Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

Article title

The article title was moved from Links between Trump associates and Russian officials to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies without discussion. I don't believe the move could be considered uncontroversial, and hence I have reverted the move. The only discussion about the title I can see is a brief discussion in 2017 (note that one major participant in that discussion is a blocked sock account). Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This short title does not cover the scope of the article or actual events. A significant factor was the secretive meetings with Russian agents/spies, so that was added to the title. Politrukki, your attempt to revise the mention is misguided as the subject is not primarily links to the Russian Federation but links to individuals, some few of them officials, but most of them private individuals that are not officials, including a number of agents/spies (we assume there were many as the secretive meetings between Trump's people and proven Russian agents/spies were spread out over at least seven European countries, and even Australian intelligence reported such meetings). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind clarifying the Mensch sentence you're referring to, but that sentence has been in the article for several years, and has never been debated. I don't know if anyone has touched the sentence for years until you did, but I'm not claiming it hasn't. Mensch is not a great example, because the context makes it clear Mensch is promoting baseless conspiracy theories, which would not be the case with most articles that wikilink to this article.

Could you provide some examples of Russian spies who are also not Russian officials? Could you name some "spies" that Trump associates have been prominently linked to? Remember that in reliable sources the claim "that the Trump campaign had close ties to Russian intelligence" (per WSJ) is a "debunked" narrative. The Journal also mentions Strzok's notes in the margin of print copy of NYT, notes which undercut the NYT's anonymous sources: "we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials". So it's sketchy for BLP reasons to make an unsubstantiated claim "and spies". Politrukki (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We could say "agents", rather than "spies", although they often mean the same thing. RS say "known or suspected Russian agents" and "known Kremlin operatives already on the grid". These were people whose communications and movements were monitored and recorded by allied agencies.

NYTimes: "Since the Feb. 14 article appeared, more than a half-dozen officials have confirmed contacts of various kinds between Russians and Trump associates. The label “intelligence official” is not always cleanly applied in Russia, where ex-spies, oligarchs and government officials often report back to the intelligence services and elsewhere in the Kremlin."[1] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Manafort: "“I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers...He added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”[2]

• Support full title that covers actual content, ergo Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies. This title is not favored by Trump supporters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please note that this is not a move request. This is a informal discussion that may or may not lead to a move request. I someone has a waterproof argument of why "and spies" should be added, I can always self-revert. Please don't try to poison the well with arguments referring to "Trump supporters". If Trump supporters decide to show up in this discussion, they should make policy-based arguments. Politrukki (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I discussed this issue with Valjean about one year ago, and I don't believe that anything new has broken since that time. Like Politrukki, I am struck (pun possibly intended) by the evidence that the senior leadership of the FBI, specifically Peter Strzok, who authored the (now-declassified) electronic communication (EC) that initiated the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane probe and was consequently unfairly maligned by Trump during Trump's presidency, saw no evidence to substantiate thinly-sourced contemporaneous reports of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence:

Mr. Strzok's skeptical annotations of the [February 2017] Times article, headlined "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence," were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information. Mr. Strzok's annotations disputed the article's premise and other aspects. He wrote, "We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials."—"F.B.I. Agent in Russia Inquiry Saw Basis in Early 2017 to Doubt Dossier," The New York Times, July 17, 2020.

To my knowledge, the only case that has been reliably documented (and cited as retroactive vindication for The New York Times article in question) is Paul Manafort's interaction with Konstantin Kilimnik, who was sanctioned by the United States Department of the Treasury for his connection to Russian intelligence in 2021, long after the events in question; even then, it is not clear that "spy" would be the most accurate descriptor for Kilimnik (we do not describe him as such in his WP:BLP). In my view, these established facts are not sufficient justification for the proposed (now-contested) page move at this time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mueller's report

As is, this entry paints the picture that the Mueller investigation exonerated the President when in fact, it laid out instances of Obstruction of Justice that it was not authorized to prosecute.

Therefore the section on that subject needs to elaborate on the conclusions of the report and link to best available source for report (least redacted.) 2605:59C8:70A7:8410:242F:316A:F2C8:9330 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If true, your concern is legitimate. Please point out the exact words that are problematic so we know where to begin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

More books

I noticed the Seth Hettena book is listed. I don't know how to add links, but these two other books should also be presented if someone could please add them.

American Kompromat” by Craig Unger "House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia" by Craig Unger 2601:18C:8200:B0C0:94E:245F:6ACC:13E5 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Kilimnik linked to Russian intel

The last paragraph of the section for Paul Manafort includes the statement: “Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, who is believed to be linked to Russian intelligence”.

In fact, Kilimnik’s link to Russian intelligence has been firmly established. It was revealed in April 2021 by the U.S. Department of the Treasury that Kilimnik is a “known Russian Intelligence Services agent”. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126

This information was also reported by the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/us/politics/russian-intelligence-trump-campaign.html

The sentence I quoted above should be edited to reflect this. 100.11.96.78 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)