Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Straw poll on article title

Should the phrase "(conspiracy theory)" be removed from the title of this article?:

• Yes/remove- Based on the DoJ IG report, released this week, it can now be argued that the Trump campaign was surveilled (AKA spied upon) by the FBI. There are, of course, two sides to the matter, but for Wikipedia to be neutral on the topic, the phrase in question needs to be removed, because it causes Wikipedia to take a side. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  You need to stop reading fake news for your alternative facts. “No Evidence”: An Official Probe Has Debunked Trump’s Claim The FBI Planted A Spy In His Campaign – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Buzzfeed is a political/lifestyle blog and not a reliable source. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  BuzzFeed is many things, and its news is considered a RS here. Unless other RS contradict it, we can use it. Many other RS have reported the same thing. The IG report undermines the false claims pushed by Trump/Barr/Durham. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Reason Magazine, which is by no means a defender of trump.[1] says

"Both sides of the effort to impeach Trump can conceivably claim victory here, which essentially means that both sides lose. One side will be able to argue that the FBI has been cleared of any claims of bias. The other side will be able to argue that there's plenty of evidence of the FBI playing fast and loose when requesting permission to snoop on a political campaign, deliberately withholding information the FISA court would want to know."

National review (which pretty much is a defender of trump but is not "fake news") says

"Does the Federal Bureau of Investigation traditionally send undercover investigators to talk to a presidential campaign’s low-level staffers? The term “Spygate” doesn’t seem so hyperbolic now... Sending undercover agents to meet with targets and try to get them to divulge sensitive information is... spying, isn’t it? This isn’t a conspiracy theory anymore."[2]

So the "not a conspiracy theory" position isn't just "fake news". That doesn't mean that it is right, though. We go with what most reliable sources say, and on that basis I say keep the conspiracy theory in the title but be sure to get the details right in the body.

Related: In my Opinion The Guardian is correct[3] and we should not have "spygate" in the title. The only reason any source calls it that is because Donald Trump calls it that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, do you have a suggested alternate title we can use for an article about what really happened? I don't recall if we have a factual article describing FBI surveillance of Trump campaign aides.

This article and title are good, because Trump's false "spygate" narrative needs its own article here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I do have the basis for such an article here in a sandbox: Surveillance of Trump associates -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• No. The title is accurate. The part about the surveillance of three people is not untrue and is not disputed.

It is other false claims made by Trump which make it a conspiracy theory. We have discussed this in great detail before. Look in the archives.

Calling it "spying" is disputed by multiple intelligence leaders. American agencies do not "spy" on American citizens, but they do "surveil" them when they are suspected of working with enemy spies. They do "spy" on foreigners. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree, Not only is the "spy" wrong, but so is the "gate", which is a suffix that has a specific meaning that is inaccurate in this case.

The more I think about it the better I like BullRangifer's idea of one article titled Surveillance of Trump associates and another, which I would title Trump surveillance conspiracy theory. The first would detail what actually happened, along with a well researched reaction section, and the second would cover the various bogus claims like "placed a spy" (Trump's words -- it would actually be, if true, an Undercover operation) as opposed to surveillance) and the claim that the "spying" was directed at Trump himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds really good on both counts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• No. IG Report, p. 411: "we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any [Confidential Human Sources] within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign." Keep title as is. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If (conspiracy theory) is removed, what proposed replacement is there to disambiguate it from the other Spygates? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Title it "Spygate (Trump)". 155.19.91.37 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  ONUnicorn, "conspiracy theory" would not be removed from this article. It could be done with or without parentheses, but including those words in the title is our standard practice for such articles. See Guy Macon's comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  There are way too many reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory, and far too few that say it isn't one, to justify a name change. Whatever my personal opinion is, as a Wikipedia editor I have agreed to follow the sources. I don't see nearly as much support in the sources for "Spygate". The term is used by a boatload of unreliable sources, and a bunch of reliable sources do note that Trump calls it Spygate, but we should not let Trump (or Pelosi for that matter) pick the name. We don't have articles named Pro-life or Pro-choice for the same reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  Very well put. I couldn't agree more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment [4] The Attorney General says in that interview with NBC that the FBI "spied" on the Trump campaign. In other words, the top legal professional in the US just stated that it isn't a conspiracy theory. Again, it's fine for Wikipedia to include contrary opinions to that, but it shouldn't be putting one side in Wikipedia's voice, which the current article title does. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Has Barr produced evidence of his assertion? Do you believe his response to the Mueller Report was accurate? soibangla (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Barr is considered a pusher of the conspiracy theory, IOW not exactly a RS. Multiple RS, intelligence agency officials, and several official government and Congressional (even bipartisan) investigations contradict Barr. He is not credible and thus has no weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• No - One would have hoped the IG report would have stopped the believers in this conspiracy theory as RS report that it, again, is a debunked theory. Alas.... O3000 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The vast majority of straightforward news reports from central news organizations do not call this a conspiracy theory, but rather say that it was an unsubstantiated allegation. A minority of RS also call it a conspiracy theory. I believe we should follow the framing of the majority, noting in the lead and in the text that several sources have said it is a conspiracy theory. That would reflect RS better than the current approach. I would actually prefer that the content of this article be condensed and absorbed into the Crossfire Hurricane article. But, if we keep this article, I'd change the title to "Spygate Allegations" or "Spygate Controversy". Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No - The article describes a conspiracy theory. This defining attribute is reflected in numerous reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 02:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, remove There's more than enough information available at this point to, at the least, begin shifting the framing of this topic to a more balanced POV. Edit5001 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• No - Of course not. The IG report literally says there were no "spies" in Trump's campaign. Reliable sources are clear, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories need to be labeled appropriately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• No. This is an absurd suggestion. Guy (help!) 23:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, remove I don’t think anyone can objectively call this a conspiracy theory at this point. The IG report has shown that much of what we have received in reporting from the biggest names in the business over the past couple of years has been patently false. Claiming that the IG said there’s no bias is an extremely misleading statement when taken into context. He was specific in saying he was referring to the opening of the investigation and not the actions afterward. Saying that he made a blanket claim that bias played no role in the investigation is avoiding any semblance of context and what appears to me to be an outright dishonest attempt to obfuscate the facts. If we didn’t have the AG and even the lead Prosecutor saying otherwise I think it would still be difficult to justify the claim at this juncture. The fact that the two people with the authority and position to know far more information on the topic are saying they disagree with it makes this poll question very easy to answer. It’s blatantly partisan to ignore their statements. I recommend utilizing “allegations” and “controversy” for the foreseeable future. Maintaining “conspiracy theory” cuts at the entire purpose of Wikipedia to remain as balanced and neutral as possible in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havoc1649 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, remove Enough already § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, remove. The IG Report itself ends the debate when it states CHS assets were used against members of the Trump campaign without their knowledge. ~~greeklantern~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekLantern (talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • GreekLantern, they were not placed inside the campaign or White House by the FBI. It is that part of Trump's claim that is still false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes/remove- The sooner the American media's bias is removed from Wikipedia, the better. Shtove (talk 11:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Shtove, no, we document bias here. It would be a violation of NPOV for you to remove a source because you disagree with its bias. Don't confuse bias with fact. NPOV expressly allows the use of biased sources and biased content in articles. For an editor to use their own bias to exclude such content is a violation of their NPOV duty to remain neutral in their editing. For more on this, read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• No - Something is needed for disambiguation and conspiracy theory seems to be the natural choice based on several sources.- MrX 🖋 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a second "no" vote by the same user. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• No It's a conspiracy theory, full stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, and why is this a straw poll, and not a Template:Requested move? X1\ (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Conspiracy theories need to be identified as such, especially in a standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Spying has been verified, the other details that weren't accurate are just assumed intentions, not a Conspiracy Theory nor are there many sources that refer to it as such. 67.79.70.148 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Spying was never "verified". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• No Because it is actually a conspiracy theory.   // Timothy :: talk  16:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes/remove- At best "conspiracy theory" should be discussed as one POV held mostly by Trump "resistance movement" participants. The fact that so many "Yes's" exist in this straw poll is reason enough to get it out of the title and worked in as a detail or aspect of the Spygate scandal article. If we're to use the arguments held by "No's" in this poll then we better rename articles in a consistent manner, such as "Cinco de Mayo (conspiracy theory)" or "Spanish Flu (conspiracy theory)"173.54.120.6 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - So many Trump associates clearly had - and have admitted to, and been convicted of - contacts with Russia that to deny it is indeed a conspiracy designed to rewrite history. The job of the U.S. intelligence agencies is to investigate and prevent foreign influence in American affairs - preferably without being undermined by the Commander in Chief.

• Yes/remove- Obviously this is not a "conspiracy theory", since both sides agree that the Obama Administration surveilled (aka "spied on") the Trump campaign in a variety of ways. The new Democrat talking point is that all this spying and leaking was "normal" and that to be concerned about it is nothing more than a “distraction" from important things. On the other hand, Republicans consider the spying to be a national scandal far more important than Watergate. When Wikipedia violates their NPOV rule in such a blatant manner, it discredits the entire project. Similarly, trying to pretend that Spygate must mean that there specifically was a "spy embedded in the Trump campaign" is something no one ever proposed, despite a single poorly-worded Trump tweet.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.138.190 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Who were FBI's campaign contacts informing on the campaign?

The important testimony of Trisha Anderson (FBI Deputy General Counsel over the Counter-Intelligence Operation of the Trump campaign) revealed that the FBI "relied upon its network of sources" that had "campaign contacts." I've have been unable to find any additional information or further inquiry into these Trump campaign "contacts" who were informing the FBI. I do not see any follow-up inquiry from the Senate or in the media that reported the testimony. The nature and identify of these FBI contacts in the Trump campaign are of direct relevance to this article. Tachypaidia (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Halper's $3,000 Research Paper Offer to Papadopoulos

The article adds extraneously that "Papadopoulos was paid $3,000 by Halper for a research paper on the oil fields of Turkey, Israel and Cyprus." This addition is out of context and unexplained. Unless this can be addressed, it should be deleted. The $3,000 offer and the expense paid trip to London appear to have been a ruse to set-up the interview, but I am unaware of any source that gives sufficient information regarding this. Tachypaidia (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

MAY 2020

Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a former federal prosecutor, stated on a Tucker Carlson show that he had been wrong in his 2018 assessment of the FBI behaviour. 

"Former congressman Trey Gowdy admitted during a Monday appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight that he had been wrong in “relying on the word of the FBI and the DOJ” during hearings on the Trump-Russia probe, saying he realized his mistake after reviewing the documents related to the opening of the investigation.

Carlson played Gowdy a clip of the former South Carolina Republican saying in May 2018 that after being briefed, he was “more convinced the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.”

When Carlson then asked “do you still feel that way?” Gowdy replied “oh gosh, no.”

“I made a lot of mistakes in life — relying on briefings, and not insisting on the documents,” Gowdy explained, saying he changed his mind “about three weeks” after his public comments.

“I went to the Department of Justice. I sat there for four hours. That’s when I saw that Peter Strzok actually initiated and approved Crossfire Hurricane. That’s when I saw the exculpatory information on George Papadopoulos. That’s when I saw for the very first time that it was the Trump campaign mentioned in that predicate document,” Gowdy elaborated, adding that the officials called to testify had been “telling us all along, ‘Trump’s not the target, the campaign’s not the target.”

“So yes, my mistake was relying on the word of the FBI and the DOJ and not insisting on the documents. Luckily it took me three weeks to correct that mistake,” Gowdy stated."

Kimartus (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you're request is to add this, it's a nonstarter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

The title that says Spygate (Conspiracy Theory) is no longer a conspiracy theory. It has been proven and there are NUMEROUS documents proving that the FBI, DNC, and media worked together to undermine a Presidency. The "Conspiracy Theory" part should be removed because it has been proven it is not a conspiracy theory. Leaving it the way it is would be considered false information and looks like it is part of the agenda of the Democrats and part of the cover up itself. This needs to be removed immediately. There has already been so much false information regarding the Trump campaign put out in the media and it is time for the truth to be shown. Trump did not collude with Russia and there has been years of investigations proving they have no evidence that he ever did. Now the information that just came out from the justice department in the Flynn case only proves furthermore that this was never a conspiracy theory and spygate actually happened. If this is not removed I will report it to authorities. Thank you 2600:1015:B040:DBE3:646:31D4:1B6E:E09F (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've distilled out the main of Rep. Gowdy's subsequent statement, but given the layout of the article, I am thinking that an indented quote may be better, but only including the essential points and eclipsing out the 'small talk' in the interview. Tachypaidia (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Stagnant Article

Much of this article is ~2 years stagnant; so many of sources: FBI confidential source transcripts, Senate and House testimony, 302s, court documents, etc. have come to light. Much of what was only alleged or alluded earlier is not in documentary evidence or, more importantly, contradicted by it. As the currency of the article is of direct relevance to the present politic, it is unclear why so very little substantive progress has been made. A thorough review and update should proceed.Tachypaidia (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tachypaidia, what is the problem? What exactly of so many of sources: FBI confidential source transcripts, Senate and House testimony, 302s, court documents, etc. changes anything that's already in the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That is, of course, the point, editors must vet new evidence against existing claims. I would, by example, note that only a little over a year ago (March 2019) did the Senate testimony of the FBI General Counsel for the Crossfire Hurricane, Trisha Anderson, come to light where she was asked specifically on the question of FBI operatives in the Trump campaign (see her response, under 3.3 August 2018). Nothing could be more relevant, along with her disclosure that the FBI investigation was working "contacts" within the Trump campaign. The extent of the roles of other Confidential Human Sources (especially the newly-released October 31, 2017 FBI transcript (the CHS's identity not yet declassified) is directly relevant to assaying the scope and type of surveillance of the Trump campaign. Moreover, much testimony given in the news media sources is contradicted in the Senate testimony by the same sources. The declassification of reliable sources requires a reassessment of many of the anonymous sources contained herein. Regrettably, the drip-drop nature of the emergence of new evidence, along with redaction, precludes an expeditious and wholesale update. Tachypaidia (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty in the Obamagate/Spygate scandal

former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty in the Obamagate/Spygate scandal. Clinesmith was so intent on spying on Carter Page, an unpaid advisor to the Trump campaign, that he lied to the secret FISA court and doctored an official document to misrepresent that Page had not cooperated with the CIA in past investigations involving Russian espionage.as soon as this FISA surveillance warrant was granted, the FBI, under the control of President Barack Obama, had access to the entire Trump campaign. https://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2020/08/14/now-theres-no-denying-it-obamas-fbi-spied-on-trump-period-n2574380 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-clinesmith-fbi-lawyer-plead-guilty-probe-origins-russia-investigation/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B111:D73A:2495:DC73:F9D8:7255 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Except “Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had placed a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign.” The Clinesmith matter is addressed in other articles. soibangla (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Accept it! Spying on the Trump campaign did happen. This article is a misleading piece of wiki meant to just spread more hatred against Trump. as soon as this FISA surveillance warrant was granted, the FBI, under the control of President Barack Obama, had access to the entire Trump campaign.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.224.138.104 (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

change "an covert informant" to "a covert informant" on the first line of the 4th paragraph. Zingbust (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Done Dylsss (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Simpson testimony of a source within Trump campaign (reversion)

Regarding the reversion of my including the initiative statement to the claim of a spy within the Trump campaign by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS in testimony before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22, 2017 (and reiterated on January 2, 2018), it was reverted on the basis that (a) the statement was later "walked back" (though not by Mr. Simpson) and of yet it (b) has not been proven true. The Glenn Simpson's statement was not contradicted until after it became public information on January 9, 2018. For 4 1/2 months this claim was known among government personnel having appropriate clearance. For this reason, this seminal evidence on the very topic of this article and its potential subsequent effects cannot be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu reverted the above, citing "no consensus". This Talk entry is now aged one week, without any rejoinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 02:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What remains unexplained in this article is how it can have an "Origins of FBI investigation" but no "Origin of the Spygate (conspiracy theory)." Moreover, when there is an attempt to introduce the seminal source that birthed the whole thing, editors rush in with a: "no consensus". One might suspect from this that sourcing an origin may be seen as diminishing an intended impression of Spygate as wholly lacking any predication. Tachypaidia (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's because-the genesis of spygate which has been repeatedly blocked even on the talk pages- 1)November 2016, article in the NY Times informing the world that Trump is being spied upon by the government.

2)March 4th, 2017 for the first time Trump tweets referencing spying-Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

3)The media deny these allegations, ridicule Trump for using the words "wires-tapped"

That is the first time government spying was publicly linked to the Trump campaign and the first time that Trump publicly claimed the government was spying on him.

Encyclopedic and topical facts. His having some reason to even mention being spied upon is not congruent with Trump the irrational madman WP leftist cabal mis and disinformation campaign. Therefore we end up with a nonsensical page where Trump out of nowhere just came up with some unfounded conspiracy theory.

The official WP leftist cabalist excuse given for excluding this is neither his claim nor the NY Times article explicitly mention spygate by name.

Oddly the material posted from the usual leftist cabalists merchants of misinformation called RS don't ex0lictly cite Spygate by name either yet are abundant on the page.

This leaves Spygate to be as narrowly defined as possible by the cabalists so as to be as unrealistic as possible.

The secondary official WP leftist cabalist excuse given for excluding the obviously encyclopedic topical material is that it is an opinion. Yet it is not an opinion, both points are undeniable facts.

Oddly again, the material posted from the usual leftist cabaiist merchants of mis and disinformation that are abundant on the page are all opinion and almost no fact.

Fourteen separate editors have posted that the colloquial definition of Spygate is all encompassing Trump's claim that the federal government was spying on him and his campaign. While the minority of five editors posts Spygate literally means one spy. The minority has repeatedly accused the majority of meat puppetry even though the minority sought like minded editors themselves. The minority has disregarded numerous votes of the majority. In other words it is little different than any other WP political topic, largely left wing hit pieces that devolve into nonsensical messes like here or serve as a coherent chronicle of epic left wing fail. Ofc none of any of this includes any of the current information that refutes almost the entire page. Plus, shows that the NYTimes article citing use of the FISA court to spy on Trump and the campaign was spot on in the first place.

Instead we have the talk pages of the same cabalists supporting the 142 WP pages born from the hoax that Trump and Russia colluded and not one single page showing that the DEmocrats lost 1041 elections, a record by 500 for any two termer during the Obama administration and lost to Trump in 1042. Besides this being nothing more than unsubstantiated hyperbole and libel both gross violations of BLP.

This article is in great need of revision. The Mueller Report, erased the idea that there had been any “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Horowitz report clearly identified the falsification of documents used to obtain FISA warrants to conduct surveillance of emails and phone calls of Carter Page going forward and retroactively to look at the campaign and a seated Presidential organization and Senate and Congressional members. This has been corroborated by the guilty plea of the senior attorney Clinesmith who changed an email message to insure the FISA warrant would be issued. The Steele dossier was completely discredited as bar talk and lies, and Steele’d legitimacy disavowed by the UK intelligence service. The discussion on the site regarding having editors claiming “no consensus” seems to say truth isn’t an issue but a consensus is. My recommendation would be that this item be updated by permitting use and reference to objective evidence OR be purged from the site, DoDad4Ever (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is listening to you rant for a reason. A loose necktie (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2021

Completely rewrite without the horrifically biased slant. This is disgusting. 75.167.113.167 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - I'm sorry, but facts famously do not care about your feelings, and unless you can cite some reliable sources which have different facts, nothing here will change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2021 (2)

Replace with the following article and delete your biased garbage.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html 75.167.113.167 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: haaaaaa as if the Epoch Times isn't horribly biased. The Epoch Times has been deprecated on Wikipedia because it is such a terrible and unreliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Epoch Times "can never again be used as a reference for facts." soibangla (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, I just created the shortcut WP:EPOCHTIMES, akin to WP:DAILYMAIL, for ease of use in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

In the section § Activities of Stefan Halper, fifth paragraph: "Ms.Turk" lacks a space (should be "Ms. Turk").

"...to add a trained and trusted investigator like Ms.Turk as a 'layer of oversight"

"...to add a trained and trusted investigator like Ms. Turk as a 'layer of oversight'"

Srey Sros^talk 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Srey Sros:  done, and good catch! thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2021 (2)

This is NOT a Conspiracy Theory. See source: John Soloman "Just The News": https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/once-secret-fbi-informant-reports-reveal-wide-ranging

Possible copyright violation was removed by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk) at 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC) The user included the full text of the linked article.

172.74.26.171 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm going to stop you right there at the first line of this to tell you that John Solomon is an unreliable source. Here's a few reliable sources discussing Solomon and the problems with his writings. Even Fox News says that Solomon spreads "disinformation". [5][6][7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

Conspiracy theory? Only on Wikipedia https://www.newsweek.com/trump-was-right-about-fbi-scramble-assemble-russia-evidence-after-2016-win-texts-claim-1534191

I don’t see how that applies to Spygate specifically. Actually, it’s not clear what it applies to at all. I am, however, aware of what appear to be selective releases of docs from Jensen to Powell that don’t provide much context and are thus catnip for conspiracy theorists. soibangla (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that anyone is calling this a conspiracy theory at this point should be embarrassing to them. Why not rely on reasonable, but still well left-of-center analysis from the likes of (as three examples) Alan Dershowitz, John Turley, or even Glenn Greenwald? You folks need to look up and study Crossfire Hurricane and the information that we have on the Steele Dossier. The fact that they spied on Trump during his campaign should not even be controversial at this point. How about this article? https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-blindness-by-the-media-on-spying-by-obama-administration I used to be very impressed by the analysis on Wikipedia relating to politics. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.223.118 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are we calling this a theory? It happened. We know it and there is extremely extensive documentation that it happened. It turned out not to be a person in the campaign but a modern wiretap. There really is not question unless there is some ulterior motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.252.33 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No, in fact it didn't happen. — Red XIV ^(talk) 12:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is no theory except for fact-deniers and idiots. Read the newly-declassified FBI documents and fix this shame of an article: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2021-02/Halper%20Source%20Documents_final.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/04518073623.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.38.148 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just because the site calls itself "Just The News" does not mean it's actual news. That site is run by John Solomon, an unreliable source. So we won't be twisting this article based on false assumptions of source documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, then I'll be back with direct links. Would something at fbi.gov be acceptable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.38.148 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

FBI.gov has WP:PRIMARY source documents, which are okay for facts. It's the interpretation of those facts that is at issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The links above are to the FBI documents themselves (facts), not the article (interpretation). They're not going to change with a different URL. Are you saying that they aren't relevant to the article simply because of where they're hosted? If so, then I would expect an update to this article by its keepers as soon as a site deemed acceptable to you hosts them. On the other hand, if you don't like a particular interpretation of the facts, then I wish you or one of the illustrious Wikipedia editors would at least update this old article with an interpretation/analysis/summary that you believe is accurate. Otherwise, at best this is a stale, outdated article. At worst, it's propaganda that selectively ignores sources with a high degree of provenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.38.148 (talk) 15:41, February 25, 2021 (UTC)

The documents that you linked to are the original FBI documents, that we agree on. Let's take a step back: what is their relevance? What is it that you think they prove? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The mere existence of the declassified documents and the fact that they are unrepresented in the article prove that this page is out of date and incomplete. This Talk discussion proves that the editors are biased and uninterested in including any aspect of the subject that runs counter to their bias. Good luck with your little encyclopedia.

These documents surfaced just today, and quickly scanning some of the unreliable sources that have reported on them, I already see some dubious interpretations. Let's wait for reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried engaging in good faith. It needs to be a two-way street, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

2600:1008:B002:5A49:B8B0:FD37:2F8:947 (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything has been proven true by the FBI it is no longer a conspiracy theory

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 09:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Spygate

Why doesn’t Wiki mention the origins of the Steele Dossier? Funded by Hillary & the DNC to hire Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Steele who created the bogus Dossier and the handed it over to the FBI. The FBI knowing the information in the dossier was not factual had to alter and add more false information to the file in order to get the FISA court to give the FBI permission to wire tap Carter Page. It’s obvious to me that the editors of Wikipedia are overwhelmingly politically bias in the writing of their articles. The American people are NOT stupid and not easily fooled. Shame on Wiki for helping to destroy the USA by writing articles that are obviously misleading so they can push their political agenda!!!!! 2600:387:F:4510:0:0:0:A (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

All that is covered in other articles. It doesn't belong in this article. soibangla (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides, what you wrote is not accurate. The Steele dossier was not the sole means of getting the wiretap on Carter Page.[9] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"The American people are NOT stupid" Based on the kind of politicians that they have been voting for, I rather doubt this statement. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs serious update

Given the continued proof that this is Not a conspiracy and that Hillary Clinton funded and orchestrated spying on a candidate, creating and planting false evidence, and spying on a president, this page should be UPDATED 2600:1008:B158:F6E4:B495:DB8D:E258:A23 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that nothing that you just said is accurate, there is no need to update this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about all the huffing and puffing and treason and death sentence coming from the usual suspects since Durham's Friday filing, I don't see it reported by any reliable sources and it wouldn't be specifically relevant to this article anyway. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh that explains where these folks have come from all of a sudden. The WP:DAILYMAIL has as a headline Hillary Clinton's campaign paid tech firm to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower and White House servers, which is of course not true and why the WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Better make some changes.

This is confirmed to be "not a conspiracy theory". Do not spread mis-dis- information. You can't have it both ways. 2601:40D:401:43B0:BC23:1933:C4A5:6991 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just read the above sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox News headline says "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham"

In fact, nowhere in Durham's brief does "infiltrate" appear. Deep in the story Fox News reveals that Kash Patel said it. soibangla (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if this were ever proved true, it has nothing to do with THIS subject. See the last paragraph of the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

this is no longer a theory. 2605:8D80:461:3ADB:D422:A9B9:B1DB:40C7 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What is considered a credible source?

Could you please give us a few examples of media outlets you consider credible sources? I have read multiple times from editors that this (spygate) is not related to the current filing that Trump was spied on by Tech executive 1 with links to Clinton campaign. If this is the case then why is it the 5th result when you search " Was Trump spied on " ? Is there a keyword issue here? I have no affiliation with any political party. I simply searched the topic to read all info I could find to gather my own opinion. 2600:1007:B039:9F6:3C68:E29:5D3C:7BC8 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP has a list of reliable and unreliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate has been proven

When is this fake information page change to fully change the page to show President Trump was %100 correct. 174.251.137.110 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If you think this is fake, then why are you here reading it? You are free to stay comfortable in your bubble and be told only what you want to hear, and tell others that this is fake. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is wrong based on REAL FACTS

This debunked story has been debunked 2600:1007:B115:E6C:C505:E5F2:21A8:2CD4 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Facts debunk your debunking of a debunked conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate seems real now….

Seems President Trump, like him or not, wasn’t lying after all, given that Durham has now found that democrats WERE spying on him both during his campaign and when he was our sitting President. Mainstream media (mostly left leaning) has again tried and convicted him over and over, and now we are starting to see the truth revealed—one that is seriously damning and actually indicting democrats for what they (and not Trump) did. You need to update this and be fair rather than regurgitating leftist media propaganda. (And I’m an independent sick of the propaganda, divisiveness, political lying and BS!) 162.226.140.42 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It would "seem" that way if you only listen to right wing media, sure, but in the real world, nothing that you said is accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Durham is alleging the Clinton campaign funded activities in part to infiltrate servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to federal government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia. The language in the motion is pretty clear.

It says Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump. The tech company provided DNS resolution services to the EOP (Executive Office of the President).

It seems absurd for mainstream sources to not report on this. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Durham did not say infiltrate. Fox News falsely reported he did and others ran with it. Oftentimes dubious sources spread a viral false narrative before reliable sources catch up. A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on, as Mark Twain famously didn't actually say. Let's wait. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Durham used "exploited" and "mining" if you prefer those better. Regardless, the alleged intent was nefarious. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was Durham's intent to depict it as nefarious. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It seemed absurd to me to give Hillary's emails the mainstream coverage that it got, but c'est la vie. Same thing here. The mainstream media has really not touched this Durham development, and we reflect reliable sources, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol in response to the ignorant comment below. Here is the indictment from Durham. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17e0:9c30:dd62:88eb:1ed1:d430 (talk) 09:34, February 14, 2022 (UTC)

It's not an indictment, it's a motion and an assertion of facts that Durham needs to prove in court. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lawd have mercy on the blind. Read the “indictment portion”; I’ll even post it for you. But the interesting thing I’m seeing here is that one apparently shouldn’t listen to anything the right media might be saying because it’s all lies and conspiracies—but that listening to left media and conspiracy info is fine. Hypocrisy appears to be alive and well on Wikipedia. :( It’s a shame because I’ve often contributed to them and even allow/encourage my students to use Wiki.

“USA [Durham] vs Michael Sussmann

Criminal Case No. 21-582 (CRC), Document 35”

Below is the factual background information the investigation has found thus far in the “Spygate” investigation.

“FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The defendant is charged in a one-count indictment with making a materially false statement to the FBI, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 (the “Indictment”). As set forth in the Indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm (“Law Firm-1”) that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton Campaign, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank (“Russian Bank-1”). The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company (“Internet Company- 1”), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.

3. The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign (“Campaign Lawyer-1”).

2 Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22

Page 3 of 13

4. The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract. Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.

5. The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)

6. The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating

3 Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22

Page 4 of 13

to Trump – to a second agency of the U.S. government (“Agency-2”). The Government’s evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider. In his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol (“IP”) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider (“Russian Phone Provider-1”). The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations. Indeed, more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel’s Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered – but did not provide to Agency-2 – reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses. Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower. In addition, the more complete data assembled by Tech Executive-1 and his associates reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014 (i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office) – another fact which the allegations omitted.

7. In his meeting with Agency-2 employees, the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he had made to the FBI General Counsel. In particular, the defendant

4 Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22

Page 5 of 13

asserted that he was not representing a particular client in conveying the above allegations. In truth and in fact, the defendant was representing Tech Executive-1 – a fact the defendant subsequently acknowledged under oath in December 2017 testimony before Congress (without identifying the client by name).”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_2.pdf

But maybe Durham is lying with his “factual information.” Just curious, has MSNBC addressed any of this? If so, does it match what Durham said or what you are parroting? After all, you appear to be as leery of media claims as I am, which is why I did NOT post media outlets or people’s (biased) opinions—but instead posted the legal “factual information” from Durham himself. Do you doubt it, too?

I think, considering he is legally investigating this whole spygate thing, that Durham is probably more accurate than anyone/anything else on the topic. But that’s my opinion. And I support your right to an opinion. But facts are not opinions.

When wiki sees something that counters something they’ve written, they have a moral obligation to revisit what was said and update it for accuracy. Or they lose credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17E0:9C30:DD62:88EB:1ED1:D430 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so you copy/pasted all of that text here. So, what does it mean? Remember, per WP:PRIMARY, we don't rely on our own interpretations, but the interpretations of experts and reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You wrote “Okay, so you copy/pasted all of that text here. So, what does it mean?”

Hmm what does it mean to post a very recent legal document that outlines some of factual background on what has been confirmed about this Spygate investigation, thus putting into context the validity of this investigation into Sussmann and spying on and/or colluding against Trump? Only one reason.

Wiki and many of you who are responding to the individuals who posted about the problem with the Spygate page appear to be tossing out anything contrary to your own beliefs. Including turning a blind eye to what Durham is saying.

From what I’ve read from you and others is claims/insinuations that all the objections you are getting to your Spygate page is from the radical right and right-leaning news shows. You’re even now arguing against what Durham found in his investigation because — it doesn’t seem to fit your narrative.

So what do I want? Honesty, integrity and a lack of bias. Wiki needs to review this legal document (in the context of the whole Spygate issue) and be accurate in what they’re saying rather than relying on newspapers and opinions that serve as confirmation bias for you.

Actually, that’s something both the left and the right should do. But I’m not holding my breath because both sides have proven to be false and self-serving, more than not. Your choice. Review the info and adjust for accuracy. Or don’t. Misinformation and disinformation is alive and well on both sides. You can contribute to it if you wish. Ciao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17E0:9C30:DD62:88EB:1ED1:D430 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So what it means is that you will continue to rant about tossing out anything contrary to your own beliefs when really you fail to understand that Trump was not "spied upon" as the conspiracy theory suggested. Sussman was indicted in September 2021. The filing from this past Friday does not suggest what you say it suggests. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, none of this belongs in this article, which is about an alleged embedded person. Second, not until this morning did I see a reliable source about this, which you can see included here. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is no longer a conspiracy theory! Change the definition!!!!!!!!

This is no longer a conspiracy theory! Change the definition!!!! 73.113.44.103 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely a conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The `woke` crowd controls wikipedia. Their "acceptable" sources won't cover it. Even if they do, it will never be enough to reclassify it as -no longer a theory- Even if that happens, experienced wikipedia editors with graphics all over their User Page proclaiming their loyalty to NPOV will silently delete key bits in the middle of a number of small edits, and those deletions will be without comment, and if you try to revert them; sock-puppet accounts will brazingly violate the 3-revert rule to keep the stealth edit gone.

I mean seriously, we now know that the DNC and Hillary split the cost to hire Perkins Coie, to secretly hire Fusion GPS off the campaign finance books, who hired a foreign national, who paid Russian citizens monthly for information so he could source his fanfic dossier. That's like colluding with Russia to influence the election with extra steps! The FBI thought it was fake, but used it anyway to get themselves a FISA warrant, and fabricated evidence when it came time to renew it. 174.250.4.7 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for this, it can go into the article. If you have a reliable source that it is a well known conspiracy theory, it can go in as one. If not, it does not belong here. Britmax (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Conspiracy

Better change the heading!! Not a conspiracy theory...truth!! 2600:8807:C185:C500:D907:D492:6F2C:DB90 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

or perhaps this page should be protected soibangla (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Give up. Do you really think there's any evidence in the world that will get us to admit Donald Trump was telling the truth? If you think we'd ever do that, you don't know what site you're on. 2603:8080:7301:AE00:78A3:6593:64AE:4A65 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track". The New York Times. February 14, 2022. soibangla (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate 2

The spygate was on 2/11/2022 confirmed as a fact by special counsel Dunham. So this entire definition has to be rewritten by a authorized person to reflect that the Clinton campaign with Obama’s Whitehouse did in fact spy on candidate and sitting President Trump. This is a federal crime and is by definition Treason. They conspired to go against United States of America and steal top secret information to harm America. So please make these facts now available since you got it all wrong. Again. 174.251.137.110 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what Newsmax and Fox News told you, but here in the real world, we rely on facts. Colorado Springs Gazette says Special counsel John Durham says he is building a case to show the technology executive with whom an indicted Democratic lawyer was working to build a Trump-Russia collusion narrative gained access to internet traffic at the White House to try and obtain dirt on former President Donald Trump. "Building a case" does not mean "confirmed as fact". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also some hysterical projection there with steal top secret information since we just learned that Trump took 15 boxes of documents, including some marked TOP SECRET, with him to Mar-a-Lago. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spygate is Trump's lie that "a spy" was placed "in his campaign." That never happened.

It's also about supposed events at the time, not anything that might have happened later. -- Valjean (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming from guy that spread the russian collusion nonsense is laughable. John Durham's report is a rs 2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC). It's best Valjean recuse himself from this discussion.

That is wikipedia's definition. Trump's definition was the wiretapping given the first quote was wiretapping. Likewise the NY Times piece is still the first one that brought spying on Trump to the public and it is still not cited.2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Straw poll on parentheses in article title

They screw up notifications and are unnecessary. I get email notifications and invariably get sent to the Spygate disambiguation page. Can't we just get rid of them? They don't serve any purpose as the disambiguation page works just fine. One other improvement would be to make the title reflect the contents, which is a normal requirement: Spygate: Trump conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your email notifications getting screwed up is a good reason to move a page. Parentheticals are how we disambiguate most ambiguous page titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That was just another reason. Yes, they are ONE way we differentiate when necessary because of an ambiguous title, but in this case they are somewhat unnecessary. The best solution would be the unambiguous title I suggested, as it, contrary to the current title, accurately describes the article's content, as a title should. -- Valjean (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Spygate"? Looking at the dab page, that argument could hold water. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that. It's just the most recent topic associated with the word Spygate. It needs a title that explicitly and descriptively disambiguates itself from the others.

BTW, some WP:NOTHERE, NPA, and outing blocks need to be handed out, and this talk page semi-protected from these timesink IP and sock SPAs. -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that "conspiracy theory" is the best disambiguator, but I'm open to considering others. Adding "Trump" to it makes it less concise.

As for protecting this talk page, I've considered it but I am too WP:INVOLVED, clearly, to do this. I am here as an editor, not as an admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Some other spygate-related articles deal with falsehoods and conspiracy theories, but not in the title like this one. Yet adding Trump makes it more concise, and getting rid of the parentheses would be best. It is Trump's conspiracy theory, so that would be the most accurate title.

Some other admin should do the job. This is wasting lots of time. -- Valjean (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll request it, see what another admin says. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine as is. Artw (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop

Stop lying to the American people. This is not or ever was an conspiracy theory! Read the Durham findings and change these lies! 2600:1000:B128:FB5:A8C2:57AE:FC49:EA9C (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Serious question: have you read the Durham motion or are you just parroting the talking heads you saw on Fox News or OAN or Newsmax or wherever else you watch? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is all covered at John Durham#Indictment of attorney. This article is about something else. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I read the Durham filing, and some critical analysis of it, just today. I promise you, it does not say or mean what you think it means. That the conservative media is bending over backwards trying to make something out of this is baffling, as is the number of people being misled by it. It's literally just scraping public information from the clearweb. It's not only legal, it's common practice. And as Valjean said, it's only tangentially related to the subject of this article because people are currently trying to use it to prop up this conspiracy theory. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: without getting into whether I agree or not, but the promises of an editor do not change or affect facts.Nerguy (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nerguy, no it doesn't. You're correct. However, it's also clear that the editor in question is rather obviously confused as to what it actually says in the documents, indicating that they haven't even read them. Despite the repeated edit requests, and being so "sure". We do expect editors to have some idea of what they're talking about. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It also appears that you're likely the same IP editor that's been beating this drum for days, after editors have explained to you our rules for inclusion (again, multiple times). Perhaps it's time for a block, or talk page protection, if this disruption continues. (edit: it appears that all of your edits on this page are just from the past few days, which looks even worse) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blissfully, this talk page has been protected for a few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Update the article no longer a conspiracy theory. Proven by multiple inquires.

A wikipedia admin does not know more then the investigator. https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-really-was-spied-on-2016-clinton-campaign-john-durham-court-filing-11644878973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're citing an opinion piece by one of the most right-wing editorial boards in the U.S. That is not a reliable source. The reliable sources all have called bunk on what you watched on Hannity and Jesse Watters last night.[10] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No im not. You are a sports writer buddy. You are trying so HARD to debunk. Sorry to burst your reality. You believe that Donald Trump colluded with russia lol. You say WSJ is most right wing. But then push the most left wing editorial boards in media NYT is not a reliable source. No credibility as a admin lol 2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This NYT piece is not an op-ed, it's reporting. Read it, you might learn something. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It literally says opinion lol2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The word "opinion" appears nowhere in that NYT piece. We are really never going to get anywhere with nonsense like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the WSJ opinion article. -- Valjean (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

'They spied on a sitting President'

'They spied on a sitting president' https://www.foxnews.com/media/jim-jordan-durham-probe-clinton-spied-trump 2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's your problem: you're taking Jim Jordan at face value. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's your problem: RS encyclopedic fact. Wait we need to collate a left of center POV from nothing but leftist sources and pretend it is not fringe.2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We know for a fact that Jim Jordan said "they spied on a sitting president", yes. We have no proof that anyone spied on a sitting president. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Proof is irrelevant, all we go by is what mainstream RS outlets choose to report on. Any outlet could report that a new Durham motion alleges there was someone mining data from the office of the President and it would be 100% true. We have no proof for example that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation (in fact we have the opposite), but that didn't stop social media companies from suppressing the story days before the 2020 election because of what RS reported. Contrast that with 2016 when a few days before the election Hillary Clinton herself tweeted out the Alfa Bank allegations at the heart of these Durham filings, which allegedly her campaign was the source of. A bit ironic, no? Anyways, this is not likely to get anywhere unless or until RS picks it up, as the IP says. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

in fact we have the opposite Rhetorical question only: we do? Let's not go down that road here. soibangla (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant "proof" as in what we have from RS. That RS aren't touching this with a ten foot pole is telling. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source for American politics. They lie to benefit Republicans. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Schiff and Nadler etc and zero evidence were good enough for 124 individual wiki pages on the collusion hoax that sit largely unchanged. And Fox News is a reliable source, funny coming from an editor that tried to pass ibtimes.sg off as reliable. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:6996:F51A:8EB2:FC78 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Fox News lied about this very story by putting the word "infiltrate" in Durham's mouth. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Who tried to pass of ibtimes.sg as reliable? Not me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu does not know more then the Durham Investigator and it's all coming out now. Edit the article2600:8805:C980:9400:71E5:D6DA:EBEB:A7FE (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I wish you could just stop. This is why we have to protect this talk page, and it makes us sick. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump Spied on February 2022 (2)

Trump was spied on per the Durham report and investigation. This is not a conspiracy nor was it ever a conspiracy. Fact is Obama and Hillary Clinton took illegal steps to spy on them candidate Trump and now we find tech was also accessing WH server information to spy on them President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.213.161.206 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-firm-to-spy-on-trump-9hrbjjkr2 Is a reliable source per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Nerguy (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"a US special prosecutor has suggested" soibangla (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a correct description of John Durham. Nerguy (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This CNN article includes in it Right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians, including Trump, are citing Durham's court filing to accuse Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign of spying on Trump because of the use of the data. But Durham's court filing doesn't allege that the pro-Clinton researchers use of internet data meant that there was any eavesdropping on content of communications. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also a correct description of what he did. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla's additions (to the John Durham article) of content on this subject are excellent. Durham did not allege that any eavesdropping of Trump communications content occurred. This is an allegation that DNS lookups may have occurred. That activity could not provide any content information. -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

According to The Times article mentioned by Muboshgu (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-firm-to-spy-on-trump-9hrbjjkr2), "Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers at Trump Tower and the White House in a search for links between Donald Trump and Russia, a US special prosecutor has suggested. The Clinton campaign was effectively accused of spying by John Durham, a lawyer investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry which dogged the first half of the Trump presidency."

As per WP policy: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Time to add it in. If CNN has a different take, add it too; this is going in. A perennial reliable source has given it great prominence. SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Clinton campaign paid to infiltrate" narrative originated with this Fox News article.[11]. It was quickly copied by The New York Post, another Murdoch property, which used the Fox News story as its source.[12]] That was followed by The Times which yesterday wrote "Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers...a US special prosecutor has suggested." And its headline says "paid firm to spy on Trump," as a quote. I don't subscribe to The Times, so I can't see who that quote comes from, but it didn't come from Durham.[13] Now, The Times is green at WP:RSP, but it bears noting it is also a Murdoch property. Last night, Charlie Savage at The New York Times reported in "Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track"[14]:

[Durham] slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump. But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news — the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies...The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Neither the words paid nor infiltrate appear in Durham's searchable brief.[15]

And just FYI, Muboshgu didn't mention The Times article, Nerguy did. soibangla (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Times isn't quoting. That is the Times' statement of fact. WP doesn't operate on a 'Reliable source 1 and 2 disagree so we only add the one we think is true basis'. In this case, The Times - a perennial reliable source is itself saying that Trump was spied upon as a statement of fact.

WP:UNDUE requires that statement of fact to be covered in the article even if you or other editors think it is rubbish based on some other reliable source.

Raise whatever objection you like, raise whatever complaints about Fox you like, The Times is a perennially reliable source and its main statements of fact in a major article are required to be covered. SeanusAurelius (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers at Trump Tower and the White House in a search for links between Donald Trump and Russia, a US special prosecutor has suggested is not a statement of fact. I emphasized that clause that is doing a lot to hedge there. The Clinton campaign was effectively accused of spying by John Durham is also not a statement of fact. The rest of that article is behind a paywall so I don't know what else it says. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

SeanusAurelius, when there are legitimate differences of opinion between RS, we usually report both. When an otherwise RS makes a blunder and states something false as fact, then that RS is not reliable in that instance and we usually ignore it. If their error is commented on by several other RS, then we sometimes document the issue because their error has caused confusion, and we thus show how other RS have resolved the confusion. In this case, other RS have not commented on the thetimes.co.uk as an erroneous source (at least not yet, to my knowledge), but the Fox News error has been called out by RS, and since thetimes.co.uk was just repeating the error by Fox, we do document that error and show how RS have pointed to Fox as the originator of that error. There is no reason to bring thetimes.co.uk into the matter. We just ignore thetimes.co.uk as being unreliable in this instance. We often do that, even to The New York Times and WaPo, when they get it wrong. We don't use them in those instances because, in those cases they were not RS. No source is reliable in every instance. (Mind you, we're not talking about differences of opinion/interpretation, but actually false info proven by facts.) Fox lied about what Durham said, which is their typical MO. They are a disinformation channel, and that's why we officially consider them unreliable for politics and science. See WP:RSP. Whenever possible, we use other, much better, sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:23, February 15, 2022‎ (UTC)

requires that statement of fact to be covered in the article But not this article, which is specifically about an alleged embedded person. It's in John Durham#Indictment of attorney where it belongs, unless we decide to split it off into a new article. It's also in Michael Sussmann and Rodney Joffe. soibangla (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Your totally uncorroborated thesis that The Times just copies Fox without doing independent reporting is your personal fantasy only. There's no evidence for it. The Times is a perennial reliable source. If it has a different view to e.g. CNN or the other left wing media sources you prefer, then they are both required to be covered. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, SeanusAurelius, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did not get their false ideas from Fox News (actually from Kash Patel, a Trump acolyte and pusher of Trump conspiracy theories who can never be trusted). That makes their false statements even more egregious because they are totally off the mark and wrong. They got it wrong ON THEIR OWN. That's a pretty serious breach of journalistic ethics and a failure to perform due diligence and fact-checking. They showed they didn't even read Durham's indictment. They manufactured these false ideas on their own. Wow! They can't even blame Fox or Patel. That's a big failure to meet our minimum requirements for reliable sources. In this instance, no matter how they might otherwise be RS (which is now in doubt), they are not a RS. This isn't a difference of opinion between RS, it's fact versus fiction. Our content is SOLELY based on RS when they are at least not totally wrong, as in this instance. -- Valjean (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a situation where we do mention unreliable sources, and that is when RS mention them and their errors. That's why we mention the views of Fox News and the Washington Examiner. RS mention their errors. Do RS mention the errors made by The Times? If so, we can add them to the list of sources that got it wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No. You've created both your own Times reporting process and your own WP policy in your mind. WP:UNDUE doesn't say that all major RS need to be covered unless Valjean thinks they're false. It says they need to be covered.SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have just described our common practice for this type of situation. Before we start an RfC about this, I want to see how you propose to actually use the source, especially since it adds nothing beyond what Fox and the Examiner (both rated unreliable for political and scientific topics) already say in the article. How will you do it? Let's see the exact wording and location. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're confused; you think that if an RS says something and a non RS says the same thing, then you get to disregard the RS. That's not how it works. I think we need to deal with your misunderstanding here. SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? Are you trying to belittle me? It sure sounds like it.

I'm saying that no source is reliable all the time. Even otherwise RSes make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, as in this case. This isn't a minor discrepancy, but literal fiction. The Times got it that wrong.

In such cases, if no other RSes have mentioned the error, we ignore the source and use other RSes. That's what we're already doing in this case.

If other RS have pointed out the error by the source and the media has made a big deal about it, we use the RSes which got it right to document how this particular RS got it so wrong. In this case, I don't know of any RSes which have pointed out the error by The Times. We know The Times got it wrong because they made EXACTLY the same error as Fox News and the Examiner, and many RSes pointed out their errors. So we know what is true and what is error, and The Times, Fox News, and the Examiner are in error. Serious error.

We mention that Fox News and the Examiner got it wrong because RSes say they got it wrong. We do not mention that The Times got it wrong because no RSes mention them in this connection.

Our usual practice in this type of situation is to simply ignore them completely since other RSes serve the purpose of telling what is true and what is false. We don't need The Times in this case as it provides no new or clarifying information. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ping SeanusAurelius. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

WP:NOTFORUM
Has nobody on here wanted to take the needed time to update this? This has all been proven wrong.. it's a little unprofessional at the least to just ignore the evidence that nunes came out with in the last weeks. Do better. 2601:989:4582:13F0:FCD8:69:9A94:52B9 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Everything here is current and correct. soibangla (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

no further commentary needed

Although the Durham investigation is not complete, at the very least, “Conspiracy Theory” should be removed. There is a Federal Investigation that has charged people, and will most likely hand out more charges. Conspiracy theory suggests something is completely fabricated and is 100% false, which this is not. This also defines Spygate as the Obama Admin doing the spying. From the start it was believed to be the Clinton’s, with the White House possibly turning a blind eye. ANGRYTOOCH (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)  Not done: Neither Obama nor Clinton spied on the Trump campaign. This is a bogus conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)