Talk:Mueller report

Russian Interference Origins Investigation

Much has been made about the "STEELE DOSSIER" YET SOMEHOW, THE MULLER INVESTIGATORS failed TO DISCOVER THE origins OF THE dossier, THE STATE DEPT. CONNECTIONS AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S RESIISTANCE TO SUBPEONAS AND DISCOVERY ON THE FISA ISSUES. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN FUNDING THE DOSSIER, THE DNC'S INVOLVEMENT NOR THEIR OBSTRUCTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.174.3 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't shout. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(1) The dossier was not the impetus of the investigation. (2) Even if the dossier was fraudulent, it was just one piece of the puzzle, it does not render this investigation invalid, since there were plenty of other evidence. starship.paint (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The dossier was fraudulent and Mueller isn't answering any questions - game over. I guess the 'investigation' needs another decade and more millions to finally shed some light on anything. Meanwhile, the role of the fraudulent document will now be investigated, among other areas. GreenIn2010 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The dossier hasn’t been proven to be fraudulent yet. That’s why there’s another investigation. Plus this investigation turned up stuff about social media accounts and possible obstruction, all of which have nothing to do with the dossier. starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

GreenIn2010, The dossier has not been publicly proven fraudulent, reliable sources say parts have been confirmed, and Operation Crossfire Hurricane was opened July 31 but they received the dossier on September 19. Even the Nunes memo conceded the dossier did not initiate the investigation, but despite many months of insisting it did, to no avail, certain individuals like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes have now pivoted to a new theory that Mifsud was a Western agent who entrapped Papadopolous to justify opening the investigation. Given the extensive history of such individuals to traffic in fringe theories, there is not good reason to believe their latest dog will hunt, either. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mueller July 24 Testimony

@Starship.paint: Mueller has now clarified that his earlier statement was in error. Quote: I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it ... As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. I think you may be moving a little fast, and that we should perhaps wait at least until tomorrow to update the article. I didn't revert, preferring instead to check with you here about what you think should be done. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I hoping to find some better sources regarding the confusion related to this exchange. Vox has published an article on this point. [1] - Scarpy (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m aware of this (before I just logged in but after my initial edit). I have removed that from the lede and noted he corrected that statement in the body. starship.paint (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained

In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice (or other crimes) after they left office.[62]

--Geoffrey Hirsch (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Rick Gates, then Deputy Campaign Chairman, recalled that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Jared Kusnher, Ivanka Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, were meeting.[178]

Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya,translator Anatoli Samochornov, Irakli Kaveladze, Rinat Akhmetshin, and Robert Goldstone.[178]

Geoffrey Hirsch (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

178 ^ a b Mueller Report vol.I, p.115. (etc.) 178 ^ a b Mueller Report vol.I, p.117. (nothing else)

--Geoffrey Hirsch (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead too long

The current intro contains six paragraphs and everything beyond the second 'graph should have be broken down to additional paragraphs. Volume I is particularly bad. I would say that the lead amounts to about 10 standard paragraphs.

In general, the lead should occupy no more than a screenful of text; at most four paragraphs -- except for rare circumstances (see MOS:LEADLENGTH). I know that it is difficult to trim down the lead of a popular subject; so many editors want to get their ideas in and the lead seems to them to be a perfect place. The best way I found is to BE BOLD and to slash the unneeded text from the lead ruthlessly and then let the other editors replace the content as they see fit. We'll probably have to do the slashing several times over the next few months.

I'm going to put up a {{Lead too long}} template at the beginning of the article. If no one responds by reducing the verbiage in a few days, I will trim down the lead and we'll see what happens. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is too long and could do with some trimming. Galestar (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar and RoyGoldsmith: - I have trimmed the lede to 59% of its previous length, from 966 to 575 words, from 6 to 4 paragraphs, and now every paragraph is under 150 words. starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully this entire page will be reduced - it is far larger than many other similar scandals or report pages and has not amounted to anything like others have, such as impeachment or resignation. In fact, just 4 days after the Mueller testimony, the "spy chief" has suddenly announced he is leaving and Trump has nominated a replacement. Sounds like things are moving on. So maybe this page should start to decrease in size, rather than continuing to balloon. GreenIn2010 (talk)

We can simply have WP:SPINOFF of things like Reactions. starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is current event

It should say so. It happed this year and aint settled. Russian Trolls is politics not substance. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 23:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

No information about controversy

This page is notably barren of any mention of controversy surrounding the formation of the Mueller Report in regards to possibly intentional misinformation, partisan leadership, and witch-hunting. Is there some rule against adding a section on this or is Wikipedia truly just overwhelming liberal? If the latter is true and not the former, I'll be making a section soon, but I'll stick it here first so it can be properly berated.