Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


venn

[edit]

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)[reply]

Highly speculative

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Update. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lies 98.57.153.147 (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unsupported statement

[edit]

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)[reply]

Patten + Kilimnik

[edit]

Under 2001-2004 the name Patten occurs for the first time - and several times morw. No explanation given about. - Somewhat similar with Kilimnik. 46.142.34.61 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]