Talk:Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)

Entire Article Must be Rewritten Now Given All the Documents Released

Now everybody can just read the documents Tulsi released and realize what happened. Hillary started the Russia hoax to distract people from her email scandal, and Obama changed the intel assessment in 2016 to reflect the Russie hoax, and media outlets gleefully pushed the Russia story in order to damage Trump's first term. The article, as presently written, is woefully wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2025 (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 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

Edit was reverted

Copied from my talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, may I ask why you are able to determine the edit "did not improve the article?" Are we not permitted to provide information learned and properly cited? Blambert1313 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because I know the subject well and have much more experience here? I've been here since 2003. That doesn't mean that newbie's can't make improvements. It happens all the time, but they often make mistakes or add content that does not improve the article. Your comment, which is a personal opinion, was not up to par for accuracy, and adding a source did not change that fact. There was also a comment someone else had left before you, and I also deleted it in the same edit.

When you find that your changes to an article are not accepted, please just follow the WP:BRD procedure and start a conversation about the matter on the article's talk page. Suggest an improvement and the sources you'd like to use. (Never edit war, which you have not done, so thanks for that.) The article's talk page is where this conversation should be taking place, not here. That way, other editors who are watching the page can also chime in. To save us both time, I'll copy this thread to that page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The authority fallacy, also known as appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy where someone tries to support a claim by citing an authority figure, but the authority's expertise in the specific field is irrelevant or insufficient. Essentially, the claim's validity is mistakenly linked to the authority's status, rather than the actual evidence or reasoning supporting it. 2601:248:C000:147A:E9DF:7D1F:E36D:7F56 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)