Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 17

Oh, no bias here!
“Special counsel investigation"

"In May 2017, the FBI investigation into Russian interference was overtaken by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. According to Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman Mark Warner (D-VA), the dossier's allegations are being investigated by a Special Counsel led by Robert Mueller, which, since May 2017, has been investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections.[260] In the summer of 2017, Mueller's team of investigators met with Steele.[181] As some leads stemming from the dossier have already been followed and confirmed by the FBI, legal experts have stated that Special Counsel investigators, headed by Robert Mueller, are obligated to follow any leads the dossier has presented them with, irrespective of what parties financed it in its various stages of development, or '[t]hey would be derelict in their duty if they didn't.'”

The main impetus of this article seems to be challenging the Trump camp’s assertion that the Steele Dossier instigated the Russian election-meddling probe with the seemingly small matter of whether or not the allegations in the dossier are actually true is treated almost as peripheral to the article. So now the Mueller Report is in and the AG has stated that the investigation has found no case for collusion which ipso facto would seem to discredit the dossier as found by the very special counsel that the president’s political enemies demanded be named. (Or if Mueller is not accepted as authoritative, does this article descend into a conspiracy theory article?) I, for one, am satisfied with Barr’s summary of the report on that point for the simple reason that he knows that Mueller and his staff are well aware what they wrote and would, of course, challenge such a summary if they found it untrue or even misleading. Nevertheless, for those not satisfied, the release of the Mueller Report (with redactions as mandated by law, such as grand jury testimony) is due out tomorrow, Thursday, April 18, 2019. If the actual report bears out Barr’s summary regarding collusion, is the tenor of this article going to be radically edited to reflect that the main impetus of the article is supposed to be about the Steele Dossier itself and its veracity as opposed to the Russian election-meddling investigation and what instigated it (which one would think would be the peripheral aspect of the article)?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what "bias" are you alleging in there? I see a paragraph that is out of date because we haven't yet gotten the Mueller Report. As for the dossier, much of it has been verified. Other parts have not been. Nothing, that I'm aware of, has been discredited from the dossier. See Business Insider and CNN. You, for one, may be satisfied with Barr's summary, but House Democrats are not. Tomorrow's release of the report, if it does happen, may change the way we view certain things. But, the nature of the redactions will be important. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article makes a very strong case that the Steele Dossier did not instigate the Russian election-meddling investigation. I don’t say no to that. I am simply saying that way too much emphasis is placed on the president’s and his supporters’ false claim to the contrary.  By going on and on about it (though certainly it should be noted), it seems apparent to me that anti-Trump editors are trying to salvage a victory out of the jaws of the defeat of the Mueller Report regarding a point that, while certainly notable, is irrelevant to the point at hand:  i.e., the veracity of the dossier, the document that this article is purportedly about.  Regardless of which aspects of the dossier that you and others might maintain have been verified, it is now apparent that these points of purported accuracy did not constitute collusion.  By the way, although it does seem that the Steele Dossier did not instigate the probe, it is still debatable as to its importance in getting the FISA warrant.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that the page has evolved as it has because of the POV-pushing attempts to suggest that the Steele dossier was the source of the Special Counsel investigation. Those right-wing talking points made their way here, and we as editors may have overcorrected as a result. Please assume good faith, we are not all "anti-Trump editors". The false claims were (and are) a response to the dossier, and therefore relevant. But perhaps there is too much of it, and some of the pro-Trump false claims should be trimmed. Do you have specific suggestions? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Under: Investigations using or referencing the dossier/'The FBI's Russia investigation/Origins did not involve dossier, I would suggest that the last subheading be changed to simply “Origins” and then the subsection be greatly truncated to something like: Despite President Trump’s, his political allies' and conservative media commentators' repeated assertions that the Russia investigation was instigated by the dossier, there is ample evidence that the investigation originated before the existence of the dossier became known. Then add several or all of the citations used for both points and allow any interested to read them as they please.  This will shorten an overly-long article in the process.


 * I know I’m probably in the minority here and rest assured I shall not change a thing even if I could. I’m simply saying it seems biased to so emphasize the cobweb in the corner instead of the mess in the middle of the room.  It does not matter what the president and his camp allege about the importance of the dossier in starting the investigation in the first place.  What should matter is the origins of the dossier and its veracity.  Thank you for your time which is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it is important to wait and eventually see what is actually in the Meuller Report since Barr Has a History of Writing Summaries That Obscure the Truth. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point though. The article may very well include some over-correction. as mentioned by Muboshgu. I fear it takes quite some time for the dust to settle in a low gravity environment. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Rush Limbaugh, the dossier is “fake” as found by the Mueller investigation.  No, I’m not suggesting using him as a reliable source.  I’ve only had time to read a few pages of the report thus far.  Can anyone confirm what Limbaugh is talking about regardless if the terminology isn’t the same ("fake"), which is probable even if he is right in his assessment of the dossier's characterization by Mueller?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we should wait for RS to make any conclusions, but on some of the initial reports I'm seeing, the Meuller report doesn't contradict the Russia dossier. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Limbaugh is not a RS, except for his own opinions, and even then, I wouldn't trust him. He is not a RS, and we don't use him on any other pages than his own biography here. Trump is his good friend, and they both label the dossier and Russia investigations as fake, a witch hunt, etc. There is no evidence that they are fake. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Mueller Report
I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 (bleep) 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a primary source, but it cites many secondary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The pee tape
The infamous pee tape got a mention in Mueller's report - see the Slate article here. According to that article, a Russian businessman communicating with Michael Cohen was told "the tapes were fake." I'm not sure how this should be added to the article, but it seems to be the first time I've seen any sort of mention of it from RS in formal investigations. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is indeed interesting. We can't quote directly from the Mueller Report, as that would be OR, but we can quote it when it's quoted in independent RS, such as Slate. (That's the exact process we use in this article to quote from the Dossier. There are many parts we can't quote because RS have ignored them.)
 * Here's the relevant part:


 * My interpretation (feel free to provide your own parsing): So there are tapes of a compromising nature, the flow of which was stopped, but we don't know if they were the "pee tapes". All we know is that Rtskhiladze was "told the tapes were fake". Were they deep fakes?
 * This doesn't confirm or deny their existence, but does back up the Dossier's allegations that the Russians have kompromat of Trump. Here's what we have:


 * This mentions Crocus Group, which is Aras Agalarov. The Dossier, speaking of sexual kompromat (that Trump had participated in sex parties in the city) from St. Petersburg, says "Araz AGALAROV will know the details." This is unsurprising as such parties are invitation only. Someone had to invite Trump, so they knew about it. The Russian government and oligarchs keep kompromat which they can use whenever they feel the need to do so. Trump and Agalarov have been friends for a long time, and Aras likely knows everything Trump has ever done in Russia, and probably even arranged things for Trump. For example, the offer of the prostitutes came from someone with Emin Agalarov.
 * I'm not sure how we can include this from the Mueller Report. Can you propose a way to do it? It's definitely on-topic and should be included. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in the Nytimes, for example, and about all we can say is what is reported and that the report does not establish whether they are fake or not beyond what Rtskhiladze claims he was told.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't we conclude from this that Reliable Sources are not actually reliable, and this entire article is based on smoke and mirrors, making Wikipedia itself unreliable? Shtove (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Shtove, the short answer is No, it's not that simple. We never claim that RS are always reliable, and Wikipedia is self-correcting, based on what's found in RS, which are infinitely more reliable than unreliable sources. Do unreliable sources occasionally get it right when RS get it wrong? Of course, but it's such an exceptional situation that even you, if you were betting money, would consistently bet on the RS than on the unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By Paul Gregory on The Hill:


 * https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/435872-mueller-confirms-the-steele-dossier-belongs-in-the-dustbin-of-history


 * “Robert Mueller’s no collusion” finding destroys the dossier’s multiple charges of a deep Trump-Russia conspiracy, shows that the dossier should not have been used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants (if that is the case) and may go down as one of the most elaborate hoaxes in history.


 * "Much of the attempted verification of the dossier focused on pinning down details, such as travel dates of Trump campaign associates, stamps in passports and whether parties to purported meetings could have been present. Such verifiable details are rare and do not yield useful results.


 * "In fact, the dossier seems unverifiable, and efforts to do so are in vain. As long as Steele refuses to name his sources, there is no way to test the dossier’s credibility.”


 * This analysis hits the proverbial nail on the head. There is no way to verify the veracity of the Steele Dossier without Steele naming sources which he has heretofore refused to do.  Therefore, it must be noted firmly in the article that not only are the allegations unverified, that in the presence of Mueller’s finding of no collusion they are suspect in the extreme; not to mention the dossier's funding sources.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , what do you mean by, "We can't quote directly from the Mueller Report, as that would be OR...?" Even if the Mueller Report is a primary source for this purpose, which it's not, use of primary sources is expressly permitted by WP:OR. We just can't base large passages on primary sources. R2 (bleep) 18:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a bit awkwardly worded. Sorry about that. WP:OR forbids us from independently (from RS) searching the Mueller Report, the Dossier, court documents, other primary sources, etc., for any content we think should be used here. It is not in our remit to determine the notability of content for inclusion in existing articles here. RS do that for us, and then we certainly can cite the (parts of) primary sources when RS have done so. (I am not speaking about the "notability" criteria used to judge whether a topic is worthy for creating an article here.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:OR says, but I get your point. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller confirms Cohen never traveled to Prague
From the Mueller report - "Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false." This seems to be about as much verification as will be possible that Cohen was never in Prague. This should probably be added to the Cohen section, with proper attribution to the Mueller report. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , if so (I still haven't read the report nor have I seen that in any reliable sources), I think that would make this officially the first allegation from the dossier to be discredited. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can read it directly in the report. I found a searchable copy on the NYT website - here, where you can ctrl + f for "Prague." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for providing that. I know that I can, I just haven't yet (busy enough IRL to not click it, but not too busy to post here). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here's a reliable secondary source from McClatchy with some additional details. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm...I already did this an hour and a half before this section was started. Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While this is my own OR interpretation/parsing (because what's written in the Mueller Report on this point is provably false), I think it would have been better for Mueller to write: "Because Cohen had never not traveled to Prague in 2016, he was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false."
 * The Mueller Report's statement, taken without this understanding, is provably wrong. Cohen has admitted to having visited Prague. Here's what we have in the article about this: "Cohen has maintained that he has never in his life traveled to Prague, but Mother Jones reported that he privately admitted "I was in Prague for one afternoon 14 years ago."[136]" Not all statements in RS can be taken at face value and without using common sense, even the Mueller Report. That common sense must be informed by other RS. This sometimes means we are forced to not include something found in a RS, unless other RS have debunked it, and then we may include both the inaccurate RS and allow the other RS to correct it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry Bull, I had missed that on initial perusal. Great work! Mr Ernie (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mr Ernie. My thinking when I included that documentation of what the Mueller report said was rather conflicted. I had to (1) take into account my concerns above (while not actually including any type of OR or SYNTH violation), and (2) not quote directly from the Mueller Report, which is currently viewed as a primary source. I ended up choosing McClatchy's correction, which is not only a secondary source, but (hee hee!) a major source which dealt with this particular accusation.
 * It would also be possible to quote another secondary RS which quotes the conflicted portion of the Mueller Report, but then we'd have a partially false statement which would likely create confusion in readers' minds. When possible, I like to avoid that type of situation.
 * By doing it this way we recognize that the Mueller Report does mention this Prague/Cohen matter, while avoiding the inclusion of a muddied statement that's not totally accurate. I hope that was a good solution. (Editing here can sometimes be frustrating and complicated!) Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead too long
I think the last paragraph of the lead is non-neutral and should be deleted. It reads like a series of unrelated statements that are put together to boost the credibility of the dossier. We shouldn't do that. In addition, it doesn't seem consistent with recent reliable sources. I'm thinking specifically of the recent NY Times piece, which says FBI agents have had misgivings about the report since shortly after its publication, that by summer 2017 the FBI had investigated the report but still could not vouch for much of it, and that intelligence experts have been chattering that Russian informants had fed Steele disinformation. R2 (bleep) 21:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph also includes too much detail for a lead section. Every sentence could be simplified or removed outright. R2 (bleep) 16:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to make a case for each deletion. Please stop with the deletions, and start to actually suggest removals here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I included an explanatory edit summary with every change. What happened to WP:BOLD? Are you opposed to any of my changes or my general statements here, and if so, why? R2 (bleep) 16:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that you have made so many in such a short space of time you have broken bold, as they cannot in fact be reverted. There are a ton of edits to wade through, many far more then just shortening the text. Moreover many of your edits are not even to the lede. At one point I tried to revert one of your edits, but your rapid deletions out paced my ability to revert.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My edits outside of the lead were just rescuing refs. No substantive changes. Yes, I did delete some sentences outright. I explained them here and in the edit summaries. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! This will take a long time to sort out some very controversial deletions, which is why on DS articles like this one, being TOO bold (repetitively at that) can be a bad thing. Better to do simple edits, and then, before making the edits, discuss any that might be controversial and reach a consensus on those. I don't have time now to deal with this. BTW, I'm all for simplification, and some of those edits were good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well no one was responding to my comments about the new NY Times article. I wanted to include something from it, but before I could I felt I needed to do some cleanup. That's why I started this discussion. No response after about 18 hours, so I went ahead. I'm always happy to collaborate. If you guys would like to further discuss my conduct I suggest we do so on my user talk. R2 (bleep) 17:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Content from the new NY Times article had already been included. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but not the content I referred to in the preceding discussion. R2 (bleep) 21:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

New WaPo source
Great new source:



R2 (bleep) 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A new source for what?Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Some interesting passages there - the ones that stand out to me are: RS stating the Dossier "consists largely of rumors and gossip," the Dossier's claim of "conspiracy" between the Trump campaign and Russians was not supported by Mueller, and the Mueller Report disproving the Dossier claim that Page was an intermediary and finding no evidence he met with an higher up at Rosneft. For a long time now, the information in the Dossier, even though reported without much evidence, has been taken as truth, with the onus on those wishing to disprove the claims, instead of on those stating they were true. I think we have a few more claims we can update as unsubstantiated or no evidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Disprove"? Failure to confirm something does not "disprove" anything. Also, Page testified under oath, after lying about it, that he did meet with higher ups at Rosneft. BTW, claims have not been "taken as truth", but many as possibly, likely, or proven to be true, with some held at arm's length as possibly false. The pee tape allegation, for example, was considered by Steele to have only a 50% likelihood of being true, while Comey was at first a disbeliever until he talked to Trump, which changed his mind to admitting it could very well be true.
 * Now the Mueller Report confirms that there were sexually compromising tapes, the "flow" of which was stopped by a Ukrainian Georgian businessman who was texting with Cohen, who, as Trump's fixer, would be taking care of such things. Cohen discussed this with Trump before anyone publicly knew about the tapes' existence, so when Comey briefed Trump about it in January 2017, Trump already knew about the existence of such tapes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know any source that says any of that. Most importantly, no reliable source says the Mueller Report confirmed (or refuted) that there were sexually compromising tapes. Rather than discussing what the Mueller Report says, this thread is dedicated to what the Kessler source says. R2 (bleep) 19:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can see the sources and the footnote from the Mueller Report on my talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidently Mr Ernie is correct with regard to the WP source, which furthermore, agrees with what the NYT printed a couple of days ago. Yet there seems to be a reluctance to include these straight conclusions from the NYT and from the WP.  Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to get more specific about what bits we want to use from the source, and how we want to use them. I am personally not interested in drafting content based on this source, but have no doubt that the source is reliable and I will support proposed content that complies with the usual community standards. R2 (bleep) 17:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

New NYT story
I'm no dossier expert but this story appears to break significant new ground. It goes at some length into the lengths the FBI went to investigate the dossier's allegations and their inability to verify most of it. There's speculation that parts of the dossier came from disinformation planted by the Russians. R2 (bleep) 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dang! I hit their paywall. Would you please copy short (therefore "fair use") parts that might be relevant? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear your cookies and try again. R2 (bleep) 22:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That worked this time. The article is surprisingly thin, with not much that we didn't already know. I did find one quote worth using in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was disappointed too, not much content to backup the initial claims made in the article.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The FBI’s efforts to substantiate the claims, and their failure to find much, seem highly significant and worthy of inclusion. R2 (bleep) 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see much meat in the article soibangla (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to find a way to respond to 's addition and incorporate the new story. ZCodeNoob's approach isn't neutral, but I don't think it would be appropriate to essentially ignore the story. The central point, which seems valid and appropriate for inclusion, is that the FBI tried and failed to verify many of the dossier's allegations, and while the Mueller Report detailed many contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, it made no mention of the dossier's more sensational claims, aside from the pee tapes which it neither verified nor debunked. R2 (bleep) 21:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why my approach isn't neutral. It's literally in the opening introduction of the NYT article. NYT's main point is that this dossier is not trustworthy and deserves more scrutiny. The paragraph on the wiki has suggested the report is "corroborated", not "disproven", but we can't add a groundbreaking new story, from a very credible source, to cast the doubt on the dossier? (Obligated declaration that I am not a Trump fan. I don't believe in fake media. I read credible news source). ZCodeNoob (talk) 22:02, April 20, 2019‎ (UTC)

This content is currently in the article:

I'm doubtful about it because it makes a false claim about what the Mueller Report says. The report does not suggest that some of the most sensational claims appeared to be false. It says nothing of the kind. The dossier is mentioned only a few times in the report. It says "unverified, personally sensitive allegations compiled by Steele"; "Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen"; "The President also brought up the Steele reporting that Corney had raised in the January 6, 2017 briefing and stated that he was thinking about ordering the FBI to investigate the allegations to prove they were false."; "Corney was also asked whether the FBI was investigating the information contained in the Steele reporting, and he declined to answer."

I don't know what the NY Times is referring to, but it's not in the Mueller Report. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have Steele's own evaluation of the 50% likelihood that the pee tape allegation is true or false. That's been in the article from the beginning. We never imply that it's true. We do give Comey's explanation of why he change from a doubter to believing it might be true. Trump's own actions and repeated, unnecessary, lies about it changed Comey's mind.
 * The Mueller Report doesn't touch that subject, unless it's redacted, in which case we can't comment on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer's opinion that "it's not in the Mueller Report" is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia goes by what the sources say, not BullRangifer's personal thoughts of what the Mueller Report says or does not say. XavierItzm (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Times story appears to be referring to the absence of any references to the dossier allegations in the Mueller Report. Regarding the sentence from the source that XavierItzm wants to draw from--"But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove."--I wonder whether this is reliable or merely speculation. What I do think can and should be included in our article is the effort that the FBI took to verify the allegations, and the absence of all but one of the sensational allegations in the Mueller Report. Those are verifiable and noteworthy. R2 (bleep) 17:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

New NYT piece, part 2
Slatersteven deleted the following, sourced from the NYT:

The report's most remarkable claims look to be fake, and others "impossible to prove," containing "rumors and hearsay," and possibly "Russian disinformation."

His edit summary was: "Not an accurate summery" [sic]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First off it is one source, this would need attribution, secondly the source does not say (as far as I can tell) "The report's most remarkable claims look to be fake".Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Lack of reading the fully quoted text (contained within the citation) is no argument for arbitrary deletions. Please look at the quote and self-revert.  The source is fully quoted in the material Slaterstevem deleted.  For people unable or unwilling to see the cited+quoted material contained in the, here is what the edit Slatersteven deleted actually contains in the citation.  Quoting the NYT:

"some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false"
 * Cheers to all. XavierItzm (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Some does not mean all (and your edit does not say some), also it does not say "The report's most remarkable claims look to be fake" it only says that some of them do (and it does not say the most remarkable ones, if it meant that it would have used those words). It can be read as saying that whilst many of the most sensational claims maybe false the most sensational ones are not (as they go out of their way to not say it). That is why wp:v is so important, how you interpret a source may not be how someone else does (I read it (as I said) as avoiding saying just what you read it as saying).Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the objection is to the lack of the word "some," a proper good faith edit, following good courtesy practices and WP:PRESERVE, would have been to add the word "some" instead of blanking out an entire, well sourced contribution. Slatersteven ought to consider self-reverting, and perhaps leaving the following amended text:

Some of the report's most remarkable claims look to be fake, and others "impossible to prove," containing "rumors and hearsay," and possibly "Russian disinformation."
 * Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except I do not see what this adds I(as I said) it is one newspapers opinion, not a fact (and thus (as I also said) you cannot word it as a fact, it has to be attributed. I see no value to this to make it worth editing to remove all the problems. Even its location was iffy, right at the top of that section as if this was a final and conclusive finding, it was not. In fact we already cover (at length) the issues surrounding its veracity, so this does not even add a new view, its adds the same stuff worded in a way that gives a false impression, we did not and do not need this material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Slatersteven, this is duplicative of the preceding discussion and I suggest we avoid perpetuating multiple discussions about the same thing. XavierItzm, I suggest you strip out the references before you quote from the article, as you're cluttering the talk page. R2 (bleep) 17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now moved this to a sub-thread, and consolidated the multiple references to the same sources. — JFG talk 17:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, I can't believe this! Some of the same people who constantly say "we go by reliable sources" and that the New York Times is the gold standard of reliable sources, suddenly want to exclude it? How can this be? It's just "one newspapers opinion, not a fact"? It any other circumstance, we'd be told that the New York Times is a rs opinion and deserves inclusion. I support the most recent wording by XavierItzm in the text box above. It accurately represents the story. Since the New York Times is already quoted multiple times in this article, its certainly important to note they are changing the way they report this. It becoming increasingly obvious that the dossier is full of false claims (or at the very least claims that are impossible to verify) and the New York Times cannot deny that.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Note however that this particular NYT article is already cited 3 times, only, the most relevant part, which is that "some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false" and that others were "impossible to prove," contained "rumors and hearsay," and possibly contained "Russian disinformation" is not cited anywhere. XavierItzm (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We could also add the Michael Isikoff interview as a source. I am a little concerned with the one newspapers opinion bit. From what I can tell the NYT article is not an opinion article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Clearly not an opinion piece. XavierItzm (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion piece, but there are key parts that are difficult to use because they're so highly qualified. For instance, what I see as the most critical language in the source, "some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false," sounds awfully speculative. And the next phrase, "others were impossible to prove," what does that even mean, and how is it borne out by the rest of the source? All that being said, there are non-speculative bits of the source that seem usable to me, and I've taken a stab at incorporating them, in the lead no less. Maybe one or both of you support these changes? Are there other, specific bits that you believe should be included? R2 (bleep) 16:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And btw I'm happy to discuss Isikoff but this thread is about the NY Times piece. R2 (bleep) 17:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What I found surprising from this team of writers, compared to their previous work, which we also cite, is the imprecise and sloppy nature of the article. It reads more like an opinion piece quickly written after too little sleep because they have a deadline to get an article out quickly in the morning before they've read the Mueller Report very carefully.
 * Once we got past the unfortunate start of this thread, with its misleading paraphrasing (substituting "remarkable" for "sensational", "fake" rather than "false", and leaving out "some", etc. Sometimes it's best to use the exact quote...), we're still stuck with the fact that they make a claim not found in the Mueller Report. They write "some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false". Which sensational claims are they referring to? (Such content is a very small part of the dossier.) I can only recall two/three that are "sensational", namely the 2013 pee tape allegation and the St. Petersburg sex parties and "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior" in Russia claims, none of which the Mueller Report even tried to deal with.
 * The Mueller Report, in footnote 112 in Volume 2, p. 27-28, does give some support to the allegation that the Russians had kompromat on Trump in the form of tapes of compromising behavior. They interviewed a Georgian businessman who had worked closely with Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen. He told Mueller about part of his communications with Cohen (why they were talking about Trump and sex tapes is left out, because we only have part of their conversation), where he told Cohen he had "stopped the flow of tapes from Russia", and he told Mueller that by "tapes" he was referring "to compromising tapes of Trump". Cohen then told Trump about the stopped tapes. This was before the Mother Jones story, the first public disclosure of any supposed tapes, and long before Comey informed Trump about the pee tape, a conversation which changed Comey from a doubter to a "maybe" peeliever. Later, after the Mueller Report was published, the businessman has tried to backtrack by calling the tapes he stopped a rumor, but what was it then that he had "stopped", and that Cohen had then told Trump about? His backtracking doeesn't make any sense.
 * So what "sensational" claims did the Mueller Report find "false" when Mueller didn't even try to deal with the sensational claims in the dossier?
 * This is one of those situations that editors are occasionally forced to deal with. We must use common sense. We are not required to include everything we find in RS, especially when they get it so wrong. We already include quite a bit about doubts about the allegations and how some of them may not be true. We already do that. This really adds nothing, unless Mueller really did say something like that, but it's just not there.
 * We can't include a false statement about something Mueller didn't say. That will just muddy the waters. If Mueller had said something like that in his Report, then by all means we should include it, and I'll be very happy to do it myself. We just need to get this right. If anyone can find anything in the Mueller Report that might be what they are talking about, please provide it. I haven't found it and I haven't read any RS which have found it. I suspect that they were just a bit careless in their writing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, I was extremely disappointed with this article. I was expecting a point by point analysis and there was nothing.  About all we get out of this article is that there is some evidence of kompromat tapes but we don't know if they were real or not.  It probably makes the existence of such tapes more plausible than before the Meuller report.  Overall, this article is of little use as a source. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

MOST of the dossier remains unverified (as of May 2019)
As of this month, a large majority of the dossier still remains unverified. I attempted to correct the text in the lead but user VolunteerMarek claimed it was "original research". This is factually incorrect and backed up by reliable sources including the NYT. According to this article : "the F.B.I. still could not vouch for much of the dossier" "Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out" Over the past two years reliable sources have shown most (a large majority) of the dossier has not been verified or corroborated. Just in the past month, David Ignatius and Bob Woodward, two highly-respected establishment journalists who are not fans of Trump, have also cast doubt about most or all of the dossier's contents. Woodward recently stated: "the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it, and Mueller found that to be the case...real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as Mueller also found out is highly questionable." Also there is speculation that parts of the dossier came from disinformation planted by the Russians, according to the NYT.Circulair (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Much" does not mean "most." Is there a specific source that supports "most?" R2 (bleep) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Treatment of the dossier by the press

 * There are many claims the Dossier makes that are impossible to disprove. When such claims are made by Trump or Trump supporters, the press reports it as "Trump claims, without any evidence, that..." or something along those lines. When there's a claim that is negative towards Trump, then the onus somehow shifts to someone trying to disprove that claim, instead of the claimer backing it up with any evidence.
 * Steele claimed, without any evidence, that Cohen went to Prague, that Trump had prostitutes pee in a bed used by Obama, that Page was an intermediary with Russia, that Page met with the president of Rosneft, that Trump paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities in St. Petersburg (yes, our Wikipedia article states openly that Trump held sex parties in St. Petersburg), etc, etc, etc. There's not a shred of evidence for any of this, and there's really no way to disprove any of it.
 * My favorite line in the article is "Jane Mayer said that this part of the dossier [referring to the Page-Rosneft meeting] seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong." So even though the claim was wrong, it is still true? How does that work? The Dossier claimed Page met with a guy named Igor Sechin. Well it turns out he didn't meet with Sechin, but actually other Russians officials. But that doesn't stop our cited source Newsweek calling this claim "verified."
 * Steele himself intended the Dossier to be taken as raw, unverified intelligence to be used as opposition research, but here on Wikipedia it is treated as gospel, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. Think about this - Papadopolous' trouble started when he stated that he heard Russia had dirt on Clinton, but here we've got this whole big ordeal by non Americans (a British ex-spy and Russian sources) to generate dirt on Trump. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "that Page was an intermediary with Russia, that Page met with the president of Rosneft" - if you want to be precise, he did meet with head of investor relations at Rosfnet as well as senior officials in Putin's government. Getting the details wrong while being right about the big picture is how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Dossier claims he met with Sechin. It turns out he actually didn't mean with Sechin, but with someone else. Therefore the claim is not true. I don't understand how Newsweek and therefore our article can say it is "verified." Mr Ernie (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Context matters. Remember that Page lied about all of this. That proves his consciousness of guilt. At first, he denied meetings at Rosneft, then denied meeting officials, then, under oath, he finally had to admit he did meet at Rosneft and did meet with Sechin's representative, and even had to admit that sanctions may have been discussed, as alleged. Even under oath he hemmed and hawed, making very hedged and incomplete admissions. That is the behavior of someone who is obviously trying to avoid admitting the full truth. The basic essence of several aspects of the allegation is verified, even though, as our RS make clear, the exact person may not be verified. The source was an actual witness to the alleged acts, and they seem to have gotten it right.
 * We are taking Page's word for not meeting Sechin (his statement should not be taken as factual), and since he lied about everything else, the allegation that he did meet with Sechin may still be true. There is no evidence that his denial is factual. "Unverified" does not mean "untrue". Since the witness seems to have described events proven to have happened, I tend to give the witness the benefit of the doubt, rather than Page, a proven liar about this incident. Keep in mind that the one person who was nearly certain to have been a witness, as "in the room", was murdered. When dealing with Putin, witnesses die. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "here on Wikipedia it is treated as gospel" - is it? How exactly? I remember when it first came out, it was almost impossible to get ANY but the most vague general info about it into any article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even the allegations that have no documented evidence are still somehow taken as true. The way the denials section is written make it appear that some of these claims are also still true. There's no where I can find where anything has been corroborated about any of the claims about Trump and St. Petersburg, for example. If Trump was throwing wild sex parties then surely someone could have found somebody who went to one. The article now painstakingly lays out just about every one of the Dossier's allegations, and offers little to no proof that any of them actually happened. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Steele claimed, without any evidence" - how do you know it was "without any evidence"? Actually, he did have evidence. Maybe it was faulty, or imprecise, or incomplete, but he didn't just make it up. Reporting what the evidence said was exactly what he did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you see his evidence? He released the dossier, without providing evidence that the claims were true. It's just like when Trump tweets something, the press reports it as "Trump tweeted, without any evidence..." But they don't know why he was saying something, or what briefing he heard it from, or if he got it from Fox News. Just like the now infamous Spygate tweet - Trump obviously had something told to him or reported that caused him to tweet that. It could have been "faulty, or imprecise, or incomplete" but Trump is likely not smart enough to come up with something like that on his own. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "yes, our Wikipedia article states openly that Trump held sex parties in St. Petersburg" - can you show me where? If this is true, I'll remove it. Somehow I doubt it though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Section 3.4 - "That Trump has pursued real estate deals in St Petersburg, and "paid bribes there to further his interests". That witnesses to his "sex parties in the city" had been "'silenced' i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear." The proper way to handle claims such as this is to hang a sentence after it that there is until now no corroborating evidence of any of this. Currently the structure is claims, denials, veracity. I wonder if it makes more sense to go ahead and list the veracity or lack thereof directly with the claim, as not to mislead the reader. The lead says some of have been proven, some unverified, and one rejected by Mueller but it requires a lot of reading to figure out which claim goes in which category. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! I think there is some confusion here. Wikipedia is not making that claim. Not at all. It is clearly just documenting the claims made by Steele's sources and is presenting them as allegations. That's what we do here. We even include the denials by the persons involved, if they have made denials. That's what WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires (thanks to my addition of that to the policy). -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea of attaching the veracity to each claim, when possible, is not entirely unwarranted. We just need to figure a good way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this more accurately sums up what I was trying to communicate. At the moment I don't have many ideas about how to do it succinctly or accurate, but let me think about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with the idea of telling readers the state of validity of each claim (proven/disproven/unclear) right at the point where we describe the claim. Of course we need a good recent source for each explaining such status. — JFG talk 00:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As they say...wait for it...Atsme Talk 📧 01:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In some cases we already know. There is also another matter, but I'll start a separate thread for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with the idea of telling readers the state of validity of each claim (proven/disproven/unclear) right at the point where we describe the claim. Of course we need a good recent source for each explaining such status. — JFG talk 00:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As they say...wait for it...Atsme Talk 📧 01:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In some cases we already know. There is also another matter, but I'll start a separate thread for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN town hall with James Comey
Comey was the guest, and Anderson Cooper (plus questions from the audience) was the host. There is some interesting discussion about vetting the dossier. He also mentions how the Mueller report connects the "stopped the flow of tapes" to the salacious allegation about the pee tape:


 * Town Hall Meeting with Former FBI Director James Comey. Aired May 9, 2019

It also has discussion about how the "whole episode with Strzok and Page, that it damaged the reputation of the FBI." That may be useful in another article -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Dossier's intent

 * CNN reported what Steele said in his deposition: The dossier's intent was to gather research for private clients, and not to validate the information at the same level of scrutiny as journalists. That is all we need to know about the dossier to confirm that it is clearly an unreliable source per WP:PAG. The WSJ headline: "Mueller Report Dismisses Many Steele Dossier Claims" - that article basically confirms the Russian attempt to interfere in the election, and that they wanted to harm Hillary, but what I find ironic is the fact that the dossier itself proves they were trying to harm Trump with all of the salacious claims and fabrications. I'm surprised MSM hasn't figured out that aspect of this whole Russian interference fiasco.Atsme Talk 📧 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you say that the dossier "is clearly an unreliable source per WP:PAG?" Who has claimed it was a RS for our purposes? I don't recall anyone making that claim. We don't use it for statements of fact unless those facts have been confirmed by RS, in which case we are also citing those sources. We do use myriad RS which document the existence of claims in the dossier, whether the claims are true, unconfirmed, or false. That's what we do here.
 * The second half of your comment is identical to the conspiracy theories found in unreliable sources which turn things on their heads. RS do not say what you wrote. You'd have to resort to using Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. It's the "Hillary Clinton conspired with the Russians to help Trump win" kind of conspiracy thinking logic which is illogical. I won't try to deal with that as it would get into NOTAFORUM territory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I have to agree with BullRangifer, especially with the second point. I agree that the dossier may suggest that the Russians were trying to "harm" Trump, but not to prevent him from becoming elected but rather to manipulate him once elected. Only further investigation will discover to what extent they were successful. And it is likely to be quite some time before reliable sources are able to determine the extent to which the dossier is confirmed or disconfirmed. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous sources for each claim
Following the same principle we are discussing above, that of attaching the verification status of each claim immediately after the claim, there is also the matter of the anonymous sources for each claim. Right now one would think that Steele is making the allegations, when most of the time he is not. He was just collecting raw information he received, organizing it, and sending it to Fusion GPS. Where possible, and the dossier often mentions it, we should identify the source for each claim.

For example, the first allegation we list is from page one of the dossier. It is alleged:


 * That "Russian authorities" had cultivated Trump "for at least 5 years", and that the operation was "supported and directed" by Putin.[44][111] (Dossier, p. 1)

Instead we could write:


 * It is alleged by Sources A and B that "Russian authorities" had cultivated Trump "for at least 5 years", and Source B alleges that the operation was "supported and directed" by Putin.[44][111] (Dossier, p. 1)

How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan. It doesn't seem noteworthy or helpful to say that allegation was made by "Sources A and B." R2 (bleep) 05:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Gillette column


The question is whether this source is reliable for these facts. I believe the answer is no. In general, opinion sources published by newspapers, such as columns (btw, this is not an op-ed), are subjected to a lower level of fact-checking scrutiny by the editorial staff of the newspaper, in this case the Concord Monitor (not the LA Times). The fact that the author had been an LA Times reporter in the 1980s is pretty much irrelevant. The appropriate inquiry is whether his columns enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, e.g. if they've been cited for facts by other reliable sources. Without evidence of that, we must presume that the source is not reliable. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not for facts, but it would be for attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, we're talking about facts here. R2 (bleep) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is being used for attributed opinion, we do not say in Wikipedias voice it is true.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, whether a "factual assertion" has been "verified" is a matter of fact, not opinion. R2 (bleep) 17:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And that is what we say "X has said" we do not say "X is the situation".Slatersteven (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this response reflects a misunderstanding of how verifiability and neutrality work. If you agree that "whether a factual assertion has been verified" is a fact, then we can't magically turn it into an opinion simply by adding in-text attribution. Otherwise that would be an end-run around WP:V. Our neutrality policy specifically forbids us from treating facts as opinion or vice versa. R2 (bleep) 18:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

R2, I hope you're not trying to make a case against using attributed opinions at Wikipedia, because that is not policy. In this case, the opinion is unquestionably factual, so even though I believe it's good to attribute it, doing so can even undermine it to make the facts it states appear to be mere opinions the reader can question or ignore. In some cases, we don't attribute clearly factual opinions for that reason. This is plainly factual, so should be included, and with the attribution, I don't see a problem. It's a bit wordy, so stripping it of some of the fluffy attribution was a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding my position. I'm saying that the source isn't reliable. We usually don't treat newspaper columns as reliable, though there are exceptions to this general rule. Please explain why you think the source is reliable. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do it all the time. Local newspapers are considered RS, just like the NYT and WaPo. We actually cover this subject in the article, but what's special about this is that he points out a proven fact: A major theme of the dossier was true and confirmed six months later by the ODNI assessment. It's that confirmation by ODNI that's interesting. Schiff makes a similar point about ODNI: "On November 15, 2017, Adam Schiff stated that much of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true", something later affirmed by the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment released by the ODNI.[107]"
 * There is no doubt Gillette is correct. If there was some doubt about what he wrote, or that it was controversial, then one might have some sort of reason to question the use of the source, but I don't see it. I fully agree that there was too much fluff around it, and that's easy to fix. One way to fix that is to cut to the chase and state it as fact with no attribution. (We'd never do that with controversial content or just an opinion.) If we must have attribution, it can be added at the end (see the parantheses at the end of my version). Let me see if I can produce a better version.
 * Current content:

"Referring to the ODNI assessment, former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent Robert Gillette wrote in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified, that "Russia’s combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and helping Trump." According to Gillette, "Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20.""


 * New version:

"The January 6, 2017, ODNI assessment confirmed one of the dossier's main assertions when it stated: "Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump." The dossier had described these facts in greater detail six months earlier in a memo dated June 20, 2016. (,a fact pointed out by Robert Gillette.)"


 * How's that? It's much shorter and does not present fact as opinion. Presenting factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It allows readers to feel they can just ignore the opinions, when in fact they should not because they are facts. Facts should not be presented as opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're still not getting my point. I'm saying that the source isn't reliable and shouldn't be cited for that point, no matter how we present it. I think you're confusing truth and verifiability. I'm not disputing the truth of what Gillette said. What I dispute is that we should be relying on Gillette to make that point. We should not be using unreliable sources to support factual content in our articles, regardless of whether that factual content is true or false. Period. It undermines the credibility of the article. Moreover, arguing that we should cite an unreliable source because its assertion is true is exactly what we (and you) tell conspiracy theorists *cough* other editors not to do practically every day. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As for a solution, the Gillette quote is redundant with what we already have from ABC News. So I suggest we simply delete it. R2 (bleep) 16:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Now you're calling it an unreliable source. Where is that coming from? That's a pretty serious charge. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled by your response. I said right at the top of this discussion that I think the Gillette source is unreliable, and I explained why. I'm not sure why we're not connecting on this. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this needs taking to RSN for a wider view.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll give other editors a bit more time to weigh in. R2 (bleep) 17:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with R2 here: we should not use an opinion piece to cite facts. Besides, it's questionable whether the ODNI report "confirmed" what Steele was saying. The more likely explanation is that they both used similar language to describe activities picked up from the same leads. In other words, they came to the same conclusions ≠ the latter confirmed the former. — JFG talk 02:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I also agree, particularly in light of this NYTimes article which states: "— that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove". Atsme Talk 📧 03:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have already discussed exactly that wording ("some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false"), and that discussion is now archived here. We can't use a NY Times quote that is patently false on two counts: (1) the Mueller report does not say that, and (2) even the most sensational claim (the alleged pee tape) has not been "proven false". It is currently unconfirmed, but the Mueller Report does provide confirmation that Russians do possess compromising tapes, without letting us know if any of them is the "pee tape". We just don't know. Unconfirmed does not equal false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the source that alleges the NYTimes is publishing patently false information - please cite the RS. Did you read the 400+ page Mueller Report to verify the falsity of the NYT's article?
 * in science, such reasoning would be called pseudoscience or ad hoc hypothesis. For WP's purposes, the claim itself falls more in line with WP:RUMOR or what some believe was Russian fabrication. In that same NYTimes article: Last year, in a deposition in a lawsuit filed against Buzzfeed, Mr. Steele emphasized that his reports consisted of unverified intelligence. Asked whether he took into account that some claims might be Russian fabrications, he replied, “Yes.” Atsme Talk 📧 06:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's the use of common sense and editorial judgment. It's OR thinking that's part of the editorial process we use to determine whether certain things found in a source should be included. It's the kind of dilemma we sometimes discuss here.
 * To illustrate the dilemma, let's say you have written an article for Tropical Fish Hobbyist, something you are eminently qualified to do and may have done. Then a journalist in another magazine reviews your article and criticizes it, saying that you wrote something that you did not write. Both are RS, so what do we do here at Wikipedia? Do we cite the second source's inaccurate review, or just ignore it?
 * It is not impossible that I'm wrong. I haven't read every single word, as that isn't possible, but I have read large parts and then searched in numerous ways to see if the Mueller Report says any such thing as claimed by that very sloppy New York Times article. I can't find it at all. I haven't found any other RS which makes that exact claim either.
 * Maybe you can solve the dilemma. Until it's solved, I don't think we should include it as it's not very essential anyway. If it were clearly true that the Mueller Report wrote that "some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false" (even using other words), I'd be the first to include it here. Please do your best to confirm that information. Right now it fails verification. The "pee tape" allegation is not debunked by the Mueller Report (actually tends to confirm its likelihood), and the "Cohen in Prague" allegation is still unconfirmed, with the Mueller Report just using Cohen's words as a denial, but Mueller's investigation not disproving the allegation through its own investigations. Lack of confirmation does not equal "false". -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey you two, this discussion is about the Gillette column. Can you please debate the New York Times article somewhere else? R2 (bleep) 07:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My attention was called to this by a participant in the discussion whose views, in this case as elsewhere, I only partially agree with. It's an interesting situation. From our basic rules on WP:RS, the column could only be used as a source to the extent that the author of it is a recognized expert. This is possible, because he is "a former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent ". I consider this a plausible statement of expertise, if confirmed, but it would have to be specified exactly in the footnote, because otherwise the  reader would not understand the reason for including the source.
 * More important, is this the only possible reference? Wouldn't WP be better served by something that would be more obviously reliable. ?   DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two problems with this. First off, this isn't a self-published source. Second, it's really a stretch to say Gillette is an expert in a related subject. Gillette is just a columnist for the Concord, New Hampshire local paper. He worked as the LA Times' Moscow correspondent back in the 1980s. That has nothing to do with the Steele dossier or the Mueller Report. I've seen no evidence he knows anything more about foreign intelligence gathering or FBI investigations than any of his or our readers. Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof have a lot more relevant expertise, and they still wouldn't make the SPS cut. R2 (bleep) 06:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The content has been removed, and I'm okay with that. (I may have been the one who added that.) It's not that important. Can we close this now?-- BullRangifer (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ignatius
David Ignatius of the Washington Post said in this interview that the Washington Post (and other news organizations) could not verify any of the dossier's contents. He says this at 1:14:48. If this were to be included, would it go in the Veracity section or the Reactions section? Circulair (talk) 20:53, May 15, 2019‎ (UTC)
 * It wouldn’t go anywhere because Ignatius isn’t a reliable source, especially when his statements haven’t received any fact-checking. R2 (bleep) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How is a reporter for the Washington Post not considered a reliable source? Circulair (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * People aren't sources. Publications are sources. Ignatius's statement wasn't published by the Washington Post. (Plus, Ignatius is a columnist for the Post, not a news reporter.) R2 (bleep) 21:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just listened to that segment and they are talking about the time period before Buzzfeed published the dossier. They hadn't corroborated it, so they wouldn't publish it. This isn't news. The article mentions this, so we don't need yet another source which says the same thing.
 * Since then a number of allegations have been corroborated. The most important allegations and thread running through the dossier have been confirmed: that the Russians were interfering in the election to damage Clinton's chances and to help Trump win; that by favoring Trump they would have a president who would sow chaos and disruption, even if he wasn't elected; that Trump campaign members were very receptive to Russian help; that they held may secret meetings which they lied about; that this rose to the level of collusion, but the Mueller probe was only concerned with "conspiracy", which required proof of an actual and formal agreement, which they could not prove. So the dossier is not perfect, and it may contain errors but it is more credible than not credible, and only unreliable sources and conspiracy theorists posit the opposite.
 * All of this was described in the dossier, some of it far before anyone else knew about it. When the FBI got early portions of the dossier, some of it was held at arms length because it seemed so salacious, and they couldn't verify it. Other portions were confirmed by their own intelligence from other sources, IOW Steele's sources were giving him good information. That gave them enough confidence in it to not just throw it out.
 * They were duty bound to investigate every allegation. Some they have confirmed, some allegations are unconfirmed, and no serious allegation has been disproven. (A couple minor things and typos aren't accurate. Big deal.) Keep in mind that the two most sensational claims (the pee tape and Cohen's alleged visit to Prague) have not been disproven. They are still unproven. The Mueller Report even has a footnote which gives credence to the claim that the Russians do possess compromising tapes of Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the two most sensational claims have this legacy: both Trump and Cohen lied about them, with Trump telling several different lies in a totally unnecessary manner. That is seen as consciousness of guilt. One of Cohen's lies was even debunked by Steven Van Zandt's wife. That's pretty embarrassing. When you lie, don't lie in a way that can be so easily debunked. -- BullRangifer (talk)

Radio Free Europe

 * This article(don't know if it's considered a reliable source) says that Czech intelligence denied Cohen was ever in Prague. The Van Zandt thing I never heard about before, but once Mueller finished his report and stated Cohen never visited Prague, that seems pretty conclusive. I was actually surprised how little Mueller mentions the dossier in the final report. I assumed he would confirm a lot more of the dossier allegations once he and his team finished their probe. Circulair (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. R2 (bleep) 22:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a RS and we have long since used it in this article. That they "have no evidence" does not mean something didn't happen. It just means they haven't found evidence, either because they didn't try very hard or, as they explain, Cohen may have traveled into the country by another means. The claim is simply unproven. I have lived in Europe for most of my adult life and it's easy to travel between Schengen Area countries without leaving a trace. Cohen lied about being on Capri with Van Zandt at the time, and that story was debunked. Why would he lie about that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also the matter of his phone pinging towers near Prague. So yeah, "he wasn't in Prague" soibangla (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been no verification or corroboration that his cell phone pinged towers. The cited source claims the information came from "four people with knowledge of the matter." That's hardly anything to hang your hat on. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There will inevitably be a number of these allegations which will never be verified, which has zero bearing on whether or not the allegations are true. There are reasons why conspirators keep their communications secret and lie about it, and their efforts at secrecy are largely successful. That's the nature of the beast. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, you didn't really just do this right after my clarificaton above? Seriously? That's extremely long-standing content which has never been questioned. RFE is a very RS and it cites a RS. Please self-revert as your deletion is against long-standing consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I've looked at the timing again and will AGF that this was a sort of edit conflict situation, IOW things going on in different places at the same time. I have restored that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:11, May 17, 2019‎ (UTC)


 * Radio Free Europe is not a reliable outlet, period. It was founded explicitly as a government propaganda outlet,it was funded by the CIA for many years, and as recently as 2018 it was caught by The New York Times placing Facebook ads to target Americans. RFE/RL is not equivalent to RT, since I'm not aware it publishes disinformation; however it is still not a reliable source. In addition, the RFE citation is unnecessary as we're only using it alongside a Politico article, so it should be removed per WP:CITEKILL. R2 (bleep) 17:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We know that no source is a RS in all circumstances, but for this purpose it is a RS, at the least to document what Respekt magazine said. This has nothing to do with American propaganda directed at Russians. (BTW, there are objections to its reliability related to allegations that Trump placed a young sycophant in there to use it for Trump's own purposes, but I haven't heard more about that for some time. Maybe what you cite above is related to this.) As far as CITEKILL goes, there are only two references, so CITEKILL doesn't apply. A possible solution/compromise would be to use the ref directly from Respekt magazine instead. If you can do that, then I'd go along with this. Otherwise, you are the only one to ever object to this content, which should give you pause to think. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, nice cleanup of the Cohen/Prague stuff. There was a lot of recent duplication. Thanks for good copy editing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not cite known government propaganda outlets, period. That's my position, and it's received considerable support elsewhere, such as at RSN. If this is just about what Respekt reported, then we can and should cite Respekt directly. R2 (bleep) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "We do not cite known government propaganda outlets, period." What? We cite Fox News all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst I have some sympathy for this view, no we should not use known propaganda tools for statements of fact (assuming we are) I am not sure you are correct that this is (according to policy and consensus) the case. However it might be worth taking this to RSN and see what happens.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we'd need more than one source for this content, but, would you agree to replacing the RFE source with the Respekt source? R2 (bleep) 18:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would. I think I wrote that above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you did. R2 (bleep) 23:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we use this source?
Can we use the Washington Examiner in this instance ? I know it's a borderline source we usually avoid, but this article contains some factual content that's useful. Here's what I'm proposing to include in the "Authorship" section:


 * Andrew C. McCarthy has described Steele as something other than a source for the information in the dossier, but rather an "accumulator" of that information.

If this were controversial content, I wouldn't touch this source, but this seems to be pretty basic, accurate, and non-controversial. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No response so I have added it. If there are any objections, feel free to discuss. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Awareness of Clinton campaign and Steele
, the purpose of the cite check-inline tag is to ask that someone verify that the cited sources verify the following content: In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research. I couldn't find the source text that purported to support that content, but the sources are long and dense so I might have missed it. If you find the source text, it might be helpful to quote it in the ref. R2 (bleep) 03:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific, as in which words or phrases you'd like verified? I was actually in the process of trying to address that but got an edit conflict, so I came here and saw your comment. I'll try to help. I was thinking exactly as you. A quote in the ref would help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging R2. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I included the first sentence by accident; that doesn't need verification. What needs verification is both parts of the second sentence--namely, that the Clinton campaign was unaware of Steele's involvement, and Steele was unaware (or "wasn't told," which means something slightly different) of Clinton's involvement. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They were aware per WaPo, and more info with updates is forthcoming. Atsme Talk 📧 16:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And here's another RS: AP News Wire. It's always better to get the article right. Atsme Talk 📧 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite language from the sources showing Clinton/DNC were aware. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, please answer Soibangla's request. Your AP News Wire source is actually a reprint of a Washington Times article, IOW an unreliable source, which even relies on an even more unreliable source, the Daily Caller. Be careful with such sources. That explains its very partisan tone.
 * Which words in that source address the questions in this thread? (I haven't read the other source yet. The chickens are making a rucus, so I need to figure out what's happening with them.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, no danger with the chickens. I see that the WaPo source is one of those we already use to show they did NOT know. I thought it was a new source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , would you care to respond or would you prefer to strike your assertions? soibangla (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

From cited refs: After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele..."The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election," Fallon said. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.]. soibangla (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's all we've got, then the content needs to be changed or removed. Those statements are related but do not quite verify the content. Fallon is not a reliable source and was apparently only speaking for himself, not for the entire Clinton campaign. Steele may have been aware that the Clinton campaign was a recipient of his research, even if he was potentially unaware that the Clinton campaign was subsidizing his research. R2 (bleep) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this: soibangla (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Drop the Clinton campaign. A spokesperson's personal denial of knowledge isn't worthy of inclusion; it says nothing about the rest of the campaign staff, or Clinton herself.
 * The remainder is fine for the body, but it's not leadworthy.
 * R2 (bleep) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Such statements (by Fallon) should be attributed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and as soon as you attribute the Fallon statement you reveal how non-noteworthy it is. So a spokesperson was unaware of something. So what, it potentially says more about the campaign staff's internal communication than anything else. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In whatever form, it belongs in the lead because "Clinton paid for the phony Russian dossier, that's the real collusion" has become a pervasive narrative. I could elaborate on why Fusion has a vital imperative to protect their business model as an intermediary by ensuring their clients and sources have full two-way confidentiality on opposite sides of a firewall so they aren't aware of who each other are, but I'm done here for now. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted the wrong WaPo link above - in fact, I was reading the latter and saw this link which is what I meant to post for WaPo. The AP is a RS and so is the author of that Washington Times article. AP doesn't customarily publish news from unreliable sources, although exercising caution is always the best approach. Biased sources can still be RS. The Inspector General, AG Barr, Durham, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and NI Director Dan Coats may or may not substantiate the theories that comprise the alleged conspiracies, much less when Clinton & Obama were first made aware of Steele and his collection of raw intelligence. All we can do is publish what RS say which, as the dossier article has proven, can be based on speculation and allegations. Atsme Talk 📧 19:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the clarification. It's an easy mistake to make when one has several sources in front of one, especially if one source has been copied before, and then one wishes to paste another, and the old one gets pasted instead. Been there and done that. No harm done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that WaPo quotes Fallon saying, “I'm sure that there's a small group of folks that were aware,” Fallon replied, “but it was kept, for reasons that I can understand, to a very select group,” when the transcript shows he actually said, "I'm sure that there was a small group of folks that were aware of the nature of the decision to hire Fusion back in the spring of 2016. But it was kept for reasons that I can understand to a very select group, given the sensitive nature of who they hired, a former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele..." (emphasis mine). "They" being Fusion, not Clinton/DNC, Fusion having hired Steele two months after Clinton/DNC retained them. And BTW, why are you dragging Obama into this? soibangla (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * soibangla, we should come back to the descrepancy between the WaPo quote and the transcript, as such an inaccuracy/misrepresentation shouldn't be used as is. It needs modification and development so our content is accurate. Maybe start a new section just to deal with that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would stop short of making a blanket characterization of Scarborough as a reliable source, as he calls himself a "News/opinion writer" for a paper that is known to blur those distinctions and is thus deemed marginally reliable. In this particular case, Scarborough appears to be wearing his "news hat" and it was picked up by the AP wire. soibangla (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, we're not including anything in the lead or the body that fails verification. So let's come up with some verifiable language, and then decide whether it belongs in the lead. In the meantime we have unverifiable content about living people, so the content really should be deleted altogether. R2 (bleep) 20:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, it's incomplete, possibly slightly inaccurate, not the type of BLP violation that we just delete on sight. It's not unsourced negative information about a person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't delete it. But it really should be deleted if we're sticking to the letter of the law. Which I don't propose we do; I'm just saying we really need to fix this. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By "In whatever form," I mean in whatever verified form. I'm simply talking about its leadworthiness. soibangla (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Obama because he was briefed about the dossier, and was our president at the time. The WaPo article update states: According to Fallon, Clinton “may have known, but the degree of exactly what she knew is beyond my knowledge.” It warrants being in the article - Fallon's quote cited to WaPo, Clinton's omission that her campaign & the DNC helped fund Steele, and the role the DOJ played with Fusion GPS. There is also a lawsuit filed by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation against the Clinton campaign alleging that they broke campaign finance laws when they paid Steele. Actual document is here for verification. Haven't thought about where it fits best. Atsme Talk 📧 01:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, she may have known "of the nature of the decision to hire Fusion," but not necessarily that Fusion hired Steele two months later. And here's a reason not to consider Scarborough a reliable source: A conservative nonprofit has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Hillary Clinton campaign of violating election laws when it paid British citizen Christopher Steele and continues A review by The Times didn’t find any Weintraub criticism of Democrats having paid Mr. Steele to collect foreign political dirt and Scarborough dutifully accepts it all at face value. Golly, could it be that there was no criticism because, in fact, Democrats didn't actually pay Steele? In fact, there's no evidence Clinton/DNC paid anyone but Fusion, because that's who they hired, then as an intermediary Fusion takes their cut and pays Steele — which Scarborough nefariously characterizes as "funneled," when it's actually just how their business works. Lots of people file lawsuits, sometimes just to generate publicity and smear people, maybe with help from credulous/partisan WashTimes "reporters," and many lawsuits are dismissed as frivolous. And Obama was briefed on the dossier at the same time president-elect Trump was, long after the briefing could be consequential to the campaign. Are you trying to suggest he had prior knowledge in cahoots with Clinton? I ask become some have speculated to that effect to fabricate yet another vast deep state conspiracy. the role the DOJ played with Fusion GPS? FBI worked directly with Steele because they had a long history of working together because he ran the MI6 Russia desk. soibangla (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, that's interesting, as it's about Trump: "Ms. Weintraub issued her warning on June 13 after President Trump told ABC News that he would listen to foreign allegations....Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation." The Washington Times partisan slant pushes a narrative that Steele accepted information from the Kremlin, information the Kremlin wanted him to have, which is something Donald Trump Jr. actually did, and what Trump Sr. says he would do.
 * Steele, on the other hand, was performing standard political opposition work and did not "gather Kremlin-provided political dirt on candidate Donald Trump." He got information the Kremlin did NOT want him to have . ("Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."[310] Jane Mayer referred to the same meeting and contrasted the difference in reactions to Russian attempts to support Trump: When Trump Jr. was offered "dirt" on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," instead of "going to the F.B.I., as Steele had" done when he learned that Russia was helping Trump, Trump's son accepted the support by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it..."[11])
 * Standard opposition work is not the same as accepting foreign interference, as Trump did and wants to do. That type of slanted reporting is why we don't trust the Washington Times or Daily Caller. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and second guess any politician or news source. Actually, I'd much rather copy edit, work on leads and MOS. As for the rest, we cite what the sources say, and for contentious opinion, we use in-text attribution, or quote whoever said it. We include information about both sides of the isle, and not treat one side as if it's mainstream while the other side is treated as fringe - the same applies to criticism vs factual news. I think the allegations about Clinton possibly knowing more about the dossier before the election than what's been published in MSM is quite telling. If the current investigations turn out to be nothing burgers, that means less work for us as far as having to clean up the articles. I've got an article to finish reviewing for GA, so I may not respond quickly. It's a very long article. Atsme Talk 📧 03:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, yes, I want to know more about "Clinton possibly knowing more". That might be worthy of inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the allegations about Clinton possibly knowing more about the dossier before the election than what's been published in MSM is quite telling One need only watch Hannity on any given night to see allegations of possible nefarious deep state schemes that have no foundation in reality, yet they are routinely presented as established truth. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary for lead
As I understand the sources we have, the firewall (in principle similar to a Chinese wall) maintained by Elias was a typical and common "need to know" system that limited and controlled the flow of information in both directions and worked something like this:

The firewall had several levels which were partially or entirely insulated from each other to preserve attorney-client privilege, limit legal liability, avoid COI problems, and likely to limit the risk of leaks:


 * 1) DNC and Clinton campaign officials
 * 2) Elias, guardian of the firewall
 * 3) Fusion GPS/Simpson
 * 4) Orbis/Steele

DNC and Clinton campaign officials knew that Elias was having opposition research performed, but he did not inform them that he had hired Fusion GPS to do the job, and in turn, Fusion GPS did not tell Elias that they had subcontracted Orbis/Steele. Steele did not know that the DNC and Clinton campaign were the ultimate clients until much later. He only knew there was a lawyer who stood for the job. (That paragraph is what needs to be summarized.)

(Elias also did not pass much of the information from Steele on to his employers because he didn't see it as valuable or verifiable. He was hoping to get the smoking gun in his hands, but he didn't receive actual proof, so he was understandably cautious. All he was seeing was unverified raw intelligence. Steele realized that the allegations from his sources were dynamite and potentially very serious, so he wanted them verified and immediately turned over what he got to the FBI as he got it. The FBI was cautious because it was unverified raw intelligence, so they compared it with the information they had from other sources. When some of the allegations were confirmed by those independent sources, the FBI had more confidence to seek confirmation of the other information, but could only act on what was confirmed or strongly suspected, so further investigation was absolutely necessary. That was also enough justification to seek a FISA warrant. All law enforcement investigations start with some unverified information, hence the need to investigate. If they only received neatly packaged proof, they could skip the investigation and go directly to trial in a courtroom. That rarely happens.)

What we need is a shorter summary of that situation for the lead. We need to summarize this current content in the lead and what's in the whole section:


 * In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign and DNC officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS "had been hired to conduct the research"[9] or that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.[10][11]

How about something like this:


 * The attorney who hired Fusion GPS kept a legal firewall in place which prevented DNC and Clinton campaign officials, as well as Fusion GPS and Steele, from knowing who was the ultimate client, who was hired, and what was being done on the other side of that wall, thus preserving attorney–client privilege.

That may not be entirely accurate, so feel free to propose changes. There are so many details to summarize in a short and vague statement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is way, waaay too in the weeds for the lead section of this article. Do we really think we should be talking about "firewalls" and "attorney-client privilege" in the lead section of this article? And is it verifiable? What sources would we cite? I have a suggestion, why don't we first just follow the reliable sources in the body, and then decide what's significant enough to include in the lead? You know, follow the sources, rather than our personal understandings? R2 (bleep) 18:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously. That's why I asked for help to develop this. What I wrote is based on the RS we use for those details in the body, but this has to be much simpler, without so much detail in the lead. Leave all the back and forth for the body and just state that there was such a situation in place. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BR, maybe it can wait until after IG Horowitz discloses his findings. There's no deadline. I'm working on a GA review, plus I've had some other issues crop up over at AN, so I haven't had time to focus on anything here. Atsme Talk 📧 20:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This change works for me. If it sticks, I'm satisfied. R2 (bleep) 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN: Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz both privately denied soibangla (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't denial of knowledge of Fusion GPS or Steele's involvement. Nor is it denial of knowledge by the Clinton campaign as a whole. R2 (bleep) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the DNC denial is acceptable but the Clinton denial isn't. Presumably the campaign chair speaks for the whole campaign, as the DNC chair speaks for the whole DNC. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, I'm wondering the same thing. The sources are explicitly about both. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that R2 just got (unfairly) blocked, so we'll just have to wait for an answer. The content is improved in its present state and just needs to have these three words restored: "Clinton campaign and". Then it will be good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Timing of Page wiretap and dossier
I don't have time right now to find the best place for this but maybe someone else does:

soibangla (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mueller's testimony before Congress
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. What do you think about it?

"During Robert Mueller's testimony to two congressional committees on July 24, 2019, Congressman Matt Gaetz told Mueller: "...if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our newly elected president, that would be precisely in your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russian interference. But you weren’t interested in whether the Russians interfered through Steele—and if Steele was lying, then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people.""

"Mueller was asked about Fusion GPS during his testimony before Congress. He said he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS."

User:Slatersteven obviously disagrees. Slatersteven's edit summary: Maybe., but they are also not about Clinton or the DNC. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Problems, One what was Mullers (if any) response? Two The paragraph you added it to is about the DNC and the Clinton campaign, not the Russians. Three, there is not claim about the dossiers veracity, just a hypothetical about what Muller might have had to look into (and what he did not do). 4 Why are Congressman Matt Gaetz comments any more noteworthy then anyone else on those TWO committees?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No to the first. There is no justification for quoting one congressperson's opinion at length, cherry-picked from hours of hearings. The "not familiar with" quote could be used, depending on where it is put - some context is needed as for why it matters. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Please, add the fact that the debunked Steele Dossier has been financed by the DNC. 

Please add the fact that the Steele Dossier has been debunked.  

Please, add the fact that data Manafort allegedly passed to Kilimnik was publicly available at the time. Please, add the fact that Kilimnik, contrary to the presiding narrative, is the US State Department asset. 

Please, provide a citation for the following claim or use the word 'allegedly': `The polling data was provided during a time when hundreds of Russian operatives were working to play on divisive issues in the U.S` Sasha z (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Show some evidence of having read the article first. These requests are controversial, and a consensus must exist before such changes can be made. The first is already documented very thoroughly in the article. The rest is just conspiracy theories. We do not support them here. Start a blog. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * From the lede: In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. From your WSJ source: "Some portions of the dossier have been validated." You say data Manafort allegedly passed to Kilimnik was publicly available at the time, although some of it was confidential internal campaign polling data. Kilimnik, contrary to the presiding narrative, is the US State Department asset says an opinion piece by John Solomon, a frequent guest of Sean Hannity who has made many baseless assertions. soibangla (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well for a start, many is not all (or even most).Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course, it's controversial. That's why extra care needs to exist to provide full information at the main site talking about an item. Mentioning there one funder and not mentioning the other (which indeed turned out to be the main one) is at least shoddy, if not deceitful. Equating a request for balanced reporting is hardly a conspiracy theory (unlike the Russiagate).


 * In general, citing a source doesn't mean a claim has been proven. Rachel Maddow claimed Russia was about to turn the electricity off. Citing her doesn't make the claim true. Sasha z (talk) 18:40, August 6, 2019‎ (UTC)

Sasha z, when you write "Mentioning there one funder and not mentioning the other", what do you mean? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, mea culpa - somehow I requested the edits on a wrong page. Intention was for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Steele_dossier Sasha z (talk) 19:37, August 6, 2019 (UTC)
 * Sasha z, regardless of where you do this, an edit request must be uncontroversial, and that means that any issues, potential controversies, and/or misunderstandings have already been worked out. I suggest you do that first. Anything regarding the dossier can be worked out here, as this is where the expertise is gathered. You can later try changes wherever you wish. Does that make sense to you? I just want to make this as easy for you as possible. Also, always add a correct signature, with a timestamp, to your comments. I have been doing that for you. Just add four tildes after your comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, to be very clear, you have only made six edits, and right from your first one, you reveal that you are not getting your information from RS. I suggested above that you should read this article and check its sources. Do that before you proceed further down this path. Take your time. It may take a couple of days to digest it before you return here, but that's the best thing to do. Don't just read it. Allow it to change your mind, because if you come back without agreeing with what RS say, you'll end up experiencing a bumpy ride here.
 * You are repeating talking points that are parts of fringe conspiracy theories, and, if you keep repeating them, you risk getting into trouble here. We must base our information and comments on RS. You have a golden opportunity to learn a whole lot here and get some of your misunderstandings cleared up. I wish you luck. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, BullRangifer. Maybe you can explain to me how a request should be uncontroversial? Isn't this the forum for working the issues out? Obviously, there can still be debate about what one considers a RS. An article claiming 'anonymous sources revealed' cannot possibly be considered as RS. Do we forget too soon the NYT/WaPo drumbeat for the 2003 war? The fact of the matter is it's the 'mainstream' talking heads who are spreading a conspiracy theory. The ubiquitous Rachel Maddow, anyone? I get my information from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, The Real News Network, Democracy NOW!. Not WaPo/NYT - that's for sure. It is interesting about the 'bumpy ride'. Seems like unless one is a subject of groupthink, one is not well liked, eh? I welcome the hatred, then.  Sasha z (talk) June 29, 2024
 * The link above in the Semi-protected edit request template leads to a page which explains that before one makes a Semi-protected edit request, "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." That's it. Controversial requests are not suitable for Semi-protected edit requests.
 * You should first hold discussions and reach some form of consensus before making such a request. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding RS, you have a lot to learn. NY Times and WaPo are among the most RS, RNN far from it, etc. No source is considered reliable all the time, but some, like NY Times and WaPo, have a good reputation for fact-checking, and some have a terrible record, such as Fox News, which spreads conspiracy theories and ignores proven facts. It also depends on how a source is being used. Bias doesn't automatically preclude a source. Neither sources nor content need be neutral; it is editors who must be neutral in their editing. They must not engage in whitewashing or censorship, but faithfully include the source with its bias.
 * You need to do some reading, so here are some resources. Start with this chart, which is the best one around: Media Bias Chart: Version 4.0 It's non-partisan and is the work of a trained team which reads hundreds of sources every day. The chart is constantly being refined and is getting better and better. If you stick to the sources in the green and yellow boxes, you'll be fairly safe, but generally steer clear of those on the edges of those boxes when possible.
 * Also see the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There is also the explanatory supplement at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It includes a list of sources which we have already ruled as not reliable or dubious. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * `NY Times and WaPo are among the most RS, RNN far from it, etc.`
 * I have no hope for this place, then. When a CIA mouthpiece WaPo is considered a more reliable outlet than Wikileaks, the cause is lost. Sasha z (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC) June 29, 2024
 * I'm sorry to hear that, because the ability to vet sources for reliability, and then figuring out when, where, and what they can (or cannot) be used for, is the basis for our editing here. If you aren't interested in dipping your toes in that water, then this place isn't for you. If you understood it, you'd change your mind. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sasha z, I'm still interested in hearing from you on my talk page about "How Russiagate Helped Trump". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Even though Wikipedia tends to lean pro-Democrat, the main article is still shockingly non-neutral and markedly biased in favor of Democrats. There is NOTHING in this partisan dossier, which was paid for by Hillary and the DNC, which has been confirmed. Even Mueller's people admitted that they had done nothing to examine the DNC server; all they did was read a redacted Crowdstrike report and adopt it as gospel. Very bright people contend that download speeds prove the DNC server was never even hacked from overseas, but underwent a domestic download from (some say) some person like the controversial Seth Rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove politically charged fluff, language, opinion pieces, etc.
We're supposed to be neutral. There is a lot of politically charged language in this article that should be removed, and there are several sections that have bold claims without sources. Like a lot of things involving Trump, this article needs a lot of work to make it politically neutral while getting the point across. We're also using political opinion pieces as factual information.

Example 1: Although the dossier later became one factor among many in the Russia investigation, it had no role in the opening of the investigation on July 31, 2016, as top FBI officials received the dossier the following September.[243] This fact has been the subject of intense discussion and controversy, largely fueled by false claims made by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politicians. The statement in bold is opinionated, politically charged, and completely unnecessary while adding nothing of value. We're supposed to be supplying information, not fluff.

The main article looks like it was written by the Democratic National Committee, not by a purportedly neutral online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Example 2: Contrary to repeated assertions by Trump,[19] Fox News,[20] and many of his supporters, the dossier was not the impetus for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[21] More fluff and politically charged language. While the information here has truth in it, PolitiFact, and Vox are not credible sources to use (Vox is a primarily opinion based site, and PolitiFact is somewhat known to have a "Well yes but no" attitude). Use better sources that are less opinionated and more concise.

Just a few examples. We're not Fox News, we're not CNN, and we're not Twitter. We're supposed to be giving real information, not making politically charged articles. 70.16.207.67 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first example has this editorial note, which is only visible when editing: "" The sources follow and are abundant. We could add them to that sentence, since it accurately sums up the section.
 * Your second example is a very short summation of an important topic, which is dealt with more thoroughly here: Trump–Russia_dossier. There was a discussion about the need for that subject to be covered, as it's one of the most common settings in which RS mention the dossier. Therefore it deserved its own section and mention in the lead. That was a huge lack which was filled.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "supposed to be neutral". Neither sources nor content are supposed to be "neutral", but rather it is editors who are supposed to be neutral in their editing. We are not supposed to alter the bias found in sources, but to present it as it is. More about that here.
 * Also about "fluff and politically charged language". What exact wordings are not faithful to the sources? We're always interested in improvements, but not censorship or whitewashing.
 * PolitiFact and Vox are definitely reliable sources, but, as with all sources, it all depends on how they are used. Are we misusing them?
 * BullRangifer (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although the content might be thinly sourced because editors have chosen to not overwhelm the article with numerous cites to show This fact has been the subject of intense discussion and controversy, largely fueled by false claims made by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politicians is abundantly evident to anyone who is not in a coma or a cult, it would take me a matter of minutes to find countless cites to overwhelmingly prove this obvious reality. We can start with several RSs showing the dossier assertion is false, followed by dozens if not hundreds of instances in which Trump/supporters have insisted it is true — as recently as last week. How many cites would allay your concerns? soibangla (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Opening descriptions seem misleading
The line, "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated... however many allegations remain unverified." appears to me to be misleading. By and large the vast majority of content of this dossier has been either debunked, or enough effort has been made that this statement is misleading. It would be hard to imagine that a neutral reader (if one such exists) reading this blurb would walk away thinking that the vast majority of the content of this dossier was debunked, as it has been. The "... main allegations..." of the dossier were related to linking the Trump candidacy to Russia's efforts to affect the election, whereas the only circumstances that have been demonstrated in their efforts are tangential and unrelated to the campaign itself. Further, the wording, "... remains unverified..." at this point, knowing the information we know about the vast majority of its content, leaves a reader thinking we are just waiting for final evidence of corroboration on material that has been largely debunked.

Also, the content which has been corroborated thus far is essentially conversations between Russian nationals, which, interesting as it may be to some, hardly implies that this document's content has been verified. This is exacerbated by the fact that russian nationals appear to have been the ones feeding Mr. Steele much of this content - hardly justifies implying that part of this document is credible.

Overall, I feel the wording of this section is politically unbalanced in what it implies about the dossier, and leaves the reader with the overall impression that we are waiting for i(s) to be dotted and t(s) to be crossed to verify the content, whereas in fact, at this stage, the vast majority of the content of this document has been debunked, and we have generally discovered that this was a politically funded hit-piece (albeit funded in a bipartisan manner over a period of time). This concept should extend to the rest of the article, where it says things like, "The media... [have] treated the dossier with caution...". Again, misleading. If this were the middle of 2017, fine, this is adequate. The Mueller report has come out, all of this has been largely debunked. This article should be updated to reflect these facts.

I see no issue with the last sentence, however, of the opening, which is critical of the Trump administrations criticism. This is factually accurate, and I am not in favor of flipping this to a pro-Trump article. That would also be politically misleading and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkeljohn (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , "By and large the vast majority of content of this dossier has been either debunked", this is factually incorrect. Much of it has been proven. As I recall from the Mueller testimony, there was one specific point in the dossier that he refuted, but I can't recall off the top of my head which it was. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you'll agree that if there is any source which pushes the view that a "vast majority" of the dossier's allegations have been debunked, it is certainly Fox News and other extreme right-wing sources which back Trump. Therefore it should interest you that the following content from the article contains a statement from Fox News:


 * Merkeljohn, your objections are with what RS say, not with what our article says. We only report what the RS say. I suspect you're getting your (mis)information from unreliable sources. Keep in mind that "unverified" does not mean "false" or "disproven". It doesn't mean "true" either. We just don't know, but considering Steele's hard-won reputation as an experienced spy (Britains top Russian expert) and researcher famed for his accuracy, intelligence sources tend to give him credibility until proven otherwise. Steele believes 70–90 percent of the dossier is accurate, which is considered extremely good for such work. He gave the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true. Comey was originally a complete disbeliever in the pee tape, but after talking to Trump several times, in which Trump told several totally unnecessary lies about it (why lie???), he came to believe it is possible that such a tape exists. The Mueller Report also mentions the existence of tapes of that sort. You can see it and judge for yourself. This article contains a link to it. It's not porn, but NSFW. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This dossier has been exposed as a fake. Hillary Clinton paid for this document. Why does Wikipedia leave this post up?
Wikipedia needs to correct this entry on the dossier. The document has been exposed as a fake to discredit President Donald Trump. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and her team and passed onto John Brennan. Correct this entry!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.114.85 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean apart from all the bits that have been shown to be true?Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We base our content on what reliable sources say. If you have a specific correction based on RS, please suggest it. Otherwise, you're just pushing nonsense. BTW, what you mention is already in the article. Read it before replying. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you get your news primarily from Breitbart or One America News Network? In that case, you've been told the entire dossier is a fraud, but that's not actually true. Much of it has been verified. I believe the idea that Cohen went to Prague is the only allegation that has been categorically refuted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The true status of that allegation is "unproven",...and suspicious because Cohen lied about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Updating the information from the Muller Report findings
The Muller Report findings have not been added to this page Ginatina1969 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)gcc
 * Ginatina1969, thanks for your interest and very valid concerns. We'd love to improve the article. Although we have already tried to do what you suggest, it's always possible we missed something.
 * The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims. If you search the article, you'll find the article mentions the Mueller Report many times, as well as some of its findings that are related to the dossier. It did confirm the dossier's main allegations.
 * There's also a section dealing with the dossier's veracity, and the veracity of many specific allegations.
 * Are there any particular things in the Mueller Report about the dossier and its allegations which we are missing? If so, do you have RS which mention them that we can use? That would really help us.
 * I'm going to add a section below which deals with a matter you might be able to help with. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report footnote's relevance to pee tape
Here is the Mueller Report mentions Comey's briefing of Trump about the pee tape, and there is a footnote 112 (pages 27 and 28, Volume 2) attached to it:

p. 27-28

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

END OF FOOTNOTE

Later events:

Rtskhiladze has tried to backtrack his comments, but he treated them as real when he "stopped the flow". He stopped something. That's what he told Cohen and Mueller. To later say it was rumors, etc, is disingenuous.

POSSIBLY USEFUL SOURCES:

This one could be used in the Trump-Russia dossier article:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pee-tape-trump-mueller-report-823755/


 * "Rtskhiladze’s description of the tapes’ content tracks with the unverified information included in the Steele dossier, ..."

++++++++++++++++++++++++

These three sources probably parse things correctly, but are also sensational, so sources below are better:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/04/muellers-report-says-i-was-right-all-along-the-pee.html

https://www.inquisitr.com/5407659/donald-trump-pee-tape-moscow-steele-dossier/

https://politizoom.com/2019/04/21/seth-abramson-is-pretty-sure-the-tape-noted-in-muellers-report-if-the-tape-he-makes-a-good-case/

++++++++++++++++++++++

MORE SOURCES

The opinions are all over the map, some ignoring the disconnect between Rtskhiladze's backtracking and what he actually did. He treated the tapes as real, not as rumors, and he stopped the flow of embarrassing tapes for Cohen, whose job it was to bury this type of thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/the-mueller-report-excerpts.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-best-footnotes-mueller-report/story?id=62529749

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/rtskhiladze-cohen-trump-russia-tapes

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/pee-tape-mueller-report.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-the-trump-pee-tape_n_5cb89168e4b096f7d2dd5182

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/mueller-report-on-alleged-pee-tape

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/h_5de6b3d9b118844174f4e9070407a029

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-mueller-report-investigation-trump-release-live-20190418-story.html

https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xzavb/everything-the-mueller-report-says-about-the-infamous-probably-nonexistent-pee-tape

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-04-18/mueller-report-references-steele-dossier-comeys-private-briefing-with-trump

Please take a look at these sources (and any more you might find) and see if there's a way to legitimately mention this finding in the Mueller Report. This is exactly the type of kompromat mentioned in the dossier, even if we don't know that it's specifically about the pee tape. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)