Talk:Fusion GPS

Under construction tag
On July 12, 2017, you added the "under construction" tag to Fusion GPS. The article looks pretty well established to me. What expansion or major reconstruction, other than the normal editing process, are you planning to do? I've removed the tag for now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this article should be merged into Opposition_research. However, looking forward to your advice. Thanks! NaturalSelection (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late response, didn't look at Talk page before and hadn't noticed that you had responded. In my opinion, the article shouldn't be merged with the general page on opposition research. For one, it's already much longer than any of the incidents cited there, and two, this is fairly big news right now because of the US Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena etc., so the article will probably keep getting longer for a while.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article should not be merged into Opposition_research, in my opinion. Opposition research is done by many organizations. Fusion GPS is one particular example of such, and Fusion GPS is notable in its own right for multiple reasons. One of the most significant is that it is the subject of scrutiny in the 2016 U.S. presidential election investigations, as Space4Time3Continuum2x correctly described.--FeralOink (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Veselnitskaya link = undue?
Just a thought - it may be a bit much to have a whole section heading and paragraph just for a denial, but I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be certain. Darmokand (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the entire "Alleged involvement in Veselnitskaya meeting" section should be removed for lack of verification. It's not just that the allegation is absurd on its face (since we know the meeting was set up by Goldberg), but there isn't really any sourcing saying that the allegation is being made. The key sentence is "a spokesman for President Trump’s then-outside counsel and some pro-Trump media outlets suggested that Fusion GPS had been involved in setting up the meeting under false pretenses because of the connection between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS via Prevezon Holdings". But in the sources that suggestion - that they were involved in setting up the meeting - is nowhere made explicitly. It is mostly just the rhetorical trick of mentioning Fusion GPS, Veselnitskaya, and the meeting in the same sentence, and hoping people will make the connection. Of the three references cited, none actually contains an accusation that Fusion GPS was involved in setting up the meeting.
 * Reference 24, from the Washington Post, says Fusion worked on a lawsuit with Veselnitskaya, and produced the Trump dossier "on a different timeline"; it quotes the firm's denial of any involvement in the meeting; and it says "Nevertheless, Trump's legal team is already conflating the two issues as part of their defense of the president's son." It quotes the lawyer: "we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS." The Times says the lawyer "alleged" that the meeting had been set up under false pretenses and "implied" that Vaselnitskaya's association with Fusion GPS was relevant to the alleged deception.
 * Reference 25, from Rolling Stone, is a long piece about Veselnitskaya but I couldn't find anything relating her or the firm to this meeting.
 * Reference 26, from the New York Times, quotes Corallo as 1) implying the meeting was a setup; 2) saying Veselnitskaya "misrepresented who they were"; and 3) pointing out that she employs an investigator from Fusion GPS. It doesn't quote him as saying or implying that Fusion set up the meeting.

I propose we remove the whole section. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sections seems way undue, simply for a accusation that was thrown out there. We mention Vaselnitskaya in the Prevezon Holding section, and if we wanted to say that there was accusations thrown around due to that connection, it could have a brief mention there, but it's still just an alleged theory. I definitely think the entire section shouldn't be here, its also another questions whether we want to mention in briefly somewhere else.  WikiVirus  C (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree and agree. Gonna be bold.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, stupid me. Never occurred to me to interprete "associated with" as "a paying client of". From the context (and the title of Fact 5), I inferred that Corallo was implying – while maintaining plausible deniability – that someone working at/for Fusion GPS was involved in setting up the meeting to entrap Junior -> as part of the Democrats' opposition research on candidate Trump -> as part of participating in Russian effort to influence the election -> and then sit on that info for 4 months before and 8 months after the election to accomplish whatever. "'Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier,' he said. ' These developments raise serious issues as to exactly who authorized and participated in any effort by Russian nationals to influence our election in any manner.'"  I also hadn't checked up on who initially added "Veselnitskaya link" to the article - IP address with just this one edit, so maybe trolling). Was doing damage control and not done with that particular section - all those pesky incomplete refs kept me busy.  I'm usually opposed to mentioning any conspiracy theories, but I'm on the fence about this one because of who -  if not originated, then - propagated it with the full power of his office and his yuge legal team behind him. I may revisit this subject after the Senate hearings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm striking my comment above that there isn't even any confirmation that the accusation was being made. Atsme has provided a source, Business Insider, which ties the recent subpoena to "accusations that the firm played a role in setting up a June 2016 meeting". The subpoena was actually issued "regarding compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act," but the reporter is making the connection. IMO they are falling for the rhetorical trick I mentioned - the lawyer mentioned the firm and the meeting in the same breath, thus hinting at a connection while (as SpaceTime said) maintaining plausible deniability - but if sources are doing it we need to report it. I think the current situation in the article is good: removing the separate section about the allegation, but mentioning it in a section about congressional actions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * On July 25, 2017, Bill Browder provided testimony to the U.S. Senate, making the accusation. His testimony was published in a WP:VER source, The Atlantic, see here https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bill-browders-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee/534864/ --FeralOink (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and if I'm not mistaken this is already included in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More generally, this is all lots of cloak and dagger, with accusations flying back and forth. Maybe it will sort itself out, but the best course of action for us is to simply document the various positions and statements when and if they appear in reliable sources (not twitter or as our own summaries of primary sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because I added it earlier today :o) Volunteer Marek, I don't think we are on the same side of the ideological spectrum, but I always appreciate your prompt, courteous replies to my comments and edits!--FeralOink (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Senate Judiciary Committee investigations 1
I accidentally clicked on Save after discovering that my edit summary was too long and before I could remove it and refer to the Talk page. Here's the full summary: The only reliable source for this paragraph was The Atlantic which published Browder’s prepared statement a day BEFORE the Senate hearing. The other two are not RS, and their POV ended up in the paragraph. AFAIK, nobody of interest to this article was questioned by the Judiciary Committee in open session. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Browder appeared before the Committe on July 27, 2017. Neither CNN nor Newsweek report on his testimony mentioning Fusion GPS. He said that he had no direct knowledge of the meeting, but that he did not doubt that the Kremlin was behind it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You might consider the following statement by Senator Grassley, found at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/checking-facts-there-evidence-fusion-gps-was-paid-russia-while-compiling-trump
 * Witness before Committee Reaffirms Sworn Testimony
 * WASHINGTON – Bill Browder, a witness before a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, reaffirmed his testimony regarding Russian funding of a public influence campaign by Fusion GPS following a   Washington Post “Fact Checker” article that contradicted his earlier testimony by claiming, “…there is no evidence Fusion took money from the Russian government."
 * The   ‘Fact Check’ attempted to assess a statement by White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders in which she said, “The Democrat-linked firm Fusion GPS actually took money from the Russian government while it created the phony dossier that’s been the basis for all of the Russia scandal fake news.”
 * Browder previously provided relevant testimony on two important factual elements of that statement: first that Fusion GPS took money from the Russian government; and second that it did so while it was working on the Trump dossier.
 * In a point-by-point response to Grassley’s questions on the matter, Browder reiterates and expands on portions of his testimony overlooked or excluded by the   Post. Specifically, when asked whether Browder stands by his testimony that Fusion GPS received money from the Russian government, Browder wrote:
 * “Yes, I stand by my testimony that Fusion GPS received money from the Russian government,” I have based my determination on the following facts:
 * Fusion GPS was involved in the anti-Magnitsky campaign in Washington DC in the spring-summer of 2016.
 * The anti-Magnitsky campaign was a major foreign policy priority of the Russian government.
 * Fusion GPS was paid by the Katsyv family, which is headed by a high-ranking Russian government official named Pyotr Katsyv.
 * 4.   Pyotr Katsyv is a senior member of the Putin regime. Currently, he is Vice President of ‘Russian Railways’, a huge Russian transportation company, in which the Russian government is the sole shareholder. He was previously for many years Vice Chair of the Government and Minister of Transportation of the Moscow region…”  BrainiacOne (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4.   Pyotr Katsyv is a senior member of the Putin regime. Currently, he is Vice President of ‘Russian Railways’, a huge Russian transportation company, in which the Russian government is the sole shareholder. He was previously for many years Vice Chair of the Government and Minister of Transportation of the Moscow region…”  BrainiacOne (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Halvorssen testified. He is of direct interest to the article, and specifically references them in the opening sentences of his testimony. I included links to his testimony. NPR wrote an article covering Bill Browder's testimony, which explicitly mentions Fusion GPS (as the firm that prepared the Trump dossier). That was the day AFTER the hearing. Fox News reported on it. So did Veneuzuelan journalists. Please stop removing material about Fusion GPS smear campaign and ties to Venezuela corruption. See here for each.

"Fusion GPS aren't "professional smear campaigner[s]", but a bunch of utterly corrupt and amoral enablers aiding and abetting criminals. Simpson's venture into the private sector has gone full circle (link is external). The biggest joke of all has got to be Simpson's -now removed- bio from the International Assessment and Strategy Center (link is external), where he is presented as "Senior Fellow, Corruption and Transnational Crime", who just happens to work for, erm, corrupt transnational criminals. Working for Democrats or Republicans to produce negative PR is one thing; working for the likes of Derwick Associates quite another; but for the world's biggest thug?" which links to this http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/exclusive-oppo-researcher-behind-trump-dossier-is-linked-to-pro-kremlin-lobbying-effort/ "Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues." If Mr. Simpson and Democrats really favor disclosure, then surely Mr. Simpson should disclose who is paying him to rummage through the personal lives of opposition donors. Someone should also ask the White House, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee if Mr. Simpson's chop shop is on their payroll and if they approve of such tactics. Does Mr. Obama think the lifestyles and divorce records of campaign donors should be fair political game?"
 * Halvorssen https://www.scribd.com/document/354721041/Testimony-of-Thor-Halvorssen-to-the-Senate-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-7-26-2017
 * NPR http://www.npr.org/2017/07/28/539802914/businessman-paints-a-terrifying-and-complex-picture-of-putins-russia
 * Venezuelan investigative journalist Alek Boyd http://infodio.com/20170114/fusion/gps/derwick/associates/venezuela/corruption
 * Earlier, in 2012, about Van der Sloot via Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304203604577397031654422966
 * Thor Halvorssen speaks on live television interview on July 26, 2017, about Fusion GPS "smear campaign" tactics: https://twitter.com/kristinemontel1/status/890388603607580672

Finally, why do you insist on removing the investigative journalism from Tablet magazine? I keep replacing it in the article and it is continually removed http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/241812/news-for-hire-scandal-deepens-gps-fusion-sleazy-venezuela-links-shed-new-light-on-trump-dossier It is a Jewish news and politics website, but that does NOT mean that it is any less credible or acceptable as an WP:RS.--FeralOink (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with The Tablet, however I am concerned that no other newspaper seems to be covering this story. It might be a sign that nobody within the mainstream, non-religious news seems to think this is a true story. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Salimfadhley, for not describing them as neocons and dismissing out of hand. I think that you and editor Atsme might be able to provide a helpful perspective at this point.--FeralOink (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * FeralOink, most of what you've written above is not germane to this subject. These talk pages are not intended to be a general discussion forum. Please work with the other editors to improve this article by finding reliable sources. Political POV is not a barrier to a source being reliable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Before removing the two paragraphs, I did several searches and looked through all RS I found on the Senate Committee hearings. Browder testified a day later (July 27) than originally scheduled, but Fusion GPS apparently did not come up during his testimony or, if it did, it wasn't mentioned in any RS, including the NPR article you cite in the section above. I also don't have a problem with Tablet Magazine, but with the opinion piece itself that was written by Lee Smith, senior editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard and not exacty an unbiased reporter. His source on Venezuela/Derwick is Alek Boyd who used to work for Halversson Mendoza's HRF. Halvorsson Mendoza is definitely not unbiased (prior history with Fusion GPS who had been employed by his opponents in a defamation lawsuit against Derwick and others that arose out of Venezuelan politics/corruption charges - I don't know enough about Venezuelan politics to have formed an opinion). He did not testify, AFAIK.  He seems to have prepared a statement of the testimony he planned to give and "published" that on Twitter and on scribd.com.  As for the WSJ source, that's an opinion piece Kim Strassel.  Since WSJ is paywalled, you can read it in its entirety on VanderSloot's website (it's one of the sources for "Opposition research on Mitt Romney". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation specifically refers to Fusion GPS as enablers of corruption
I have had my edits repeatedly removed. This is what Human Rights Foundation said on 25 July 2017 about Fusion GPS: HRF in U.S. Senate Testimony: Probe Fusion GPS for Venezuela FARA Violations and Paid Smear Campaigns. In the article edit history, my additions were repeatedly removed by two other editors on this talk page because I was told that no one relevant to the article about Fusion GPS was mentioned. Also, the article edit history said that it was a neocon plot to defame Fusion GPS and referenced a 2010 blog post by lobelog that was defamatory toward an investigative journalist for Tablet Magazine.

This is getting ridiculous. Other connected Wikipedia articles have already been updated correctly regarding the most recent news of Fusion GPS activities, including the BLP of Thor Halvorssen and the Trump dossier page. The only article in which all mention of Fusion GPS's very recent, very high profile coverage in the media is absent is the Fusion GPS article page itself. Please stop blocking updates to this article.--FeralOink (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see why these changes were reverted: You added a great deal of material to the lede section which dramatically changes the emphasis of the article. The section at the end is entirely sourced to an article published by the Tablet. I think you should find additional sourcing (preferably more mainstream news sources) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible source
An interesting article:


 * A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier

There may well be something we can use here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That source has been part of the article since July 21, 2016. I read it. I don't see why it is belongs in the article now, nor why it should remain in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FeralOink, you are being needlessly cryptic. My own view is that newspapers such as Huffington Post and The Tablet are mainly sources for political opinion. These publications do not have a reputation for solid investigative journalism. If we include every left-wing and right-wing perspective on this story we will end up with a messy useless article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How am I being needlessly cryptic?! I am not being cryptic at all. Someone, not I, already had used that article as a source as of 21 July 2017. I got the date wrong. I apologize. I was informing the previous person who inquired about it. There's no reason to be cryptic at all, so I find your comment confusing, "needlessly cryptic". Unless you are referring to the date error? I meant to say 2017, not 2016. Huffington Post is not a neutral source about a lot of topics, but that isn't a surprise to anyone.--FeralOink (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

, regarding your edit here, I just read the cited source and can't find where it states what you included as follows: CNN reported that U.S. investigators had corroborated some parts of the dossier in February 2017, however none of the learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals and intercepts which confirmed conversations between them and some named Trump campaign officials, including the days and locations detailed in the dossier. This is the cited source. What I read is: Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.. Where is the information you included? I must have overlooked it. Atsme 📞📧 23:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, thanks for asking. The exact prose I added was these words: "and intercepts which confirmed conversations between them and some named Trump campaign officials, including the days and locations detailed in the dossier."


 * Here is the source in that article: "But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials." The "same individuals" are certain Russian individuals and certain named (in the dossier) people working for Trump. Maybe I could have worded that better. Did I goof up somewhere? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and quoted using inline text attribution. For balance, I added the responses as well. Atsme 📞📧 05:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you did, but you (unnecessarily) deleted my prose about what they learned confirming details from the dossier. They may not have learned anything about the "golden showers" incident, but they did confirm many of the meetings, the people involved, and the times, as described in the dossier. It's important we retain those details since the dossier is the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , there was nothing about Trump or campaign officials. In fact, the source states: "CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump." One more thought - since there was nothing in the paragraphs sourced to the NYTimes that mentions or is directly relevant to the dossier or Fusion GPS, I removed them.  Atsme 📞📧 06:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. We must be talking past each other. The source clearly reveals what was learned and confirmed from the dossier: "But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials."
 * We know that the American intelligence agencies were first alerted to serious collusion between Trump people and Russian officials by intelligence agencies from several foreign countries. They were very alarmed by what they were picking up in their surveillance of Russian and other people in Europe, so they notifed the FBI and CIA about the involvement of Trump's people. (I don't recall in which order or when.)
 * The surveillance, as noted in this source, confirmed many important details of what was written in the dossier, and thus the CIA and FBI have been using the dossier as the road map for their investigations. That's how much confidence they have in it. This is not my speculation, but is all from RS, as you know. This has been discussed in depth on several of the talk pages of related articles, and is actual sourced content in those articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can find a better source to cite, then the one you cited is what we have, and based on all the unconfirmed material, you might anna thin=i=dc. wanna rethink adding it.18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Atsme 📞📧 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "anna thin=i=dc" means, but while stepping back to get a better look at the situation, it dawned on me that the whole second paragraph in that section is veering off-topic. The part that relates to Fusion GPS is already described in the first paragraph, and the "main" link serves the purpose of leading readers to more information about the dossier. It's not our job to do that in this article. Therefore I suggest we just delete the second paragraph. Problem solved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SMirC-unnerved.svg I'm not sure what happened either. The sig date is wrong, too. Head scratcher for sure. Atsme 📞📧 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible you guys are confusing two things. 1) Who the intercepted conversations were between and 2) What the intercepted conversations described. The intercepted conversations were NOT between Russian agents and Trump officials. They were between Russian agents, among themselves. But, they did *describe*, apparently, meetings between Russian agents and Trump campaign related officials, which lined up with the info in the Steele dossier. It's easy to conflate the two and mistakenly say that the intercepted conversations were between Russian agents and Trump campaign officials.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My only confusion was how in the world "anna thin=i=dc" found it's way into my reply? Now I'm seeing a 1" emoji in the right margin which should be positioned to precede my comment above. Oh my - rogue emojis are scarier than rogue admins! Atsme 📞📧 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points Volunteer Marek. The conversations between Russians were intercepted. Those conversations confirmed details in the dossier about conversations and meetings between Russians and Trump people, thus confirming the accuracy of the dossier.
 * I still stand by my position that this is off-topic for this article and that paragraph should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, BullRangifer, you're wrong; the source says the opposite: "The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs. ... CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump." And you really need to stop using talk pages to actively promote the "dossier" and "The Moscow Project" in violation of WP:SOAPBOX.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't contradict the claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CNN wasn't able to confirm the specific details of any of the conversations in question. Are you claiming to have independently confirmed what the Russians discussed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... TheTimesAreAChanging, there are two issues here:


 * 1) This is off-topic for this article and we should delete such content and not even continue this conversation.
 * 2) Just for your benefit, so you can come up to speed on what's happened, you are discussing "specific details". The dossier does mention details of conversations, but we don't have outside verification of those specific details, so we don't go there. I suspect, and former intelligence officials say so, that American and foreign intelligence agencies do have confirmation of many such details, but they are saving them for later court cases. The CNN source states this:
 * "But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials."


 * Those are not the "specific details" we're discussing. The "same individuals" are certain Russian individuals and certain named (in the dossier) people working for Trump. There are other sources which also confirm that is what's meant, but again, this is outside the scope of this article.

Now, can we just end this off-topic thread? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The 'same individuals' are certain Russian individuals and certain named (in the dossier) people working for Trump." No, as everyone else—including Volunteer Marek—has tried repeatedly to explain to you, they were solely conversations between foreign nationals, per your own source, CNN: "Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals." Now please stop misrepresenting sources and using Wikipedia to promote your personal theories.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, we're talking about (1) intercepts of conversations which (2) confirm details in the dossier. Volunteer Marek is correct that they are two different things. It's not easy to parse that difference, so I'll say it in more common language based on the article. (This time I won't add any information that comes from other sources.) This is all off-topic here anyway. I'll add numbers to make it easier.

Western intelligence agencies monitor and share information all the time. They especially target "enemy" persons of interest, such as Russians. They monitored (1) Russians speaking to each other, and, probably among other things, those Russians also spoke about specific details which are (2) mentioned in the dossier, thus providing outside, secondary, confirmation of the accuracy of the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, who, as the top British expert spy on Russian affairs, has VERY good sources. The dossier describes (2) conversations between Russians and other Russians, "as detailed in the dossier". That much is from this source. (I got carried away and added more from the dossier and other RS. In fact, as mentioned by Volunteer Marek, the dossier also details conversations between Russians and named people working directly for Donald Trump (Cohen, Manafort, and Page come to mind), including his personal lawyer (Cohen, who is alleged to have arranged for payments to the hackers who hacked the DNC.) Steele, who has a flawless reputation, has those kinds of sources!! Here is the numbered content:


 * 1) "The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals."
 * 2) "But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials."

Here are the two paragraphs from the source, just for context. I have bolded the relevant parts:


 * "None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.


 * "But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump." (bold added)

There is another possibility (I don't remember if other RS confirm this), that the "intercepts" of conversations mentioned are intercepts of the original conversations in the dossier. From my reading, I have never been lead to believe that Steele had access to such things. I have always been under the impression that the "intercepts" were of other and later ("newly learned information") conversations between Russians, at other times, which happened to make reference to content in the dossier. I could be wrong. Maybe Volunteer Marek can clarify this. There are so many sources! I share between 30-100 RS every single day on FB, much of it on these matters. It can be dizzying.

If you haven't done it yet, you should read the dossier. BTW, these conversations are not a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. We are discussing sources and trying to parse them. It's not always easy, but it's an important duty for editors. We must understand what we are doing. If we don't, we can easily misrepresent and misuse sources. I do not have any "personal theories" created out of whole cloth. I base my POV on RS. I may misunderstand them, but conversations here, with editors who know more, can help me refine and improve my POV. That's one of the great things about editing here. We MUST change our POV according to what RS tell us, ESPECIALLY if that process is uncomfortable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fusion GPS client Derwick Associates
Another notable Fusion GPS client is Derwick Associates. They are a large Venezuelan power company operator. They have been the subject of Wikipedia paid editing in the past, which I'm sure is just coincidence. I am in the process of finding adequate WP:RS in order to add a section to the article about this other business activity of Fusion GPS. Since my prior additions to this article have been the subject of so much contention, I thought I would mention this here, first, as a heads up to other editors.--FeralOink (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "which I'm sure is just coincidence" - if you wanna say something, then come out and say it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I'm of the mind that if it's notable enough to have received widespread coverage, and it's cited to RS, then it should be included. This article is about Fusion GPS, and shouldn't be limited to Trump only.Atsme 📞📧 06:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely not only about Trump. Fusion GPS had many activities. Only one became related to Trump, and at some point Fusion GPS was out of the picture (and thus that content is not relevant for this article). Steele then carried on his work independently, without funding. The FBI was planning on supporting him, but backed out after the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Steele worked for Orbis, not Fusion GPS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and Steele produced the dossier. That's why the dossier has little to do with Fusion GPS. The collection of information about Trump started there, but once Steele got involved it became his project at Orbis, and was concentrated on a new subject, Trump's Russian affairs. That ended up becoming the 35-page dossier we know. Fusion GPS was not involved in that production, even if Steele had some contact with them at first. Then he stopped getting paid, but continued working on the project because of its alarming importance. Here's from the Donald Trump–Russia dossier article:


 * "In June 2016 it was revealed that the Democratic National Committee website had been hacked by Russian sources, so Fusion GPS hired Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, to look into any Russian connections.[13] The investigation was undertaken by Orbis co-founder Christopher Steele, a retired British MI6 officer with expertise in Russian matters. Steele delivered his report as a series of two- or three-page memos, starting in June 2016 and continuing through December. He continued his investigation even after the Democratic client stopped paying for it following Trump's election."

That's why the dossier has little relevance to this article and such content should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

About the congressional testimony
I have trimmed that section by about half. I eliminated all the play-by-play about subpoenas, arrangements, cancellation of subpoenas, etc. per NOTNEWS, to get to the bottom line that they are going to testify. I eliminated allegations and commentary from third parties. I think what is left is relevant to this subject, but I am open to discussion about it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It was an update - timeline - you know, like the Trump Jr. timeline. You really should have discussed it here before you removed it. WP:DONTLIKE is hardly a reason for removing an update. Browder is the one who brought the whole FARA registration to the attention of the SJC. It was properly cited to a RS and written as it should have been with quotes from the White House Press Secretary. It was compliant with policy. Atsme 📞📧 01:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is way undue information. All we need is a brief statement as MelanieN says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And now you are edit-warring to put it back in. This article is not subject to DS so you are not REQUIRED to respect it when someone removes material as controversial. But you keep putting it back so let's discuss like we are supposed to. There are two of us who want the excess material removed. You are alone in wanting it kept. I'm not clear how that justifies you in edit warring to restore it, but let's discuss the main points. Please discuss these points SPECIFICALLY, without generalities.


 * I think all the details about subpoenas and removal of subpoenas and such are TMI. I think that kind of day-by-day detail is irrelevant to the story, and including it is contrary to NOTNEWS. What is your justification for including it all?
 * I think the extensive quotes from people who have nothing to do with Fusion or the case are TMI and prejudicial. What is your justification for including that stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. RE: You really should have discussed it here before you removed it. Shouldn't you have discussed it here before you added it? Especially, shouldn't you have discussed it here before re-adding it? --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not edit warring. Are you kidding me, ? Are you actually saying I have to ask for your permission to edit an article? This was public testimony before the SJC - not day to day detail - and there's not one thing in what I've written that mentions subpoenas. What are you talking about? This is what I added - it's relevant, and properly sourced:
 * On July 27, 2017, Fusion GPS issued a statement after the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, who accused Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, and others of evading registration "as foreign agents" campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. According to Browder, Simpson is one of seven people, including Russian-American lobbyist, Rinat Akhmetsin, who failed to register their advocacy work for the Magnitsky Act as required by FARA. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "Today there was public testimony that further discredited the phony dossier that's been the source of so much of the fake news and conspiracy theories, and we learned that the firm that produced it was also being paid by the Russians." Fusion GPS denied the allegations, saying through their attorney that they weren't required to register with FARA, and accused "the White House of trying to 'smear' it for investigating the president's alleged ties to Russia. cited to this source Atsme 📞📧 02:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so the subpoenas stuff was already in the article and you didn't add it. Then I guess you don't object to my having trimmed it down? Why, then, did you restore it when you reverted me?
 * I also trimmed your paragraph by about half, because some of the material was TMI and irrelevant, and other material could simply be expressed more concisely. You haven't explained why my edit is wrong and yours is right, you just reposted yours here on the talk page. You apparently think it speaks for itself, that every word of it is necessary and relevant (which I disagree with, as does VM) and sourced (which is true, but not everything from every source needs to go in every article). My version still includes Browder's accusation (trimmed), it still includes the Fusion response (trimmed). I left out the "seven people" sentence as redundant and irrelevant to this article. I left out the irrelevant response from the White House press secretary, who has nothing to do with the senate judiciary committee. What exactly are you objecting to, in my version? Work with me here, let's agree on what we want to say.
 * What is baffling is that you seem to think you have some kind of right to insert whatever you want into the article, in exactly the wording you want, and no one else has the right to modify it in any way. You like to cite policy, so here is policy: WP:CONSENSUS. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , quite frankly, your behavior is what's baffling. You blind reverted my edit and didn't even read it. The unverified Trump dossier that was created by Fusion GPS, and the Trump Jr. meeting both were part of Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Browder. I already pared down the paragraph to bare minimum, adding only summary highlights that were relevant to Fusion GPS. The Trump Jr. portion of the meeting belongs in Trump campaign–Russian meeting because Browder stated unequivocally that the Kremlin was behind the June 2016 meeting with Donald Trump Jr.; see Newsweek. As for this article, Grassley demanded information from Fusion GPS about the Trump dossier so it is relevant as part of the meeting. There are allegations that Fusion GPS was also working with Rinat Akhmetsin, a former Russian intelligence operative on a pro-Russian lobbying project (which is why he was mentioned in my paragraph). Browder claimed that their work with the Russian lobbyist made it necessary for them to register with FARA which was also part of the meeting.See this article. Simpson responded by accusing "the White House of trying to 'smear' it for investigating the president's alleged ties to Russia" <-- which is why the White House Press Secretary's comment is relevant. So what exactly are you baffled about?
 * As for consensus - when you and other editors start following consensus, then so will I. Don't try to hold me to standards that you ignore. This article is not locked down so GF editors don't need anyone's permission to add relevant, properly sourced information. What makes you think you can decide what does or doesn't belong in this article or how long it should be, and where to trim the fat? Stop treating me like a child that you have to monitor every step of the way. Your reason for reverting my edit was based on an incorrect assumption and that is disruptive. Stop doing that. Atsme 📞📧 05:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You blind reverted my edit and didn't even read it. That is a complete falsehood and I am offended by it. The truth is that I spent half an hour carefully reviewing the two paragraphs - the original paragraph about subpoenas, and your addition about Browder and FARA - removing extraneous material and combining the two paragraphs into a single, better organized one. Before, after. I retained all of the essential material from your addition. You, on the other hand, seem to have noticed only that my edit reduced the two paragraphs to one, so you jumped to the conclusion that I had removed yours, and you are the one who has been "blindly reverting" - twice now. If you are not going to pay more attention to the material than this, there is no point in even discussing with you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What?! No, . This was my edit with the edit summary:(→‎Senate Judiciary Committee investigations: update Judiciary Committee) and this was yours which actually removed what you included earlier plus it removed my update edit below that paragraph in its entirety which included the highlights of the Browder testimony against Fusion GPS. Your paragraph did not include that update. I simply copy/pasted what I wrote back into the article (did not revert anything you did) with this edit. VM reverted my update work again here, and I reverted him. He reverted me again and I decided to let him have as much rope as he needed. Then you added some minor edits. I have no clue what you're talking about re:subpoenas or that I removed any of your work. I did not. You were the one doing the removing of the updated material I added from the hearing on July 27th, so please get the story straight. In essence, you removed the update and kept the older information with a minor update to what you added earlier. SMirC-facepalm.svg Atsme 📞📧 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * removed my update edit below that paragraph in its entirety which included the highlights of the Browder testimony against Fusion GPS. Your paragraph did not include that update. Sigh. Still false. Look at your own diffs again: your addition, my modification. Would you mind actually READING them this time? My edit did two things. It reduced the previous "subpoena" paragraph to three short sentences. The rest of my edit was to include the information you had added, but condense it and combine it into a single paragraph with the other three sentences. I shortened the Browder material, left out the White House comment as irrelevant to this article, and shortened Fusion's comment. I kept this much of your edit: "A previous witness, banker and human rights activist, Bill Browder, had accused Simpson and Fusion GPS of evading registration as foreign agents for campaigning to influence and overturn the Magnitsky Act. Fusion said through their attorney that they were not required to register under FARA. Senators may also use the hearing 'to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government.'"


 * This is all I have to say on the subject of who-added-what. You can either come to realize what actually happened, or not; I'm not wasting any more time on this point. The bottom line is, the article still does contain the significant portions of what you wanted it to say, and efforts by you to restore your exact wording have not gained consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Side by side
Sure, sure, - I know you don't want to say anymore about who added what, which is fine with me, but I need to clarify what I was doing. You've already made it known on my TP that your POV differs from what you believe mine happens to be, but you were mistaken there, too - not egregiously so, but pretty much. I even thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong.


 * Your edit refers to Browder as a "previous witness" which is technically correct, but there's more to it that I never got the chance to include because my work keeps being reverted.
 * You said above that your edit "reduced the previous "subpoena" paragraph to three short sentences" - yep, it did but that is not what my edit was about. It was about the actual Browder testimony at the Senate Judiciary Hearing not the subpoenas. You also removed the timeline dates.
 * Browder testified on July 27th before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and you omitted all of that info and excluded responses to his testimony by the WH Press Secretary, and the Fusion GPS accusation against the WH which was also part of the hearing because of the unverified dossier and the extent of interference by paid Russian agents in a US election.

Browder wasn't just a witness - he got the ball rolling when he filed a detailed complaint with the Justice Department’s FARA enforcement unit in 2016. In his complaint, he identified Fusion founder Glenn Simpson. Browder felt that since Fusion GPS is the same firm that oversaw the creation of the unverified Trump Dossier it was "vital for the Committee to fully understand Fusion’s failure to register under FARA and its role in the creating and spreading the dossier" See page 3 & 4. MelanieN, I simply cannot do my work if you and VM keep reverting my edits for no good reason like TMI, or WP:DONTLIKEIT, or WP:CONSENSUS. An encyclopedia is about knowledge, not news headlines. You mentioned that I need to get consensus - well, where is your consensus? I don't normally edit political articles but I'm here now, and I'm trying to expand this particular article so that it reflects quality encyclopedic information that our readers - ALL READERS - can utilize. I do my best to follow PAGs, and while you may object to my citing the acronyms to policies that apply, oh well, I'm not going to stop. I expect our articles to reflect a WP:NPOV just like you do. I don't want to argue with you or anyone else about what should or shouldn't be included in an article when it's so fricken obvious it belongs that a 5 yo could see it. I just want to do my work - I enjoy the hell out of a productive collaboration and just want to be treated fairly, not like some outsider who fell off a pumpkin truck yesterday - and that pretty well sums it up. Atsme 📞📧 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your summary of what I kept, and what I omitted, is correct. In my opinion what I put into the article is sufficient. We don't need a bunch of background on Browder. We don't need extensive quotes, and various accusations, from him or the press secretary or Fusion. We don't need to explain twice in adjacent paragraphs who Simpson is. We don't have to repeat the FARA registration issue/Magnitsky issue twice in adjacent sentences. Our differences of opinion are now (finally) clear enough for other people to weigh in on. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I don't understand what you mean about not needing a bunch of background on Browder. Are you referring to the fact that Browder filed the complaint against Fusion GPS and other Russian lobbyists/agents for not properly registering under FARA? I have no problem with not mentioning the "others". You also mentioned "extensive quotes". Are you referring to the single quote by the WH Press Secretary as being extensive? It's the WH, Melanie - it's historic and extremely encyclopedic. Look, the paragraph I added was 161 words total, including quotation marks, and you're complaining it's excessive? *lol* Why would you want our readers to guess at what the results were from Browder's testimony considering Fusion GPS was paid by Russian government operatives, as well as Republicans and Democrats wanting dirt on Trump? Is that what you consider TMI? The way I see it, the allegations have been made in RS, same argument we dealt with at Trump campaign–Russian meeting which should apply here the same way. Don't forget, we have approx. 3 articles per Trump topic so what is your major concern about this one article? It's only 14,821 bytes compared to 40,995 at Trump campaign–Russian meeting and the latter was a single 20 minute meeting. Fusion GPS is an entire company that was paid to run smear campaigns. There's plenty of room to expand it into a GA. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I think you and I have discussed this enough. As I said above, the issues under discussion are now clear and I would like to hear from other people. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here I am, another person! I am stunned that a direct quote, referring to the subject of this article by name, made by the White House Press Secretary, was removed. It is highly relevant encyclopedic content. It should be returned to the article, in my opinion. It is a single sentence in length, so it is hardly an example of WP:UNDUE, which would be the only objection that I can think of to including it.
 * I also recommend the reinstatement of this passage in the first paragraph:
 * "On July 21, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein issued a subpoena for Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson after he denied through his lawyers a request to voluntarily appear "due to long held vacation plans"... Simpson will not testify at the July 26 public hearing as previously scheduled, but instead will be interviewed privately, under terms of an agreement, which includes withdrawal of the subpoena."
 * I think it is important to include this information because it indicates the deference which Fusion GPS founder Simpson commands at the highest levels of the US government. Very few Americans, whether elected office holders or private citizens, would have the temerity to deny a request from both the Republican Senate Judiciary Committee chairman (Grassley) and a famous, venerable California Democrat senator (Feinstein) due to vacation plans! Similarly, very few Americans, regardless of wealth or other sorts of influence/ power/ stature would be allowed to testify privately after arranging for an "agreement" that includes withdrawal of a subpoena issued by the likes of Grassley and Feinstein. WP:SYNTH is not a concern, as the facts speak for themselves to our readers, but only if Wikipedia editors are permitted to include such information in the article. Fusion GPS is clearly a very important organization, based on the special treatment its co-founder/owner receives. I reviewed the side-by-side comparison of the first paragraph as written by Atsme then revised by MelanieN. While both MelanieN and Atsme mention the arrangements for Simpson's private interview, only Atsme's version includes the fact that the subpoena was actually withdrawn by the Judiciary Committee senators. I think the subpoena withdrawal needs to be included. It is merely a single phrase in an already-existing sentence in the article, but is important because of what it (concisely) signifies about Fusion GPS and the respect (gravitas?) accorded to its apparently remarkable work.--FeralOink (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in, FeralOink. Actually there is nothing unusual about congressional committees negotiating with prospective witnesses to get documents and cooperation, and granting private hearings for various reasons. The same was done, by the exact same committee about the exact same hearing, for Kushner and Manafort. The committee resorted to a subpoena when Simpson refused their first request to appear, but withdrew the subpoena after he negotiated an agreement with them just as the other two had done. This subpoena/negotiate/agree/withdraw pattern is routine, NOTNEWS stuff. We just need the bottom line, that he will appear before the committee. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph is unnecessary and undue. The Bowder stuff is about Simpson and at this point it's just one person's opinion. If and when anything comes of it, it can be added. Huckabee-Sanders' quote is likewise unnecessary and undue and it's not even about this topic - it's about the dossier. This appears to be an attempt to try and WP:COATRACK the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the second paragraph. I was wrong, in that the WH Press Secretary did not actually mention Fusion GPS by name. I will strike the comment I made above regarding the second paragraph. (Sarah Huckabee's statement belongs in the Trump dossier article more than in the Fusion GPS article.) Even if the second paragraph is partially or entirely omitted from this article, I feel strongly about reverting to Atsme's version of the first paragraph.--FeralOink (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fusion GPS is the one who created the dossier and that was also part of the hearing.
 * , the cited sources verify the "phoney dossier" as the one produced by Fusion GPS. They are also the firm that was paid by the Russians. It doesn't specifically have to say that in the quote when the entire section is about Browder's testimony. We can add more to that paragraph, but I don't think that's necessary. Our readers can figure that one out. I'm not quite sure why anyone would think the testimony against Fusion GPS and the responses to Browder's testimony regarding their work on the dossier and others would not be relevant or important to include in an article about Fusion GPS. By not including it, there is no consistency with all the other articles that are connected to the hearings and the key players. The MSM made those connections, they are relevant here and in the connected articles. Exclusion of such information is unwarranted. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Replacing opinion-based HuffPo source with neutral source(s)
I am replacing a source from HuffPo cited in the article, that is used to establish that BakerHostetler hired Fusion GPS for litigation support as part of the defense for the US government's money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The HuffPo piece is titled, "A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier" with the subheading, "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up". It is used to source BakerHostetler's hiring of Fusion GPS, as well as to provide some of the backstory for the Prevezon Holdings situation (that Veselnitskaya is a Russian attorney defending Prevezon, and that Baker Hosteletler is the US attorney helping defend Prevezon).

Since the HuffPo article isn't in accordance with WP:NPOV, I will use the RFERL source, Eckel, Mike (April 1, 2017). "U.S. Senator Seeks Probe Of Firm Linked To Russia Dossier" which is already cited twice in the article already, as well as Matt Taibbi's article ("Russiagate and the Magnitsky Affair, Linked Again") that was removed for other reasons per the discussion above. I am not using the Taibbi article for anything pertaining to who arranged what meeting with whom, which Taibbi doesn't even touch upon. Rather, Taibbi gives a good, factual but not leading summary of the participants in the Prevezon case. Taibbi explicitly states that Fusion GPS worked for BakerHostetler who was helping defend a group of Russians being charged by the US for money laundering, AND that Fusion GPS produced the Trump dossier, BUT these two facts demonstrate that "Fusion GPS had just done what oppo firms do, i.e. take business wherever they can get it." The Prevezon Russians were Russians, but there's no proof that they were THE Russians (i.e. state actors working for Putin).--FeralOink (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are better sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"although BakerHostetler was thrown off the case by the U.S. judge due to a conflict of interest in January 2016" is just plain incorrect. The reference says that the court restored BakerHostetler as defense counsel in January 2016. The reference is also very much outdated. I had added a much more current RadioFreeEurope article by Mike Eckel to the Prevezon Holdings section, but it was removed - not gonna go back and check by whom and why. BakerHostetler was barred from the Verezon case by the judge in the lower court in 2014, then reinstated, then finally barred by the appellate court in October 2016. As to why they were barred: BakerHostetler had represented Hermitage Capital, Browder’s US hedge fund, for nine months in 2008 and 2009 in a "in a complex tax fraud that began with the alleged misappropriation of the corporate identities of three companies in the Russian portfolio of Hermitage Capital" and resulted in the theft of $230 million from the Russian Treasury. Hermitage terminated BakerHostetler’s engagement in 2009. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC) CORRECTION: Eckel's April 1, 2017, article is still in there (ref. for Magnitsky Act). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the story: Browder claimed that, because of Fusion GPS's work for BakerHostetler when they represented Verezon/Katsyv during their lobbying attempt to stop passage of the Magnitsky Act, they should have registered as foreign agents for the Russian government. That's why Grassley wanted to question them in connection with the Trump dossier - once a foreign agent, always a foreign agent. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lastly: There is nothing wrong with the HuffPo article. The headline may be a bit "sensational" (not even close to, say, "DNC staffer gave 44,000 emails to WikiLeaks") but the reporting is accurate. It's not an opinion piece, either, but written by two paid reporters on the staff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Space4Time3Continuum2x the very article that you just said this about:
 * "I had added a much more current RadioFreeEurope article by Mike Eckel to the Prevezon Holdings section, but it was removed - not gonna go back and check by whom and why"


 * which is STILL in the article, says:


 * "Тhe case, which has prosecutors seeking to seize more than $11 million in real estate and bank accounts, went on hiatus last year after a U.S. judge threw the defendants' lawyer, Baker Hostetler, off the case. Last month, the defendants’ new lawyers again asked the U.S. judge to throw out the case."


 * That much more recent article, from April 2017, is why I said that Baker Hostetler was "thrown off the case". RFERL used that exact idiomatic phrase. I provided the older source from RFERL, by the same author, for additional background about the reason Baker Hostetler was thrown off the case. What would you call this, if not for a conflict of interest?! "BakerHostetler had represented Hermitage Capital, Browder’s US hedge fund, for nine months in 2008 and 2009". If Baker Hostetler had previously represented Browder on the case for that Magnitsky researched for Browder (and directly led to his death) then they shouldn't have accepted work from clients (Prevezon Holdings) who have been found to have ended up with those funds in their Cyprus accounts, a few years later. That is a conflict of interest. I don't want to debate the intricacies of the Prevezon Holdings case. I will omit the part about WHY Baker Hostetler was thrown off the case, but I will certainly include the fact that they were thrown off the case. They retained Fusion GPS, so it is relevant to the article. Fusion GPS was only working for Baker Hostetler and Prevezon at the same time as they were working for the people who contracted them to prepare the Trump dossier for a few months' overlap.


 * Next, regarding the Huff Po piece, it violates WP:NPOV to include obvious statements of opinion, which is obvious from the title and heading, as I said above, "A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier" with the subheading, "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up"". It would be no more appropriate for me to include the article from the Wall Street Journal that was titled something along the lines of "What Democrats Want You to Believe About..." (I don't recall the full title, but I can find it if you really want me too). Also, MelanieN concurs with me regarding the HuffPo piece, and this has been discussed on more than one article's talk page.--FeralOink (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't read my posts very thoroughly. I corrected my earlier assumption that the later Eckel article had been removed.  If you are going to reinstate BakerHofstetler's being barred from the case, then get your facts straight as to when and by whom and use neutral wording; "thrown off" is OK for a newspaper but not for Wikipedia. Aside from that, how does that reflect on Fusion GPS?  I don't see the relevance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop talking to me in that tone, Space4Time3Continuum2x, about needing to get my facts straight. It is unfriendly. You ask me how does Baker Hostetler's being thrown off the case reflect on FusionGPS, and that you don't see the relevance. YOU haven't read MY post very thoroughly. If you read what I just wrote to you a few moments ago, I specifically stated why it was relevant. (I don't have some sort of vendetta against Baker Hostetler!) In the entry to which you just replied, I wrote:


 * "They (Baker Hostetler) retained Fusion GPS, so it is relevant to the article. (However,) Fusion GPS was only working for Baker Hostetler and Prevezon at the same time as they were working for the people who contracted them to prepare the Trump dossier for a few months' overlap of time."


 * It is relevant that Fusion GPS was only working for the Prevezon Russians at the same time as it was researching Trump for a few months, from September 2015 to January 2016. Fusion GPS didn't retain Steele to create the dossier until June 2016. The substance of Grassley's concern is that Fusion GPS was working for the Prevezon Russians (about whom there is no proof were Russian state actors, although Grassley isn't convinced of that) at the same time as Fusion GPS was working on the Trump dossier. Even IF the Prevezon Russians were THE Russians, and thus IF Fusion GPS should have registered as a foreign agent under FARA, Fusion GPS had not done any work for Prevezon between January and June 2016, and only a small amount of work during their initial Trump-focused opposition research in 2015.


 * One registers as a foreign agent under FARA only for the time interval that one is actually under contract for the foreign power. It isn't as though "once a foreign agent, always a foreign agent". It isn't an annual thing. Being registered as a foreign agent isn't even that big a deal anyway. John Podesta was registered as a foreign agent for the entire time that he was Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 election. Podesta and his brother's company does work for lots of foreign governments: Saudi Arabia, South Sudan and Switzerland (maybe even Russia, but I didn't check). Everything is listed right here on the FARA website. It isn't a secret, and it didn't disqualify Podesta from a major role in an important US political election campaign. Fusion GPS's failure to register during its time working for Baker Hostleter for Prevezon (IF it were necessary), is even less of concern because Fusion GPS was no longer involved in Prevezon work from June to November 2016, while preparing the Trump dossier,


 * THAT is why I want to include the 6 word sentence clause, about Baker Hostleter being "removed from the case" in January 2016. The prior chronology and rationale does not belong in the article. The purpose of the article isn't to exonerate Fusion GPS, but enough detail should be provided (especially if it only adds a mere 6 words of text to the article, and is sourced) so that readers have basic facts for any subsequent study they want to do. I wrote all of this only in order to convince you to allow me to include those six words, by justifying their relevance to the article.


 * Since you object so strongly to the idiom used by RFERL about "being thrown off the case", I will write "removed from the case". RFERL is not a newspaper, and its use of language is journalistic. You referred to a post written by Alison Frankel for Reuters in your entry of August 7th. (See, I DO read your posts thoroughly!) Alison Frankel is great, and I often read her legal column on Reuters. She uses terms like "thrown off the case". If such language is acceptable to an independent judicial scholar writing for Reuters, then it is reasonable to consider the term encyclopedic. Also, it isn't jargon, which we avoid using in an encyclopedia.


 * Now I would like to conclude this discussion about the addition of 6 words of sourced text to the article. --FeralOink (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I also concur with on the source issue. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

FeralOink: Your edits on this Talk page speak for themselves and to your biases. Even though I disagree with your assessment of the HuffPo article, I did not reinsert it; I removed the clause that said the exact opposite of what the sources say. You replaced "thrown off" with "removed" but your clause still says the exact opposite of what your source says: although BakerHostetler was removed from the case by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in January 2016.

Here's what your source says: Here's more of the story from Frankel, October 18, 2016: If you absolutely insist on "a short clause" about BakerHofstetler's removal, then I suggest something like "BakerHofstetler was removed from the case in October 2016" and adding Frankel's blog as a source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Eckel, January 18, 2016: On January 8, however, Griesa reversed his decision and restored BakerHostetler as defense counsel.
 * After Prevezon’s response to the government’s summary judgment motion last December [i.e., 2015], Griesa agreed to bounce BakerHostetler, but then rescinded his own order the following month [i.e., January 2016]
 * as of Monday [i.e., October 17, 2016], it is more appropriate to use the past tense to describe BakerHostetler’s client relationship with Prevezon. In a rare grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned decisions by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa of Manhattan that had allowed BakerHostetler and Baker partner John Moscow to defend Prevezon in the forfeiture case.


 * In a Radio Free Europe article that you initially cited, dated April 2017, it says:

"'Тhe case, which has prosecutors seeking to seize more than $11 million in real estate and bank accounts, went on hiatus last year after a U.S. judge threw the defendants' lawyer, Baker Hostetler, off the case. Last month, the defendants’ new lawyers again asked the U.S. judge to throw out the case.'"
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x, I object to your repeated denials of reality and well-sourced facts. Your accusations of bias against me, e.g. "Your edits on this Talk page speak for themselves and to your biases" has now accelerated to the point of being egregious enough for me to seek assistance from ANI, for the very first time since I started editing Wikipedia in November 2011.--FeralOink (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Senate Judiciary Committee investigations 2
The meeting has happened and Simpson testified: Attorney: Glenn Simpson did not reveal clients for Trump 'dossier' to investigators -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to add this sentence to the section: ''On August 22, 2017, Simpson was questioned for 10 hours by the Senate Judiciar Committee in a closed-door meeting. The Committee did not release any information on the hearing. '' I can't figure out why I can only see it when I'm logged in. Were you unsuccessful, as well, since you posted in Talk instead of adding the info to the article? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's there. I tweaked it a bit. Originally I didn't have time to add decent copy, so I just dropped the info here for anyone to add. Thanks for doing something with it. There is a lot more info out there now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WaPo article Oct 24, 2017
The paragraph in question: "Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I clarified who Elias is, removed the "who?" tag, and provided an alternative source, via the New York Times.--FeralOink (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio issues
74.8% link, and 45%+/- The Hill using Earwigs copyvio detector. SEE link <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Good catch, Atsme! I reran Earwigs and no longer see any copyvio issues with the Conspiracy School website. However, there remains a 46% probable copyvio with a September 27, 2017 article published by The Hill, as you had mentioned. Earwigs breaks out the instances of word-for-word duplication between this WP article and The Hill. I will try to address some of them, and would encourage other editors to do so too. The specific duplicated passages can be found here, highlighted in red.--FeralOink (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Initials
So what does the 'GPS' stand for? DS (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They haven't said, as far as I can tell. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The banner at the top of an archived version of their website reveals that GPS stands for Global Research Political Analysis Strategic Insight -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at their old site here it is "Global research Political analysis Strategy". PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another detail: Fusion GPS is actually a company named Bean, LLC. Specifically, Simpson owns Bean, LLC. Bean, LLC is registered in the District of Columbia in order to conduct business under the trade name of Fusion GPS. Bean, LLC DBA (does business as) Fusion GPS. It says that on pp. 14 -17 of the transcript that was released. Does anyone have any ideas whether it makes sense to include this in the article, and if so, where? The only reason I noticed was because of the lower right page footer says "2011 Bean LLC dba Fusion GPS" in the archive page posted by BullRangifer. Any thoughts about this? I don't know enough about DBAs to know if it is significant for Wikipedia purposes, or isn't worth mentioning.--FeralOink (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that this information is uncontroversial, and under the basic rule that a primary source from the subject of the article can be used for non-promotional basic information about the subject in the same article, I doubt that adding this would be a problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)