Jump to content

Talk:Mueller report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tambourine60 (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 22 May 2020 (→Problem with "Impetus for investigation" section: question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshimaster18 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to seeing your contributions with reliable sources.soibangla (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

add America Reads The Mueller Report as appears useful to the wp:Reader

was rv here. X1\ (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not put youtube videos in the external links section. PackMecEng (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"hatchet-man" Roger Stone, remove?

In February 2020, President Trump sent a tweet suggesting former Trump hatchet-man and dirty-trickster Roger Stone's suggested sentence for lying under oath to Congress and witness tampering was overly harsh. Attorney General William Barr ordered a review of the case. Stone's attorney's demanded a new trial. Barr also hires an outside attorney to review the case against former security advisor Michael Flynn.[1] The lawyer for Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks claims that former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) offered Assange a pardon in 2017 in exchange for denying Russian involvement in the DNC leak. Rohrabacher denies the allegation.[2]

The Washington Examiner, for example, calls Stone a "hatchet-man".[3] and Stone has widely been called a "dirty-trickster".

So I restored Michael E Nolan's contribution. X1\ (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X1\ (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Roger Stone attorneys demand new trial after Trump tweets – as it happened The Guardian, 15 Feb 2020, retrieved 19 Feb 2020
  2. ^ Lawyer for WikiLeaks' Assange says he was offered a US pardon for denying Russian hacking CNN, 19 Feb 2020
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/practice-your-frank-pentangeli-godfather-ii-could-be-key-to-roger-stone-trial
Please read WP:RSP's extry for the Washington Examiner There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. Therefore it is not a RS for calling a BLP a hatchet-man also none of the sources say dirty-trickster. Removing until consensus is reached. Also the main point of my undue earlier was it was not explained how this edit is related to the Mueller report overall. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please read WP:RSP's extry for the Washington Examiner There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. Therefore it is not a RS for calling a BLP a hatchet-man also none of the sources say dirty-trickster. Removing until consensus is reached. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used W.E. since it is partisan conservative.
More: politico.com (see q:Roger Stone), WaPo, MoJo, NY Daily News, CNN , etc...
X1\ (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From our Roger Stone article;
Stone has been variously described as a "self-proclaimed dirty trickster",[1] ...
X1\ (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Haberman, Maggie (March 21, 2017). "Roger Stone, the 'Trickster' on Trump's Side, Is Under F.B.I. Scrutiny". The New York Times. New York City: The New York Times Company. Retrieved December 4, 2018.
(edit conflict)Politico is quoting Cruz, not themselves saying it and no mention of dirty-trickster. Ignoring Wikiquote as not a reliable source. Washington Post prefaces it with saying seen by his enemies so no go and no mention of dirty trickster, though does say political trickster. Mother Jones is another that would need to be attributed per RSP, also only mentions it in the headline so no good there either and no trickster. Per RSP again NY Daily News is a tabloid and not good for such statements and no trickster. Finally CNN is a transcript of their commentary show The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and again no trickster. So none of those are usable for how they are used here and it does not answer my original question of how is it related to the Mueller report. PackMecEng (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And our own article self-proclaimed ...? X1\ (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The times article might work but at this point the question would be why? Undue starts to become an issue as it does not seem to add anything in this situation except to color his actions. The big and main question still persists, what does it have to do with this article? PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formulation in the Article

There is following sentence: "the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities"" with a reference to the page 180 of the Report, where the information about contacts between Trump campaign and Russians. On the other hand there is following text on the page 173 of the Report: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." On my opinion text in article is not really correct and should be rather "no evidence" instead of "did not find sufficient evidence".--Divega (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Did not find" is more accurate, as the Report also details much obstruction, destruction of evidence, refusals to testify, and other actions which prevented discovery of any possible evidence. If Trump had allowed a proper investigation and cooperated, there would be no doubt about the outcome, but his obstruction leaves a cloud over this forever. Jimmy Carter was not in doubt about what he saw as the results of a proper investigation: Jimmy Carter just called Trump an illegitimate president who was elected only because of Russian interference.
The article makes it clear, besides the quotes you mention, that the Report concluded that there was no "conspiracy" or "coordination", but the report did provide a mountain of evidence for massive co-operation, otherwise known as "collusion", between the Trump campaign and Russians, which they hid and lied about.
BTW, "did not find sufficient evidence" and "did not establish" are essentially synonymous and open-ended. They do not close the door to possible "conspiracy". They just could not prove it under the less-than-ideal conditions of a compromised investigation. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native speaker, so for me sounds they a bit different, like the first one "there is a bit of something we found", but the second "no connection at all". Stays the second part of my question: there is some reference to the Report, that has not much to do with the sentence. Shouldn't be the exact citation also referenced, like the one, that already there, something like: "Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 173: "Ultimately, the investigation ..."?--Divega (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's possible to make a reference very exact, right down to the page number. With books that can be practical, but with exact quotes from most online sources it's easy to search the whole article, so precision isn't necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't understood this part. So if the book exists as PDF and a paper version -- no need to give an exact page? Or is there some difference between format of book and this report? And about precision -- in this article almost everything with page numbers, so it will be just like all other references. --Divega (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, almost nobody will buy this report from Amazon. Even though you can buy it there. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

In Section #7 Possible future releases "is expected to be available two weeks after the initial public release" and "Thus, for the time being, the House will not receive the unredacted Mueller Report and its underlying material, pending Trump's decision" need editing to indicate what happened/didn't happen. The section title may also need editing. Mcljlm (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with "Impetus for investigation" section

This sentence—-"This investigation began in July 2016 due to the unwitting revelation by foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos that the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton"—would appear to be untrue (and is not found in any of the cited sources). First of all, "before anyone else" makes no sense, since no one has alleged that the Trump campaign stole the emails. Second, the Mueller Report specifically stated, with "information" being Misfud's alleged statement that Russia had "dirt" on the Clinton campaign in the form of emails: "No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office, shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the Campaign."[1][2] So unless there is any objection, this sentence needs to be removed or modified. Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Before anyone else" means the media, DNC, or literally "anyone else". They had the info privately before it became public. The sentence you are objecting to has three citations that directly support the info. We could also add this NYT piece that covers Papadopoulos spilling the beans while drunk with the Australian. So, no, there doesn't seem to me to be any problem with that sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. But I don't see anything in any of the articles including NYT) that says the "Trump campaign" was first to know. Isn't it clear that Misfud told Papadopoulos this information—meaning Misfud (who is not "Russian") had to have known first? Also, does "the Trump campaign knew" mean just Papadopoulos himself knew? Because I'm not aware of any evidence anyone ELSE at the campaign knew prior to the media, the DNC, etc.—and per Mueller there's no evidence Papadopoulos ever shared the information with "the Campaign". The cited articles distinguish between Papadopoulos and the Trump campaign. So if "the Trump campaign" means "George Papadopoulos, an adviser to the campaign" in an article about the Mueller Report (which clearly does not conflate the two), then it would behoove us to clarify that, no? Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Mueller couldn't answer some crucial questions in Russia investigation". Los Angeles Times. 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
  2. ^ "Mueller: There is no proof that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told campaign about Russian dirt". CNN. 2019-04-18. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mueller_report&oldid=958283435"