Talk:Trump-Russia connection

	This Crime related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

anonymous sources

Even though it's obvious that Trump is a liar who engaged in corrupt dealings, anything based upon anonymous sources shouldn't be treated as reliable information. This is what separates Hilary's dirty laundry being aired (as a primary source itself) during the various DNC hacks and speculation about what Trump did/didn't do - at least for now. It's difficult if not impossible to write an objective article about a subject that is still evolving and changing every 2-3 weeks as new developments happen. This whole page is just going to be a <30 word summary of the Mueller Report when that finally comes out anyway, since that (like the 9/11 Commission Report that Mueller also contributed to) will be the final word on all of this.

Also, there is a mention of Watergate in the "See Also" section but not the Iran-Contra affair.. including the 11th hour pardons HWB issued in regards to it before he left office. Given that there is an Iran-Contra article here, this should obviously be included in this section.

73.189.217.205 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents

My 2 cents (as somebody who's racked up over 3/4 of million hits writing on this subject over the past two years) are intended to be helpful and constructive. So let me be direct. And I didn't read the whole thing through. I stopped at point 3 below:

1. ) The Intro says the counterintelligence investigation is ongoing. It's not. It ended in October 2017.
2. ) Trump has no direct links to Oleg Deripaska. However Robert Mueller and Andrew McCabe do, Mueller indirectly as McCabe's boss, and McCabe personally as Deripaska's handler over several years. Deripaska also tried to compromise McCain at one point. The indirect link to Trump would be through Manafort; however Deripaska sued Manafort over a failed cable TV project in Ukraine. Oddly enough, the Manafort indictments make no mention of Deripaska (although Rationalwiki does), likely because of Mueller and McCabe's conflict of interest. Christopher Steele, author of the Steele dossier, lobbied on behalf of Deripaska to the Justice Department, and Deripaska's attorney also represented Julian Assange to both the DOJ and Sen. Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intel Committee. Some suspect Deripaska paid Steele and FusionGPS, in addition to Hillary Clinton and the DNC. My recommendation: either present balanced facts or strip out any mention of Deripaska, as Mueller has done. As is, it adds no weight to the argument of Trump-Russia collusion, and is counterproductive.
3. ) And here's where I stopped. There is no statutory provision for a "Special Counsel counterintelligence investigstion." There are only Special Counsel criminal investigations. A Special Counsel counterintelligence investigstion would be illegal.

There a few other minor points, for example Flynn's alleged lying and conviction had absolutely nothing to do with Russia or the Russian ambassador. Flynn lied about writing an article in The Hill that was actually written be Erdogen cronies. The article in support of a NATO ally was considered unregistered foreign lobbying (he was paid $500,000 to lend his name to it). But I realize leftist commie-lib media has to sensationalize and you get used to lies, fake news and bullshit, so it's a rather minor point since Flynn's gonna walk and probably get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for all he's endured and sacrificed.

If anybody wants help in bringing this page up to factual reality, just piss in my ear. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are evidently not up to date on some facts and incoherent about others:

• The Times reported on the 10th of this month that it is unknown whether the counterintelligence investigation is ongoing.
• You say Mueller has a direct link to Deripaska indirectly through McCabe. Think about that.
• "Flynn lied..." Good concession. Flynn is lucky that's all they charged him with. Conspiring to kidnap a Turkish dissident living in the US would have been hard time for Flynn.

I would not edit this article were I you.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That's right, McCabe was the agent contact with Deripaska during the Robert Levinson affair. Mueller was the director who authorized it. I could have been clearer on that point. Mueller's FBI violated the law when it (1) took funding and resources from Deripaska, in order to (2) violate the Iran Sanctions Act. That's why Deripaska was not called as a witness in the Manafort case.

This article uses term "full fledged countetintelligence investigation," assuming that refers to the Carter Page FISA warrant. The Carter Page FISA warrant was not renewed after October 2017.

Under DOJ regs and statute law, a Special Counsel can only he appointed in a criminal investigation. That's why Trump critics got so giddy after Comey's firing - cause that provided the probable cause for a criminal obstruction of justice charge and a Special Counsel. It's commonly believed Mueller then took over the Counterintelligence investigation, but on the other hand no one from Mueller's office signed Carter Page FiSA renewals. So we're in a grey area which will have to be looked at by reformers when it's all over. FISA specifically is not to be used for criminal law enforcement.

As to Flynn, and this is what the Judge is looking at right now, he was accused of betraying his country for Russia, when in fact he was lobbying for a NATO ally whom the Obama administration was trying to overthrow. He told Strzok & Pienka he wrote the article when in fact he was paid to lend his name to it. The Erdogen forces were having trouble getting their side of the story in Anerican media about the chief coup plotter being protected by Obama. The same guy is now being protected by Trump. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We obviously need more Conservapedian conspiracy theories from Nobs on this page 😉. Bongolian (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Imagine reporting the "3/4 of million hits" you've "racked up" as relevant credentials, on this topic, in times like these. The comment sections are just brimming over these days. Having viral appeal doesn't mean you're credible. Picaresquieu (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My work on this subject (including exchanges of information with other well known published experts) has proven much more accurate and stands as a valid, contemporaneous historical record of the 2016 election in an era dominated by major mainstream fake news reporting. This article, at a minimum, should be downgraded from Silver status now if no one wants to fix the multitude of factual inaccuracies in it. It's an embarrassment to RW and RW's mission statement. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't need your conspiracy-theorist ramblings here, Nobs. You're not convincing anyone. Get a clue and retire like you said you would. Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have retired to research and writing. Let me be a concern troll for a minute: the longer you hang on as a Russian collusion conspiracy theory hoaxer and dead-ender, the more damage you do to your reputation. Even Trump had enough sense to back off the Birther hoax, remember? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Age of Bronze

Hey folks! I think this article is fine in its current state. (The best parts are those in which I have been heavily involved, if I may say so myself.) I think we should consider upgrading its status to silver (or even gold). What do you think? Nerd (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Gold seems a bit much. But this article is good, very missional too (being anti-authoritarian). I like to see how this story develops in real life, though, because there might be some real information and it might take some rewriting... --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll give it a read through again. I would think silver is more likely since there will be a lot of unknowns until Mueller issues his report and/or after House investigations conclude. Bongolian (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair points. Thank you all! Nerd (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm done with my read through. Looks good for Silver as far as I'm concerned. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fairly up-to-date. I just dug up a few other things I want to add. But on the whole, this page is pretty accurate and reliable as it stands. Nerd (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. Even the Lawfare (blog), where a lot of the fired FBI & DOJ personnel have taken up shop, admits a so-called "Special Counsel counterintelligence investigation" may be illegal. You may want to save yourself the embarrassment of being a purveyor of fake news by using the term "counterintelligence investigation" a little more judiciously, and not co-mingle it with "Special Counsel." nobs ^{piss in my ear} 19:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Jim Baker, former FBI and Comey's General Counsel, according to Wikipedia "Mr. FISA himself" who was fired after 30 years, noiw works at Lawfare. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd happily vote for silver, but I think this situation is developing too rapidly for us declare this article gold material. The article just isn't finished yet. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 15:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @DuceMoosolini Good point! It's only January, and there have been many substantial developments. If this trend continues, we might have to give each month its own subsection soon. Nerd (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Deripaska

The article reads:

Trump, who has had known American mafia ties,[29] would have no problems doing business with mafia-connected oligarchs in other countries. In fact, much of his known business dealings with Russian oligarchs boil down to his ties to the mafia, such as Felix Sater, a businessman who deals with Russian mobsters, and Oleg Deripaska, an actual mob boss who's also an oligarch. [use of innuendo]

Whereas the Wikipedia entry on Deripaska reads:

Deripaska helped the then-FBI Director Robert Mueller rescue a former FBI-agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in 2007 while working for the CIA in Iran. The then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe played key role in courting Deripaska. Agents secretly met Deripaska in hotels in Paris, Vienna, Budapest, Hungary, and Washington, convincing him to spend millions of his own dollars funding the FBI-supervised operation...

So Mueller asked Deripaska to spend his own money because the FBI was prohibited by the Iran Sanctions Act. it goes on:

According to anonymous sources cited by the 1 September 2018 New York Times′s report, Deripaska was twice approached by the U.S. government officials, including cp:Bruce Ohr, as part of the U.S. government wider FBI–led recruitment effort to obtain informers in the circle close to Vladimir Putin: in September 2015 and in September 2016.[77] Ohr, then a United States Department of Justice official, was reported to have been in contact with the former employee of the British secret service MI6 Christopher Steele, who later compiled the incriminating dossiers on Donald Trump, and discussed cultivating Deripaska, among others.[77]

In September 2015, Ohr and Steele met with Deripaska to discuss "connections between Russian organized crime and Mr. Putin’s government, as well as other issues... [1]

So Mueller, McCabe, Steele, and Bruce Ohr had worked with "an actual mob boss" compared to the innuendo implied in this article. It would be best to make no mention of Deripaska, just as Mueller has done. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't BLP apply here? According to WP, Deripaska is a humanitarian and philanthropist, per the NYT. Why is Deripaska made out to be a mob boss just to impugm trump? ^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs}

That's an improvement; after Deripaska was denied entry to the U.S., Mueller illegally used Deripaska's funds to violate Iranian sanctions. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks more like Mueller colluded with Russian mobsters connected to Putin; still haven't seen any evidence of a Deripaska-Trump connection other than innuendo. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Ever been to Russia Rob? Get a job there did you?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, lets keep this focused on article content. The Hill citation goes indepth a little more than the WP or NYT citations about the Levinson Affair. In summary it quotes Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley and somebody else:

"The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law," Dershowitz said.

Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a "far more significant issue" is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: "It's possible the bureau's arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services."

George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: "If the operation with Deripaska contravened federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller in an impropriety."

I'd encourage reading it for the particulars. Right now, there's a case against Mueller who can't even mention Dereipaska in the Final Report because of a personal COI, but this article carries rather obscure language such as Trump "would have no problem" dealing with Deripaska without a stitch of evidence he ever did. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The only evidence this article offers to call Deripaska a mobster is say he was denied entry into the US in 2006 without offering any link to Trump whatsover. Yet Deripaska was given entrance at least 8 times since 2009. C'mon now, get real. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Rumor has it, the notorious pee-pee memo of Christopher Steele came straight out of Deripaska's asshole. So why would you attack Deripaska's credibility if he's gonna be the star witness against Trump & Manafort? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

HPSCI

• the House Oversight Committee are conducting their own investigations on alleged Russian meddling

Ahh, the House Committee was concluded in February 2017, and the Senate Committee two months ago. Why the fake news? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter now. The whole article is so full of factual inaccuracies, the fact that Mueller concluded his investigation and submitted it to Barr prior to Pelosi saying that impeaching Trump isn't worth it. Confusing the date of Congressional notification with the date of the report submitted to Barr is par for the course, given the level and quality of fake news sources cited in this article. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The recent revert of an IP made me aware we don't actually talk about the conspiracy theories attached to this as such. For me, I'm refering to things like Louise Mensch randomly claiming people alleged to be involved would be executed for the crimes, and the like. Do you think there's a place for it? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We do talk about the attempts to smear the Special Counsel because I thought they were notable. If you want to include more, please do so. Make sure they are notable first, though. See if you can outclass Wikipedia on this one. Nerd (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is "widely mocked" notable? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

By whom? If the answer is social media users, I must say no. Nerd (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

I feel as though a rewrite is needed, especially considering we have the actual report. Though certain aspects are ongoing (mainly financial documents), the picture painted by the report is clear:

• The Russian government interfered in the electoral process
• The Trump campaign was aware the Russian government intended to interfere in the electoral process
• The Trump campaign knew it would benefit from said interference
• The Trump campaign and the Russian government attempted multiple times to coordinate
• The Trump campaign and the Russian government did not conspire together

There is some great sourcing and here, and someone obviously did some great work, but the month by month analysis really isn't necessary. Also may be important to distinguish between the details of the Trump-Russia connection, and the attempt to obstruct justice in investigating the Trump-Russia connection, which are related, but not the same. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be deleted. It reads like a "crank idea" and off mission. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It definitely is not off mission. Authoritarianism, election fraud, conspiracy, racism. Pretty sure those perfectly fit. But a month by month analysis isn't necessary we now have all the evidence.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The election fraud and conspiracy aspects are promoting crank ideas. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes of course the Russians definitely didn't seek to influence the election. And conspiracy was definitely not part of the investigation. Fuck outta here.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Trump-Russia connection"; where is there any evidence of "election fraud" or "conspiracy"? nobs^{I'm all yea'res}

And let's examine this a little closer: While there is absolutely no evidence of "election fraud" or "conspiracy" between Trump and Russia, Russians in fact do have free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution to participate in U.S. elections; carrying this legal point a step further, Russians, the KGB, and Vladimir Putin himself would have the human right to enter the United States illegally and demand healthcare services, according to Democrats. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit this is a Galaxy Brain take. Dumb on so many levels. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wha??? Are you going to adopt the racist position that illegal aliens do not have the human right to access America's healthcare system on the federal government's dime? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"They're here to steal our life-ruiningly expensive healthcare that delivers worst-in-the-first world outcomes" - a fucking genius. Nobs, when are you going to fucking die? Can you hurry up on that heart attack you've been chasing your whole life and spare us your goddamn bullshit? You're a fucking concentration camp promoter, no one will miss you when you're gone. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll put you down as a member of the patriotic racist/nationalist camp as well. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

And an anti-Russian xenophobe to boot. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Honestly just shut up nobs. @RipCityLiberal A rewrite as proposed sounds good. — Dysk (contribs) 19:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a rewrite sounds good, and supposedly christian nobs should think more about where his concentration camps will end up putting his supposed soul. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I can do a rewrite based on the facts of the case, but again my skills don't really go beyond writing, so if someone wants to collaborate with me I think we can nail this.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I could provide suggestions about some sources and material that should be reviewed; but if you're not serious about neutral and bi-partisan cooperation, it's not worth the time to look at it. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well you fundamentally don't understand the facts of the case so, nah.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I fundamentally can point out bullshit, but I leave you to your confirmation bias. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If you can't agree with the main five points I have illustrated, which are indisputable, then you are not a credible source for this topic.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's review them:

• The Russian government interfered in the electoral process; there is however no Trump-Russia connection to interfere in the electoral process;
• The Trump campaign was aware the Russian government intended to interfere in the electoral process; big deal; so did the Obama administration. In fact, any prospective administration should be aware the Russian government intended to interfere in the electoral process;
• The Trump campaign knew it would benefit from said interference; so what, that is not complicity.
• The Trump campaign and the Russian government attempted multiple times to coordinate; evidence? (if this aspect can be proven, it should remain in the article).
• The Trump campaign and the Russian government did not conspire together. Agreed. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You're parsing of point 2 and 3 is incomplete at best and outright denial at worst. Point 4 is confirmed by the communications to George Papodoupolas from a Russian cut-out, emails from Felix Sater to DJT Jr., The Trump Tower meeting with Sater, Veselnetskiya, Jr, Kushner, and Manafort, "Russia, if you're listening", Roger Stone communication with Wiki Leaks, Stone communication with a Russian cut out, and Manafort sharing internal polling information with a Putin adviser. Cohen also identified an attempted email communication from a person in the Putin Gov't that he misidentified as a body builder. On point one, this brings into questions separating the information in this article into 3 articles: One on Trump and his organizations history of business ties with Russian oligarchs and the Russian gov't including money laundering and the Moscow Tower. Another article on the Election interference and the Mueller investigation into said interference. A final article would simply be a timeline, breaking down the entire web of how all of this connects together.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree Trump business arrangements should to be striped out and you can do whatever you like with them. Then we have these questions.

1. What is source for Felix Satar attending a meeting with Veselnetskiya? That's the first I've ever heard of such a thing.
2. Is the Papadopoulos contact Timofiev or Millian?
3. Who is Stone's Russian cutout? Source?
4. Who did Manafort share polling info with?

Let's see if we can work together on this. The Stone and Cohen stuff is a little more complicated; Stone's case is ongoing and much of Cohen's work relates to personal matters. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Felix Satar, a U.S. intel asset.
• The June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting was attended by Veselnitskaya,[144] Rinat Akhmetshin, an American citizen and lobbyist for BakerHostetler,[145] Ike Kaveladze[146] and Anatoli Samochornov.

• Samochornov is a translator who translated for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry. Samochornov hates Trump. Samochornov works for the U.S. State Department and hosted a conference in Washington in Feb. 2017 where wp:Joseph Mifsud was a featured speaker.
• Veselnitskaya hired the law firm of BakerHostetler while in the U.S., who hired Glenn Simpson and FusionGPS on her behalf. The "dirt" she had at the meeting was on two Clinton Foundations donors and brothers which was provided to her by Simpson, who at the same time was being paid by Hillary Clinton to gather dirt on Trump.
• Off topic: the brother of Christine Blasey Ford of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings is an attorney at BakerHostetler.

Cites available for all. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Putin opposition opinions of Russiagate

I think this would make a good addition. There are anti-Putin Russians who dislike the fixation on it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/world/europe/russia-vladimir-putin-liberals.html Nabil (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Putin and Russian sound exactly like Anti-Washington and American. But underage children(<30 yo), extremists, west grant-eating liberals or fleeing mobsters from the Yeltzin era would dislike Putin's policies.85.197.17.229 (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

And you're complaining about "west grant-eating liberals" on a Western, liberal-friendly website because...? - Linneris (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)