Talk:Russia investigation origins counter-narrative/Archive 1

The Theory - missing main point
In this section it is missing the point about the predication. The investigation was started based on the intelligence community assessment of the DNC servers. I think the Theory part should state the theory is that the assessments were done by a third party that could not be independently verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.201.200 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional News Citations on IG Report Added
I elevated the precise quote of the IG findings to the beginning of the section. I added citations from USA Today and NPR highlighting that the FBI process was so riddled with error that the FISA court itself is demanding explanations for how these serious errors will be prevented in the future. To simply offer the WaPO headline of "no political bias" without making reference to the serious flaws in the process uncovered by the investigation is a dangerously selective representation of the facts.JAQUINO (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference to US Attorney General's Criminal Investigation Removed
I added a documented reference to the fact that the investigation into the origins of the Russian collusion theory with respect is now a criminal investigation.

It is clear that the fact that a criminal investigation by the DOJ is relevnnt to the topic.

I will restore these edits and will seek redress if they are spuriously removed again for violation of Wikipedia policy on NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAQUINO (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article already states soibangla (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Title
After looking at the cites and sources, none of them mention "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory". In other words, none of the sources call it a "conspiracy theory". DN (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The title of the article for the very first citation reads "Susan Rice Becomes the Face of the Trump Counter-Narrative on Russia ...DN (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources for "counter-narrative"
There are a lot of ways of describing this (alternate reality, alternative facts, conspiracy theory etc). I settle don counter-narrative as it seems to me to be the most NPOV, it doesn't embody a judgment other than that it's a counter to the mainstream narrative supported by everyone other than the right wing media.

However, I have been challenged to bring sources explicitly identifying it as a counter narrative. Here are a dozen or so:
 * AG Barr is investigating a counter-narrative that a deep-state, international conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning in 2016. Does the story have any merit?
 * The House Intelligence Committee has “very little visibility” into the three Justice Department investigations into the intelligence officials who launched the Russia probe, the panel’s chairman Adam Schiff said on Wednesday. It’s a situation that has Schiff concerned, given his fears that the probes are politically motivated. “It’s an effort to amplify the counter-narrative, and to ignore what the Russians did, and what they will do in the next election,” Schiff said at a National Press Club event on Wednesday.
 * Ever since American law enforcement started investigating Russian US election interference, Trump and his supporters have run a counter-narrative: that the claims were fake news, the product of a vast network of “Deep State” operatives actively working against the Trump campaign. A key tenet of the counter-narrative is that this network was determined to frustrate Trump’s ­ambition for a robust unilateralism in US foreign policy (“America First”) - Professor Simon Jackman, Chief Executive Officer, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney. as also reported directly in The Australian
 * like so much about the pre-election period, the episode has been the subject of a counter-narrative marbled with conspiracy: that the Obama administration had dispatched the Australian official, Alexander Downer, to spy on the Trump campaign as part of a broader effort to help Clinton get elected. There is no evidence to support this, but the conspiracy has been advanced by some of the president’s allies in Congress, by some Fox News commentators and in frequent tweets by Papadopoulos. widely syndicated e.g.
 * But Trump continues to glom onto this counter-narrative about Ukraine as part of a broader effort to discredit Mueller’s Russia investigation. It’s why, for instance, Trump’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, is reportedly asking foreign leaders around the world to help him investigate various other conspiracy theories about the origins of the Mueller probe, including the notion that the Obama administration had an Australian official spy on Trump’s campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
 * The counter-narrative from the conservatives about the real scandal being on the other side, never mind what you can see plain as day when it comes to Trump, that`s back, too. Except this time, it won`t just be something shopped by the conservative media and Trump supporters and swallowed whole by the regular media.  This time, it will be amplified not just by the candidate and the campaign, this time it will be amplified by the White House.  And this time its apparent source will be the U.S. Justice Department. - Maddow (suitable for WP:ATT only, as an opinion voice)
 * This week in the Russia investigations: The "FISA abuse" counter-narrative might be running out of steam — and so, apparently, is President Trump's relationship with Attorney General Jeff Sessions"
 * And why is the attorney general now traveling all over the world investigating the origins of the Russia probe? He's trying to prove a counter-narrative. Might he be able to do so?
 * The president's personal attorneys have been working on a counter-report to rebut Mueller's findings. This counter-narrative has been in the works for months and they have continued to edit it this week. The length of the report has varied, although Mr. Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said "they are trying to make it concise."
 * Trump, however, has adopted a bizarre counter-narrative for the F.B.I. inquest. As my colleague Gabriel Sherman reported yesterday, the president has become convinced that anti-Trump forces inside the F.B.I. actually entrapped his advisers, and may have even planted evidence of Russian collusion as a sort of insurance policy if he won the election.
 * Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, said: “He’s attempting to create a counter-narrative based on conspiracy theories in which the FBI chiefly is cast as the villain of the deep state.
 * Now that Republicans have a congenial attorney general, they are using the power of the Department of Justice against itself. In addition to the two ongoing probes into the origins of the Russia case — along with the Mueller report, which goes into these questions in great depth — Barr has announced yet another "investigation into the investigation," as well as some kind of cross-agency inquiry with the CIA and the director of national intelligence. It's a wonder the Department of Justice will have time to do anything else. The effect of this isn't necessarily to put FBI officials in jail, although that's not out of the question. The point is to mainstream the counter-narrative.
 * while the Mueller investigation proceeds, and might or might not lead to any criminal indictments or the removal from office of Donald Trump, a counter-narrative has emerged. What if somebody else hacked the Democratic National Committee, not Russia, and not to benefit Mr Trump?

There are others. Guy (help!) 20:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We should not write a description that is disputed in media outlets in the title. We dont have to do that. WP:COMMONNAME applies. The description can be in the lead section or the lede paragraph.
 * I suggest "review into the origins of the Russia investigation" (origins could be origin) as it is a neutral title.
 * NBC: the title is AG Barr expands mysterious review into origin of Russia investigation
 * NYT: Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation
 * NYT: He later announced that he was reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation, and Mr. Trump said in May that he wanted Mr. Barr
 * thehill: reviewing the origins of the Russia probe are reportedly looking into the CIA's actions when John Brennan served as its director.
 * WaPo: Trump, who at times has inquired about the origins of the Russia investigation and the professor in particular
 * washingtonexaminer: Trump accuses Obama of election 'corruption' as DOJ reviews Russia investigation origins. by Daniel Chaitin. & Jerry Dunleavy.
 * WSJ: Attorney General William Barr said his review of the origins of the Russia probe is focused on intelligence-gathering before the FBI opened its
 * MSNBC: A review launched by AG Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid
 * CNN: Attorney General William Barr's review of the origins of the 2016 Russia investigation
 * CBS: Barr's investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, first reported by Bloomberg, is separate from the long-running Office of Inspector
 * There are also a lot of sources.
 * Google hits for "Review the origins of the Russia investigation" is 8,960 results
 * Google hits for "Russia investigation origins counter-narrative" is 8 results
 * --SharabSalam (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging .--SharabSalam (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The "review" title only refers to the last third of the article. The first two thirds are about the alternative narrative, which the oranges investigation is designed to prove. Guy (help!) 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , so this article is not about the review of the origins of the 2016 Russia investigation? It should be okay to create a separated article for review into origins of the Russia investigation, right?--SharabSalam (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Still this is odd. The article subject should be about the investigation or the inquire and the narrative, the whole article needs to be rewritten or this article is a WP:POVSPLIT.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The article is about the alternate narrative in the conservative media: that the FBI investigation started due to the deep state, that they lied about Democratic Party oppo research to get FISA warrants, that they spied on the Trump campaign, and that it and the Mueller investigation were part of a conspiracy to keep Trump from power and hobble him once he got it.
 * The Barr/Durham inquiry is a part of that counter-narrative: Trump is using the power of the administration to support it. That's what the sources say. Guy (help!) 18:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Barr/Durham inquiry is a part of that counter-narrative: Trump is using the power of the administration to support it. That's what the sources say. Guy (help!) 18:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "Oranges" comment in lead
A few editors, including myself, have raised concerns about the comment about investigating the "oranges" of the investigation in the lead. I'm of the view that including the phrase as it stands in the lead is creeping into UNDUE territory. Putting it into a section and removing it from the lead is what I would vote for, but this is an RfC, so we should probably gather consensus before changing anything. I think that there are 3 possible solutions here.


 * 1. Change the wording in the lead but don't remove the sentence.
 * 2. Move the comment to a section in the article but remove it from the lead.
 * 3. Leave unchanged.

What do you guys think? P.S. - Please be civil and stay on topic in the discussion. Jdcomix (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , just change the word, I don't care either way. Most of the text is edited from sections taken from the multiple articles into which this was creeping like kudzu, hence the split-out. Guy (help!) 14:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead story on Maddow, 2019-10-24
The counter-narrative (characterised as a conspiracy theory) was the A segment of the Rachel Maddow Show 24 Oct. Guy (help!) 12:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, she still has one of the best research teams around. Their policy of reading all documentation all the way to the bottom has paid off well. They are rarely wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * She is also super obsessed with Russia. I am reading Blowout at the moment. Guy (help!) 09:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the biggest and most important political scandal in American history. We have never had a president so in league with our most dangerous enemy that he treats Americans as the enemy and never criticizes Putin. The implications and consequences justify intense scrutiny, and that's what she does. His successful disruption of democratic institutions, crippling of our government, destruction of many foreign alliances, destruction of our reputation abroad, creation of divisions in our society, and creation of intense distrust of good media may all take generations to recover from. The reason Putin chose to support his candidacy proved to be prescient. The sources which provided the following allegations, now found in the Trump–Russia dossier, knew what was happening. Some were literally in Putin's office. Their prophetic words have been proven correct. Steele had excellent sources which had proven their worth for many years. Putin is a strategic genius:
 * That Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests. (Dossier, pp. 1–2)
 * That Trump was a "divisive" and "anti-Establishment" candidate, as well as "a pragmatist with whom they could do business". That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected. (Dossier, p. 29)
 * That a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country". (Dossier, pp. 28–29)
 * That the Russian government's support for Trump was originally conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then by the Federal Security Service (FSB), and was eventually directly handled by the Russian presidency because of its "growing significance over time". (Dossier, p. 29)
 * All of this planning to support Trump started in 2013, and Russians publicly expressed their support for his future candidacy back then. Since the election, Russians have frequently expressed their pride about them choosing the next American president and them putting him in power. Rachel is fully justified in her obsession over this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just found this NPR interview about her book: Rachel Maddow On How Russia's 'Resource Curse' Drove Putin To Election Interference. I'll have to read it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Blowout? It's excellent. As good as Dark Money. Guy (help!) 21:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"False"
I don't think the lede needs to call it a false counter-narrative, firstly because that's implicit in counter-narrative and secondly because it lacks nuance - the counter narrative is woven from a mix of truth and fiction. It's not a hill I want to die on but it does seem to be one of those cases where excessively emphatic writing might impact the neutrality of the article in the eyes of a fair-minded observer. Guy (help!) 09:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, bothsidesism. Because being fair-minded is letting both sides present a narrative, and just because one side has a few facts built into it, it has to be presented as potentially valid, merely a "A narrative that goes against another narrative" rather than utter fabrication! Unclear how a counter-narrative is implicitly false when it just means it goes against the prevailing story (this uses it as truth going against a false extremist narrative). These are woven so complicated – so contrived! – that it must be clear. Just because it's true Steele wrote a dossier doesn't make the narrative anything but false, which is why I opposed the name change to begin with. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, I tend to side with Reywas92 on this one. It should be stated explicitly that this is a "false" conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reywas92, I'm intrigued by your mention of the Steele dossier. What are you saying? Are you implying that it's "false", rather than mostly true, with many still unproven allegations, and none proven false? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Dude, have you checked the article history at all? Guy (help!) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that Trump, et al.'s claims that the Steele Dossier is fake, was produced illegally, or is broadly not credible is false. Steele's claims have been found true or are not publicly corroborated. Trump's claims of his campaign being spied on by Obama is false. Trump's claims that Muller's team are merely partisan Democrats is false. Can you clarify which part of the article's history you're referring to? This is what you said in the AFD and I trust that the rest of the article says so, but the lead (that many people will only read) should be explicit in this. Anyway, I don't want to fight over this either, thanks for your work expanding this since then. Reywas92Talk 23:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE (non-admin closure) --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Russia investigation origins counter-narrative → Review into the origins of the Russia investigation – The current title is only used in Wikipedia, so it is not a subject that the media has talked about and we can't collect sources and create a subject, therefore, it should be moved to another title that is commonly recognized per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:POVNAME we should represent both sides point of views in the title, RS sources say that the description "conspiracy theory" is claimed by the critics (the Guardian, "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the justice department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories")(Reuters, "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials have accused Barr, the top U.S. law enforcement official, of using the power of the Justice Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories") The title I am proposing is more commonly used in the media as I proved in the above discussion. SharabSalam (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Both siderism is not appropriate. If we change the title at all, it could be changed back to Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory because RS cover this as a conspiracy theory and cover-up. That view is obviously going to be held by the fact-based group (in this case the Democrats), and our content must be fact-based. The view pushed by those involved in the cover-up and by unreliable sources only gets its tiny bit of due weight here. Their deserved due weight is much less weight than the mainstream view found in RS, IOW we mention and document the fringe conspiracy theory view, but the view that debunks it gets much greater weight. That's how "due weight" works here. Wikipedia scale of justice3.jpg -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No: I agree with, the change makes the title less descriptive, and even part of 's argument aligns with BullRangifer's. X1\ (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The subject is wider: both the review and the conspiracy theories on which it is based. Guy (help!) 07:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update per refs ?
Attorney General William Barr's handpicked prosecutor John Durham told the DoJ IG Michael Horowitz that he found no evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies had planted spies in the Trump campaign, including no evidence to support the allegation Joseph Mifsud was a spy planted by the FBI or U.S. intelligence agencies. Horowitz's report concluded that the FBI had adequate cause to launch its Russia investigation. X1\ (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Barr's handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can't back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup December 5 WaPo
 * https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/politics/william-barr-russia-conspiracy-theory-inspector-general/index.html
 * https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473107-report-barr-attorney-cant-provide-evidence-trump-was-set-up-by-doj


 * It's really important to allow the glaring bias of articles like this to remain glaring. When you correct and update the information, you help create the impression that Wikipedia is in any way fair to conservatives. 76.168.10.186 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that's why Conservapedia was created. Now there's an unbiased wiki, because they use their own articles as references. soibangla (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"The theory" ?
Someone should make a quick review of the difference between 'Theory' and 'hypothesis'. Overall the 'The theory' section contains a number of public statements made by different people that containing allegations that are unsubstantiated or even attempted to provided evidence for. Later summarized by one analyst who called it a 'theory', though media narrative (per title) would fit better. --5.102.238.15 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Muddled wording to fix
Circulair tried to fix some muddled wording (which got reverted), and wrote this edit summary: "this is factually incorrect...according to multiple RS there was a clean break between the GOP funded investigation (which was standard opposition research) and the DNC/Clinton funded investigation which produced the dossier. only the second investigation produced the dossier so there needs to be a distinction made."

I can understand their concern. Can we improve that wording so everyone is happy? We handle it much better in the Steele dossier article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , can we start with a section copied form there and trimmed down for brevity? Guy (help!) 09:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We go into much more detail there, as that's the mother article. Here the dispute is over this wording ("took over a Republican investigation of Trump after Republican sources stopped their funding"), which is not an accusation in the conspiracy theory, and thus is a bit off-topic (it is an explanation of the history). That's why I think Circulair's concerns are legitimate. The reversion did not address their concerns.
 * Part of the problem is that we mash a bunch of false and/or misleading accusations in the theory together, with occasional debunking thrown into the mix. We should separate each part out and debunk it, but that's a bigger job I'm not going to tackle right now.
 * This can be streamlined, so let's start by looking at the two versions and go from there:
 * Here is the original version:
 * "the accusation that it was fraudulent, was paid for by the Democratic Party (the DNC and Clinton campaign took over a Republican investigation of Trump after Republican sources stopped their funding),"
 * Here is Circulair's version, which was reverted:
 * "the accusation that it was fraudulent, was paid for by the Democratic Party (however both the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the opposition research which produced the dossier),"
 * I have stricken out the part that is not part of the theory's accusations. Both versions contained too much. Keeping it short and sweet (for now) solves the problem.
 * This section states: "Core elements of the theory include:" To improve the content, we should then separate out each individual accusation and explain/debunk it. As it is, we do it incompletely, squish it all together, and that's not good.
 * By listing false or misleading accusations without debunking or explaining each element, we violate a core principle here, and that is we are not supposed to give undue weight to falsehoods by letting them stand alone. They should always be accompanied with what mainstream RS say about them.
 * So, can we agree on the shorter version for now, and then gradually work on reformatting that section? It should be much longer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , seems fair to me Guy (help!) 17:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, here is the section from the Steele dossier article:

Most of the elements in that content should be included here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No neutrality
Given that the article refers to allegations being investigated by the department of justice (no less) as a "false counter-narrative" (!) it can have very little credibility to a neutral reader and will simply detract from wikipedia's authority as a politically unbiased source. The article is amateurish in several other respects. I would recommend deleting it in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D500:1700:40D2:3D2E:DA8:189F (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% agree that nothing about the Durham investigation should be listed under "false" or "counter-narrative" or "conspiracy theory". It is an official DOJ investigation and has no less legitimacy than other investigations, such as Mueller's. We wouldn't identify the Watergate investigation as a "counter-narrative" (or "narrative"). In that vein, to present obviously disparate elements as part of a cohesive "counter-narrative" is very odd—we certainly wouldn't title the Mueller and Horowitz investigations as "Russia investigation origins narrative". Agree that this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Tambourine60 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those words about Durham's investigation are cited to their sources and are a blip on the page. The rest is descriptive. The main theme is also based on RS. The trigger for the Russia investigation is established, but there are several false counter-narratives floating around. If they are ever proven true and reported by RS, we will alter the article accordingly. Until then, we call them "false" because RS say so.
 * BTW who is this "neutral reader" mentioned above? I have never met such a human being, either reader or editor. We really don't care. We just document what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You should care, if you take yourselves seriously as an information source. A neutral reader, by the way, is someone who is looking to be informed but has not formed a prior opinion. I imagine a lot of people who come to wikipedia fit that description (or else what's the point of it?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.2.79.124 (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted blatantly false statements about steele dossier / DNC
Article claimed that Steele Dossier was not central to the investigation, and that it wasn't funded by the DNC. Both claims are false. The first claim is proven false by the IG Horowitz testimony in whic he said "The Steele Reporting Played A Central and Essential Role” In FISA Warrants. The second claim has been acknowledged as true by Clinton/DNC and a cursory google supports it

Update: on further investigation, the majority of the article is out of date. It's filled with linked from as early as 2018 and as late as October last year. We've learned that many of these claims are actually true since then, so for objectivity feel it's necessary to place the `` tag until such time as article is caught up to the current month.

-- Urthogie (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, please do not restore false claims sans discussion. Thanks -- Urthogie (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * RS are clear that the Steele Dossier did not set off the Russian interference investigation Your own original research does not justify your removals of RS content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not my original research, to quote the Inspector General Report linked below:

Source: IG PDF https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf

Additionally, here is Horowitz testifying that DNC/Hillary Campaign paid for Steele Dossier. Source: IG testimony on CSPAN https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4839130/user-clip-horowitz-tesities-dossier-paid-dnc-hillary-campaign. Hell, even the main Wiki article agrees and cites it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

So it's not original research. Previous source was out of date, which explains the assertion being opposite from IG above. -- Urthogie (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're cobbling together random statements from a primary source that you personally feel contradict actual RS reporting. On Wikipedia, we use reliable sources, not random editors' own analyses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it better to cobble together random statements from secondary sources that you personally feel represent the world correctly, even when they are at odds with the latest information from primary sources? I find that to be a strange standard.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.2.79.124 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "cobbling", I am directly quoting a primary source. In fact, it's on Page vi of the IG Report, in the first section labeled, "Executive Summary" under its own bullet point.

IG Report - https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf CSpan - https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4839130/user-clip-horowitz-tesities-dossier-paid-dnc-hillary-campaign

Are you going to explain how Vox.com (secondary source) from March 2019 https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277089/fox-news-steele-dossier-lie-trump-witch-hunt is a better source than the Inspector General report investigating the Russian investigation? Or how "cobbling", involves simply quoting the Executive Summary or linking to CSPAN of the testimony? -- Urthogie (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is FactCheck.Org about that IG report: "Several Republicans, including the president, have claimed that the FBI’s investigation — called Crossfire Hurricane — was “based on,” “started” by or “precipitated by” a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Steele. But the IG report said it “determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”" Now, stop wasting my time, and stop adding your own ill-informed original research to articles. There is a reason why Wikipedia has WP:NOR as a core policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald reporting what anyone can read in the IG report itself. "Over and over, the IG Report makes clear that, contrary to these denials, the Steele Dossier was indeed crucial to the Page eavesdropping warrant. “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order,” the IG Report explained. A central and essential role." 2601:204:D500:1700:703C:1DDE:7272:149 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

1. I agree that IG Horowitz report said there was no role in the opening of the investigation. The investigations vs the FISA warrants is an important clarification. So article should clarify that it was central and essential in the FISA warrants, according to IG. Which you can look to the above IG Quote for.

2. The article continues to possess the false claim that Steele Dossier was not Democratic Party funded. Even Wiki's own article on Steele Dossier contradicts this, with sources. Do you have a secondary source you want to claim is stronger than the IG report on this one, or can we go ahead and remove the claim? -- Urthogie (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

this is clearly written from a liberal perspective
this is clearly written from a liberal perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:4100:350:C986:DF53:1E6F:677D (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe this article is allowed to stand as is. This is not a 'counter-narrative'. The Durham investigation is PROVING certain assertions made by Trump and supporters. I will watch this with interest to see if the truth is ever published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1607:1800:F561:FE9F:35F9:3F72 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Bald faced lie in the opening paragraph about National Review and The Federalist
The opening paragraph has the following sentence: "The counter-narrative, promoted via conservative outlets such as National Review and The Federalist,[16] serves to erode interest among conservatives in the accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.[1]" I have no idea who wrote it. It doesn't matter. But what does matter is that it is bald-faced lie that is not supported by any reliable source. The reliable source provided does not say anything close to what the sentence says. I properly removed it for violating Reliable Sources. An editor put it back in without providing a Reliable Source. The editor merely stated some along the lines of take it to talk. Well, I have taken it to talk and there still isn't a reliable source to support the falsehood. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough to know that violating BRD is edit warring, and that is NEVER allowed, no matter how right you may be, and especially when my edit summary clearly stated what to do. Please self-revert and continue the discussion here, because so far it's only your opinion and interpretation. Let's examine the issue, and if a consensus forms behind your view, then the content can be restored. -- Valjean (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The title of this section alone, is poisoning the well. The lead for this article even has all the citations linked in it, which would be unusual were it not for the occasional reactionary or zealot that wanders aimlessly through WP with a fragile sensibility. DN (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: William Barr's October 9, 2020 announcement about the release of the Durham probe. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ You have not provided a WP:RS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no announcement. There was this, but let's wait and see. Anything could happen at this point. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Durham inquiry
This section is way too long, and quite unencyclopedic. As Wikipedia:Writing better articles says Wikipedia articles should not end up being a series of disjointed comments about a subject, but unified, seamless, and ever-expanding expositions of the subject. Should this be a separate article with only a summary here? --Bejnar (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Durham investigation section revisions in light of passage of time
This section has a lot of text that reflects periodic updates through 2020, but the collective tone is one that leaves a lot of information now out-of-date or outdated by subsequent developments (including tenses but also reportings from RS about potential outcomes prior to now-past events, such as the election). I will make several edits in here that are intended to make this more concise, reflect the movement of time, and tone down the use of passive voice (which removes agency and clouds the narrative). I'm also reviewing the RS references to see if the original assertions actually match what the RS states.Neptune1969 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Update--I did a careful dive into several of the sources to confirm statements, and found several unsupportable references. For example, in the statement about the Ratcliffe-Graham communications, I found that while there were objections from intelligence community officials referenced in the sourced AP article, the AP article contained nothing about references to totalitarian regimes. I also omitted text and references that related to the run-up to the election, including the articles suggesting Trump was demanding a release of the Durham report or interim findings before the election. Clearly Durham did not, as we've passed the election and it was not done. Please let me know if any edits seemed to be too great.Neptune1969 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update further--I revised the beginning of the Durham investigation section to reflect the additional information published in a book about Durham having been conducting an investigation from 2017. The FT piece did not seem to substantiate the claim about international opinion, which (given that this is an internal US affair) did not seem to be germane to this article. I added the reference to Alperovich, co-founder of Crowdstrike, as it seemed that this was the reference (I was curious to lock down this assertion).Neptune1969 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some edits might be dealing with too many changes at the same time. this edit left me puzzled. I could be wrong, so we can discuss it, but it seems like you left out the mention of Barr's participation in the conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal when you deleted that wikilink. That's important, as he has been a prime mover in pushing these false ideas and trying to find/manufacture "evidence" to back them up. These efforts have largely failed.

The rearrangement in that paragraph also put later material earlier ("this reportedly upset"), thus separating it from its WSJ sourcing.

At the end of that paragraph, mention of a conspiracy theory which he believed, one which was circulating in conservative media, was deleted. Keep in mind that Barr is a Trump loyalist who has misused the DOJ to further these conspiracy theories. That he has come up empty is a fact that comes later in history, but the earlier history, that he was an active participant in pushing these false ideas as if they were fact, is part of the history we document. Leaving that out can be seen as historical revisionism and whitewashing of Barr's role.

"so that Trump could use information gathered from it in his reelection campaign." was also deleted and replaced with "before the election", thus watering down Trump's intent.

This phrase ("In October, Trump ordered the declassification") was what was left after the setting was deleted in its entirety (it was reported that there would probably be no report and no further indictments before the November election, angering Trump.), including the source.

"and noted its resemblance to the behavior of authoritarian regimes." was deleted. Why? We report what RS say.

All that covers just one of your edits. The others should be checked. It would be much simpler if you made small edits and saved them.

Like I said, I might be wrong. I might have misunderstood these changes, but that's what I'm seeing. What do others think? -- Valjean (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect your concerns on these changes. I carefully reread the edit again to be sure I did not inadvertently mislead the reader or disrupt the citation, and the information provided in both the Wall Street Journal and the Vox articles are consistent with the new language that is more concise. With regard to the "so that Trump could use information…" section, that information was not found in the referenced Washington Post article. If we have a RS that clarifies that motivation, we can add it. As I indicated, I'm being very careful to add things that are contained in the citations, or remove language that is not, in fact, substantiated by the specific RS. Thus the reference to authoritarian regimes does not appear in the body of the cited articles. The 'authoritarian' reference itself is from the headline of the Sanger piece, and reporters do not control the title--that's editorial discretion, and so we cannot rely upon the headline alone to make a content addition here. I take your larger point and will try to make shorter edits.Neptune1969 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Article title
Per WP:TITLE "The title indicates what the article is about...". This one doesn't. Not remotely. It looks like something generated by AI, after being fed random article headlines from the U.S. media, fed through machine translation into Icelandic and back into English. If this is a legitimate article for an encyclopaedia, it should be possible for readers to figure out what the topic is supposed to be without reading it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This title as it stands is a bit of titlegore. Per wp:TITLE, titles should immediately indicate what the article is about and (distinguish) it from other articles. Right now this title does neither. The term "Russia Investigation" is not defined until the 2nd sentence in the lede informs the reader that it relates to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation and subsequent Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This should be made clear in the title - perhaps as "Counter-narrative of the origin of the United States investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 elections (etc)". I realize that this is a bit wordy, but as it stands, this title is pretty much useless (not to mention united-states centric). BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 02:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you have any suggestions on what the title should be? I plan on boldy moving this page sometime in the future if nobody addresses these issues.. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 02:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is better, in that it at least indicates the context. Having looked at the article further though, I'm far from convinced it belongs on Wikipedia at all, at least in its present state. Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles on the subject of 'Why politician X is wrong about Y', which seems to be the way this article is actually constructed. It looks too much like an editorial, or an essay, to me. And while I happen to agree with the conclusions of said essay, I don't think an encyclopaedia (or something claiming to be one) should be hosting it. 'Counter-narratives', if they are of any significance, should surely be discussed alongside the 'narratives' they are countering, rather than separated out and argued against independently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - as written this article has some serious wikivoice defects. However, I'm not in the mood to dig through them on a sunday evening, and thought I'd go after the low hanging fruit first! BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 04:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Clinesmith and Sussman
there have been 2 arrests so far. and 1 conviction, that validate the claims made that this investigation was tainted with fraudulent evidence. There is no way you can allow this to be called a conapitacy theory in the article description any longer. Jaygo113 (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/08/19/former-fbi-attorney-pleads-guilty-durham-398605 Jaygo113 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to discuss this further here before making dramatic changes and using OR from primary sources and misleading edit summaries. soibangla (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, this article is about the origins of the FBI investigation, not about subsequent events, which are covered in other articles. soibangla (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * soibangla, for that reason, what parts of this article deserve to be shortened or cut? -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole premise of Durham's investigation is that the opening of Crossfire Hurricane was improper and a deep state plot to keep Trump from being elected. Because they were not involved in the opening of CH, I think Clinesmith and Sussmann should get only passing mention here, if anything. During an investigation, a special prosecutor can indict for any crime he happens to serendipitously encounter, even it is not relevant to his charter. So we might say "through September 2021, Durham had indicted two men on charges unrelated to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane" and leave it at that. soibangla (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These two indictments amount to a very small blip in this story, and are widely regarded as more evidence of the weakness of Trump's version of events (this conspiracy theory), and how it remains false. This is a huge disappointment to the Trump camp, which had hoped that there would be many arrests (as happened to them) and lots of support for the claims (falsehoods) repeated by Trump. Instead Trump's falsehoods are still false. RS have described the Durham investigation as a cover-up of Trump's misdeeds. Durham has seemingly not gone down that path, but has done a fairly honest job, even if it was a huge waste of time and resources.
 * Clinesmith and Sussmann likely do deserve some form of punishment. Clinesmith's punishment was very lenient, likely because he had no intent to deceive, but fixed what he correctly saw as the wrong use of the term "source" (it has different meanings). Carter Page had held himself out as an activated CIA asset/source, when he was nothing of the kind (he was merely a passive sub-source), and Clinesmith actually corrected that false impression, but he did it in an improper/unauthorized manner and was rightly punished for doing so. Sussmann's errors might actually be more egregious because he may have wasted the FBI's time. Time will tell. -- Valjean (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Durham Investigation
I think its time to spin this section off as a new article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is misplaced here and deserves its own article. This has been a problem for a long time. When merged together with the substantial content about this subject found at John Durham, a nice article can be made at Durham Special counsel investigation.
 * Pinging some recent commenters: User:Soibangla, User:AndyTheGrump, User:BrxBrx. -- Valjean (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No reactions yet, so pinging some who have edited the article: User:Muboshgu, User:Codyave, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, User:Aquillion
 * If we can make a decision here, we can save the time of a whole RfC, as there is clearly no reason to have the Durham investigation stuff here. -- Valjean (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd certainly be supportive of this split. The article remains a bit of a mess unfortunately, and it's very difficult to understand what the ultimate message is. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 09:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * BrxBrx, I still believe that splitting will remove some of the confusion and make it easier to deal with what's left. The message of this article is that TFG and company have created a number of false narratives and conspiracy theories about the Russia investigations and their roles in the Russian interference. They are false counter-narratives that serve as a cover-up and are collected here under the current title, although other titles could be used (but let's leave that for another time). A split has no relation to that matter and should not meet any objections based on that subject.
 * The Durham investigation simply has no place here. It deserves its own article, just like we have for the Mueller report, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be split into new article and blurbed/referenced here. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there even a Russian investigation origins counter narrative without the Durham Investigation? Without it the article just reads as rambling assortment of various statements by Trump and his supporters. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, blurb/reference it here, but the topic has now become big enough for an article. Durham was appointed long after this counternarrative arose. soibangla (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. They will no doubt intersect on some points and thus be worth mentioning here, but the Durham investigation has a legitimate life of its own without any of the disinformation and conspiracy theories pushed by TFG about the originas of the Russia investigation. That Barr seemed to appoint Durham for the purpose of chasing baseless conspiracy theories (which is why the Durham investigation has been described as a conspiracy theory) asserting that TFG was the victim of unjustified investigations is one thing, but that does not detract from the fact that Durham has pursued the investigation in a generally professional manner and uncovered things that needed to be uncovered (such as Sussmann and Danchenko). So this article is about the junk and lies, and the Durham investigation is something else and deserves an article of its own. -- Valjean (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The two halves of this article are basically flip sides of each other: So they do touch on each other and will necessarily link to each other. -- Valjean (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Facts: Durham leads the DOJ probe into the origins of the FBI investigation into Russian interference. (2nd half of this article)
 * 2) Lies: Trump and company refuse to accept the results of that investigation and instead push many lies and conspiracy theories contrary to the findings of several investigations which touch on that topic. (1st half....)
 * I'd rather consider tightening the narrative and moving the article to "Durham investigation" or something similar. That's where the counter-narrative appears to have led, and Barr made sure that it would be continued by the DoJ even after a Trump election loss. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Huber investigation
This widening of Durham's purview built upon a probe launched by U.S. Attorney John W. Huber, who was appointed in 2018 by Jeff Sessions and was separate from the Department of Justice's Inspector General investigation into the FISA warrants. The sentence is not supported by its cite and, AFAIK, it isn't true. Huber was tasked with looking into the FBI allegedly "not fully pursu[ing] cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One." He found nothing worth pursuing and quietly shut down the investigation. Durham was tasked with "explor[ing] the origins of the FBI’s 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia" (same WaPo source). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct, yet Durham looked at the Clinton Foundation anyway, months after Huber was done. soibangla (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They seem to have done that independently of Huber's investigation, 'though, because the NYT doesn't mention Huber, and they haven't reported finding anything so far. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)