Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation

(

)

... that an Inspector General review did not find evidence of political bias in the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but found "serious performance failures" regarding FISA applications? Source: TIME: Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that the FBI had adequate cause in July 2016 to justify opening an investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia and did not find hard evidence of political bias in that decision. National Law Journal: there were “serious performance failures” in obtaining surveillance warrants against a former Trump aide [...] The numerous missteps, Horowitz added, "raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision" of the process for obtaining warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dein Lob, Herr, ruft der Himmel aus

Created by Starship.paint (talk). Self-nominated at 13:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - Not really clear what the topic is about without checking the "Crossfire Hurricane investigation". Also, the FISA part is not really that interesting.

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

See above.

How about

ALT1: ... that an Inspector General review did not find evidence of political bias in the opening of the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign? or

ALT2: ... that the United States Attorney General rejected his own Inspector General's findings that there was no evidence of political bias in the opening of the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign?

ALT2 seems more interesting to me, an AG rejecting his own IG's findings publicly. Regards So Why 20:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy. I will need time to expand the article to (1) clarify the topic and (2) make the FISA part more interesting. Perhaps let me ping you once I have finished that?

I feel that ALT2 is a bit inaccurate - the actual quote by Barr is The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken, so proposing ALT3 below in the meantime. starship .paint (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the United States Attorney General rejected his own Inspector General's findings that the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was justified?

@Starship.paint: If you want to suggest something else, feel free to do so but I'd be

with ALT3. Regards So Why 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm happy with ALT3. I'd just like to expand the article a bit more regarding your concerns :) starship .paint (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)