Talk:Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (January–June 2019)

Article(s)
I saw that article was changed back to articles. For this resolution, there is only one “Article of impeachment“, however. Theoallen1 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf
 * FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

" these stories are about Facebook privacy, not Trump/Russia"
These items were deleted:

BRD? X1\ (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * keep. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica belong here because Russia and the Trump Campaign used Cambridge Analytica data to weaponize Facebook, as is well documented in many articles over the last 18 months. Websurfer2 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove: The cited stories do not connect this to Trump/Russia investigations. There's also no evidence that Russia "used Cambridge Analytica data to weaponize Facebook" and CA wasn't even mentioned in the Mueller Report. FallingGravity 00:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous stories about how a professor harvested user data from Facebook and gave it to both Cambridge Analytica and the Russians? These timelines are about what happened, not just the limited events enumerated in the Mueller report. Even Mueller left out lots of details that his team provided in various indictments and charging documents. As for other sources, just because an individual article doesn't mention Trump and Russia doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In this case, the articles are follow-on information about the results of investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica that are discussed elsewhere in the timelines. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links to some of these "numerous stories" that back up your claims? Nowhere is Trump/Russia mentioned in the body of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal article. The stories seem to be only tangentially related by the fact that both CA and Russia used targeted FB political ads to bolster their preferred candidate (Trump). FallingGravity 06:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove – Obviously unrelated, per sources. Almost everything about the Facebook / Cambridge scandal should be removed from these timelines. — JFG talk 10:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. X1\ (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It would appears this is being revisited after three months ...? X1\ (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is. Let's wait a bit more. Nerd271 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the $5 billion FTC fine has officially been announced, we know it was for Facebook violating its consent decree, not because of Mueller's investigation or Trump/Russia. FallingGravity 21:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * wouldn't your "Comment" actually be under your "27 April 2019" statement? X1\ (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a couple months since that comment, and we have new information. It's now clear that the fine is for mishandling user's phone numbers and facial recognition. Cambridge Analytica just happened to be what started the investigation, and CA's relevancy to Trump/Russia is tangential at best. FallingGravity 06:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What? "Cambridge Analytica just happened to be what started the investigation" is not "tangential at best".  X1\ (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cambridge Analytica didn't start the investigation into Trump/Russia, I'm talking about the investigation of Facebook privacy violations. FallingGravity 16:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove. If something is not directly relevant to investigations on the connections between Trump and Russia, it should not be included. Nerd271 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Keep. Of course Cambridge Analytica appears in Mueller investigation (see e.g. Mueller Sought Emails of Trump Campaign Data Firm. Special counsel asked Cambridge Analytica to hand over employees’ emails, in sign of investigators’ interest in campaign data operation). However, I am not sure there is clear connection in the cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * care to weigh-in with a "Keep" or "Remove"? X1\ (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The arguments by Websurfer2 are persuasive. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, persausive persuasive. Maybe this has come-up again due to new Brittany Kaiser RSs?  Examples:  etc.  See SCL Group & Cambridge Analytica articles too. X1\ (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Cambridge Analytica (CA) worked for the Trump campaign. Their CEO was told to recuse himself from U.S. elections work, as well as anyone at CA who doesn't hold a green card, because such work would be illegal, but they actively worked on the campaign anyways.("Participation in US Elections" https://web.archive.org/web/20180402031730/http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/LEVY_MEMO_DM_4636592_v1_Memo_re__Participation_in_US_Elections.pdf "Wylie: Foreigners worked for Cambridge Analytica on NC Senate campaign" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/wylie-foreigners-worked-cambridge-analytica-nc-senate-campaign-n859526) That sure sounds like foreign influence to me, with the blessings of Trump and the Mercers. CA was investigated by the House Intelligence Committee, so it definitely is part of the investigations into election interference.("Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix suspended amid hidden-camera expose" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cambridge-analytica-ceo-alexander-nix-suspended-amid-hidden-camera-expose-n858406) Anything that was investigated by government bodies should be included, even if the lines of investigation didn't find anything, and that negative outcome should be included as well so that readers know that what they heard about in the news didn't actually lead anywhere. The fact that a report on Facebook doesn't cover the 2016 election is irrelevant to the discussion of whether CA was a foreign influence in the U.S. (and elsewhere). Where CA and Facebook become relevant to this article is the fact that the initial "privacy breach" at Facebook was performed on the behalf of CA, the harvested data was given to the Russians who used it for micro-targeting during the election, and CA used data it continued to harvest from Facebook to build its election models used by the Cruz and Trump campaigns. This makes Facebook's punishment for the initial "privacy breach" relevant as an investigatory outcome. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Repeat – There has not been any allegation that either Cambridge Analytica or Facebook worked with Russia, much at the direction of Russian government operatives or spooks. Therefore, this story is totally off-topic here. — JFG talk 23:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

selection of Mueller's words
BRD? X1\ (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the problem here? It's right in the source. I included this because it is significant and relevant. I pulled this from Robert Mueller. Nerd271 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and next time, please make sure your link works. The link you gave sent me to 2016. Nerd271 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was clarified in a subsequent ES (diff=908474602&oldid=908473897). You make mistakes too.  I agree it was a somewhat confusing mistake, I had just added Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to the article.  So many Timelines...  X1\ (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the context, why select just these words, why is is significant? The way you wrote it appears to be innuendo.  X1\ (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not judging you for making mistakes. I was merely pointing it out before I saw you fixed it. Anyway, if you read through that article, it explains the context rather well. We could clarify in the time line if you wish. If you are skeptical of that link, here is another one.
 * Here is another source. Here is a clip from C-Span. Nerd271 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? Mueller said thousands upon thousands of things.  You haven't answered my questions as to why it should be in this Timeline?  Why not put it in Mueller's article or F GPS's or Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)?  I feels like some partisan innuendo, like someone attempting to create a conspiracy theory; i.e. without context.  X1\ (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is what he said, and it is relevant, which is why I decided to include it here. (It is already on Mueller's page.) The Steele dossier is an important part of the various investigations surrounding Trump, no? I'm not sure why you think it is "partisan innuendo." Someone asked him a direct question, and this was his answer. It's on tape. The context is all there. PBS has a longer clip if you want. It's all there. No one is trying to hide anything. Nerd271 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When I searched on google on the first page was a Sebastian Gorka video, PJ Media, The Daily Wire, Heavy.com, RedState, and Rt.com. See Reliable sources/Perennial sources.  This is not a Timeline item as is.  X1\ (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also useful are User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here and Zimdars' fake news list. X1\ (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your item might be useful within the Mueller Report Wikipedia article. X1\ (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is when you list all those sources. Those are not reliable sources. I know that. I was careful to list only those that would be acceptable for Wikipedia, like NBC, The Washington Post, or PBS. You do not have to do anything other than check the sources I provided. I gave multiple sources. Nerd271 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and you did see the entire transcript is already in this article, right? X1\ (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it at first. But good! We can use it, too. It's NBC News again. Nerd271 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I never doubted Mueller said it, but this *odd* emphasis is not needed here; and as you continue to not answer my relevant questions, and this item is redundant, this discussion now been shown to be utterly pointless. If you continue to be disruptive, you will be reported.  As per my previous ES, sealioning is a form of IDHT, thus disruptive behavior. X1\ (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can be any clearer. This is relevant to this page because it is precisely what Mueller said in response to a direct question. Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier are integral parts of this. Like I said, we could give more context.

With regards to your accusation, I have not been editing this article for about two weeks now, and so cannot be described as disruptive. My most recent edits have been on this talk page. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am being disruptive. That link you gave on IDHY mentions something critical: failure to adhere to consensus. There are only two of us discussing this. I am assuming good faith on your part, and I expect you to do the same to me. As for "sealioning," well, it's you who keep asking questions because you are not convinced. I don't have a problem with that in general, but you keep repeating the same questions even though I answered them. Nerd271 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

speculation on McConnell's motivations
This ", believing that elections should be managed by local and state governments rather than by the federal government" was added to the above item; BRD? X1\ (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's right there in the CNN source, is it not? I think it just makes sense to explain why people made their decisions, as long as it does not get too long. Nerd271 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The CNN article says it is a known belief of McConnell, not that he explicitly said it in relation to his action on that date. It doesn't belong in this entry. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

News agencies vs. general websites
Again, in future, please differentiate news agencies from websites. When I use my Visual Editor, it tells me that it is a website. The appearances don't look too different but they might if you include more information. Moreover, those supposedly extraneous codes are automatically included. Moreover, your sources are NPR and Bloomberg, not NPR.org and Bloomberg.com. These are news agencies, not mere websites.

You think that I am not using the Visual Editor correctly. I am not convinced. If I wanted to add a citation, I would press the Ctrl+Shift+K combination and a dialogue box would pop up. I could then pick the type of the source, fill in the details and it would format the citation for me. You could, if you wish, ask it to fill the citation automatically with just a link. I would not recommend that, though, because that's how we get NPR.org as a source rather than NPR. If I wanted to modify an existing citation, all I have to do is to double-click on it, and the same dialogue box would pop up. There is no need to struggle to format citations yourself. Nerd271 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I usually use Template:Cite web as it covers most significant info most of the time (see website= for example). I generally don't know of value to "differentiate news agencies from websites" in the code, but I do not stop editors if they properly use the code.  Do not include "extraneous codes are automatically included", as we are attempting to conserve space and not confuse editors with unused code.  Do you think Readers do not know NPR.org is NPR etc?  One could get into a debate over what is considered a news agency, or "fake news", a debate which I can avoid with just naming the website (indisputable).  See RS/P.  X1\ (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "using the Visual Editor correctly" is because you added junk and didn't change to "agencies". Try not using the Visual Editor and see how it works and what the code looks like.  Some of the automation on Wikipedia doesn't work as expected, or hoped.  X1\ (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do all my editing by hand, no automation. X1\ (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's the generic template, but it should not be always used. If you can specify the type of the source, do that. It's not hard. You won't see those extraneous codes when you read the page or use the Visual Editor. However, readers will see NPR.org. If you can cut something out, always cut it out. I am not disputing the quality or reliability of those sources. I did not change them in this case because the appearances did not change, but they might if you include more information. I also asked you to please differentiate in the future.
 * Please give the Visual Editor a try. It makes things very convenient, and no, you do not have to see the ugly codes. You can search for templates or media files. The list goes on. Automation is a beautiful thing. I have used manual editing before switching.
 * I used the Visual Editor correctly. Those codes are for when you need to fill in further details, in our case, archived links. Don't bother with them if they are not necessary. Nerd271 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Automation is NOT always "beautiful thing". Don't add junk to the code.  X1\ (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is when it works, and it does in this case. You don't have to see the code unless you absolutely have to. All readers and many editors won't. Speaking of extraneous stuff, don't write NPR.org when NPR is sufficient. Nerd271 (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it did not. See my previous comments.  X1\ (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did and it did. Readers won't even notice. Nerd271 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of readers of this discussion/argument, "Cite news" is generally for offline sources, while "Cite web" is for online publications. The main differences between the two since 2014 are "Cite web" requires a URL and "Cite news" has the "issue" and "volume" parameters. Otherwise, they usually produce identical output. See the Template:Cite web subsection "Choosing between and " discussing the differences between the two. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

A humble suggestion
When I first created this article, the title was: "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia and other events leading to the possible impeachment of Donald Trump" or something like that. I suggest when they finally impeach his ass we go back to the original title. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can certainly make a move request once the impeachment happens. - MrX 🖋 11:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "impeachment" should be added to the title after it happens. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (and & ) What exactly do you suggest each new title would be of each of the current Timeline titles?  Impeachment isn't removal from office.  This all still continues.  X1\ (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

how to end this timeline
Except for the possible impeachment of the president on the obstruction of the Meuller investigation, and this may still lead to articles, this thing is winding down. The Meuller investigation is ower and after Stone is sentenced, there really isn't anything left besides that Russian company which hasn't been in the news for months. This is why I decided to change the title. There really isn't enough to have another article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the investigation Timeline(s) are not just the Mueller investigation, see past Talk pages. So much has happened since you created the Timeline starter 23 May 2017.   Many changes .   Mueller spun-off various investigations, many are still as of yet unknown, and redacted.   X1\ (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Varying tense
There's a mix of tenses in this article. It is variously written in present tense (historical present) and past tense.

Just look at November:
 * 2: present tense
 * 5: present tense
 * 6: no tense
 * 7: present tense
 * 8: present tense
 * 12: no tense
 * 15: past tense

I personally think it historical present is fitting for timelines. Others may disgree, but I think we should have consistent tense.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am all for consistent verb tenses, just as long as the meaning of the item stays accurate to the RSs. I am not particular, as long as you change them consistently.  X1\ (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Draft" Trump–Ukraine scandal timeline
For reference, see Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal#Draft Timeline - comments invited; expand both "Draft Timeline - comments invited" cot and "Timeline" hat. X1\ (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. In my opinion, we should include in the Trump/Russia timelines the portions of the Ukraine scandal related to 2016 election interference, Crowdstrike, the "DNC server", Clinton's infamous deleted emails, etc., and avoid the Biden-specific items. Normally conspiracy theories should be avoided, but in this case there are a lot of real actions people involved in Trump/Russia have taken based on those theories beyond simple promotion/promulgation. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * sounds like a reasonable approach. X1\ (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've really nob objection.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that this page be split into two pages for 2019 and 2020. This page is far larger than any of the other timeline pages, and I am worried that this page will experience out-of-memory problems in the near future. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support; although not a rush yet since currently 321 (at 338,675 bytes) per Special:LongPages. X1\ (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is moving up the list very quickly. In only 9 days, it has already moved up 51 places. --Numberguy6 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: the 2020 secton is long enough to warrant splitting-out. The hard limits we have to worry about are 650KB or 1000 templates/macros. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I need to learn more about templates/macros hardlimits. Please point me toward your source with a wikilink.  X1\ (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , a good starting point is Template limits. The purpose of the limits is to help protect against Denial-of-service attacks. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have an opinion, as you extended that page into 2020?  X1\ (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I did so, was because there were one or two things that I thought might go over into this year, such as the Roger Stone trial. If you want to split off 2020, go ahead. I don't mind at all. Arglebargle79 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the new name has one right-parenthesis too many. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * i know. i tried to fix it but they wouldn't let me. I hope someone else will do so ASP.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. X1\ (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , why did you create the SPLIT page as Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020–2021) instead of Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020)? Please change it to that, so we don't have to do this again; and by this I mean the need the change all the wikilinks.  It can be a lot work, and one has to deal with trolls, deletionist, disruptors, etc ...  X1\ (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I attempted use of an anchor with Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020) (instead of the double-year-named Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020–2021)): example Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020). For my very limited test, it appeared to work, so far; but I can not say it will work in all situations, since it is an anchor passing through a Redirect.  There may be other issues by using Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020) for the 2020 half for the double-year-named title, of which I am not currently aware. X1\ (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the reason is simple: I don't expect that there's going to be much happening in 2021 with this unless Biden's attorney general decides to go apeshit and starts indicting people. The chances of this thing being a major news story in 2022 or '23 are slim. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason is simple, you were wildly wrong about this segment, . While I am grateful for your previous contributions to the Timeline, you didn't expect much this year either.
 * See User talk:Arglebargle79 and Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020) with presumption at Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019). X1\ (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Timelines of current events
An IP editor removed Category:Timelines of current events from some of the Timeline segments; is that a problem or appropriate?

X1\ (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2019)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2019)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SenatIntelCommitReportVol2": From Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day):  From Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the missing citation. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)