Talk:Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)

Origins section -- duplicative information?

In the Origins section, there are multiple paragraphs that all point generally to the fact that the investigation began in July 2016. Several of these paragraphs really are references to different official reports -- from the Republican majority in the House Intelligence Committee, the Mueller Report, and two different Department of Justice OIG reports. But they're pretty much saying the same thing: that the FBI began its investigation after information arrived in late July. I think that there could be a concision of these paragraphs into a more orderly single paragraph that details the nuance expressed in the separate paragraphs but avoids the repetitive appearance now evident in the current form of the article. I've not attempted that, but I see that it warrants attention from some of the other regular editors on this page.Neptune1969 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am intrigued by your suggestion, which sounds like a good proposal. How about trying it out right here so we can all see how it works? -- Valjean (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I will do so. It will be in a few days -- work crunch.Neptune1969 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am drafting a revision now. I made a chance in the introduction that makes the sentence more concise, makes it less contentious, and more effectively connects it to another Wiki page that many regular editors here have also edited. "Conspiracy theory" is contentious, while "alleged" is more neutral and less likely to upset readers. It also is less likely to appear silly as more information comes out from the giant FBI dump -- we don't know what's in there, we are waiting on RS to evaluate them. It is increasingly clear to me that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is being used too much as a weapon to attack anyone holding an undesired view on anything, from current politics to cultural activities, and Wikipedia can and should be distancing itself from weaponization.-Neptune1969 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Why Igor Danchenko not mentioned?

It is now publically mentioned everywhere. (This is just opinion peace, but...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADIwK5rNUw 2A00:1FA0:44B5:AF74:78B6:9B9F:88D0:6E19 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Danchenko was involved in creation of the dossier, which did not have anything to do with the origin of Crossfire Hurricane, or with Durham's investigation into the origin (though he can prosecute any alleged crime he serendipitously comes upon). The dossier came into play only with regard to a FISA warrant renewal on Page, after he had left the Trump campaign. Neither the Clinton campaign nor the FBI publicly used the dossier against Trump during the campaign. Today's indictment says nothing about Trump's belief that the FBI/CIA set him up. soibangla (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comey himself did try to get Trump on 6th January, and thus before Trump became a President-elect later 6th January. So false, FBI [director] did use dossier during the compaign. Also if you were to read the indictement of Igor you will learn that a lot of dossier was done before July 2016. Also, Charles Dolan persona as PR Rep. 1 is connected to Clinton compaign, because HE IS Clinton compaign, so false again to your first part. I mean Olga Galkina even asked Clinton to sign her book for Olga! Third, and last, the origin of Crossfire Dragon and Typhoon has everything to do with Steele dossier, and anyways it does not matter what was first, it is people that matter, Igor was very much involved. You also forgot that Trump himself is under still classified (even name is not known) FBI case code name as mentioned in the article. So Trump was set up, remember Crossfire Latitude idea from Lisa Page? 2A00:1FA0:44F3:E555:A5ED:6366:E024:D534 (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I stopped reading at Comey himself did try to get Trump on 6th January soibangla (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

rename article "FBI Attempts to overturn 2016 Presidential Election"

the Durham investigation has made it clear that this whole investigation was part of an elaborate scheme by the Clinton campaign and Democratic party voters within in the FBI to defame and remove President Trump. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure it is. If you want to request a page move, see WP:RM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-head-disciplinary-action-over-crossfire-hurricane-has-slowed-down

The disciplinary process of FBI agents who mishandled the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation has “slowed” while special counsel John Durham’s investigation continues, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Wray testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The director’s testimony comes as the bureau is again mired in controversy over recent whistleblower allegations that it wrongly dismissed potentially incriminating evidence against Hunter Biden during the 2020 election. Whistleblowers also accused the bureau of exaggerating the threat from domestic extremists.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) questioned the FBI director on the apparent lack of movement on disciplining staff involved with the seriously flawed investigation into false claims of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

“Well, we’ve taken a whole slew of actions in response to the Crossfire Hurricane report. I think over 40-plus corrective measures and so forth,” Wray said.

The senator from North Carolina responded: “Has anybody in the bureau been fired or disciplined?”

“There are a number of people who are currently in what we call the office of professional responsibility, which is our disciplinary arm. You may wonder why has that not yielded its results yet, and that is because we are working closely with, cooperating closely with, and assisting the Durham investigation,” Wray answered. “And so that whole process, which is not unusual, has been sort of slowed down to make sure that it does not interfere with the Durham investigation.”2A00:23C7:5981:A01:982D:2F:1399:C0DB (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence the FBI tried to overturn the election. Even your bad source fails to make such a claim.

The Daily Wire is deprecated here as a really bad source: "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified." WP:RSP

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

So because people who disagree with the Daily Wire said they aren't reliable...they aren't reliable? You literally called them "Detractors" Detractors will say anything to make people they hate look bad 2600:1014:B192:F976:F160:3BC9:D68E:E150 (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Charles McGonigal

I have never seen this much confusion about a simple question before. Is Charles McGonigal connected in any way with this subject? Half of the sources concerning his recent arrest say yes, he was involved in Crossfire Hurricane, while the other half say no, he had nothing to do with it. Why in the world would this be such a difficult issue to clear up? For example, a WSJ opinion piece says yes:

In 2016 Mr. Comey appointed veteran agent Charles McGonigal to head the bureau’s counterintelligence efforts in New York, where he was involved in some of the most sensitive work. They included the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow to steal the 2016 election. Mr. McGonigal was arrested Saturday on twin indictments

If true, why is there no mention of him in this article? If false, why are these claims being made? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I may have missed it before, but I believe his name just hasn't figured in this connection until now. The article contains this statement: "In June 2017, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who had led the Crossfire Hurricane investigation up to this point, became a member of Mueller's team." Focus has been on Strzok for his leadership role, his controversial (but ultimately innocent) tweets, and his affair with Lisa Page. I don't recall mention of McGonigal until now.

It would be good to add information about McGonigal's role. A number of commentators are describing it as dangerous to national security and helpful to the successful efforts by Russia to put Trump in power. He was in a key position to harm the investigation and help Trump and Manafort. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

he had no role[1] soibangla (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the duplication, but sometimes I don’t receive a response unless I pursue multiple areas for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Durham special counsel investigation conclusion

We currently say: The report did not recommend any additional charges to individuals involved in the special counsel investigation, nor did it recommend significant changes to FBI practices for politically charged investigations. It did, however, claim that the FBI used raw, uncorroborated intelligence to launch a full investigation that never should have been conducted under the presented facts. Notice that we use 2 sentences to summarize the results of the investigation: the first one says what the report did not find, and the second one, what it did find. I propose we edit the phrasing so that the first sentence says what the report find, and let other sentences supplement the results or add context. For example, we can first write the main takeaway as summarized by Al-Jazeera, an independent source from the whole Republican vs Democrats biases: The report found that the FBI was too hasty in opening its investigation of Trump. However, it did not....Forich (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Missing binder

As of December 2023, there has been mention of a missing binder https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/politics/trump-binder-classified-material-russia.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Victor Grigas (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a MINDBLOWING report!

This should get its own article and be mentioned in several others.

• CNN: The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump
  • The reference is fully formatted, with name (do NOT remove it!), for use as is.

<ref name="Herb_et_al_12/15/2023">{{cite web | last1=Herb | first1=Jeremy | last2=Lillis | first2=Katie Bo | last3=Bertrand | first3=Natasha | last4=Perez | first4=Evan | last5=Cohen | first5=Zachary | title=The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump | website=[[CNN]] | date=December 15, 2023 | url=https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/politics/missing-russia-intelligence-trump-dg/ | access-date=December 15, 2023}}</ref>

• NYT: Material From Russia Investigation Went Missing as Trump Left Office
  • The reference is fully formatted, with name (do NOT remove it!), for use as is.

<ref name="Haberman_et_al_12/15/2023">{{cite web | last=Haberman | first=Maggie | last2=Barnes | first2=Julian E. | last3=Savage | first3=Charlie | last4=Swan | first4=Jonathan | title=Material From Russia Investigation Went Missing as Trump Left Office | website=[[The New York Times]] | date=December 15, 2023 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/politics/trump-binder-classified-material-russia.html | access-date=December 15, 2023}}</ref>

Here's some more to read from Marcy Wheeler: Alex Cannon and the Missing Russian Binder -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References