Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

venn

missing a timeline - venn was it? also missing Venn diagram of parties involved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.153.148.230 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Alfa-bank

Websurfer2 can you clarify why you restored this? The FBI investigation concluded there were no links (see p. 119 here). Alaexis_¿question? 05:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: These timeline pages track several investigations, including those that had negative results. The events that led to an investigation and the investigative path are just as important to track for historians as the conclusions. Websurfer2 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: For an item like this, it is best to add the negative finding to the item than to delete it. Something like "In December 2019, the DoJ Inspector General found...", and add an appropriate citation. Websurfer2 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the proper place to document investigations, considering that the article is called "Timeline of Russian interference" and not "Investigations into Russian interference." How would you suggest to clearly distinguish things that have not been confirmed in the end? Alaexis_¿question? 06:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be the correct title, since there was effectively zero Russian interference, therefore there cannot be a timeline of it. You may as well have "Timeline of the Biden Campaign Stealing the 2020 Election (OBTW, it didn't actually happen)." 71.222.187.1 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem with it is that it's written in wiki voice like confirmed facts, so it's weird to just add that bit in the end. I'll try to re-word it. Alaexis_¿question? 06:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: The page was started to document what happened, not document the investigations per se. That just fell out naturally as the investigations became part of the story.

I think we should move it to Timeline_of_investigations_into_Donald_Trump_and_Russia_(January–June_2017). We know for sure that the FBI investigation concluded this by February 2017 so it falls clearly within the scope of that article. Alaexis_¿question? 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It clearly belongs on this page because that is when it happened. When the investigation concluded is irrelevant to when the event happened. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it"? The FBI investigation denied that there were contacts, so for all we know, maybe there were no contacts at all or maybe the look-ups were not connected to the contacts. Do you know of newer reliable sources which contradict the investigation results? Also, if you believe that this has to be mentioned, how would you propose to add the information about the results of the investigation? Alaexis_¿question? 17:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The event in question was reported and widely discussed in the news at the time. The fact that the FBI later concluded it wasn't nefarious is irrelevant to its inclusion in this timeline of events that happened. See my comment above about how to include it. Websurfer2 (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Where would you add the negative finding? We must pay attention to the due weight requirement of WP:NPOV. By way of analogy, consider the "stolen elections" allegations which were also reported and discussed a lot in the media. It would be wrong to write about all the allegations and then in the end append "actually, nothing of that sort happened." Alaexis_¿question? 06:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

‘ The page was started to document what happened ‘ but they are pointing out that the investigation found that IT DIDNT HAPPEN. 66.235.18.72 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Really? I think you will find MUller did say there was interference. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian interference in the elections was clearly proven, but this thread is about Alfa-bank and the nature of its connection to a Trump server, not Russian interference in general. The suspicion was very quickly discarded because the connection was not proven to be nefarious. This turned out to NOT be part of the Russian interference, but, at the time, because of Trump's favorable actions toward Russian interests, leaking the suspicions of a secret backchannel to the press seemed to be justified:

The trial took place in May 2022, and the jury found Sussman not guilty. During the trial, it was revealed by Robby Mook that, even though campaign members "weren't totally confident" in the veracity of the information, in light of Trump's favorable actions toward Russian interests, leaking the suspicions of a secret backchannel to the press seemed to be justified, and Hillary Clinton agreed with that decision. Mook believed journalists would verify the story before publication.

The idea of establishing a secret backchannel between Trump and Russia isn't odd at all. Jared Kushner approached Russia's ambassador to Washington and suggested setting up a secret (from American intelligence agencies) and secure communications backchannel. The idea was so dangerous and odd, seen from an American security perspective, that the Russian ambassador realized this and was shocked at the very idea. No normal person would ever suggest such a thing. Only someone who had no loyalty to American interests would even try to do that, but the Trump campaign tried. As far as we know, the Russian ambassador didn't go along with the idea. It would have been a ticking bomb under Russian-U.S. relations.

Also read Russia investigation origins counter-narrative#Sussmann trial and acquittal, and John Durham#Prosecution of Michael Sussmann (and the next section there about "Alfa Bank investigation"). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Merger discussion

3 similarly named articles are covering same topic and mostly identical as one as huge part of 4th just repeats content of first 3 ones 85.238.103.38 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I would keep Internet Research Agency as a stand-alone article, as it is not about the US elections, and merge all of the US election-related timelines into one (or several, if the result is too big for one). —Michael Z. 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed this really bad idea by now-blocked IP to merge a lot of long articles. Many were created by splitting from even longer lists, so this reverses that and would need a good discussion and solid consensus to do that. Based on this history, this idea is DOA. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.  —Michael Z. 19:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

See Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm very strongly against merging this article with any other since it would hide everything about the IRA in a jumbled up article, and it would especially hide the more recent material which may be more important than the stuff about the 2016 election. It's obvious the proposal is not going anywhere, so I'll delete the "proposed merge" notice on top of the article, unless anybody has an objection. I'll wait 24 hours. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Highly speculative

This article is highly speculative and assumes that every contact Trump had with any Russian entity has lead to the Russian interference. this is not a timeline based on hard evidence but a barrage of sinister names and speculations of their connectivity. This kind of "connect the dots" conspiracy mongering is below the standards of Wikimedia.I suggest this article in it's entirety be transferred to Yahoo. 97.120.153.185 (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The GOP has cultivated a close relationship with Russian interests for 25 years, a documented relationship that has led to an increasing level of interference and corruption in the US right wing. You’re just engaging in the standard pattern of denial common to conservatives. When you follow the money, you discover that conservatives have a great deal of interest in Russia. The Kochs, the most influential interest group for conservatives in the US, made their family fortune working for Stalin. They also became one of the most vocal opponents of pulling out of Russia in the wake of the war in Ukraine, and are quite likely behind much of the pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine politics on the right in the US. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Well the FBI now admits it was all them, so you're a fucking conspiracy nut retard, and the correct title is "Timeline of FBI Interference in the 2016 Election."

Please refrain from insulting other users, and provide a source if you wish to make such changes to the page. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 21:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Update. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your very reply reeks of political bias. Entries like this are what is killing Wikipedia as a legitimate source for information. The very article you link to in the New Republic is full of innuendo and suppositions that are not backed by sources. It was written by someone who sells books an is not a even a journalist.

Additionally propaganda like this masquerading as factual is what got Trump re-elected. I used to donate to Wikipedia but will no longer. 74.87.192.250 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Well we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Possibly unsupported statement

We say: Through September 2021, U.S. government investigators had been unable to explain the activity

I cannot find an allusion to this in the NYT source. Am I missing it? I believe the latest federal investigation mentioned by the NYT is the FBI investigation all the way back in 2016. I don't see where the NYT says anyone, (e.g. Durham) continued investigating it until 2021. DFlhb (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)