Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation

Consider Re-Naming this page
Since all of the allegations have been debunked and traced back to the Clinton campaign, this page should he renamed "Attempts to overturn the 2016 election" or something similar. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that many allegations have been confirmed, this investigation had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, and nobody tried to overturn the 2016 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well this didn't aged well LOL. The opposite is true and proof is resurfacing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:141A:F590:5B46:E677 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment from ten months ago stands. No "proof" of anything like that exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you may have been told, the press reporting on Trump-Russia was overwhelmingly correct, and the fact Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court does not mean the press reporting was wrong. The FBI investigation never targeted Trump, it was a counterintel investigation to prevent Russian intelligence from infiltrating the Trump campaign (and maybe the Oval Office!) and the only reason Trump was pulled into the Mueller investigation was because he fired Comey, which looked a whole lot like obstruction and for which he is still subject to prosecution. Trump could've avoided bringing all this drama on himself if he'd just not fired Comey, because Comey wasn't even investigating Trump. So, short story long, nah, we're not gonna make the change you seek.soibangla (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge Trump"
I copyedited this, I expect someone to dispute it, so starting the discussion here. It is known that actually several of Trump's associates were in fact in litigation before being pardoned, such as Roger Stone. In terms of evidence, there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy, but as we found out, Roger Stone did indeed have contact, and Manafort, in fact this just came out about Manafort. Regardless, there's the Special Counsel investigation, and the Barr report, and how Rosenstein landed the plane. Mueller's report, the less-redacted version, showed: "Trump had direct knowledge of Roger Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, according to multiple witnesses interviewed by Mueller. He encouraged that outreach and asked his campaign chairman to pursue it further, those witnesses said. And Mueller’s office appears to have strongly suspected, without putting it in so many words, that Trump lied to the special counsel in his written answers to Mueller’s questions about the Stone affair." Andre🚐 21:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Good change. It wasn't "no" evidence, it was "insufficient". "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked. "That is correct," Mueller asked. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That quote is accurate but has an obvious typo. It should end with "Mueller replied". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That too, which is about obstruction specifically. But in terms of the "collusion" there was "collusion," in that, Manafort gave polling data to Russian intelligence, and of course there were the many meetings written about by Seth Abramson in Proof of Collusion and Proof of Conspiracy, there wasn't enough evidence to charge them, but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that wasn't sufficient for a court of law to bring a prosecution. Andre🚐 00:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, well, there's a quote for that too. "The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller said during his Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. This source uses the phrase "insufficient evidence". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Andre🚐 00:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , as your cited source makes clear, Mueller was referring to potential obstruction of justice in that quote (an altogether separate topic from conspiracy/collusion with Russia); given this context, it does not actually support the inference that you (and Andrevan) are drawing from it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You continue to let your own political bias influence what you write. I am removing the politically biased language you enter. The Mueller investigation's stated goal was to determine if the Trump campaign conspired/coordinated with Russia. The Mueller report concluded there was no evidence the Trump campaign did this. Therefore, the conclusion and "one sentence" summary is that the Mueller investigation found no coordination/conspiracy with Russia. After that sentence, is where the sentence about the Trump campaign welcoming Russian help goes. You are trying to suppress the main outcome of the investigations stated goal that the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia. Gjonesagain (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Gjonesagain, where did you get the idea that "the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia?" There was "insufficient evidence" to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do you understand the difference between those two sentences? BTW, many RS, including leading members of the intelligence community, who do not accept Mueller's conclusion. They see evidence of conspiracy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It came from this CNN article here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-findings/index.html CNN cited (verbatim) from the Mueller report "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities." @Valjean You can continue to let your own political bias interfere with the article. Gjonesagain (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Gjonesagain, so you don't understand the difference. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. Mentioning another editor’s political beliefs as a means to dismiss them is a forbidden personal attack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Mueller did not exonerate Trump on anything. Andre🚐 03:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

comments requested regarding article title
here soibangla (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * unless there is an objection, I plan to make this change soibangla (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good change. Likely, more people know the name Mueller than know what a special counsel is. DFlhb (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"There was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge Trump"
Summarizing the Mueller report with this limited information is not an accurate representation, considering they had insufficient evidence that the campaign as a whole conspired or coordinated with Russia, not just Trump in particular. A direct quote of the Mueller report is that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Bill Williams 19:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Russia russia russia" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia_russia_russia&redirect=no Russia russia russia] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian Interference?
That whole section of the article, basically where the author concluded there was substantial Russian interference, is just simply not true. Can we get that part fixed? YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that the Muller report did not say that? Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If a "russian entity carried out a social media campaign" favoring one candidate over another that quite literally means nothing. Thats like if the BBC said that one candidate was in their view better than another. It is just an empty endorsement. And Time is noted for its left leaning bias. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Russian interference in the election is not like a newspaper endorsement in any way. For one thing, in that example the BBC is on the record, while Russia was engaged in subterfuge. The quotes from the Mueller report demonstrate what you do not believe to be true is, and you are trying to disqualify that because I used Time magazine, which is reliable, rather than the report itself. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and clearly you've decided, but we won't be changing the page to reflect that alternate reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * YT DomDaBomb20, while you "can believe whatever you want to believe" in your mind, at Wikipedia, advocacy (saying out loud what you are thinking) of fringe POV is forbidden on article talk pages, your own userspace, and of course when editing articles, so you really need to read our articles and their sources. You need to correct your knowledge deficits in this area, and you need to start supporting what RS say. Those who do otherwise are fringe editors, and they don't last long here.
 * I have already advised you on your talk page and also posted a contentious topics alert, yet you dared to come here and continue to express doubts about this matter? Are you really asking to get blocked? I suggest you tone it down and use your time on uncontroversial topics. That way you won't get in trouble, disrupt our work, and will do some good here. The Russian interference was broad and sweeping, involving many crimes, hackings, leaks, lies, conspiracy theories, and because Trump supported every aspect of what they were doing, the whole country (and world) is negatively affected by it. This was not some "empty endorsement". They even hacked very deep into most state's election systems. Much of this was performed by Russian military intelligence, IOW these were acts of war, and anyone who supports the enemy's acts of war is considered a traitor. Think about that. This is all very serious shit, and it hasn't stopped. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you tone it down and not insinuate that a limited-experience editor may be a "traitor" because they used a Wikipedia Talk page to advocate a change to an article. DonFB (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my! You misunderstand. I was not writing about the editor. They were not involved in helping the Russians. To make sure you understand what mainstream RS and experts have said about Trump's actions, here are some sources:
 * Former CIA director John Brennan, who has accused Trump of "treason", tweeted: "He is wholly in the pocket of Putin."
 * John Brennan stressed repeatedly that collusion may have been unwitting, at least at first as Russian intelligence was deft at disguising its approaches to would-be agents: "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.
 * Former acting CIA director Michael Morell has called Trump "an unwitting agent of the Russian federation", and former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said Trump was a "useful fool" who is "manipulated by Moscow".


 * Valjean (talk) ( PING me )

Can people please read wp:rs wp:v and specifically wp:or, we go by what RS say, not logic, not reason, not truth, what RS says. By the way, if the BBC did that they would in fact face an investigation, as that would be seen as unfair and biased coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)