User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 20

IG Report
Hey what do you make of this:

You're the smartest editor I know, and I respect you. Here's my understanding: the IG found that there were FBI CHSs in the campaign who passed information on Page and Manafort to the FBI, but the IG did not find evidence that these CHSs were tasked with this job by the FBI. Does that seem a fair reading to you? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise, I really appreciate it. I’ll get to this within 24 hours.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - I've pasted more relevant information from the report and Horowitz' testimony, above, if you wish to discuss. Meanwhile, here is my understanding about the specific quote you posted. I understand that the Trump campaign recruited people who were already FBI sources - and that none of these sources were asked by the FBI to investigate anyone related to Trump. One source provided general information about investigation targets Page and Manafort.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The OIG didn't claim to establish that the sources were not placed by the FBI. Rather, they state that their investigation found no documentary or testimonial evidence of such placement. I don't draw any conclusion from that, and so of course I don't claim that the FBI did place sources in the campaign. That is still unknown as far as I'm concerned, though perhaps the lack of evidence uncovered by the OIG makes it somewhat less likely that the FBI placed the sources in the campaign. Still, the OIG did determine that there were FBI sources in the campaign, and that those sources did pass information to the FBI about Page and Manafort. To me, this was mind-blowing. I had previously believed that Trump's allegation that there were FBI sources inside his campaign who were passing information to the FBI was unsubstantiated and (I thought) probably false, though I kept an open mind about it. It is now known to be true that there were such sources inside his campaign, though perhaps sources that were not placed in the campaign by the FBI. Is this not surprising to you? I'm open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about something here. But, for now, color me shocked by this news. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I’m not as shocked, . My lack of shock is because my view is that perhaps FBI sources are ... not rare. You know, Stefan Halper - federal government official, professor - and spy. Heck, Carter Page turned out to be a CIA contact as well. If you read the last paragraph I quoted above - there was even an FBI source in the campaign that the Crossfire Hurricane team had no idea about until that source provided information on their own accord. So either (1) the FBI is so messy that it can’t even properly keep track which source can help with a current investigation, or (2) the FBI is so large that various departments have gotten their own sources and this isn’t being communicated to other departments.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But, just to be clear, you don't dispute the truth of anything I'm saying. Was any of this a change in view for you? It was a change in view for me, as I suggested: I used to think that the claim that there were FBI sources in the campaign reporting on high-level campaign staff was probably false. Also, another question: do you regard the IG report as a primary or a secondary source relative to the Spygate article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - truth? There is only the report (primary source). I don’t dispute the report. I don’t remember my previous views, and I’m open to what the report says. It says that there were multiple FBI sources with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign - and one, just one, provided general information about two targets, Page and Manafort, who happened to be campaign staff. Are you suggesting that this is nefarious?  starship .paint  (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone makes a self-serving, extraordinary claim of wrongdoing without providing any evidence, and a wide ranging investigation uncovers no evidence; the presumption is that the claim is false. This is true even if the claim was not made by a person world famous for making things up. O3000 (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * SSP, look at the section in the report called Other CHSs Who Were Not Tasked As Part of Crossfire Hurricane. Here the report says that the FBI had several other CHSs with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign. How many of these CHSs were there? How many had a connection and how many had a role in the Trump campaign? The report does not say. But it goes on to say that As one example (note "one example" strongly suggests more than one instance, doesn't it?) there was one such CHS who passed general information to the FBI on Page and Manafort. This example is then identified as a CHS who did not have a role in the Trump campaign, but was one of the CHS with a connection. So, contrary to what I said before, in fact what the IG says is that a CHS with a connection to candidate Trump was passing such information. It does not, as far as I can see, give an example of a CHS who had a role in the Trump campaign passing information to the FBI. Neither does the report deny that this happened. The report only confirms that one or more FBI CHS (number unspecified) was inside the Trump campaign. That alone is mind-blowing to me, and contradicts months of claims on talk pages here that this was not the case. I suspect that even now it would be impossible to get any of the editors who claimed that there were no such FBI CHS in the campaign to correct their previous statements. Such is the way of political discussion these days, unfortunately.
 * The report is in my opinion a secondary source. Primary sources in this case would be the documentary evidence reviewed by the report. The report itself is secondary because it provides the OIG's thinking based on primary sources...at least one step removed from an event and because it contains the OIG's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody agrees with you, so could you please stop repeating the same over and over stuff?  SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey SSP, it looks like a couple of my fans have followed me here and this last one would like me to stop talking to you. Let me know if you agree, and I'll leave you alone. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about individual editors. It's about your disruptive conduct on this various pages . You are wasting everyone's time. Editors have been sanctioned for less. Drop it.  SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)corrected17:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifico, we are currently on SSP's talk page. So it's about me talking to SSP. If you have problems with my conduct on a content talk page, go ahead and report me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - there is nothing for to drop on this page. There was no vandalism or attacks on me - we were having a civil conversation. There are probably many right-wing Americans thinking the same thing. I don't see further engagement, at this point, to be disruptive. In fact I see it as beneficial, because it isn't a situation like this.  starship  .paint  (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a single purpose account whose persistent repetitions of this view have been rejected on numerous article talk pages. However, you are free to keep whatever company you wish on your talk page, so I apologize for any unwanted intrusion.  SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hear that, SSP? Single purpose! Did you even know that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what SPAs are. As long as you follow policy, and avoid votestacking, you should be fine.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thanks for the advice--good to know that I should be ok if I don't cheat the system! (Fingers crossed!) Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Shinealittlelight, regarding (1) are we here to win arguments on talk pages, or write articles? (2) at that point, we didn't have the information we had now.
 * Regarding - certainly, I can see how it would be shocking that at least one FBI source was in the campaign. Here's another train of thought. How many FBI sources were in Hillary Clinton's campaign? How many FBI sources were in Obama's old campaigns? How many FBI sources are in Biden's campaign now? Is surveillance a rare, exceptional thing in America? I don't think so. Republican-controlled Congress expanded warrantless surveillance in 2018, led by 'anti-FISA' Devin Nunes himself, and Trump signed it into law.
 * Regarding secondary versus primary source, I vaguely remember there was some sort of discussion for the Mueller Report. I would suggest the same applies. Either way, my own view is that we should focus on what other sources report about the the Horowitz report.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SSP. I'm glad you think I'm not a dummy. Anyway, well, of course we're here to write articles. But if people can't change their views and reason carefully and be reasonable, updating their beliefs as new evidence emerges, then we have little hope of producing good articles, right? I agree that "winning" and "losing" isn't the right way to think of it, but we do need people to be capable of realizing that they are or were wrong and change their view, or else I don't know why we discuss these matters at all. And, frankly, I don't know that I see a lot of that around here, so I'm not feeling optimistic at the moment. But I feel like between you and me that happens sometimes, so maybe that's something to be optimistic about.
 * Excellent point that it's an important question how many FBI sources are scattered around everywhere. I don't know if that's true. But, if it is true, it seems very bad to me. Maybe that's the real story here.
 * One more question: do you think that any of our articles should state that there was at least one FBI source inside the Trump campaign? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is, the report said there were FBI sources. Editors can either believe that, or not believe it. It's up to them - we don't really know either if it's true or not, but thankfully verifiability, not truth. - yes but only if it also states that there was no evidence of them being tasked by the FBI (if the sources say so).  starship  .paint  (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Prediction: this will never be allowed to be added to any article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How elastic is the FBI's and CIA's definition of a CHS?
From what I can figure, it's extremely elastic, from real spies, to well-connected people (Stefan Halper), to someone interviewed by the FBI who provides answers (Carter Page), to some Trump campaign member or White House staff cleaning lady who overhears something and then reports it to the FBI. What do you know about this? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the CHSs the report talks about have assigned handlers. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know this off-hand,, being neither a spook nor an American. But, I read this Inspector General report, released last month, that It seems that indeed, the White House cleaning lady might qualify.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While reading that report, there's some interesting information that I think would be pertinent to you, . From the length of the [REDACTED] word, it seems that it is either a 4-digit number or a 5-digit number. Were the number to be 1,000, that would suggest that the FBI has 10,000 CHS.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My count may be off; but I think six people associated with Trump's campaign have been indicted for serious crimes, some of them imprisoned. It shouldn't be that surprising that the FBI is watching some of the people in the campaign as it seems to attract criminals worthy of attention. I'd say this reflects badly on Trump, not the FBI. O3000 (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

To keep things in perspective, an FBI CHS can be any human being who in confidence provides the FBI with information. They don't have to work for the FBI or be paid, or even do it voluntarily. They might be approached by the FBI and answer questions under duress, like Carter Page, Sergei Milian, and George Papadopoulos. Any of Trump's staff, campaign aides, or family can be considered an FBI CHS if they provided information. There's nothing nefarious about it. They don't have to be "placed" in the position where they overheard something worth reporting. Many loyal and patriotic Americans in the White House were so alarmed by what they were seeing that they became FBI CHSes and leakers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Six months ago, if I had said to you that there were probably no FBI CHSs inside the Trump Campaign, do you think there's any chance you would have disagreed? I don't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All I knew was what RS reported, and that was that the FBI had not planted any CHS in the campaign, as alleged by Trump, and that is still true.
 * That doesn't mean the FBI wasn't getting information from within the campaign, from Trump's staffers, and from some of his horrified Cabinet members, because many were patriotically reporting the active co-operation and back channel dealings between Trump and his aides with Russians (otherwiseknown as collusion), all of which they tried to keep hidden and which they lied about.
 * The FBI was also getting reports from foreign intelligence of overheard conversations between Trump associates and known Russian intelligence agents. The FBI was well-aware that Russia was attacking America and getting help from Trump. He's no patriot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat: no chance. I myself wouldn't have disagreed with someone who said that, and I was way more open to the possibility than you were. Shinealittlelight (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed that, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Maybe I'm just too tired right now. Your phrasing confuses me because the quibble hasn't been over whether there were any sources in the campaign (now we're learning there were some), but whether the FBI planted any CHS in the campaign. "Yes" to the first and "no" to the latter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This may hang on whether we're talking broadly about CHS who are informal sources or talking narrowly about CHS who are actual implanted agents. "Yes" to the first and "no" to the latter. The conspiracy theory asserts, without any evidence, that the latter is true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The heart of the matter
- allow me to slightly change the course of your conversation, to address what the most important point is here, in my view.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) Six FBI sources and "a few" undercover agents were tasked to speak to Page, Papa, and a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation (of these, four FBI sources established contact).

(2) One FBI source close to Trump, who was supposedly not told anything about the investigation, supposedly provided information about Page available on the Internet.

(3) One FBI source was indeed in the Trump campaign, but supposedly only told the FBI after they left the campaign, and was not tasked.

(4) One FBI source was supposedly due to attend a 'private' national security forum with Donald Trump, but nobody remembers if anything came out of this.

(5) One FBI source held a position in [REDACTED], but the Crossfire Hurricane team supposedly did not know about them

(6) One FBI source, a Trump supporter, had connections to [REDACTED], and provided information in March 2017.

Imagine that I told a hardcore Trump supporter a summary of the above information: Upon reading the information, what would the Trump supporter say? Probably: This, to the hardcore Trump supporter, would be evidence of impropriety in the FBI, perhaps even a political bias against Trump.

But not everyone would agree with the hardcore Trump supporter. Who knows most about the case? Horowitz himself. What did Horowitz conclude, despite clearly knowing about these eleven sources? Not only that, there was nothing improper, at least where the FBI was concerned:.


 * We also did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs to interact with Page, Papadopoulos, and the high-level Trump campaign official in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.


 * Finally, we found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked any CHSs or UCEs to join the Trump campaign, sent any CHSs or UCEs to campaign offices or to campaign events to collect information for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign.


 * Once the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened, the use of CHSs and UCEs was authorized under the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, which permit use of "all lawful investigative methods in the conduct of a Full Investigation" including specifically "CHS use and recruitment," "consensual monitoring of communications," and "Undercover Operations.


 * FBI policy defines "sensitive" sources to include CHSs who are political candidates or who are "prominent within a domestic political organization." None of the CHSs tasked in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation fell within these categories, because none of the CHSs were themselves candidates or prominent members of a campaign.


 * ... we found no evidence that any of the FBI CHSs or UCEs used in Crossfire Hurricane joined or participated in the Trump campaign at all, and certainly not at the direction of, or otherwise on behalf of, the FBI. During our review, this issue briefly arose because we learned that one of the subjects of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation had invited an FBI CHS to join the Trump campaign, prior to the opening of the investigation. However, we found that when the Crossfire Hurricane team learned about this invitation following the investigation's opening, the team did not consider using this opportunity to engage in UDP. Rather, every FBI witness we interviewed said they would not have done so even if the FBI CHS had actually wanted to join the campaign ... None of the documents we reviewed indicated that any member of the Crossfire Hurricane team ever advocated for that type of investigative activity.


 * We further concluded that the use of CHSs and UCEs in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation complied with the DIOG's requirement that "investigative activities be conducted for an authorized purpose"


 * While the investigative activity in this case clearly implicated First Amendment protected activity, we did not find evidence that members of Crossfire Hurricane team attempted to use CHSs or UCEs for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment. Rather, we determined that these investigative activities were focused on obtaining information that would enable investigators to better assess the predicating information.


 * We found that the Crossfire Hurricane team made no use of any information collected from the high-level Trump campaign official, because the team determined that none of the information gathered was "germane" to the allegations under investigation.

It also appears that Horowitz found nothing improper about the five sources within/connected to the campaign or Trump. Perhaps, the background information provided by Horowitz explains it. I posit that because the FBIs has and an unknown number of inactive CHS, having five sources within/connected to the campaign or Trump is not unusual.

At any one time, the FBI has thousands of active CHSs from diverse backgrounds who report on a wide variety of threats. We were told by the FBI that the relationship between a CHS and the FBI may continue for many years, during which time a source may become inactive, and then become active again. We also were advised that it is commonplace for CHSs to bring information to the FBI that is outside of his or her typical focus, because that individual believes the information may be of interest or value to the FBI.

According to the FBI, its use of CHSs in counterintelligence investigations is common.

FBI policies allow for the use of "sensitive" sources [which] requires heightened levels of supervisory approval [but] those requirements did not apply to any of the CHS or UCE activities undertaken in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, from its inception through the November 8, 2016 elections.

TL;DR - the fact that there were FBI sources in/around Trump's campaign implies impropriety by the FBI. However, Horowitz refuted that there was impropriety according to DOJ/FBI standards. If you have a problem - it should be with the DOJ/FBI standards, and not that  starship  .paint  (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bam! Excellent presentation.
 * This all boils down to POV about what is legal and ethical in an election:
 * 1. Is it proper for a candidate to solicit and accept help from foreign nationals with their election campaign?
 * No, it's actually illegal to accept anything of value from foreign nationals for such a purpose.
 * 2. Is it okay to seek such help from an enemy nation?
 * No, this is an especially forbidden act. Since this was a GRU military attack, aiding and abetting such an act of war is defined as treason, not just collusion/co-operation.
 * 3. Are such actions co-operation/collusion with an enemy power?
 * Yes. "Conspiracy", as alleged in the Steele dossier, may not have been proven by Mueller (because of the massive obstruction of his investigation), but the dossier's allegation of "co-operation" has been proven with mountains of evidence, much of it in the Mueller Report.
 * Trump supporters are backing Trump, no matter what he does, even if it's illegal, treasonous, cheating, unethical, etc. The hardcore ones have been (accurately and perceptively) defined/described by Trump as those who will not change their support, even if he commits murder on Fifth Avenue. That tells you what types of low-lifes make up his currently staunchest supporters.
 * That they voted for him might be excusable, but knowing what we now know, their continued support reveals a lack of morals, ethics, and patriotism.

Various people have described Trump as a domestic threat and "Enemy of the State":


 * "When [elected leaders] serve a foreign government, we call it treason. Trump's actions don’t legally amount to treason...but his encouragement of foreign meddling is still a profound betrayal, one that places his interests above American self-government and the rule of law. If this isn't an impeachable offense, nothing is. ...Thanks to Trump's actions, Americans risk inheriting a democracy where elections are playgrounds for foreign powers rather than an expression of citizens' wishes."

Joe Biden has called Trump an "existential threat to America".

"This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger..."

This is where the disagreement lies: Was it Russian intelligence or American intelligence who did something wrong? There is plenty of evidence it was the Russians who interfered and the Americans, with help from multiple European intelligence agencies, who exposed them.

What is undeniable is that Trump asked for and welcomed Russian interference on his behalf, and he was caught with his pants down.

The GOP and Trump are therefore upset they got caught, so they attack those who exposed them, rather than apologizing for their own wrongdoing in accepting such aid. Trump has even doubled down and declared he would do it again, and expanded his invitations from Russia to China, both of which are sworn enemies of the United States. This is classic treasonous behavior.

George Takei described what's happening: Trump has lit the damn house on fire, but the GOP just wants to go after whoever pulled the fire alarm. September 28, 2019

Kamala Harris reacted to Trump's actions: "China is listening. Russia is listening. North Korea is listening. Let's speak the truth: this president is a national security threat."

George Takei agrees. He displays his patriotism and sharp wit when he calls Trump a domestic threat (to national security): As Commander-in-Chief, he is sworn to protect us from threats both foreign and domestic. You, sir, are the latter. September 16, 2016

The testimony in the impeachment hearings consistently shows how Russia, not Ukraine, attacked the elections, and that Russians are getting help from Trump and the GOP in pushing the Russian denialist version of events. Since the interference was largely performed by the Russian military in a modern cyber warfare attack on the United States, we are literally at war with them, and Trump and the GOP are defending this attack. Helping the enemy during war is generally considered treason.

Fiona Hill describes this as pushing a false narrative that helps Russia and harms America. She says the GOP is repeating and spreading Russian propaganda.


 * So, are Trump-supporting editors going to continue to attack those putting out the fire, or keep supporting the ones who started the fire? By continuing to get their information from Fox "News" talking heads and other unreliable sources, they are set up to turn things on their heads and view the innocents as guilty and defend those who are really guilty.
 * Would it help if they were informed of the solid background justifying the intelligence investigations of the Trump campaign? Well, here is some of it:

There were a number of reasons why the investigations into the Russian's "sweeping and systematic" election interference led to suspicion, investigations, and surveillance of the Trump campaign in efforts to determine the nature of the election interference and the relationships between Russians and Trump campaign members. It started with routine surveillance of Russian assets by foreign agencies, not as part of any surveillance of the Trump campaign. That surveillance was started in late July 2016, by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern", and while their nature is known by intelligence agencies, it has not been revealed to the public.

In September and November 2015, the FBI warned the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that one of their computers had been hacked by a Russian cyber group and was sending information back to Russia. Their warnings were unsuccessful, and in March 19, 2016, the Russians gained access to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails.

Months later, the DNC hired private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which independently found that the Russians were behind the hacks, thus adding more confirmation to what multiple intelligence agencies already knew. The Dutch also reported how they had watched a group of Russians hacking the DNC.

de Volkskrant reported that the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the Russian hacking group Cozy Bear back in 2014, and observed them in 2015 as they hacked the State Department in real time, while capturing pictures of the hackers via a security camera in their workspace. American, British, and Dutch intelligence services had also observed stolen DNC emails on Russian military intelligence networks.

Also, in April 2016, the FBI received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign".

The New York Times also reported that British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries, and that U.S. intelligence had overheard Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, talking about contacts with Trump associates. Some Russian officials were arguing about how much to interfere in the election. Then cyberattacks on state electoral systems led the Obama administration to directly accuse the Russians of interfering.

Because the CIA is not allowed to surveil the private communications of American citizens without a warrant, the CIA and FBI were slow to react to these revelations from foreign agencies. They needed evidence showing the spread actions of individual campaign members were connected to the campaign itself. That came in July 2016

Then an unwitting revelation by George Papadopoulos revealed that he knew, seven weeks before the FBI, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign did not reveal this to the FBI, but the Australian ambassador did. It was this revelation which started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

That was the last drop for the FBI. It provided abundant probable cause to justify an investigation of the Trump campaign. Now they had conclusive evidence that the campaign, not just individuals spread over time and place acting independently, was knowingly working with Russians to exploit the stolen emails. That justified starting an investigation of the campaign itself, not for political purposes, but for national security purposes.

In sworn testimony, Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen stated that Trump knew in advance that WikiLeaks would leak the hacked Democratic emails. Trump also repeatedly praised and thanked WikiLeaks and publicly asked the Russians to find Hillary's emails. Russian officials began efforts to hack her server and the Clinton campaign servers "on or around" the same day as Trump's request.


 * When will editors stop acting politically by defending Trump, who started the fire? When will they start backing what RS say about his co-operation with Russian attacks on American democracy and electoral systems? Their failure to back RS is disruptive and tendentious political editing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - you've gone off on a tangent. You need to think like hardcore Trump supporters. For hardcore Trump supporters, they believe in a deep state conspiracy against Trump, and they parrot that Trump didn't do nothing wrong, and that there was no collusion. To them, multiple FBI sources in Trump's campaign is not evidence of Trump's impropriety, but the FBI's impropriety from their POV.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I address exactly that point in my "enemy of the state" hatted section. That is indeed what they do. They attack the firemen who are putting out the fire Trump started. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply to SSP and BullRangifer

 * , I am not sure what matter you think your remarks are the heart of. I'm not a hardcore Trump supporter, for the record. But I have had two points, and I don't think they are challenged by what you said:
 * (1) It is surprising that there were so many FBI CHSs (i.e., what regular people who do not work for the DOJ call "spies") in and around the campaign. None of us expected that to be confirmed, and while we may try to offer deflationary explanations in retrospect ("there are spies everywhere!"), and we may hasten to add that the FBI says that they didn't intentionally send that many spies at the campaign, nevertheless it is surprising. I think you agree with me about this, I don't think Bull does, though.
 * (2) This should be in various articles, with appropriate context and sourcing, with the qualifier that the FBI denies that they tasked these sources. Here I think you again agree with me, and I think Bull disagrees.
 * I do not want to address the other points you made, because I don't see that they challenge (1) and (2), which have been my whole point in this discussion. (Well, I can't help myself, one small challenge: you say "refuted" when you should say "found no testimonial or documentary evidence of". This is a huge difference, especially sine the OIG was taking testimony and documents from the FBI.)
 * Finally, I'd like to ask a question: was the remark  directed at me? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Any human being who discretely provides information or replies to questions from the FBI can be considered a CHS. Most are not "spies" in any sense of the word. "Informant" may be the word you're looking for. There are myriad informants and few spies.
 * 2. You write: "they didn't intentionally send that many spies at the campaign." No, they were not "sent" into the campaign. Halpern only approached three campaign members and asked them questions, and one contact was totally by chance and fruitless. Other CHS, regardless of their placement, were just informants, some of them doing their commendable patriotic duties. Would you consider a Trump-appointed Cabinet member a "spy" because they truthfully reported their concerns to the FBI? I call them a patriot.
 * 3. When not just Horowitz, but all RS have found "no testimonial or documentary evidence", we can state in Wikipedia's voice that the false claims pushed by Trump and other unreliable sources are "refuted" (and RS also say they are refuted), so we can too. When all evidence has been examined, then holding onto a fringe belief that just might, sometime in the future, be proven true is not logical, especially when the only support for those fringe beliefs are thin strands of untenable conspiracy theory "evidence".
 * 4. My comment was directed at any editor who consistently defends the narratives pushed by unreliable sources and Trump. If Trump says it, our first reaction should be to doubt it and fact-check him afterward. He is so consistently deceptive he cannot be trusted: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018. At Wikipedia, one cannot support RS and Trump at the same time. Please choose RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question, Bull. I really don't want to discuss these matters about the FBI with you, it's not why I'm on SSP's talk page. I want to know if you were talking about me when you said . Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did answer your question. Whether you are one of all the "editor[s] who consistently defends the narratives pushed by unreliable sources and Trump" is up to you. If you self-identify and feel "the shoe fits," then wear the shoe. If not, then don't. It's your choice.
 * OTOH, if you recognize the shoe is not defensible, and you don't want to wear it, then change opinions and patterns of discussion by no longer defending ideas which come from unreliable sources. (I note that many places in my talk page archives, for a long period of time, you appear making exactly these same arguments, so I don't see any positive learning curve. That's sad.)
 * BTW, what if I had singled you out for that comment? What would you do? What difference would it make? This is a private talk page where we are exchanging many personal opinions. My comment was not personal, not an attack, and very civil. So, what difference would it ake to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take that as "you weren't talking about me". Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

- I never said (and am not saying) that you were a hardcore Trump supporter. But they obviously do exist.

On issue (1), I'd like to question the label of "spy". "Spy", in my view, brings up the image of James Bond - secret agent extraordinaire, sent into places to snoop around and carry out missions. Whereas "Informant", acknowledged by Wikipedia to be a synonym for "confidential human source", includes those who report on criminal activities to law enforcement.

Also on issue (1), it's not only that /, but also that the Inspector General, after concluding an investigation, has concluded it as fact that the identified CHS within the campaign was not tasked:  They were probably able to come to such a conclusion from an extensive investigation of their own for documentary evidence, not just testimony from FBI agents.

To review the FBI's use of CHSs and UCEs in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the OIG was given broad access to highly classified information.

Separately, the OIG reviewed emails, text messages, and instant messages of the FBI agents, analysts, and supervisors working on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as well as contemporaneous handwritten notes, to identify references to CHSs and UCEs. Through our Delta searches and review of documents, we learned of additional CHSs who were discussed for potential use in Crossfire Hurricane, but ultimately were not tasked by the FBI.

We also obtained and analyzed the FBI's index for the Crossfire Hurricane case file, as well as the indices of the Crossfire Hurricane sub-files for Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, and Flynn, who were named subjects of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. These indices reference activities undertaken by the Crossfire Hurricane team involving CHSs by listing the CHS [REDACTED] in each line item that pertains to CHS activity. We then analyzed the underlying documents from the Crossfire Hurricane case file and sub-files that further described any activities involving CHSs.

The OIG was also given access to the FBI's classified Delta database, which is the FBI's automated case management system for all CHS records. We were able to review [REDACTED] the files of CHSs who were used, as well as those who were considered for use, in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

We also conducted word searches within the FBI's Delta database for a number of terms, including "Trump" and "campaign," as well as the names of individuals who held leadership positions within the Trump campaign. We analyzed each of the Delta documents containing the search terms related to the Trump campaign and its members.

On issue (2), as above, I would write:  starship  .paint  (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Any continued suppositions (implying wrongdoing by the FBI and that Trump is totally clean and innocent) after such a thorough examination of all the evidence are just conspiracy-mongering and repetition of talking points found only in unreliable sources.
 * I accidentally got Hannity on the radio while driving the other day. I could listen, in real-time, as they created new conspiracy theory talking points. Now they're pushing the idea that Trump's opposers (I think they were talking about Brennan) actually solicited unfavorable Trump info from allied European intelligence agencies in 2015. Such unsolicited sharing is standard operating procedure. They do this all the time. That's how the counterfactual media is trying to frame all the info which the eight intelligence agencies shared with the FBI and CIA in 2015 and 2016.
 * Even if that were true, would it be wrong? No, because if there is smoke, it's perfectly legitimate to seek more information to confirm whether there is a fire. We have seen no evidence that it happened that way. They're just trying to chum the waters with suppositions and distractions.
 * Hannity even mentioned John Solomon in this connection, and we know that part of the reason he's disgraced and lost his position is because he invents conspiracy theories. It's really a shame, because he used to be a good journalist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * SSP, I never said (and am not saying) that you said I was a hardcore Trump supporter. I'm just saying that I'm not one in case you thought I was. And I'm not saying you didn't think I was, either.
 * As for 'spy', the whole argument is a little silly to my way of thinking, but I do think that in ordinary English 'secret agent' and 'undercover informant' and 'spy' are all more or less interchangeable. People who make a big deal about the differences seem to me sort of like people in the government who insist on words like 'enhanced interrogation technique' in place of 'torture', or 'military action' for 'war', or 'collateral damage' for 'killed and wounded civilians'. I mean, the government always does this sort of language engineering for PR purposes, but don't expect me to follow suit. But whatever, it doesn't really matter either way, except for PR purposes.
 * As for the evidence that the OIG looked at to come to their conclusions, in what I wrote I use 'says' for verbal or written claims. The OIG looked at FBI testimony and documents, so they looked at what the FBI says in my sense. So yeah, the evidence is what the FBI and other members of the DOJ either verbally said or wrote down, and conclusions the OIG reached should be understood in light of the source of the evidence.
 * I would really like to see your suggested language added to various articles. Perhaps I'll try adding something like that. One other thing: I think that everywhere it states "not tasked" in the IG report, it says "as part of the CH investigation" (or words to that effect). I don't think it makes the general blanket claim that the FBI didn't task them at all, does it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Language engineering for PR purposes" is the reason that Trump literally rebranded an "informant" a "spy". He admitted it. Keep in mind that Trump is a dishonest salesman and conman, and what he's done was not in good faith. He seeks to deceive his followers. He's the equivalent of a used car salesman, and they have the lowest reputation for honesty of any profession.
 * The choice of words does make a difference, because "spy" has an odious connotation in ordinary English, and why those who defend Trump follow his lead by implying what amounts to falsely claiming that firemen are home invaders chasing non-existent fires. Those CHSes were informants providing a description of the nature of the proven-to-exist "wide and sweeping" fire. They are patriots who should not be smeared with the "spy" label. Trump smears and abuses good people doing what good people are supposed to do. If he praises someone, beware. They are likely not good people.
 * Several intelligence agency directors have denounced the use of the term "spy" in this context, and you know it. You've been part of the "Spygate" article discussions for a long time, and yet you're still litigating these debunked ideas. Please stop it. Words matter, so use the correct terms, not the terms used by Trump and unreliable sources. Every language has synonyms, and there are correct situations for each synonyms, and totally wrong situations for others. Trump's use is wrong. You say that you are not a "hardcore Trump supporter", but you are still a Trump supporter.
 * If you really think that "the whole argument is a little silly to my way of thinking", then why do you insist on adopting or defending Trump's use of misleading terms? Methinks thou dost realize that it does make a difference, and your choice of words happens to expose which side you're on.
 * Regarding "not tasked", a phrase used eleven times in the OIG report, I haven't seen anyone making "the general blanket claim that the FBI didn't task them at all..." Most CHS are not 'secret agents', 'undercover informants' or 'spies'. They are ordinary people, and most have never been tasked, others have been tasked many years ago, and others more recently. The point is that none were tasked in this connection, so whatever else may have happened is irrelevant now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, I'm not interested in talking to you about these things. Please stop making statements about me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. Happy to oblige. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

- you’ve provided an example of why “spy” is problematic. You conflated it with “undercover informant”. “Undercover” means someone working to get secret information, while “cover” refers to an assumed identity that masks the real one. It is frankly likely that the FBI CHSs were hired by the campaigns under their real identities.

Let’s take a bit of a detour. Remember, a CHS is I can provide you with one such individual who I think meets this criteria: John McCain, who provided the Steele dossier to the FBI before the election. McCain’s involvement was kept secret at the time of his activities, though later McCain wrote about it in his book. I would think McCain fits the description of a confidential human source. Now, ask yourself, would you call McCain a “spy”? A “secret agent”? An “undercover informant”?

I can’t agree with. Testimony, as I learned in the Mueller investigation, can be verbal or written (Trump). I would consider any form of testimony to be “says” (as in “says to investigators”). But documents, I disagree that they would be “says”. The documents looked through are past emails, messages, notes, the case file, and a database of CHS. Can documents like a database “say” anything? I doubt so. Documents “tell” a story.

Now, even if we were to still use your definition - - who else should investigators have asked, other than the FBI, about FBI CHS? Perhaps they could ask the CHS themselves, but the CHS are FBI CHS, so would apply again, no? By writing, in my head, I see it as presenting that “this is what one side says”. But I can’t think of any other side for this investigation. The FBI’s side is the only side.

Yes, not tasked as part of Crossfire Hurricane.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think 'spy' and 'undercover' and so on are used much more loosely in ordinary English than it is among intelligence pros. I am not an intelligence pro and I do speak ordinary English. But if you want me to talk like intelligence pros, I'll try. Similar points hold about 'says'. But none of this really matters to me: you are understanding me just fine, and as I see it you are agreeing with my main points. To answer your question about what investigators should do other than talking to the FBI and reviewing their documents, my suggestion is that there are lots of investigative techniques that were not available to the OIG. I'm not criticizing the OIG in saying that their report was based on limited evidence; they did what they are allowed to do. We should just take that fact into account when trying to understand their report and summarize it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What next?
So, here’s the language you favour, :. Since you are so invested in this, may I suggest that you find some reliable sources (not the report) which reports so. I’m kind of busy. Heck, if you find reliable sources for the first fragment of the sentence before “while”, I’ll find the next part. Please avoid sources like the New York Post or Washington Examiner. Preferably not Fox News or the Washington Times as well. Wall Street Journal (news, not opinion) is definitely fine.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I still regard the report as a secondary source. But here are some sources of the sort I think you will want:


 * factcheck.org: the report said it learned that the FBI had “several other” confidential sources “with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign".
 * Politico: investigators had informants, or confidential human sources, “with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign”.
 * Politico: In 2016, “the FBI had several other” confidential human sources [CHS] “with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign,” Horowitz found.
 * CBS: the FBI had "several" confidential sources with "either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign".
 * Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - excellent work. While you may regard the report as a secondary source, the key point isn't to convince you - it is to convince other editors. They may not have the same views, and your arguments will be bolstered by having the above sources, and not only the report. You could have tried using Fox News, but again, other editors are unlikely to accept that. The sources above are to maximize your chance at success, since you already think you are fighting an uphill battle. I will soon search for extra sources.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Washington Post 1: Third, it addresses allegations that the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign, saying “we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.”
 * Washington Post 2: The Horowitz report makes clear that no individuals associated with the campaign were targeted by informants prior to the launch of Crossfire Hurricane. “We found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs” — confidential human sources — “or UCEs” — undercover employees — “to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” the report states. “After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign.” Horowitz’s investigators also “found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
 * factcheck.org: the report said it learned that the FBI had “several other” confidential sources “with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign". But they “were not tasked as part of the” investigation. One such FBI source who “knew candidate Trump” gave the FBI “general information” about Page that was already publicly available. “We found no evidence that any members of the Crossfire Hurricane team ever suggested inserting this [confidential human source] into the Trump campaign to gather investigative information,” the report said. Another FBI source “held a position in the Trump campaign,” but did not tell the FBI about his or her role until after leaving the campaign.
 * Politico 1: The FBI did not embed sources inside Trump‘s campaign, and the sources they did have inside and associated with the campaign were not used in the Russia investigation, contrary to claims pushed by Trump and his supporters. Trump and his allies have claimed numerous times that the FBI under Obama had implanted a spy among his campaign, another potentially explosive accusation, dubbed “Spygate,” that was debunked by Horowitz. The inspector general found that although investigators had informants, or confidential human sources, “with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign,” and one of those sources provided the bureau with information about Page and Manafort, that informant was unaware of the ongoing investigation. Furthermore, Horowitz found, the information they provided was open-source — “[a]II over the Internet.“ Horowitz wrote: “Although the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware of these CHSs during the 2016 presidential campaign, we were told that operational use of these CHSs would not have furthered the investigation, and so these CHSs were not tasked with any investigative activities.“
 * Politico 2: In 2016, “the FBI had several other” confidential human sources [CHS] “with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign,” Horowitz found. One of those sources gave the FBI information about Page and Manafort, but was never made aware of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and provided intelligence that was largely open-source, Horowitz wrote. Another was a member of the Trump campaign, but didn’t inform his handler about his role there until after he’d already left the campaign. The FBI did not task that source as part of Crossfire Hurricane, either, Horowitz found, and was considered “hands off” by the Russia probe team because it did not want to collect “campaign or privileged information with regard to the presidential election,” Horowitz wrote. “Although the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware of these CHSs during the 2016 presidential campaign, we were told that operational use of these CHSs would not have furthered the investigation, and so these CHSs were not tasked with any investigative activities,” the report says.
 * CBS: While the FBI had "several" confidential sources with "either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign," Horowitz did not find evidence that the informants "ever reported any information collected from a meeting with Trump or a Trump campaign event."


 * I found two sources, and I added your four sources with more quotes. That should be enough, in my view. Your thoughts?  starship .paint  (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint, that's excellent work! Some should be used at the Spygate article. That Politico 2 ref is pretty comprehensive. It reveals the FBI very deliberately avoided politicizing their investigation, IOW any personal biases did not affect their investigation. They were not interested in ferreting out the strategies of the Trump campaign, but were strictly interested in national security issues. In that regard, the FBI followed the book. Contrary to Trump's and ally's conspiracy theories, the Obama administration did not misuse the FBI to seek insights into Trump's strategies. Instead, they were justifiably concerned about the ongoing interference in American affairs. America was under a military attack by GRU and Trump was aiding and abetting it, thus justifying accusations of treason.
 * Now the FISA process needs to be tightened up and their low bar for probable cause needs to be raised. The unfortunate issues discovered are systemic and unrelated to Trump, Steele, or politics. Investigations of other FISA cases will likely reveal similar failings, thus exposing systematic overreaches in the surveillance of American citizens, a problem that we live with all the time, especially after 9/11. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I generated.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks pretty good. I mean, it isn't how I would frame it, of course, as this framing does its level best to hide the surprising nature of the fact that there were CHS in and around the campaign. But I agree that it's how these sources have framed it. This will go better, I think, if you add it to the article, but if you don't want to I'll do it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - let's just wait a little while, and enjoy our Saturday.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Reality check: That language will not be accepted by the current group of editors who have worked on this article. And an aside, what is surprising about the US intelligence community gathering information about folks who are coordinating with the illegal acts by Russians? After the past 75 years of cold war and Republican intelligence operations, it would be beyond "surprising" if they (and the intelligence services of various US ally nations) were not receiving information about such activities.  SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. Yep, that's what I predicted. We'll see. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with SPECIFICO. I don’t see what’s surprising (or laughable) considering the number of people in the campaign indicted/convicted/imprisoned for major crimes. The FBI is a leading U.S. counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization. One hopes they’re watching criminals. In any case, the upshot is that Obama did not place a spy in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That is, Spygate is a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is nothing "surprising" about patriotic Americans reporting their alarming findings to the FBI. People in the White House and close to the campaign were witnessing collusion with the enemy in its military attack on America, and they did what they were supposed to do. That is not "surprising".
 * What's truly "surprising" and alarming is how the Trump campaign kept hidden and lied about their co-operation with Russian operatives. Kushner even tried to set up back-channel communications with Russia using Russian equipment, in order to prevent American intelligence from monitoring the communications. Even the Russians expressed surprise at such a naive and treasonous arrangement.
 * The Trump campaign also did not immediately report to the FBI all Russian offers of help, as was their patriotic duty. Before the election, they had been warned by the FBI that the Russians would try to contact and use them and that they should report such contacts to the FBI, but they didn't do that. Instead, they literally welcomed such help. That's textbook collusion. The Trump campaign is Russia's best friend and a threat to national security. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Reality check,. "worked on this article"? Better check the history, nobody has worked more on these articles than myself. The second edits of Spygate (conspiracy theory) and Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) were done by me. The expansions of each article were done by me (the former got to 34,000 bytes with mostly my work, the latter 42,000 bytes with mostly my work). I also got Crossfire Hurricane to DYK. I have more authorship of either article than your current group of editors combined. Plus Shinealittlelight is #2 on both articles, together we have over 60% authorship on either article. Obviously, your current group of editors doesn't have a problem with my writing, which is why so much of my work is still the current text. So pray tell, what problems do you have with my language? (1) Have I misrepresented the sources? (2) Do you have better sources?  starship .paint  (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You've done lots of good work but this sounds like WP:OWN, which doesn't change my evaluation of current editor consensus and also could undermine your fine reputation. All that is really beside the point. It won't have helped your case that this lengthy content discussion happened on your user page rather than article talk. I doubt anyone's going to read it all if the issue is raised at the article. Not that reading it all would affect the ultimate outcome.  SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not at all OWNERSHIP, . I don’t rule any article, but you simply don’t get a free pass at talking to me about people who worked on the article when I am the one who worked the most on the article itself. Also, I don’t give a shit about my reputation. Discussion is free to happen anywhere, and I certainly don’t expect anyone to read any discussion on my talk page. You certainly seem like you’re talking down to me, and I am feeling very insulted.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal in my comment, SP. Do you think the current group of editors at the article is going to come to consensus that agrees with the language you came up with here? I was simply stating my opinion that they/we will not agree. Anyway, I really didn't have anything to add, just sorry to see you're upset. Ciao.  SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - you have obviously identified problems in my language, yet you give no explanation at all, even after being asked.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Just today I resigned from Trump babbling rather than admit my signature is the bigger problem, and passed the torch to you two? You can't make situational comedy like this up, I swear. Anyway, you'll be joined in your wacky adventure by no-nonsense California girl MelanieN. And not a moment too soon, if you know what I mean! It's not like that, though, so slow down. Just get in, spread some truth, get out. Nobody has to be confused. Nice and easy, business as usual. Make Jimbo proud. Never forget where you came from. Don't make the same mistake I did? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, December 29, 2019 (UTC)

Where is the article for the December 9, 2019, IG report?
We have this tiny section:


 * Michael E. Horowitz#Findings of FBI investigation of Russia and Trump

So where's the main article based on this "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - I would surmise it's nowhere because nobody (1) gives enough of a shit about it or (2) has the time to do it.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ; discussion related to new (12:38, 30 December 2019, Starship.paint then edited) Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation article?  X1\ (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)