversial. But in the spirit of democracy and blowing minor details out of proportion, I'll disclose my potential wrongdoing and open the floor to debate, if needed. (When I tried to post this, I was edit conflicted by the page being reverted, so I guess it was a pretty egregious error.) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

After clicking around a bit, it seems "special counsel" is a common noun, but United States Office of Special Counsel is a proper one. Anyone on board with moving it to OSC investigation (2017–present) or the spelled-out version? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: This investigation isn't run by the OSC -- that's a different agency. It's run by the United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is true, the Wikilinks for "Special Counsel" in the lead need fixing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've taken your word for this and fixed the links. The MOS:JOBTITLES aspect of the problem remains the same, though. Anyone down for DoJ investigation (2017–present)? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New details

Many, many new details here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html Casprings (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's an Edit Request. I think we're just encouraged to read it if we're looking for new details. I could be very wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Investigation of NRA / Aleksandr Torshin connections

The Investigation now includes potential links and money transfers between Aleksandr Torshin and the National Rifle Association according to a report from McClatchy DC.. The connection between Torshin, the NRA and the Trump campaign (Rick Dearborn) was publicly knowledge since at least December 3, 2017 (article in the NYT). I'm not sure how credible McClatchy is. Should the new information be included or should we wait for another source? Haage42 (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn per WP:SNOW. --Nevé–selbert 23:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) → 2017–18 Special Counsel investigation – More natural disambiguation. --Nevé–selbert 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see this as an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as we have no idea how long the investigation will last. Letupwasp (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -present already indicates 2018 and if it lasts until 2019 or further we don't need to rename every year. This title can remain until it closes and we can put whatever year that is in then. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- proposed title not an improvement. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lisa Page

Given her role in the salacious and notable texting kerfuffle, shouldn't she have her own article now? Daily Mail calls her a "key player" [30] And WSJ is currently focusing directly on her - she and her texting are both notable. [31] Xerton (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is never a reliable source for statements about living people. And creating separate biographies for otherwise non-notable people peripherally involved in a public issue is deprecated — see WP:BLP1E. Unless there's significant reliable-source coverage of Page's life outside the context of this issue, there is no reason to create a separate biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The WSJ is talking about her too. Personally, I think that each key player in a big scandal which is mentioned by name/subjection in a wiki 'scandal' article should have a page in their name and if they are not notable enough to sustain that page, the page should be re-directed to the section of the scandal article which refers to them. People want to know about the players and we should provide pointers to those players. This is how it was done, I think, for Amanda Knox before she became famous on her own; she was a redirect to the Murder of Meredith Kercher page. Xerton (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a big player. BLP says no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Feeling of finality of the February 16, 2018 indictments

Does this article need a "Current status" section or something? I think visitors would like to know if this set of indictments is it and sort of closes the case. Thoughts? (I posted this same thing at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The article should be written from a historical perspective as is commonly done in an encyclopedia, so I don't think that a current status section would be appropriate. The recent indictment does not close the case. First of all, there are arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing yet to occur. Secondly, the Senate and House investigations are still ongoing as far as I know. Also, according to the sources I read in the past couple of days, there is a pretty good chance that more indictments will be issued.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC

We is to say we haven't the slightest idea if the investigation will last two more days or two more years. O3000 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy and content(missing content) misleading. Page not written with neutral style. Remove page until fixed/updated

I am new here. Rather not offend or step on peoples toes. So because I respect you and your work. I will not edit this page and will leave that to the main creators/editors, of this page. I know people put a lot of time into this so I say this with respect and appreciation. After reading this page, I got the impression that this whole page in general was not written from a neutral point of view. It swings a little left. Although some information might be accurate and sourced, the way it is written can be misleading. How something is described must be just as accurate as the subject and its sources. Its content is incomplete and important facts are left out. Well known facts missing, that should not be missing. I believe this was intentionally done. For example the special counsel,his complete past or how about the complete skinny on the people he hired, their employment history, their connection to the POTUS, HRC or OBAMA. Their political party. Do they still work for special council and if not, why? Also the New York Times and other Mainstream media are no longer credible. When using these places, what they wrote, about whatever the subject, their inaccuracy and poor credibility should be noted. Just a few examples and just my opinion. I can help but only if invited. Overall I think you all do outstanding work and will support you in any possible way.<Deplorableme (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)>

Those matters are addressed sufficiently in the "Reactions" section. bd2412 T 19:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Charges

Just want to start a chat about this, especially regarding the charges, etc. section of the article.

First, should we limit ourselves to discussion of only the American citizens/nationals charged? If not, how shall we format the charges against foreign nationals? Should the references to the United States Code, useful as they are, stay in the chart? Or will they just confuse non-legal readers? I worry about that. Javert2113 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The 13 Russian nationals (and 3 "entities", haven't read enough to know what's meant by that yet) need to be included, especially since Trump keeps saying "Russia is a hoax", etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree they need to be included. This is also pertinent to a massive branch of Mueller's investigation.Avilan01 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the nationality of the people charged makes any difference. All persons charged are being charged under U.S. law for violations of U.S. law. bd2412 T 03:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Internet Research Agency, et al.

Regarding revision 826607262 by user Objective3000: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)&diff=next&oldid=826607262

my edit was not a 1RR violation, the content was revised from the original (which had been deleted wholesale without explanation) in an effort to change the language to suit those who had a problem with the original language, only to see the changed version once again deleted wholesale.

Objective3000 also mentions "among other things" without clarifying what those other things might be. Perhaps they are "things" he personally dislikes?

I suggest that some users are shooting from the hip and are deleting content wholesale rather than making any effort to edit the content to address their specific objections. This behavior leads me to believe that there are trolls on WP who are attempting to silence facts they dislike due to their personal bias.

I request that users reach a consensus on the edit ASAP so we do not descend to the level of an edit war. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I deleted because it was a 1RR vio and violated the consensus rqd warning at the top of this page. The fact that it was changed a bit doesn’t alter this. The addition was challenged. Perhaps they are "things" he personally dislikes? trolls on WP who are attempting to silence facts they dislike due to their personal bias. Please avoid casting aspersions. The other things are those expressed by other editors in prior reverts. Whether it should be restored and it what form is for the editors here to decide. O3000 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeat: it was not a reversion, it was substantially modified to materially alter its meaning in an effort to reach a consensus. A user who deleted the previous version wholesale subsequently apologized for doing so mistakenly, and your deletion was also done mistakenly. Please elaborate on what "among other things" means so I do not find cause to cast aspersions. I again request that editors speedily reach a consenus on this matter.soibangla (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You do not reach consensus on challenged material in an article under discretionary sanctions in mainspace. That's what this page is for. And, my revert was certainly not mistaken. If you want to reach a consensus, do so. But, some friendly advice -- using words like trolls does not usually aide the finding of consensus. 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Again: the content was substantially different from the original. Your revert was mistaken, if not actually malicious. Cheers.soibangla (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like an explanation as to why this edit was deleted wholesale without explanation by user Wikid77. If no explanation is forthcoming, the edit should be reinstated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)&diff=826366297&oldid=826226832

Announcing the indictment, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated “Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election." President Trump, his Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and others inaccurately interpreted this to mean that the Mueller investigation has concluded those things, but Rosenstein was actually referring only to the current indictment and stated "the special counsel's investigation is ongoing."

Sources

Soibangla 19:27, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

I would restore Rosenstein's statement, or a paraphrase of it. I don't think that it is necessary to include secondary interpretations of it, or third-party commentary on the secondary interpretations. Rosenstein said what he said and readers can parse for themselves the meaning of that statement. bd2412 T 03:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that people come to WP to factcheck things they see on TV, like this flagrantly false statement by Trump's deputy campaign manager, which is directly pertinent to this section of this article: https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/965638369249173504 soibangla (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You're linking to a difference between your version (I think - you didn't sign your comment) and the current version so it's hard to see exactly what you're talking about. If you are talking about the Rosenstein quote, then I removed it, not Wikid77. And I removed it because it's unnecessary and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why a quote is "undue," and if it is, why it can't be made less undue by adding more content (another quote?) rather than making a wholesale deletion of content? Is it not true that at any given point in time, especially at its creation, WP articles are inherently "undue" until other editors add content to make it less so (assuming they can find the information that provides balance)? The whole undue policy seems to me to be a major logical flaw, and I suspect that trolls (yes, trolls on WP!) use it as an excuse to make wholesale deletions of facts they don't personally like, rather than adding content to provide the balance they assert is lacking (or, at minimum, editing the entry rather than deleting it wholesale). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that when one of the highest ranking officials in the Department of Justice bothers to make a statement about a particular indictment, that statement is probably worth noting in the article covering that indictment. bd2412 T 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the IRA, here's an article:

• After Mueller’s Indictments, an Interview With a Mole Who Was Inside Russia’s Pro-Trump Troll Factory

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Related --- Can this article link to the actual text (or pdf image) of the indictment? Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla added a link to the doc. But, it cannot be verified as it is on a user upload site. I suggest a self-revert of this good faith edit. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

justice.gov is a "user upload site?" it is THE authoritative source: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download Regarding the van der Zwaan indictment, I posted the document cited here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-gates-russia-mueller.html, which another editor is welcome to replace if/when it appears here: https://www.justice.gov/sco

That's not what you linked to. O3000 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It. Is. Yesterday, Lbeaumont was referring to the indictment discussed in section "Internet_Research_Agency,_et_al." and I posted the requested document from justice.gov. Lbeaumont was not referring to today's indictment, which is discussed in the opening paragraphs of this article. I respectfully request that you pay closer attention. soibangla (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you posted a link to [32]. That is not verifiable. We must stick to policies. O3000 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, your response is in the incorrect location. Please read more carefully. But justice.gov has since posted today's indictment, so I will make that replacement now. But, again, you are mistaken.

No idea what you are talking about. But, thank you for correcting your edit. O3000 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You have no idea what I'm talking about because a) you are not paying sufficiently close attention, or b) some other reason that is less innocuous.

I also eat live kittens. O3000 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So it's b) then. Got it. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Indictment of Alex van der Zwaan

Why did User:BD2412 delete "and another individual identified as "Person A," in addition to deleting email sought by investigators." in edit 826737608? Was the edit factually incorrect? soibangla (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede of the article is supposed to be a brief summary of the contents, not a repetition of every detail properly presented in the body of the article. I moved that information to the section on van der Zwaan. bd2412 T 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers soibangla (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump disclosure of classified info to Russian diplomats

User:FloridaArmy deleted my edit and asks "Relevance of Trump informing Russians of active terror threat to investigation?"

I suggest it is relevant because it establishes a link between Trump and Russia involving the disclosure of highly-classified information, which is highly unusual. That it involved an "active terror threat" is not the relevant issue.

My edit should be restored, and if a consensus is not reached on the matter in 24 hours, I will observe WP:1RR and restore the edit, as their appears to be no active, systematic consensus process here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)&diff=next&oldid=826919249 soibangla (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is no source connecting this to the investigation, it can not be included here. bd2412 T 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

the section title is "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials." There is also a a highly unusual link between Trump and Russian officials. Perhaps the title should be changed? soibangla (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it should specify "Campaign links". bd2412 T 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The title is within the context of the article title. Links between Russians and Trump associates during the campaign fit into an article on the special counsel if they are a part of the investigation. An official meeting with Russians in the oval office is part of his job. He may have done something seriously stupid during that meeting. But, unless an RS shows this meet is a part of the special counsel investigation, it doesn’t belong in this article. O3000 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Mueller’s office sent a document to the White House that detailed 13 areas in which investigators are seeking information...One of the requests is about a meeting Mr. Trump had in May with Russian officials in the Oval Office the day after James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, was fired. That day, Mr. Trump met with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak" soibangla (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that was in the context of the firing of Comey, not revealing highly-classified information to Russians which the President can legally do. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, how about this language: "The New York Times and Los Angeles Times reported on 20 September 2017 that Mueller's office had requested information from the White House regarding an Oval Office meeting President Trump had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov on 10 May 2017, during which Trump reportedly said that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him." [33][34][35] soibangla (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's already in the article. But, you'll just say I'm mistaken and malicious, don't pay close attention, and state you will reinstate after 24 hours -- which would be a blockable vio. Seriously, WP is about collaboration. You need to work on your act if you want to convince anyone of anything. O3000 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, for which I apologize, but I don't see that it was already in the article. Can you show me where it already was? Cheers. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw your re-addition without consensus. Seriously, this is a DS article. You should obtain consensus first after a challenge before adding changed wording to make certain you have community agreement. Look, your edits are in good faith. But, these articles are heavily viewed and this is an encyclopedia. We need to stick to the principles and guidelines. Besides, rapid fire edits without discussion make it difficult for editors that are working on a large number of articles at once. If you look at the edit histories of the editors here, you will see they are involved with a large number of articles concurrently. O3000 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

After I made my original edit, which referred to disclosure of classified information, it was removed and I sought consensus here. I was persuaded that the edit was inappropriate, so I ceased challenging it and redrafted it to make it appropriate, then placed it in the proper section. Hence this was a substantially different edit — totally different, in fact — rather than a "re-addition without consensus," so the new edit does not require consensus unless it is challenged. If the new edit is not challenged, that constitutes consensus. I seek no conflict with you. I assure you that I am trying my best to learn the Byzantine arcana of WP, as I have not dedicated a significant part of my life to editing WP, but until I master that as I go along, my primary focus is on providing content. And, admittedly, I don't bat 1000 there, either. But, frankly, getting on someone's case about what are essentially arcane stylistic matters that one learns over time does not encourage contributors to stick around; some might reasonably interpret it as being "trolled off," they decide it ain't worth it, and they give up and split. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A better course of action in this situation would be to obtain consensus here on the talk page as to what language should be included, and then add that language to the article. bd2412 T 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the policies and guidelines are brilliantly conceived and written. But, like most editors, I didn’t think that when I started. It takes some time to appreciate their utility. Just keep in mind that this is a collaboration, no one owns anything, verifiability is more important than "truth", and obtaining consensus makes everything easier. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source suggesting that this disclosure is of interest to the Special Counsel. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Section is misnamed

The section title "Reactions following indictments and guilty pleas" is inaccurate. For one thing, some of the actions and comments took place before any indictments were announced. More importantly, the section is actually about criticisms of, or proposed actions against, Mueller and certain Justice Department officials. Can we come up with a more accurate title? I don't really have one in mind. Possibly "Criticisms of Mueller and Justice Department"? "Republican reactions to the Mueller probe"? What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would just go with "Reactions", then. Not all are from Republicans, nor are all criticisms, although the bulk of material relates to both of these elements. bd2412 T 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at what is in that section, everything is from or by Republicans - including Trump himself, members of his administration, and his Republican allies - and everything is either criticisms or attempts to bring charges against or otherwise undermine Mueller and certain Justice Department employees. I think "reactions" is a very inadequate title for that section. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I was thinking of the whole section, not the subsection. bd2412 T 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Another possible title: "Attempts to discredit the investigation"? --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, in lieu of the just as accurate "GOP obstruction of justice" or "GOP cover-up"... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would propose "Attacks on the investigation". bd2412 T 23:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I personally like the "Criticisms of Mueller and Justice Department". Not a fan of "Attempts to discredit the investigation", feels kind of leading. PackMecEng (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Discredit" is a term used by many RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, but we should try to keep it neutral. PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. NPOV requires that editors, not content or sources, remain neutral. If we neuter the POV or bias found in RS, then we have violated NPOV. For more on this, read my essay at WP:NEUTRALEDITOR. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, that is why as editors we decide what section titles will be and what goes in the article. Also criticism is used by many sources as well. So it is a judgment call on our end which to use. I feel criticism is more neutral than discredit. PackMecEng (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is generic criticism, and there is criticism designed to discredit. There is nothing generic about this criticism. It's designed to undermine, obstruct, and lessen confidence in Mueller's investigation, the FBI, and the rule of law. Many sources rightly describe the intent, and we shouldn't castrate that description. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That is interpreting the sources and not what should be happening. Most sources use criticism, and so should we. PackMecEng (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Attempts to Discredit the investigation is very accurate and reflects the sources. It might even reflect what the quoted people say about their own efforts. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, all. My motto is, whenever in doubt, see what the sources say. So I took a closer look at the subsection. The first thing I discovered is that the distinction between the earlier subsection, “Early conservative opposition”, and the subsection I was talking about here, “Reactions following indictments and guilty pleas”, appears to be arbitrary. I think we should combine them and decide what to call the combined subsection.

Now, how do the sources describe these actions?

• This source says “attack” and also “criticizing”: “Pro-Trump group launches new attack ad against special counsel Robert Mueller”.
• This source says discredit: "Trump Launched Campaign to Discredit Potential FBI Witnesses”
• The Hill says “wave of criticism”: “The Memo: Trump allies turn fire on Mueller”
• Politico says “attack”: “Trump rallies his base against Russia investigation”
• About that proposed law to shut down the investigation after 6 months: one source says it proposes to “stop” the probe, two say “kill” it
• About that House resolution that he should resign: two sources say he should “resign”, one source says “resolution to remove” him.

Does all this suggest anything to anybody? --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like all out war - attack, stop, kill. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

They aren't criticizing spelling errors. Many of the criticisms have been so shallowly absurd and undisguised attempts to obstruct justice that they have been soundly debunked. Even the Nunes memo shot itself in the foot. These aren't generic criticisms. They have an anti-rule of law intent. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to Discredit the investigation seems like a good choice based on sources and the content in the section. Another possibility would be Efforts to subvert the investigation.- MrX 🖋 02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. Good descriptions from the sources are not "interpretations", but just doing our duty to not substitute our personal POV or neutering censorship for what is actually stated by RS. Content need not be neutral, simply because life is not neutral, and the sources which describe it are not neutral. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made the change to "Attempts to discredit the investigatikn" [36] we shall see if there is any strong opposition. Anyone that does not like it can make their case here. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. That is an editorially neutral description of what RS actually say. That's how we should always honor NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. This seems like a pretty good description of what is in the section, and it does have support in Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, after doing some work on that section, reorganizing and putting into chronological order, I think a better title might be "Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation". There were several congressional attempts to shut down the probe, and Trump himself attempted to fire Mueller. Those go well beyond simply attempting to discredit it. Would this change be OK with everyone? --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's more accurate and backed by good RS. Any layman looking at this sees the very definition of obstruction of justice written large, and RS also make that connection. Now Mueller is actually seeking that charge against Trump and Co. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: That sounds good. Another possiblilty is "Attempts to impair the investigation" SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Impair" could work but I didn't see that word in any of the sources. I think I'll go with "discredit or halt". Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I still like "subvert" which encapsulates "discredit", "halt", "attack", "undermine", and "impair".- MrX 🖋 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Have any sources used that word? --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a requirement.- MrX 🖋 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's just something I consider when we are trying to choose among multiple possible wordings. "Subvert" could work, but to me (Melanie's Thesaurus) it sounds like trying to undermine it secretly, whereas these attempts are all very overt. "Subvert" certainly covers more ground than "discredit", but I think "discredit or halt" probably covers it best. Open to discussion of course. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Folks say he is trying to do it secretly but he's not very good at hiding things. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point.- MrX 🖋 22:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

I disagree with this edit "move Sean Hannity paragraph to [EARLY] "conservative opposition" section; consider trimming as UNDUE in size and detail"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)&diff=next&oldid=827444551

move Sean Hannity paragraph to "conservative opposition" section

• Hannity's efforts were not merely early, they are currently ongoing, five days a week. he is aggressively attempting to discredit the investigation.

consider trimming as UNDUE in size and detail

• Hannity is a major driving force behind alternative narrative that many have echoed across other media sources, so some elaboration on his narrative is warranted

soibangla (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I cut out "early". The Conservitive opposition and Attempts to discreidt and halt sections should be merged. It's all a coordinated effort. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, soibangla. We have removed "early" from the section title so it now fits comfortably there. I agree that he is a major force and his opposition needs to be covered in some detail. I trimmed out a few extraneous details such as the fact that he has dined with Trump at the White House, and the size of his radio and TV audiences. I retained everything else. You OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Legacypac that opposition and discredit should be merged. I think it's important to show that Hannity is a Trump confidant and not merely an arm's-length observer (dining with him being one example of several) and that his media reach is substantial and hence he is influential (3.5 million Twitter followers). Please note that the "corrupt, abusively biased and political" reference was directed at Mueller personally, not his investigation ("witch hunt"), which is actually my bad and is supported by the Washington Times reference removed in your edit. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, thanks for removing "early"; I concur. I used to favor combining the sections, but I think they are now distinct in their content and well described by their separate names, and should be kept separate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Jared Kushner section proposed

Many reports over a number of days about Kushner unable to get Top Secret clearance because of the investigation. Now he's lost his interim clearance and 4 countries are reported to have discussed how he could be pressured using his business connections and government inexperience. I'm thinking we should split off the existing info on Kushner into a seperate section in the lines of investigation area headed "Jared Kushner" so it can be expanded as things progress.

We have no evidence that the Office of the Special Counsel is investigating any of those things. bd2412 T 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Legacypac:

Special counsel Robert Mueller's interest in Jared Kushner has expanded beyond his contacts with Russia and now includes his efforts to secure financing for his company from foreign investors during the presidential transition, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.soibangla (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The loss of top secret interim clearance and inability to get top secret clearance has been widely reported to be specifically because of the Mueller investigation. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is behind a paywall for me. Does it specifically discuss the Mueller investigation? If not, there is a bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. Regarding the loss of interim clearance and inability to obtain clearance, can you provide some sources in which this specific connection has been reported? bd2412 T 19:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Mueller probe stymies Kushner security clearance" CNN [37].
• "Mueller probe holding up Kushner security clearance: report" The Hill, citing CNN [38]
• Another reason "Potential for blackmail an obstacle to Kushner security clearance" MSNBC [39] I've not watched this thru but Maddow likely makes the link to Mueller probe as she is methodical.
• "Jared Kushner unlikely to receive full security clearance while Mueller probe continues: Report" Washington Examiner also citing CNN reporting [40]
• This ties Mueller investigation to security clearance issues "Mueller Eyes Kushner’s Pursuit of Foreign Financing: Report" NY Mag [41] good source for what is likely being investigated.
• HuffPost details multiple things Mueller is investigating about Kushner, and an SEC & federal prosecutor in Brooklyn investigation into Kushner's use of visa programs. [42]

My conclusion is there are multiple avenues Mueller is looking at Kushner on and several reasons Kushner can't get security clearance, including Mueller investigation (per CNN sources), failure to disclose/revisions on his application, blackmail concerns, and maybe the SEC/Federal Prosecutor investigation. It's all inter connected and unlikely to end well. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think there is sufficient coverage to have a brief mention of it as an effect of the investigation. I don't know that it merits its own section. Either way, where in the article should it go? It can't be under "Charges" because Kushner has not been charged with anything. bd2412 T 20:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How have we handled it in the past - when someone was reportedly under investigation but no actual indictments have been made? This has come up repeatedly. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose going under "topics", per Legacypac below, is fine. Again, I don't know that this merits an entire section, but it's hard to think of a better way to deal with it. bd2412 T 23:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• New "Jared Kushner" section under "Topics" amd move in info from other topics about him. Add "The Mullier investigation reportedly has been a factor in Kushner not receiving Top Secret security clearence" (cites) Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It could just be added to the "Financial investigations" section, which addresses Kushner's activities in depth. bd2412 T 03:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Among other concerns"

About this sentence in the "attempts to discredit or halt the investigation" section: The Nunes memo, based on classified information, alleged that the FBI and Department of Justice "may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources" in October 2016 in seeking authorization for a wiretap on Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump’s campaign, among other concerns. Is that accurate? From my reading of the Nunes memo article, there are no other concerns; the memo appears to be entirely about how the the FISA warrant was obtained. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Co spun it as way more, but it was not. Exclude the phrase Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The Nunes memo also asserts that the fact the dossier was funded by Clinton/DNC was not disclosed in the Page warrant, but Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrantsoibangla (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking ahead to splitting the article

If there are more developments in this investigation - and it is virtually impossible that there will not be - then we need to start thinking about splitting out some sections. My initial thought is that we should anticipate splitting out the reactions/polls to a separate article, and perhaps split out the charges to a separate article. bd2412 T 20:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Charges seems pretty core to this page. I'd first trim and summarize the sections that already have "main" articles like Maniford and Gates etc to shorten this one. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Would a timeline also be appropriate, maybe one that is merged with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? The whole thing is massive and can be hard to follow.soibangla (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that if there isn't already a timeline of the investigation at that article, it could be appropriate to include one. The two subjects are closely connected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, you are right. They are so closely connected as to be inseparable, and the Timeline article is currently a merged article. The idea of splitting has also been voiced there, in reaction to my attempt to define inclusion and exclusion criteria for the Timeline article. Keeping it all in one timeline is much simpler.

I have explained why a split there would be unworkable. Some of those principle objections may or may not be applicable here. Take a look.

Merging is much simpler and avoids massive duplication and confusion. (The idea of WP:SPINOFFs is still a good idea.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"In March 2018, a source stated that Trump encouraged aides to tell him about questions asked by Robert Mueller"

I don't believe that is an accurate statement or that it belongs in the lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)&diff=next&oldid=829928462

I believe this edit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)&diff=829934079&oldid=829933880

should be reverted because the original edit relates to Trump/Mueller negotiations discussed in the paragraph soibangla (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mueller subpoenas Trump Organization

I noticed a few daya ago news as Mueller subpeonas Trump Organization for documents. It does not seem to have many Google hits or to have gone viral though. Should this be mentioned in the article, and if so where ? (I do not really see a section for it, unless it's Topics, Other topics.)

• NY Times Mueller Subpoenas Trump Organization, Demanding Documents About Russia
• Fox Report: Mueller subpoenas Trump Organization documents | Fox ..
• Wall Street Journal Special Counsel Robert Mueller Has Subpoenaed Trump Organization in Russia Investigation
• USA Today Trump Organization hit with subpoena by special counsel Robert Mueller for documents
• NBC news [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mueller-subpoenas-trump-organization-russia-records-n857021 Politics

Mueller subpoenas Trump Organization for Russia records]

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's briefly mentioned in the "Other Topics" section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Shorten the Lead

The lead is currently 4 screens long, and seems to me too much is timeline detail. I suggest moving paragraphs other than the first to somewhere and just summarizing; or some other means of shortening the lead. Any suggestions or comments ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I propose that current paragraphs #2 and #3 be removed entirely, as they are covered in depth in body (need to ensure nothing gets dropped in the process) and current paragraph #4 be enhanced with a sentence or two soibangla (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we could remove paragraphs 2 and 3, which go into unnecessary chronological recounting of each indictment and guilty plea. Current paragraph 4 summarizes that information and that’s enough. I also think there is too much in the last (5th) paragraph of the lede about Trump’s negotiations with Mueller, but I don’t see that information in the article and don’t see a good place to put it. Suggestions where it could go? --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump's tweet

User:Starship.paint, I put into the article a brief description of Trump’s latest tweet (which, importantly, for the first time attacks Mueller by name). Here is what I put: tweeting that there were "13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans" on the Mueller team and asking "does anyone think this is fair?" Just now you expanded it to pretty much quote the entire tweet, with an additional reference: tweeting that the "Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime". He also labelled the investigation as a "witch hunt" and questioned how "fair" it was "does anyone think this is fair" that "the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans". Trump did not note that Mueller himself is a Republican. In my opinion that is too much detail for one tweet, and overloads the paragraph, but I would like other people’s opinions on the matter. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

P.S. For orientation: this is in the "attempts to discredit" section, last paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: - it's actually two tweets, 12 hours apart, and the "Mueller team" tweet wasn't the first tweet. starship.paint ~ KO 06:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the correction. One tweet or two, I still think it is too much detail, too many direct quotes, for that paragraph. I will wait to see what others say. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I see that another editor has actually added more detail on the tweets, so I guess that is the direction we are going. In that case I am going to add Trump's attacks on the FBI and DOJ, which IMO are highly relevant to this article's subject and specifically to the "attempts to discredit". --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

trimming vs. removing

@Enthusiast01: - I understand the desire to trim, but why is this particular piece of info being removed [43]? It's sorta important.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The details are also in the main body of the article. There is too much detail in the intro, which I think should be a précis of the article. I guess it’s a value judgment. Enthusiast01 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Konstantin Kilimnik

KK is being called the closest link between Russia and Trump campaign in today's news based on new court documents. We had him mentioned a few times in different articles, but I've started a page on him now. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail on Michael Cohen raid/investigation

The raid on Michael Cohen's home, offices, and hotel was, according to the sources, "partly a referral by the Office of Special Counsel" - which, as some analysts have pointed out, is a fancy way of saying that information supporting such a raid was provided to the Special Counsel investigation by someone, and that those investigators decided not to pursue this information, but did pass it on others in the FBI. That it was "partly" a referral further indicates that it was also partly not, meaning that those investigating Cohen might have done so even if nothing was referred to them. The bottom line is, this is not actually part of the Special Counsel investigation. bd2412 T 11:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Or, as one expert said on MSNBC the Special Council office is spreading the responsibility for the raid across several departments and agencies to make it harder for Trump & Co to attack the Special Council over it. Only two people have been targets of raids - Cohen and Manafort. The Manefort raid was initially dismissed as a sideshow that had nothing to do with Trump or Russian interference but it is now seen as leading to the core of the investigation. The Cohan raid is very unusual. A Watergate prosecutor said they never targeted any lawyers in the Nixon investigation. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, since it involves Trump's personal lawyer, the seized documents could turn up evidence regarding things in the scope of the SC investigation. Even though Trump is a subject of the investigation, we maybe should wait to connect the raid to the investigation until information points to it. Persistent Corvid (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A Watergate prosecutor said they never targeted any lawyers in the Nixon investigation. Odd considering the Nixon White House legal counsel and special counsel to the President were jailed. O3000 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the prosecutor said that was a later investigation. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than it was a referral by Mueller, it is unrelated to the special counsel investigation. With the NY Times, specifically stating such. "The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation" [44]. So no idea why we would need a section and two paragraphs of info on it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I decided not to add that topic for the reasons you describe, but made some clarifying edits once someone else had added it. Although I've since seen other stuff linking it to Mueller, it still should probably come out, IMO. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[45] shows links Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible additions to "Trump's defense team"

What would you all think about adding a paragraph like this to the "Trump's defense team" section?

Trump also informally meets with or talks to attorneys who are not officially on his defense team. According to one source, he asks legal advice from “virtually any attorney who calls him up.” Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a longtime friend of Trump, has met with him repeatedly at the White House, including April 10 and April 11. Dershowitz, however, said “I don’t give advice to the president, except on television.” Trump also continues to discuss the case with Marc Kasowitz.

Sources

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, should we include attorneys/firms that represent the Trump campaign? On 15 April 2018, the New York Times reported on the Trump campaign’s Q1 2018 FEC filing:

Another $376,000 was paid to Jones Day, the firm representing the campaign on election law and campaign finance compliance, as well as matters related to the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Sources

Thoughts? --Ross.smith (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)