Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Archive 2

Newly added material about Hannity/Solomon "conspiracy theory"
I'm not happy with the huge (7,000+ bytes) section recently added to the "Efforts to discredit" section by User:Soibangla, about a "conspiracy theory" being promoted by Sean Hannity. It's all about the "Uranium One" allegations, and IMO goes into way UNDUE detail about the story, the evidence, the debunking, and so on. If we are going to mention this at all, I think it should be greatly trimmed, not calling it a "conspiracy theory", and treating it as merely one more allegation, not even all that directly related to the Special Counsel investigation. For one thing, the "Uranium One" story, accusing Hillary Clinton of corruption and who-knows-what-all, is not new and predates the Special Counsel appointment by several years. It was promoted throughout the election although it never gained much traction. The material is spelled out in great detail at Uranium One; I'm not sure it belongs here at all, or if it is, IMO it should be more focused on the effect on, or targeting of, the investigation. What do others think? Soibangla, what do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. If it doesn't pertain directly to the special counsel investigation it doesn't belong in this article, especially if the details fit into another, more relevant article anyway. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 00:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The edit pertains directly to the Mueller investigation, because Hannity et al. are attempting to concoct a conspiracy involving Mueller and his current boss Rosenstein, among others, in an effort to make them appear corrupt and untrustworthy. Search this Hannity transcript on the words "conspiracy" and "Mueller" to see.


 * JARRETT: "Robert Mueller was FBI Director and Rod Rosenstein, then U.S. Attorney. Supervisors on this investigation."


 * HANNITY: "Wait a minute, if they knew what real Russian influence collusion is happening and they did nothing, how can they sit in judgment the way they are in this case?...They knew about it. This is proof. There really was a Russia conspiracy but it's not what the media reported."


 * And in this transcript:


 * HANNITY: "What did they know, when did they know it, John Solomon? I'm talking about Obama, Mueller, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton." soibangla (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. It needs to be trimmed way back or removed entirely. In fact, there's too much detail throughout this article, including non-noteoworthy quotes and mundane details.- MrX 🖋 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * IMO, this investigation has seen so many unexpected twists and turns, sometimes what may appear to be trivial later turns out to be significant. There may/will come a time when the article needs to be trimmed down, but IMO that time is not now. soibangla (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite the length of my edit, the topic deserves an entire article of its own to adequately explain its breadth and depth, but I did my best to distill it to its essence. It is complicated and not fully understood by those who are not intensely following the topic. Although it may appear to some that parts of my edit seem superfluous or unnecessary, I intentionally selected every phrase and sentence in the edit for a specific reason: to provide the full context of the matter while avoiding excessive verbosity. It's as tight as I could make it. Sometimes an edit just needs to be as long as it needs to be.


 * But it is vital that this be explained because this "conspiracy narrative" is viral across social media and has been widely accepted as reality. It is not "merely one more allegation," it is a major, coordinated scorched-earth strategy to undermine Mueller, and if the investigation turns up anything bad about Trump, his supporters will use this purported deep state conspiracy as proof that the findings are false.


 * I deliberately avoided using the term "conspiracy theory" so as to avoid any suggestions that I was casting aspersions, although Hannity and his guests do, in fact, describe a conspiracy at the highest levels of the FBI/DOJ. They have asserted that all the people who knew or should have known about the FBI investigation, including Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Holder and perhaps Obama, did nothing to stop the Uranium One sale, and they assert HRC took a big bribe to approve the deal, which ropes her into that conspiracy.


 * The fact that these events happened years ago and have already been discussed elsewhere is irrelevant; they are being recycled and repackaged now in an active effort to impugn the integrity of the Mueller investigation (Mueller was FBI director at the time, Rosenstein led the investigation out of the Baltimore office). soibangla (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This whole section needs reorganization and / or trimming. I made an attempt to re-organize the attempts to discredit the investigation into three groups: attempts by the president, attempts by congress, and attempts by others. Feel free to revert if this makes it even more confusing, but right now it is extremely hard to get through this section without breaking it up somehow. Another option would be to break it up by time, but that would be getting close to the timeline article. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * While I know my input has little pull, because of my inexperience, I support keeping the pertinent info. For instance, the claims directed toward Mueller and Rosenstein, and a very brief summary like a few lines of the Uranium One deal  and how it pertains to the specific claim against Mueller and Rosenstein. Any more is undue, in this specific article. Persistent Corvid (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, and that was actually my initial approach to the edit, but then I realized that the edit would be subject to challenge without sufficient info to back it up. That's why I discussed Solomon's articles, because they serve as a linchpin to the "conspiracy narrative," it's how Hannity et al. have implicated Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Holder et al. as corrupt conspirators. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I do think it's all important information and I think you did a good job. It's just a lot of info, maybe it can be trimmed and a link can be placed above it to direct readers to the Uranium One article? Just tossing out ideas. :) Persistent Corvid (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The way things are going the Attempts to discredit scectionnis going to grow and grow. Perhaps we should consider some WP:SPINOUTs? Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I still think this is way too long. Our habit is to mention conspiracy stuff only when it is widely reported by third parties, and even then not to lay out the whole conspiracy narrative in full glory. I'm going to take a look and proposed a trimmed-down version here on the talk page, for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposals
OK, I have done a rewrite - but it isn’t much shorter and may still be TMI. I gave the material a different focus. Instead of Soibangla’s version, which focuses a lot on criticisms of John Solomon and William Campbell, I wrote a version focusing on the Uranium One conspiracy theory itself - its origin from the book Clinton Cash, and the attempt by Hannity to tie that story to the Mueller investigation. I am not necessarily suggesting to include this either, because I could find almost no third-party coverage about Hannity’s role in promoting the story. But here’s a draft, call it Draft 1: In an effort to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department - and by extension, the Mueller investigation - Fox News host Sean Hannity and his program guests have tried to tie current and former Justice Department officials to a Republican-promoted claim of scandal involving the 2010 sale of the the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm. Starting with the 2015 publication of Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, conservative media have claimed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale because of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by Frank Giustra, who had sold his Canadian firm to Uranium One in 2007 and thus had no connection to the company in 2010. His donations had been made in 2005 and 2007, years before the sale was proposed, and well before anyone knew that Clinton would join the Obama administration in 2009. In addition, Clinton had no power to approve or veto the sale, which was unanimously approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) - of which Clinton was not a member. Nevertheless, numerous Republican politicians and pundits, including Trump, have insisted that the Clinton-Uranium One story is the "real" Russian scandal, rather than the matters for which Trump is being investigated. Hannity in particular has promoted this narrative, saying "On this program, I have been telling you Uranium One will be one of the biggest scandals this country has ever seen." By August 2016, the FBI had begun a confidential investigation into the Clinton Foundation, based largely on Schweizer's book and reporting by The New York Times, but they failed to find much evidence to support corruption allegations.

Hannity and others also assert that officials who worked in the government during the Obama administration — including Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder and perhaps Obama himself — allowed the 2010 sale of the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm even though they knew about an FBI investigation into a Russian scheme to "get control over America's uranium." None of those officials were involved in the decision to approve the sale. The FBI investigation involved bribes and kickbacks by Russian agents and resulted in the 2010 conviction and expulsion of ten Russian nationals.

Or how about a much shorter, much less detailed draft? Call it Draft 2.

In an effort to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department - and by extension, the Mueller investigation - Fox News host Sean Hannity and his program guests have tried to tie current and former Justice Department officials to a Republican-promoted claim of scandal involving the 2010 sale of the the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm. The claims have been investigated by the FBI, but they failed to find much evidence to support the Republicans’ allegations. Hannity and others assert that officials who worked in the government during the Obama administration — including Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder and perhaps Obama himself — allowed the 2010 sale to go forward even though they knew about an FBI investigation into a Russian scheme to "get control over America's uranium." That FBI investigation involved bribes and kickbacks by Russian agents, and resulted in the 2010 conviction and expulsion of ten Russian nationals. None of those officials were involved in the decision to approve the sale.

I think I like Draft 2 better. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely like the 2nd one, it's more to the point, if readers want more they can go to the Uranium One article and a more in-depth version can be put in that article. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * These edits fundamentally alter the content and meaning of my edit. They ignore the effort of Hannity, Solomon et al. to conflate two distinct matters to craft a false conspiracy narrative. That is the crux of the edit, which perhaps some have not been able to discern; instead, they focus on Uranium One, which is not, per se, the salient matter of the edit. I also think there is undue concern about the length of my edit. Here, we are not constrained for space (as newspapers are) or time (as TV is), so a WP article can be as long as it needs be to cover a topic in sufficient detail. My edit was written in the "inverted pyramid" style of journalism, so readers can read the first sentence(s) to glean the thrust of the paragraph, then decide whether they want to read further for additional details. If they want to ignore all the supporting detail, they're free to do that. Folks might not be so focused on the length of the edit if there were a way I could break it into separate paragraphs, but the way WP articles are generally constructed doesn't allow for that. I could go on at considerable more length about this, but I sense it may be an exercise in futility, as it appears a decision has already been made to edit/remove the edit and I've said all I have to say about it. Please do not seek further input from me on this matter. soibangla (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , I don't get that impression at all. I think the whole point of this conversation is to come to an agreement regarding what should or shouldn't be included in this section., I assume your two drafts are intended to replace the 2nd paragraph in the "By others" section, correct? I have included it here below so we can refer to it directly:


 * "In an effort to discredit the FBI and Justice Department — and by extension, the Mueller investigation — Sean Hannity and his Fox News program guests have promoted an elaborate conspiracy narrative, 'a real Russia collusion story,' asserting that officials who worked in the government during the Obama administration — including Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder and perhaps Obama himself — allowed the 2010 sale of the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm, even though they knew of an FBI investigation into a Russian scheme to 'get control over America's uranium.' Hannity and others have also sought to connect this alleged scheme to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, by falsely asserting (among other things) that the Clinton Foundation took a $145 million bribe as inducement for Clinton to approve the Uranium One sale. This conspiracy narrative largely arose from two October/November 2017 articles in The Hill, authored by John Solomon, one of which asserted in its lede that the scheme involved 'bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.' Solomon appeared on Hannity's program following publication of both articles, as a contributor to the Hannity conspiracy narrative. But a close reading of the Solomon articles shows that the FBI was actually investigating Russian efforts to increase their sales of uranium to American commercial nuclear power plants — which had begun under the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts Program and were set to expire in 2013 — rather than to exert control over American uranium mines. The Energy Information Administration reported that in 2016 the American nuclear power industry imported 89% of its uranium from fifteen countries, including 14% from Russia. Hannity and Solomon also touted as a 'bombshell' and 'smoking gun' a confidential FBI informant who was subject to a Justice Department gag order. Shortly thereafter, Trump directed the Justice Department to lift the gag order so the informant, William Douglas Campbell, could testify in classified session to the House Intelligence Committee. On March 8, 2018 The Hill reported, 'A confidential informant [Campbell] billed by House Republicans as having “explosive” information about the 2010 Uranium One deal approved during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State provided “no evidence of a quid pro quo” involving Clinton, Democratic staff said in a summary of the informant’s closed-door testimony obtained by The Hill on Thursday.' CNN reported that the summary document also stated that the Justice Department had expressed concerns about Campbell's credibility due to 'inconsistencies between Campbell's statements and documents' in a separate investigation in 2015. Since 2015, the Justice Department has announced the convictions of at least two men involved in the Russian scheme. Journalism analysts have criticized the integrity of Solomon's work for years, particularly his tendency to 'bury the lede', most notably the Columbia Journalism Review. In January 2018 staffers in The Hill newsroom reportedly complained to management about the bias in Solomon's reporting."


 * I think my preference is for draft 2, but with some modifications (primarily, including additional and corrected sources-the authors are wrong in other versions, including in the current article). See below:


 * "In an effort to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department - and by extension, the Mueller investigation - Fox News host Sean Hannity and his program guests have tried to tie current and former Justice Department officials to a Republican-promoted claim of scandal involving the 2010 sale of the the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm. The claims are mostly based on a pair of articles written by John Solomon in The Hill. The claims were investigated by the FBI, but they failed to find much evidence to support the Republicans’ allegations. Hannity and others assert that officials who worked in the government during the Obama administration — including Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation, and perhaps Obama himself — allowed the 2010 sale to go forward even though they knew about an FBI investigation into a Russian scheme to 'get control over America's uranium.'  A close reading of the Solomon articles shows that the FBI was actually investigating Russian efforts to increase their sales of uranium to American commercial nuclear power plants, which had begun under the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts Program. That FBI investigation involved bribes and kickbacks by Russian agents, and resulted in the 2010 conviction and expulsion of ten Russian nationals.   None of those officials were involved in the decision to approve the sale. Journalism analysts have criticized the integrity of Solomon's work for years, particularly his tendency to 'bury the lede', most notably the Columbia Journalism Review. In January 2018 staffers in The Hill newsroom reportedly complained to management about the bias in Solomon's reporting."


 * Does this version address some of your concerns, ? If there is information missing that you think is important, can it be added to the Uranium One article instead? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 18:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that The Hill references currently have incorrect authors in the article. The version I posted above has them corrected. I'm going to make those changes to the article now. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 18:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. Yes, I intended for the new paragraph to replace the second paragraph in that section. I can agree with de-emphasizing the original Hillary-based scandal claims, and focusing just on the new Department of Justice-based story Hannity is trying to use to discredit the investigation. And I agree with leaving out all the “confidential informant” material, since he was talking about Hillary, not the DOJ. However, a couple of corrections or comments about the proposed new draft:
 * In the second sentence, I would say “Hannity’s claims” instead of “The claims,” to make it clear we are not talking about the old Hillary-based accusations.
 * We should delete the sentence “The claims were investigated by the FBI, but they failed to find much evidence to support the Republicans’ allegations”. That sentence was about the supposed Hillary corruption which we are not talking about here. In fact, as pointed out later in the paragraph, the FBI did actually convict and expel ten Russian nationals. (That was in 2010, contradicting Sullivan’s assertion that Justice sat on the investigation and did nothing for five years. Sullivan also falsely claims, repeatedly, that Hillary “presided over” the board making the decision, when in fact she wasn’t even a member of that board, but that’s not relevant here - except to point out the unreliability of Sullivan’s reporting.)
 * I may have been mistaken in saying none of those officials were involved in the decision to approve the sale; it’s possible Eric Holder sat on that board. I don’t know if that’s true since I have only Sullivan’s word for it, and he was wrong about Hillary. But we should remove the sentence “None of those officials were involved in the decision to approve the sale” as it is unsourced. Reference 12 is cited but does not actually support the sentence and should also be deleted.
 * I would remove the phrase “A close reading of the Solomon articles shows that…” since it sounds like Original Research. That clearly is the investigation they were talking about - the one that resulted in the 2010 convictions and expulsions.
 * I would rather leave out the complaints about Solomon’s reporting, although I agree with them, but I will go along with what others think about that.
 * One other thing - maybe we should add a sentence to explain what Solomon’s actual claim seems to be - that the Obama administration did nothing with these bribery charges - followed by the evidence that in fact Obama’s Justice Department did convict and expel 10 Russian nationals over those charges. Maybe insert a sentence between the “even though they knew about” sentence and the “the FBI was actually investigating” sentence, something like this: In 2010 the FBI was actually investigating Russian efforts to increase sales of Russian uranium to American commercial nuclear power plants using bribes and kickbacks. Solomon claims that “the Obama administration did nothing with this information,”[7] but in fact the investigation resulted in the 2010 conviction and expulsion of ten Russian nationals.[9]
 * Eliminate references 10 and 11 because they relate to much later investigations/convictions.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, all that is hard to follow. I should show you what the newest proposal would look like with the changes I suggested. Call it Draft 2.2. In an effort to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department - and by extension, the Mueller investigation - Fox News host Sean Hannity and his program guests have tried to tie current and former Justice Department officials to a Republican-promoted claim of scandal involving the 2010 sale of the the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm. Hannity's claims are mostly based on a pair of articles written by John Solomon in The Hill. Hannity and others assert that officials who worked in the government during the Obama administration — including Mueller, Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and perhaps Obama himself — allowed the 2010 sale to go forward even though they knew about an FBI investigation into a Russian scheme to "get control over America's uranium." In 2010 the FBI was actually investigating Russian efforts to increase their sales of uranium to American commercial nuclear power plants using bribes and kickbacks. Solomon claims that "the Obama administration did nothing with this information", but in fact the investigation resulted in the 2010 conviction and expulsion of ten Russian nationals.


 * Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * grumble::


 * Something like this, MelanieN? (Lets call it draft 2.2.2...):


 * "In an effort to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department - and by extension, the Mueller investigation - Fox News host Sean Hannity and his program guests have tried to tie current and former Justice Department officials to a Republican-promoted claim of scandal involving the 2010 sale of the the uranium-mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm, referring to it as 'a real Russia collusion story'. Hannity's claims are mostly based on a pair of articles written by John Solomon while writing for The Hill. Hannity and others assert that officials who worked in the government during the Obama administration — including Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation, and perhaps Obama himself — allowed the 2010 sale to go forward even though they knew about an FBI investigation into a Russian scheme to 'get control over America's uranium.'   According to The Hill, Hillary Clinton was not involved in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States's (also known as CFIUS) decision to approve the sale. The FBI was actually investigating Russian efforts to increase sales of Russian uranium to American commercial nuclear power plants using bribes and kickbacks, which had begun under the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts Program. Solomon claims that 'the Obama administration did nothing with this information', but in fact the investigation resulted in the 2010 conviction and expulsion of ten Russian nationals, as well as further convictions later.  Journalists and journalism analysts have criticized the integrity of Solomon's work for years, particularly his tendency to 'bury the lede', most notably the Columbia Journalism Review."


 * I incorporated pretty much all of your suggestions and made a few other changes. I kept all the references, but they probably aren't all required. (I prefer to err on the side of having too many references if they are available, but that is probably not a good practice in general.) Otherwise, I think it works. Any other comments? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We had an edit conflict, but pretty much said the same thing. I added a few things and kept the criticism of Solomon, but otherwise I think it is basically the same version. I prefer mine, but I'm admittedly biased. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and sorry about the edit conflict. I like your version and will go with it but have a couple of suggestions: 1) I think you should delete the sentence “According to The Hill, Hillary Clinton was not involved in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States's (also known as CFIUS) decision to approve the sale” as well as reference 9 supporting it; that’s all about the Hillary stuff and just interrupts the narrative about Hannity’s claims. 2) Please also consider removing reference 7 (which is about the Clinton allegations and not Hannity’s claims) and reference 8 (I don’t even know what that is supposed to be supporting).  You don’t need them, you already have five references on that sentence, the first three would be plenty. 3) One more comment: IMO the criticism of Solomon should mention integrity and bias rather than “burying the lede” (that’s journalistic shop-talk and irrelevant to his credibility). Take what you want from these suggestions, and then as far as I am concerned (I think we are the only people still debating this) you can put it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fact-checking the first sentence: NYT does not mention Hannity, neither does Politifact (it's from June 2016!) Using them to make claims about Hannity would be original research. Source #3 is a transcript. Without looking at the transcript, it is obvious that using transcript to make a claim that Hannity tried to "discredit the FBI and the Justice Department" is also original research. "a real Russia collusion story" is not in any of the three sources. If there are sources that support these claims, these ain't them. My observations apply to similar proposals above that use same sources, but I'm not going repeat my commentary everywhere.
 * The second sentence "Hannity's claims are mostly based ..." fails verification as sources #4 and #5 don't even mention Hannity. The only thing these sources verify is that John Solomon wrote two articles to The Hill.
 * "Hannity and others assert that officials ..." – again, sources #4 and #5 don't mention Hannity. Source #6 is transcript and as a primary source can only be used for sourcing simple facts. As MelanieN points out, source #7 does not mention Hannity and source #8 does not support the claim. If the transcript is the only source that remotely supports these claims, that is an indication of WP:UNDUE and the content should go.
 * I'm just going to stop here. If half of the content is not well-referenced, the proposal has no legs to stand on. And yes, the content currently in the article is even worse. Politrukki (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"I don't see how the transcript is any less reliable than the video would be." – They are equal and they can be used to document direct quotations and trivial facts. But I can't imagine a situation where Hannity could be seen as a reliable secondary source. We need reliable secondary sources that provide analysis, and we need them to be able to assess due weight. The targets of Hannity's et al. allegations are living persons and we need good sourcing for any controversial claims about living persons. If the allegations have not received coverage in reliable sources, they are not noteworthy. Politrukki (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, those are some big problems. the "real Russia collusion" quote is in #6 and I think that source needs to be used for a few of the other sentences as well. I don't see how the transcript is any less reliable than the video would be. Are they both considered primary sources? Hannity's claims are based on some kind of reporting, which would make it a secondary source per WP:PRIMARY - or am I missing something? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Are they both considered primary sources?" – If one bases their interpretation on the second bullet point at WP:PRIMARY, that is one possible reading. However, if more weight is given to footnote #3 at the end of first bullet, your view may differ. I treat the Hannity Show mostly as a combination of editorial and interview (that does not mean that I treat all interviews as primary sources), sometimes investigative reporting. Primary sources are not necessarily bad, but they are often problematic.
 * Thanks, Politrukki. Although I have been one of the people working on a wording for this, I think there is a case to be made for leaving it out entirely - because, as I think I mentioned somewhere many bytes ago*, there really aren't independent sources reporting that Hannity and Solomon are saying this. In other words, if they are talking about and promoting this stuff but nobody else is remarking on it, then it may fail WEIGHT. Without that kind of secondary recognition, it may be that this doesn't belong in the article at all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC) *P.S. Found it: " Our habit is to mention conspiracy stuff only when it is widely reported by third parties." --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, before my first post to this thread, I tried to find which secondary sources led from opposition to drafting phase, and I had to read the discussion at least twice to find there were none. That's the reason I felt I had to repeat some of the same arguments others had used. Thanks for opening this discussion. This has dragged for too long. I'm going to wait for about 24 hours and, unless someone can come up with new arguments and reliable secondary sources that directly put the pieces (Hannity + special counsel investigation + Uranium One) together, I'm going to remove the content. Politrukki (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "the content currently in the article is even worse" Well, we disagree. My original edit draft was more comprehensive, and thus more persuasive, but as I knew, some would object to its length, so I trimmed it significantly and some said even that was still too long, and as a result of the trimming it lost some of its persuasive power. The modification proposals I've seen since lose even more persuasive power. IMO, this is a very significant topic, as Hannity is a very influential individual who reaches 16+ million viewers/listeners and his influence should be discussed at some length in the article. He is one of the primary purveyors of a false conspiracy narrative to discredit the DOJ/FBI. Nevertheless, please remove it and I encourage others to take a crack at it. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are still getting that the main issue is that you are conducting original research by using the sources out of context. We must let the reliable sources conduct the analysis for us. If no source makes the synthesis (Hannity + special counsel investigation + Uranium One = ???) for us, the content clearly does not belong to the article. "who reaches 16+ million viewers/listeners and his influence should be discussed at some length in the article" is not a policy-based argument because that tells nothing about how prominently a viewpoint has been covered in reliable sources.
 * Your new source right above is a reliable secondary source that directly connects "Hannity", "attack", and "special counsel". Hence it is very much relevant source for this article the subsection in question, but only for different material, i.e. material that does not involve Uranium One. If you want to summarise WaPo in one or two short sentences, I believe that would be fine. But it does not mean that door is open for adding some random stuff about Hannity (like you did with John Solomon) if the relevance is not made clear in reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Cohen belong in the "defense team" section?
Is Michael Cohen not a member of "President Trump's legal team"? If he is a member shouldn't he be listed in this section? It seems like a pretty big omission so I assume there is some reason not clear to me for why he is not included. If there is a reason like that, is there a source that supports this reason so it can be included in that section as well? Either way I think it is appropriate to have some mention of Cohen in that section. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Are there any reports that Michael Cohen is representing Trump with respect to this particular matter? I'm sure Trump has a wide array of lawyers representing him on trademark, real estate, tort, contract, and media matters, who are not involved in this particular criminal defense matter. bd2412  T 17:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Without good RS saying it explicitly, he remains Trump's personal lawyer and fixer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I don't want to say one way or the other without a source. Is there a source either way? I added a sentence: It is unclear if Michael Cohen is or was part of Trump's defense team with regard to the Special Counsel. to try and illustrate this uncertainty. If there is a better source out there please include it, but I don't think it should be omitted entirely. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 18:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Absent a source, I do think that it should be omitted entirely. There are probably dozens of lawyers associated with Trump in some way, about whom this could be said. bd2412  T 19:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources refer to him as "Trump's longtime personal lawyer." I haven't seen any saying he is part of the Russia defense. Is that what our section is trying to list, or are we listing any attorney who serves Trump in a personal capacity (as opposed to White House attorneys)? --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of sources discussing Trumps trouble finding lawyers for the Mueller probe. None I've seen said Cohan was on this case. Now that Cohan needs a lawyer he is unable to represent Trump on the Mueller probe (this is from both news commentary and my legal knowledge of conflict of interest issues). Because Cohan is being investigated too his interests may diverge from Trump's interests so he is VERY conflicted out now. Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sentence about Michael Cohen in that section. Even to say that it is "unclear" whether he is on the team would require citation to a source that says that this is unclear. We do not have one. bd2412  T 20:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, makes a good point about Cohen's conflict of interest that prevents him entirely from being a part of the team. Are there sources supporting that? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 01:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I heard the point about him being unable to represent on TV news the night the story of the Cohan raid came out. I've not found it in print yet but this is an interesting read Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That link resolves to a 404 for me. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird it works for me [] try serching "Stormy Daniels takes on Donald Trump, but lawyer Michael Cohen is the clear loser" Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I just removed Michael Cohen: a personal lawyer of Trump. from the article. We are going to continue to get good-faith contributions from people adding him as part of Trump's team until we get an appropriately sourced comment about Cohen and his potential conflict of interest, which presumably would preclude him from representing Trump with regard to the special counsel. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 06:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I found a source "Unfortunately for Trump, he can’t retain Michael Cohen to represent him in this case (Mueller investigation) because Cohen has been subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee." Washington Monthly. If someone wants to confirm my reading is correct, they can add something to the page. There is also good info on Cohan threatening a reporter that could be added to his page. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

How about Hendon?
We list Joanna Hendon as part of his defense team, but sources seem to say she is only representing him in the Michael Cohen matter. What do people think about including her in this article? --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would continue my objection to including too much information about the Michael Cohen matter here, as it is apparently not part of the Special Counsel investigation. bd2412  T 16:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Viktor Vekselberg
If this edit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)&diff=840296096&oldid=840286863

were a bolt from the blue without any context, I might agree it should be removed

But as indicated in the context of the paragraph, it's a new development in a story first reported over one month ago, and it appears to be quite significant.

Consequently I believe the edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Important story, which is likely to expand over the next day or two. I won't argue with restoration. Just think we should wait for it to flesh out for at least a day. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a logical reason for throwing it into purgatory here. It's a significant development in a topic that's already part of the article, and it's been confirmed and extensively reported-on by at least two reliable sources. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore it. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll remember. soibangla (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Lawyers who declined to represent Trump
✅
 * Content under discussion:

(I'm starting a new section because I think this proposal deserves more discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC))
 * I think that it is altogether too much to list all the people who have declined to be on Trump's defense team. It is not something worth mentioning, other than perhaps to have one line stating that a number of prominent attorneys had so declined. bd2412  T 02:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely remarkable that all these lawyers have declined to represent Trump. Unprecidented actually. I favor inclusion of sourced names. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that remarkable. It seems that many of these lawyers have asserted conflicts, meaning that they can't represent Trump even if they want to, due to obligations to existing clients. That might be just an excuse, but we don't know that for a fact. When I was a practicing intellectual property attorney, we had several large corporate clients who would "collect" conflicts, by hiring several different prominent firms to hire them in different legal matters, so that those firms could not later represent parties against those corporations. A small business that tried to sue one of those corporations would therefore find that dozens of the biggest and most reputable firms could not represent them due to conflicts. Not that this happened here, but it is not all that unusual for a party to be declined to be represented by a large number of big-name lawyers. bd2412  T 13:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, except that maybe the more prominent attorneys should be mentioned, such as Bennett, Clement, Olson and Sullivan. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what User:Bd2412 said above. I propose to delete the entire listing of “Prominent lawyers and law firms that have declined offers to join Trump’s legal team”. It is reasonably well sourced and all, but it’s trivia. I’m not aware of any such listing in any other article. (“Lawyers who turned down Bill Cosby?” “Lawyers who refused to handle Bill Clinton’s impeachment”? I really think this kind of listing is unprecedented for WP.) A list of lawyers who declined to represent Trump adds nothing to this article about the investigation - except perhaps a chance to sneer at Trump. I can sneer at Trump with the best of them, but I don’t think we should be doing it in the pages of Wikipedia. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is actually worth covering as it's a remarkable situation, thus making it quite notable. Any lawyer would die to have the President of the United States of America as their client. When law firms turn down requests to represent Trump, there's something really wrong. Normally they would clean their slate, remove all obstacles, and hire extra staff so they can have the President as their client. That is not happening. This hasn't happened for others because it wouldn't happen for anyone other than Trump. This is covered in RS for a reason, and it's our job to document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes User:MelanieN and User:Bd2412 I agree with you and I'm on the verge of making the deletion, because I think we have a winning argument. Brian Everlasting (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You just did it without a good discussion. 3-2 isn't a convincing consensus, and I've reverted you. Per DS, don't try to delete again without a clear consensus. You did that on the Trump-Russian dossier article, even though my previous edit summary was clear. I left a note on your talk page to give you a chance to not get in trouble, but you haven't responded. Under DS ruless, MelanieN or any other admin should block you without further warning, since you have been notified of DS rules, and yet you made the edit against a clear edit summary. What you've done is worse than edit warring. Please be collaborative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that further discussion is needed to establish a consensus on this matter, but I question whether the default should be to include the content in the article while that discussion is underway. I also note that half of the listed attorneys have no Wikipedia article of their own, so I wonder about the value of listing non-notable people to whom this applies. I am equally concerned that the list dominates the section, even though the information about the attorneys who are working for Trump is more important to the topic of the investigation. I therefore propose as a compromise that we replace the bulleted list of non-representing attorneys with the following mention of notable attorneys who have declined to represent Trump:


 * If readers are specifically interested in the affiliations of non-representing attorneys, they can look them up from there. bd2412  T


 * The DS restriction (NeilN's interpretation) against repeated deletion of long-standing content is to promote article stability. It also counteracts a problem on some articles (not referring to this one) where enemies of the article or friends of the criticized subject game the system by exploiting 1RR and/or "consensus required for restoring". They can successfully start discussions and RfCs and literally keep large quantities of content out of the article, sometimes for a long time. That's not right. Long-standing content should not be treated the same as new content added without any consensus.
 * The individual attorney is not the issue here, it is the legal firm, all of which have articles here. Any legal firm would love to have the President as a client, except Trump. He's a nightmare client who is notorious for not listening to his attorneys. This is a very remarkable situation, never seen before for such a high-profile client. These legal firms are weighing the merits and demerits of representing him, and they see a net loss to their reputation. They would immediately lose many clients if they represented Trump, and their reputations would be permanently damaged. Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then how about if we have a sentence like the one I proposed, but naming the firms rather than the lawyers? Or, alternately, one sentence listing lawyers, and a second listing firms? I think the presentation as a bulleted list of names with descriptions is more of an overkill than just the inclusion of the information. bd2412  T 15:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility, but the disadvantage is that context and reasons provided would be hard to add in a sentence, and they should be provided. It would be very long too, so a paragraph would be better. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Brian Everlasting, good removal. This is UNDUE trivia if it is not even mostly known why they have declined. (One source says Democrat "temper tantrums" has something to do with it.) Politrukki (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say remove the list. Mostly non-notable people turning down a job is not noteworthy. So far I am seeing rough consensus to remove and unless there is an objection I will remove it later tonight. PackMecEng (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is strong objection. This is a very notable situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the removal was premature; we need a clearer consensus to remove longstanding content like this, and there's no hurry. I still do hope we will decide to remove it. For one thing, the way we list it and the very existence of this list implies that the firms refused to handle Trump's case out of distaste for him or a belief that he had a losing case - as I said above, listing it as a kind of sneer at Trump - rather than (as in many cases) having a conflict of interest or other perfectly valid reason. And I disagree with the assertion that "any law firm would die to have the president as their client". Many of these firms prefer to keep a low profile rather than get embroiled in controversial or political cases. It takes a special kind of lawyer, and a special kind of firm, to welcome involvement in the political fray, no matter who the client is. I would bet, although history does not record and Wikipedia does not say, that there were many attorneys who declined to take on Clinton's impeachment case for similar reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, we could either choose to mention why they refused, if it's mentioned in the source, or just list them totally neutrally. (The current lead sentence seems fine to me.) Readers can then follow the sources if they are curious. I favor the latter approach. I see no reason to balloon this content. The list is enough. This is a notable subject we should cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * PackMecEng - Paul Clement and Ted Olson are not "non-notable people." They are, in fact, some of the most well-known living attorneys in America. Neutralitytalk 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct, what about the 11 others? "Mostly non-notable people" is correct here, as I am sure you are aware. Also in regards to your comment below, "I agree with the majority here" you do know you are actually in the minority right? Current count stands at 5 delete and 4 keep. PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The list of lawyers who declined should be included because multiple reliable sources have discussed this at length over many weeks. There is no list of lawyers who declined Cosby because as far as I know no reliable sources have discussed that. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the majority here -- this has been the subject of multiple and often fairly detailed reports by high-quality sources, and so should be included here. (It is not surprising that this topic has been the subject of substantial interest - it is extremely unusual for so many attorneys to decline opportunities to represent a president of the United States.) As to the format, I have a slight preference for a narrative description over a list without context, but both are fine with me. Neutralitytalk 04:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Current tally:


 * Keep: 4 Legacypac, soibangla, BullRangifer, Neutrality


 * Delete: 5 MelanieN, BD2412, Brian Everlasting, Politrukki, PackMecEng

There is no consensus to delete. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not how consensus works. This material is not "longstanding content", since it has only been added over the past few weeks - the bullet-point format was introduced with this edit about two weeks ago, and was immediately contentious. Absent consensus, we revert to the year-long status quo ante, which is removal of the material. bd2412  T 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see what you mean, but rather than "longstanding" and stable content, it has been constantly growing content. The change since April 1 (to pick an arbitrary date) to now is radical. To me that means that WP:PRESERVE (a policy, not guideline) should be respected. We are here to build content, not prevent that process, or worse yet, undo it. We should focus on preserving what we have, adding to it, and improving it. That implies that improvement through change is always welcome, whereas deletion is counterproductive. The subject has been covered enough in RS to be worth documenting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible changes while we discuss keep-or-delete
If we decide to keep this (and the default is to keep, since longstanding content cannot be removed without consensus), I would suggest a couple of changes. I would omit the attorneys that do not have Wikipedia articles, while indicating their presence by a count such as “more than a dozen”. I prefer to say they “were approached,” because we don’t know if they actually “declined” a specific offer or were simply felt out - probably the latter in most cases. So the opening sentence could read “More than a dozen attorneys have been approached to join Trump’s legal team but have declined. They include:...” Then the bulleted list of the ones that have Wikipedia articles, keeping the existing descriptions and names of firms. All of the other subsections in this article use bulleted lists, which are easier to read when presenting this much information. What would people think about making those changes - i.e., a slight rewording of the opening sentence, and removing the ones without Wikipedia articles - even before the keep-or-delete issue is resolved? --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As a compromise position, I propose replacing the bulleted list with the following:


 * This version associates the notable attorneys with their notable law firms, and adds three notable firms for which non-notable attorneys have declined representation. Left out are Frederick Hafetz of Hafetz & Necheles and Steven Molo of MoloLamken (neither the people nor the firms have an article; if one is made for either person, that person can be added back). bd2412  T 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Boldly implementing. The bulleted list suggests that the persons on the list are people to watch for further developments, and that the information presented about them is relevant to the article. The fact that an attorney who declined representation is a former prosecutor or a white-collar crime specialist is beyond the scope of an article on the Special Counsel investigation. bd2412  T 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? How about waiting until the discussion has produced a result. This type of jumping the gun is what causes edit wars. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I like MelanieN's idea, including keeping the bulleted list. This content shouldn't be treated any differently than the other lists. Per BD2412, add the other law firms. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The implication of that is that people who have declined representation - including non-notable people working for non-notable law firms - are as important to the Special Counsel investigation as people who are actually on the teams. bd2412  T 14:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

BD2412, you make a good point about the notable law firms. That would suggest removing only the two for which neither the attorney nor the law firm is notable. I agree with that change. As for the question of whether to retain the bulleted list or convert it to a paragraph, I prefer the bulleted list. It is easier to read, and it allows for a brief description of the attorney's experience or expertise. Plus, it follows the same format as the other subsections of that topic, and I can see no good reason to convert it to prose. We have two proposals here - removing some names from the list, and converting to prose - and neither should be implemented until there has been a chance for the community to discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of the experience or expertise of lawyers who are not involved in the subject matter of the article? We might as well list their ages or how many children they have. bd2412  T 15:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree about that. We don't really need anymore details. If any detail is relevant, it's the reason why they can't or won't do this. In some cases this may be known and could be included. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think much of maintaining this list in an article, but I think it was generally reported that Ted Olson cited conflicts, e.g. a Mother Jones writer said "On Monday, I bumped into GOP super-lawyer Ted Olson. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Trump’s legal crew had asked Olson if he would join its ranks. His law firm quickly shot down the possibility of Olson riding to Trump’s rescue, noting that there were too many potential conflicts of interest.". Kind of sounds like a PR line emanating from the other partners, but nonetheless . . .  Fact checker _ at your service  20:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, those are excellent considerations. The existing list format for ALL the lawyers should be maintained, including for this grouping. You may want to read my comment above and factor in those concerns. We should seek to build, not break down. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This format has allowed for an insidious creeping growth of information irrelevant to the special counsel investigation, and is now basically an invitation for this article to be spammed with claims of non-notable lawyers having declined to represent Trump. bd2412  T
 * The inclusion of reliably sourced content should not be considered spamming. If you feel this isn't relevant in this article, do you have a suggestion for a better article to house it? This information is part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document, so where should we put it, if not here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because something can be found in a reliable source doesn't mean we should be indiscriminate about including it here. I'm sure we can find reliable sources for all the birth dates and law schools attended by these people. Should we add that information, because it is part of the "sum total of human knowledge"? Again, this is an article on the Special Counsel investigation. The refusal of lawyers to represent Trump may be relevant to Trump's public image, but has nothing to do with the charges being investigated, or the people actually doing that investigation, or defending Trump from it. Rather, listing people uninvolved in the investigation detracts from the importance of the investigation itself. If you want to house it somewhere, make an article on Lawyers who have publicly declined to represent Donald Trump. bd2412  T 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BD2412, I can see what you mean. This is only tangentially related, so, as a compromise, why don't we just go with your suggestion above: "As a compromise position, I propose replacing the bulleted list with the following:..." By using prose format, it "demotes" their significance in relation to the investigation. That seems proper. Keep it a simple, bare bones, documentation.
 * If you'll go along with that, I'll change my !vote to favor your compromise version, and hope that we all can meet in the middle and close this thread.
 * Pinging the others to see what they think of this compromise: Legacypac, soibangla,Neutrality, MelanieN, Brian Everlasting, Politrukki, PackMecEng
 * The history of this article is interesting, as it started as your article about the team members, not an article about the investigation, and it morphed into a full article about the whole investigation. Who knew what you started would become? Kudos for starting this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with that proposal. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President. bd2412  T 01:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I still favor the bulleted list as easier to read and more informative, as well as comparable to the other subsections in this section. (If we are going to include this content at all, which it appears we are.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't more informative about the investigation, is it? Also, the bulleted list is a recent addition to the article; the information was originally introduced as a prose paragraph. bd2412  T 01:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one of those situations where the visible presentation can give or take away from the "weight" given to the subject. By "demoting" it to a prose section, we show that it's a slightly different class of information. Because it's "tangentially" related to the investigation, it deserves this demotion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind after seeing the TMI proposal in the section below. I now favor BD2412's proposed paragraph here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing to represent Trump in the Russia case
I have created the following in response to this call for the creation of this type of content by BD2412: "I absolutely agree with that proposition. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President."

This subject is especially important because Trump himself has mentioned it in connection with the "Russia case" (this article's subject) and labeled this view a "Fake News narrative". That makes this content directly on-topic here. Naturally many RS have responded to his accusation. I suggest it get its own section, as these attorneys are not part of the Trump team.

If there is an interest in shortening my version below, the last quote could be tucked into the reference so it only appears in the references' section, but it's important because it mentions the deeper moral and ethical implications, important aspects of the subject which are often ignored.

When considering the many RS which mention this subject, I settled on these legal sources because the lawyers and authors on legal websites are subject experts who tend to have a much more informed and less sensational way of expressing themselves than popular pundits found on TV and popular news sources. That keeps this a serious and sober discussion of the issues. When dealing with such opinions, we could choose to include speculations from non-experts, and our policies do allow that, but I prefer to use expert opinions when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I like it. We can put the paragraph listing the declining attorneys at the end, although we should note that many of them have at least claimed conflicts as the reason. One quibble: who is Elie Mystal? If they are not a particularly notable person, I would word it as "An Above the Law article described..." bd2412 T 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He's a lawyer and writer. That can certainly be reworded. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Way, way TMI. We don't give this much detail and this many quotes to matters in this article of far more significance to the subject. If this is the direction we are going, I prefer to endorse BD2412's proposed brief paragraph in the section above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really comfortable with including any rationales. Any firm turning him down is going to be polite about it. RS can't really know. O3000 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Law firms often word things very carefully and politely, but RS describe what's really going on, and we ascribe such content to the authors. We're not claiming that some lawyer or law firm said this. If a law firm has described their own rationale, we can quote them for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

RS suggest Trump is being turned down for three key reasons - citing conflicts, does not listen to his lawyers, and failure to pay his bills. It's highly unusual. I'm confident that can all be worded concisely and sourced without long quotes. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point about not paying his bills. That should be added. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Does not listen to his lawyers" has a subtopic, "talks too much". Fact checker _ at your service  04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And a sub sub topic - Tweets too much Legacypac (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This content is especially suited for its own section, and thus doesn't need to be abbreviated. Trump has addressed it in the context of the Trump Russia investigation, and numerous RS have also done so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BD2412, I've done a lot of the leg work. Now this needs to be refined into actual content, with the list of law firms. Would you, and others, like to propose full sections below, with tweaks and titles? Call them versions 2, 3, etc. Then we can all !vote on our favorite version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Version 2
I have worked these together into a less fluffy option three, which I think captures the essence of the matter:

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I love it! It flows much better. I'd sure !vote for this version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any objections to this content/presentation? bd2412  T 11:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an improvement, I would still rather see trivia like lawyers turning down a job removed entirely. But even though there is consensus for that it has not happened yet. For this version you might consider removing the last two paragraphs since they do not add to much new information past what is already presented in paragraph three. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Jill Abramson quote highlights what I don't think is anywhere else in the article, that lawyers may avoid Trump as a client not merely because he is unpopular or has said offensive things, but because he doesn't listen to advice of counsel, and may lead his counsel into legal jeopardy. The fourth cites a source for the concern that Trump is dissuading good lawyers, and thereby attracting bad ones. I think both add something unique, although I suppose the last sentence could be shortened to something like: An Above the Law article states the concern that "[i]f all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is". bd2412  T 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I am not sure the speculation adds value. With the Guardian opinion article just guessing and the Above the Law article being an opinion piece as well making a rather odd overly broad statement. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Worse than ever. Way too much UNDUE detail. Keep the second paragraph, dump the rest. This article is supposed to be about the special counsel investigation, not about still another personal failing of Donald Trump. If you want an article about "Legal defense of Donald Trump" or "Donald Trump as a legal client", start one. If you think this article about the special counsel investigation should contain an expansive detailed critique like this, I suggest an RfC - perhaps offering a choice between 1) no mention of the subject at all, 2) a single paragraph just naming the attorneys, and 3) an extended section like this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is related, and Trump explicitly tied this "Fake News narrative" to this investigation.
 * If it's not allowed here, then a separate article about Lawyers affiliated with Donald Trump could be started, and we move ALL the lawyers there. Then we could have sections about various types of issues and the lawyers involved, and those known to have resisted involvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is actually a Legal affairs of Donald Trump. It seems well suited for that purpose. The asserted problems with Trump as a client would apply to all of these issues. bd2412  T 20:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. A section about his various lawyers could be started there and this content moved. Shall we start moving in that direction? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the word Russia only appears once, in the infobox, on that page. A section needs to be started which mentions this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * True, because what's a Trump page without Russia? PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. Who'da thunk? His Russian ties were pretty much ignored before he ran for president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, the Legal affairs of Donald Trump does seem like a better home for this content. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we keep the first two paragraphs here, and move the rest to the legal affairs article with a section hatnote to that corresponding section. Oddly, I don't think the legal affairs article mentions the Special Counsel investigation at all, so we can tie them together this way. bd2412  T 01:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a serious lack to not even mention the investigation. A hatnote with a short summary should be included, along with the content moved from here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

BD2412, I have started the process here: Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Would you like to finish it? Feel free to move the section and/or tweak as needed. I have followed my usual practice for SPINOFF articles, by using content from the lead of the main article as the summary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know what you think of my implementation. bd2412  T 23:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very nice. If I'm not mistaken, that wraps up this thread and I'll tag it "done".
 * ✅. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica
I suggest this section:

• lead with the WSJ story of Dec 15th (Vox got the date wrong) or this story (unpaywalled)

• be trimmed of substantial material from Cambridge Analytica

• be moved to below "Financial investigations" soibangla (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 's additions are egregiously excessive. There's no need to present the entire case about Trump here, please note WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.  I highly recommend they attempt to explain their changes here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Two of us have now removed the entire large sections about Cambridge Analytica and about Trump's disclosure of classified information. I have posted on DuckyWhucky's talk page to explain the Discretionary Sanctions. IMO this material has nothing to do with the Special Counsel investigation, which is the subject of this article, and does not even deserve a mention here. At most there could be a sentence about Mueller requesting Cambridge Analytica records. If we have a sentence about Trump's disclosure (which I don't favor), it would have to be more neutral than what was proposed here and sourced to a more Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very weak connection. I'm sure the investigation has requested a ton of info. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the Cambridge Analytica scandal connected to the Russia scandal in any way? How is it connected? Is Mueller investigating Cambridge Analytica? Does anyone have any citations which mention a Russia/Cambridge Analytica connection? I think this should be deleted if it is not demonstrably connected to Russia or the Mueller investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justaskinya (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested that a data analytics company called Cambridge Analytica turn over internal documents as part of its investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Politico article on the Mueller team members
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/mueller-fbi-team-russia-probe-594345 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibility of Indictment
Calling you in because I changed your wording, and I want you to opine, if you don't mind.

As it currently stands, I've changed Mr. Plainview's original statement, "Mueller's team told President Trump's legal team that they cannot indict a sitting president; they can only write a report at the conclusion of the investigation.", to the following: "According to Rudy Giuliani, a member of President Trump's legal team, Mueller's team told him that they cannot indict a sitting president; they can only write a report at the conclusion of the investigation."

The facts are the following:
 * Mr. Giuliani, on May 16, 2018, said that he had been told by the Special Counsel's team that they could not indict the President, as a matter of law, and that, to quote Mr. Giuliani directly, "All they get to do is write a report" (per CNN) at the end of the investigation. (This is from The Hill, as cited in citation 17.)
 * Mr. Giuliani, in a later interview with Robert Costa, a reporter for the Washington Post, implied that the statement regarding indictment was nonverbal at the time, but that Mr. Giuliani's understanding was "acknowledged [to be correct]" within a few days. Mr. Mueller explicitly "didn't say that" he would not be charging the President; at this point, Mr. Giuliani notes that he'd "would have to check with Jay [Sekulow, another one of the President's lawyers [...] One of his [Mr. Sekulow's] top people told him that." Finally, according to Mr Giuliani, again, Mr. Mueller "was coy", and "didn't seem to want to give the answer".
 * Mr. Giuliani may well be mistaken on two fronts: the former being hearsay, and the latter being a misinterpretation of Mr. Mueller's demeanor.
 * Lastly, Mr. Mueller's team has not commented on this, as usual, as reported by CNN, The Hill, et al.

While both of the above statements rely on the same facts, Wikipedians, of course, strive for neutrality, and I'm of the opinion that my restatement is somewhat biased, that it raises issues of credibility regarding Mr. Giuliani; and I'd like to find some sort of compromise opinion, if possible.

I am open to suggestions, naturally. Thoughts?
 * Oh no, let me try that ping again. Stupid me. are you there? &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . Frankly I think the article from The Hill is somewhat sloppily written. The first line is "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s legal team that they can’t indict a sitting president, CNN reported Wednesday." (emphasis mine) But then the very next line reads: "Rudy Giuliani, who is leading Trump’s legal team in the Russia probe, told the network that when it comes to the president, Mueller’s team can only write a report at the conclusion of its investigation." So it's not a "report," and this information has not been independently confirmed (as of now) by any news org that I am aware of. I based the material off the first line in The Hill article, but it's clear that so far the only verification we have of this is Giuliani himself. Fox News confirms this (Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News). I think the version currently in the article is fine, personally. I have a feeling that more information will be coming out relatively shortly that will confirm or deny Giuliani's assertion, and of course the imminent OIG report will likely have ramifications across dozens of related articles. No rush! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's more or less the story in a nutshell. Speaking of which, Giuliani has been rather, um, erratic of late -- so his comments are subject to interday fluxuation.  SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The current coverage shows the claim is full of holes and thus shows this is still a RECENTISM item and we should wait. Giuliani should generally not be used as a source for such a claim without independent confirmation. The content should be deleted pending more information. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What sources do you have that say Giuliani's assertion is "full of holes"? Giuliani isn't being used as a source for the material. Every major media outlet in America has covered this, so we could use NBC, CBS, NY Times, and so on. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the responses, everyone. As it currently stands, I think what I wrote works (for once); at least until we receive more information and coverage, which will most likely occur sooner rather than later, and we can change it then, once reliable sources have stated so, etc., etc. Sound good? &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Yohai
Regarding Paul Manafort's former son-in-law's plea deal-- would we want to include that information? Seeing as the indictment has not been publicly released, it is difficult to determine the full scope if its relation to the Mueller probe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avilan01 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, not on our own WP:OR unfounded speculations, or even outsiders speculating about maybes.  Wait and see if something actually happens that relates to the article.  Cheers.  Markbassett (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Emmet Flood and White House Counsel
Is Emmet Flood part of the White House Counsel's staff? In other words, does he officially report to Don McGahn?

If not then how does he represent the office of the presidency? I assume he's either paid by the federal government as an employee or his firm provides services to the federal government as a vendor. Or do I have it all wrong; does Flood get paid out of Trump's own pocket? In which case, how does he officially represent the office of the presidency? If you drew up an organization chart of the White House, where would Flood (and formerly Cobb) be slotted in? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh. I don't know that I know the answers to any of these questions. But a bit of speculation is warranted. White House Special Counsels generally are appointed for specific reasons, insofar as investigations of the President are concerned (see, for instance, Jane C. Sherburne). Ah, I found a link to a guide to the President's lawyers: a bit outdated now, but still good enough (if you accept Slate as an RS, of course). Something from Axios, too, which I hate using as a source, but is probably useful in this case. In short, I assume Mr. Flood will be slipping into Mr. Cobb's former role: that is, he is employed as a member of the White House Counsel's staff, is paid from the White House's pocket (so, yes, federal dollars), and (like Mr. Cobb) reports to Mr. McGahn. (On an org chart, Mr. McGahn would be in charge of the White House Counsel, and Mssrs. Cobb and Flood would be below his name, but just barely. I presume, at least.) But Mr. Flood's sole responsibility, so far as I'm aware, is the Special Counsel's investigation; and from what I hear, Mr. Flood is a fighter. Feel free to correct me, fellow editors, if I have erred. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Secrecy
I don't know how to phrase this but the article should accommodate the notion that virtually all of the Special Counsel's work in being conducted in secrecy. And therefore we and everybody else don't have much to say.

I know we're not supposed to make predictions but, unless something goes wrong in a major way and just between us chickens, we're not going to have much until Mueller delivers his report to Rosenstein and/or charges a majority of the ones he wants to indict. What we'd be saying is that the readers, right now and to a large extent, are wasting their time until the report or major indictments come out. It would be an admission by WP that we just don't have enough reliable sources to say anything useful right now, except what will become trivial matters (like criminal charges against Manafort, Flynn and others) when the report is released.

In my opinion, this should be in the lead, perhaps in the second or third sentence in the first paragraph. We can certainly get a lot of citations; an hour doesn't go by without a cable news anchorman or a major newspaper reporter or editor saying (usually as a side issue) that they're only reporting on the fringes of the investigation. How would we phrase our admission? Do you think it's really necessary? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything like you're suggesting needs to be added. Mueller is running a tight ship without leaks. That is as it should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how charges against Manafort, Flynn and others would ever be considered "trivial matters". They are of fairly historic proportion. bd2412  T 01:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL I skimmed over that part. "Trivial" to have criminal convictions in a criminal investigation? Whether Mueller gets DJT or not, this investigation has borne fruit. If anything, once the investigation is concluded, any notes on the "secrecy" of the investigation will be trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you've got me backwards. What I meant was that the fact that Mueller didn't have any leaks should be emphasized, something like:
 * Like all federal prosecutors, Mueller's team cannot reveal their findings to a continuing criminal investigation, except for ongoing indictments and his final report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.


 * In the meantime, I've added the single word "ongoing" to the article's first sentence. Which may be enough. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. Still, Mueller is doing his job as he should. Is that something that we need to specifically call out? I do believe I've seen some commentary discussing the lack of leaks, so it is out there in RS's. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But the average reader may not even know who Mueller is, to say nothing about some investigation he's running. Most people won't even finish the lead and certainly won't bother tracking down sources. If you were an average reader approaching the subject for the first time, might you not get the impression that the investigation is basically concluded? Or in the very last steps of being concluded? How do we indicate to this reader (who doesn't know much about current US politics) that we are waiting for Mueller to hand down the bulk of his indictments and generate his report? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I seem to be butting in, I have limited time, so I'm not able to be here much... I do think it's fine to emphasize that the investigation is still currently ongoing, but I think it isn't necessary to say Mueller's team doesn't have leaks. As far as being an average WP reader, if I didn't know who Mueller is, then I would just click on the WP article about him and find out. Persistent Corvid (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Persistent Corvid is quite correct. Moreover, I believe we note that Director Mueller's investigation is ongoing; see the title, "2017 [to] present". If that doesn't perfectly convey the meaning that the investigation continues, well, I'm not sure what would. &mdash; Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Why are we quoting The Daily Caller as it makes a conspiracy theory synthesis of two events with no proven connection? It's not a RS and should not be used at all at Wikipedia:


 * After McClatchy reported that Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague to meet aides of Vladimir Putin in 2016, The Daily Caller, a conservative news website, quoted an unnamed Mueller spokesperson as saying, "Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.” The McClatchy report was not confirmed by another media organization.

That whole paragraph needs to go, so I'm removing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe


 * The Washington Times confirmed the statement from Mueller's office, and Business Insider confirmed it as well. IJR picked it up, as did other agencies. Daily Caller is part of the same fact-checking network relied on by Google and Facebook. Can that detritus called "Daily Kos" that you used say the same? You don't get to unilaterally decide if a source is good enough or not. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is true, why can't we find reliable sources? Also, restoration of this text was a violation of the consensus required restriction, as per the notice at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jerry, you can get blocked for restoring content challenged by deletion on this DS article, so self-revert and then stick to discussion here until there is a consensus version.
 * The Washington Times isn't the WaPost, which is considered a RS here.
 * No one is questioning the Mueller statement. It is the connection made by TDC that's improper, and where its extreme right-wing bias is showing.
 * I did not, and would not, include Daily Kos. I also deleted it. It too is too extreme for general use here, even though usually accurate. In fact, it appears that you added Daily Kos. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reporting said the Mueller spokesman gave the statement right after the McClatchy fake news came out. I didn't make that connection...the sources did. How about we just get rid of Daily Caller and Daily Kos and then just use Business Insider and Washington Times. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they are poor sources. Please find good sources. WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Mueller statement is fine, if cited from a RS like Business Insider, not the WashTimes. Many RS document the Mueller statement, so propose some wording to include and it may well find a consensus here.
 * There is no proof Muller was referring to the McClatchy report about Cohen's travels to Prague, and that was not "fake news". McClatchy is a very RS. The Daily Caller made their own unwarranted connection as part of its normal partisan attempts to discredit the dossier and Mueller investigation, and defend Trump, regardless of what he does. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although BI got the quote from WT, which got it (and "confirmed") from DC, so even using BI is dubious (the writer is formerly of Louise Mensch's Heat Street). Also, Mueller has an official spokesman, Peter Carr, and I don't see why he'd insist on being quoted on background for something like that, which makes me wonder if it's just flat-out made up. And if DC and WT just made it up, they might figure Mueller would just shrug and let it go, so they can get away with it. The whole thing just doesn't pass a sniff test. It certainly would be ironic if a single-source bogus story was fabricated to criticize a single-source legitimate story by McClatchy, but I wouldn't put it past someone like Tucker Carlson. soibangla (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it past them either. They have a history similar to Breitbart (a specialist in deception and misleadingly edited videos), Hannity, InfoWars, and Trump. Conspiracy theories and fake news is home territory for them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

soibangla, you have a point. BI is quoting WaTimes, and searching produces no other RS, so I'm questioning even this BI source. ONE source isn't enough, so let's leave it out. The whole thing reeks of a conspiracy theory picked up by only ONE RS. It's also very uncharacteristic of Mueller to issue such a statement. If it was genuine, ALL RS would report it, and they don't. THC may have concocted this attempt to damage the investigation, and especially to diss the McClatchy report. Very suspicious. McClatchy is looking even better now, but since no other sources have independently confirmed it, even though ALL other RS have reported it, we haven't done much with it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The statement doesn't mention the Michael Cohen–Prague story, so the proposed text heavily relies on The Daily Caller's commentary to draw a connection. More recently, Mueller's team has directly called out inaccuracies in some press reports, so let's not get ahead of ourselves here. FallingGravity 16:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

False media reports
I find it surprising that there are only two false media reports. This section needs some more work.--Gciriani (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to contribute false reports by reality-based media, especially ones that went uncorrected. It's interesting that the two incorrect reports cited here were reported by NYT/WaPo, and by WSJ/Bloomberg, in both cases fierce competitors rather than collaborators, meaning it's very unlikely they both created "fake news," but rather it's more likely they both used the same source who just happened to be wrong in these two instances. Naturally, none of those outlets want to point their finger at those sources in their corrections, because they will then lose those sources, who may have been very valuable until this. Instead, they'll just suck it up and take the hit for it and move on. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)