Talk:Robert Mueller/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Family Picture?

I think a good contribution to this article would be a nice family picture and the names of FBI Director Mueller's two daughters. If anyone has access to this information, please post. Thnx!

Arkhamite 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited out the phrase "top cop" as too informal. See [1]

In addition to the inappropriate term, the president and not the FBI director is the nation's highest law enforment official, as GWB clearly implied in his speech after the 9/11 attacks. Take heed, ye mortals!

Arkhamite 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


થ== Family Picture? ==

Why would you want to post a picture of his family. As much as he violates people's civil liberties, doesn't mean you need to. Leave the family photos off the internet. Stick to what's in the news, which I'm surprised no one added:

Gonzales, Mueller Admit FBI Broke Law San Francisco Chronicle, CA - Mar 9, 2007 The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/09/national/w180541S71.DTL&type=politics

10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)A family photo could well be a bad idea. this man is a valuable man to the U.S. Terrorists could very easily get to him through his family. I am not sure if there is any easy access to a family photo or family information, but i honestly think it could be an easy way for terrorists or other organizations to get info that maybe they should not have. ofcourse this is only my oppinion.

thanks for reading.

Quote re paper trail

The quote was from 4/19/2002, only seven months after the attack. Have they found any paper evidence since then, e.g., such as would have been revealed during the Moussoui trial? If so, the quote should be removed as misleading. And - in this day and age does data on computers count as part of the "paper" trail - thus rendering the term "paper trail" misleading? One run ron 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)



Dear Mr. R. S. Mueller,

I didn't know how to reach you but someone has Emaile dme saying that they are you. They said it was ok for me to take am ATM Card from a man name Rev. Monsignor Francis Please Email me at jonieglenn26@yahoo.com include this statement so I will know that it is really you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.196.61 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we know when it is the government and not a scam...?

who are these people that use our governments personnels name and make it seem that the FBI is telling people via the email that there are banks or other countries that need to send us money because it is due to us and that the respectable Robert Mueller is the one authorizing all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.242.113 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad, and no doubt is the vast majority of the Wikipedia community, that you took the trouble to ask this (these) particular pertinent question (s). Please be assured that all the points will be answered (to the best of everyone's ability) in the fullness of time. Vandagard (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

Age

Re: his age - he's 68 now. isn't there a way to automatically update someone's age using an applet in these things? Bluthund (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The template {{Birth date and age}}, which is used in the information box already, automagically calculates age. He was born in August 1944, so he will be 2010 - 1944 = 66 later this year. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Scammers using his name

Would it be worth mentioning that 419 scammers adopt his name and his position for recovery scams? Just to raise a bit of awareness. - 79.74.75.211 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A family photo could well be a bad idea. this man is a valuable man to the U.S. Terrorists could very easily get to him through his family. I am not sure if there is any easy access to a family photo or family information, but i honestly think it could be an easy way for terrorists or other organizations to get info that maybe they should not have. ofcourse this is only my oppinion.

thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.22.22 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


I stood next to him on the Esplanade in Boston watching the fireworks on July 4th, around 1030 or so. That picture of him is a bit out of date, he looks like he's aged ten years and has a thinner, more angular face compared to the current picture. 173.48.243.240 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


To who it may concern

My There seems to be a lot of fraud and miss use of my name with officials for illegal criminal activity even with government officials as well as bankers in (Nigeria)it all started, when I gave my new email address to a gaming officials here in AZ on june 06 of this year they contacted me you see I like to play the seepstakes, here in the United States of America and now I get mails from attornies government, bankers everykind of criminal activty for example money laudary of terrorist activity as well I'm sure. I know you must be a very busy man. I don't even bother to answer then. Also now there contacting me from other countries now. Sorry had to delete my name.

Sincerely,


A family photo could well be a bad idea. this man is a valuable man to the U.S. Terrorists could very easily get to him through his family. I am not sure if there is any easy access to a family photo or family information, but i honestly think it could be an easy way for terrorists or other organizations to get info that maybe they should not have. ofcourse this is only my oppinion.

thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.22.22 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Word "Eavesdropping" in the Article

The word "eavesdropping" was used in the press, but it never described what was apparently going on. In many instances, at least according to reports, computer algorithms were utilized to discern patterns of communication stemming from, or going to, nations which were known terrorist havens. Had this issue been framed in more accurate conceptual terms, citizens dubious about "eavesdropping" may well have heartily approved it. Or not. Either way, the public deserved a clearer explanation of what was happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nickname

Is there a place in the article for his nickname - Bobby three sticks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.66.127 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FBI director for nearly a decade

Mueller has been FBI Director for nearly a decade and there are FOUR sentences about him during this period. Does the FBI monitor his wiki page?  ;-) 69.245.157.223 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Scotti

Various 2013 issues/hearing

Here's a couple articles about the June hearings where Mueller gave opinions on subjects like IRS related investigations, PRISM leak, surveillance in general, etc.

Well that's a start. It would be great if someone else updated, but I'll see what I can do. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Mueller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Mueller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 special counsel team

I have broken out 2017 special counsel team; as the team expands, it becomes more than should be contained in this article alone. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the "Preceded by" and "succeeded by" backwards?

n.t.Clarkmag (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Clarkmag (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

May 17, 2017 When breaking news becomes an encyclopedia

About half an hour ago, national and global media announced that Robert Mueller would be appointed as a Special Prosecutor to investigate Russia and the Trump campaign.

Within minutes, from 22:04 to 22:38 according to the page history, the Wikipedia page has been edited 52 times. Hello?

Wikipedia bunnies, slow down a bit. You are not news reporters, nor reporters of breaking news written by reporters. Give the story enough time to become an encyclopedic event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.71.63 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that not all the edits are about the news. Several are in other areas of the article, tidying things up or removing information that can't be verified with reliable sources. I noticed several reasonable edits, such as unverifiable ancestry claims, apparently by editors familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). 173.239.240.118 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Special Counsel in infobox

I agree. I think the immediate Scramble for Africa-esque rush to edit articles based on breaking news, some of which can be found to be untenable after further inquiry, is a tad nutty. Right now, I'm concerned with the affixation of "Special Counsel" to among Mueller's offices held given that it is not a formal title; I say this with reference to the page on Archibald Cox, former Solicitor General under JFK who was appointed (and subsequently fired) as Special Counsel on the Watergate story, which does NOT list this as a position he assumed in the officeholder box. What's the protocol for this? Frevangelion (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the position should be removed. Cox does not have it on his page, and neither does Patrick Fitzgerald. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because Cox and Fitzgerald don't have it doesn't mean Mueller can't. Although it is not a formal title, he does have the same powers as a federal prosecutor and cannot be fired by the President. —Fundude99talk to me 00:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's a touch too soon. In any case, it says so right in the lead. It may be a good idea to let the consensus develop a bit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more useful than not and should be restored. I think Cox's should include it too (among other changes needed at that page--making it a bit OTHERSTUFF for me.) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's restored, I suggest then some of the early career positions should be removed from the infobox, such as "United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division" and the one below it. The infobox is already quite long. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes K.e.coffman, I tend to agree it's too long; my one hesitation about cutting those other posts is that I think it is useful to readers to see at a glance in which Administrations he's served. I'd actually liked your previous approach of removing predecessors (and successors?), as that information is also given in a chart at the bottom of the entry (and IMO bears less directly on his bio). What do you and others think, ok to take predecessor/successor out for concision? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect. The President has the full authority to dismiss Mueller. Read former DOJ attorney Neal Katyal's Twitter thread for specific details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frevangelion (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the President cannot "directly" dismiss Mueller. Trump can order Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and fire Rosenstein if he refuses. Which would obliviously be bad for Trump if he does.—Fundude99talk to me 05:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@JayCoop: Please observe what your edit here has done to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, and consider either moving the {{rfc}} template to a better position or adding a neutral and brief statement of the issue. When doing so, please remember that Legobot (talk · contribs) copies from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus.Status-quo is maintained.Winged Blades Godric 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Should "Special Counsel" be included in the infobox? 

|office       = [[Special Counsel]] for the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]]
|president    = [[Donald Trump]]
|deputy       = 
|term_start   = May 17, 2017
|term_end     = 
|predecessor  = ''Position established''
|successor    =

Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • No - The position isn't continuous. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's a notable position relevant to readers. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per Innisfree987. —Fundude99talk to me 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not like that - GoodDay is right, as this isn't an office so infobox officeholder seems wrong, and it looks misused in the above. Innisfree 'relevant to readers' seems not a relevant or provable claim for a BLP. What matters to BLP is it is important to his life, and though Ken Starr and Robert Fiske don't use this, I think it may be suitable to accept that it's a wrong infobox and shove it in anyway. Just fix the "president" to the "appointed" tag instead, and I think drop the predecessor. Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per Fundude99. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No - per GoodDay and Markbassett ie that this isn't an 'office' and this isn't the standard or best way to record this role. Though the job may well feature prominently in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Is that the correct title? Whatever it is, this is an official government position for whatever duration. So it would be factually incomplete, if not inaccurate, not to include it. At least, that's what my gut tells me. On the other hand, the past record is unclear, as it is referenced in the infobox for Leon Jaworski, but not for either Archibald Cox or Ken Starr. Both frankly, surprised me. So for me, it's a yes, but with a slight addition. Perhaps we add it here, then fix it on those other pages as well. Especially, as I know some editors will be sticklers for consistency. X4n6 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - No one has said anything for 2 weeks, I move that we include it into the infobox.—Fundude99talk to me 04:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - This is a special title within US Government and operates out of their own office: United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel. They have autonomy and their position defined in DoJ 28 CFR Part 600. English06 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Just seeing this discussion now, but I agree with the naysayers in that this isn't some official position limited to one person for a certain period of time because there's the possibility that there could be more than one special counsel working simultaneously on different cases within the Justice Department. In addition, other people that were formerly special counsels on particular investigations in the past don't have this in their infobox. Since there's an equal amount of yeas and nays, it should be removed until more users believe it should be included. WikiEditor668 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - "this isn't some official position limited to one person for a certain period of time" Umm... yes, that's exactly what it is. In the history of the office, no two people have ever held the position simultaneously. So unless/until that happens, we're not in the business of speculating on hypotheticals. But I believe your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the role and authority of this position. If there was a need to investigate different cases, the same counsel could simply expand his scope. Case in point: that's exactly what has happened with Mueller. Also, you may want to count again: even with you, it's still 5-4 in favor. X4n6 (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Position established" vs. "Position Established"

@JocularJellyfish: It has been precedent that the second word is lowercase. It is with George Washington as "Inaugural holder" or "Position abolished" — you changed that on April 30 to fit your preference. In William J. Donovan, it is "Position established" under Coordinator of Information. In Keith Ellison, it is "Position established" under Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee. In Elizabeth Warren, it is "Position established" under Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 02:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. I won't make those changes again. JocularJellyfish (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm feeling that the optional field "Predecessor" should not have any entry. It's not being taken over from anyone or created as a permanent office or adding anything of value here -- it just makes the infobox longer. It would be better to simply list the position, appointment, and date. Markbassett (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Markbasset and others. Activist (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither. I have used the term "Dormant." Please discuss here before making changes. "Position established" erroneously suggests there have never been prior special counsels. Clearly incorrect. But "Dormant" is accurate. Suggests, even better than "Vacant," that the position is not continuous and is only appointed as needed. Open to discussing a better term, but not a phrase - and obviously not an inaccurate one. X4n6 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Deputies in Infobox

@X4n6:, you stated that the Deputy FBI Directors have no place in Mueller's infobox. I disagree with you considering that every recent cabinet member has their deputies in the box along with every other FBI Director. Going with your logic, there is no reason for Vice Presidents to be listed in POTUS infoboxes. Keeping the deputies is simply common sense. For these reasons, I ask that you revert your edit. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish:I was happy to review your claim. I did discover that including deputies was far more common than I was aware. But it's not always done as consistently as you suggested. Nor do I buy your comparison regarding VPOTUSes, because they are elected and much higher profile. Who really cares about most agency deputies? I don't; and I still don't believe they belong in the infoboxes. Robert Mueller's deputies aren't listed. Nor are those of Thomas J. Pickard, Floyd I. Clarke or John E. Otto. With William S. Sessions only one is listed. As for current cabinet officers: Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Jeff Sessions, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, Ben Carson, Elaine Chao, Rick Perry, John F. Kelly all are, while Steven Mnuchin, Sonny Perdue, Wilbur Ross, Alexander Acosta, Betsy DeVos, David Shulkin all are not. But again, their inclusion is indeed more widespread than I knew. So your objection is well-founded and I withdraw mine. Please restore them. Happy editing! X4n6 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

fascinating

Almost all of the lead section is puffery that was written AFTER Mueller was appointed as the special prosecutor. This gives me great faith in the unbiasedness of Wikipedia. Jwray (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Jwray, having nothing to do with it's content and everything to do within its tone, is there any reason why your comment should not be removed as a vio of WP:SOAPBOX? X4n6 (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Deleting talk page comments is rare and confined to extreme cases like doxxing, spam, and illegal content. Jumping to censor mere criticism could be considered evidence of my point. Jwray (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Jwray Leaping to claim censorship, while failing to address the specifics of my concerns, seems to make my point. You have no inalienable right to contribute to this project. When you, or anyone, choses to do so, you voluntarily subject yourself to the same guidelines and policies that everyone is expected to follow. And you accept that your comments may be reviewed by anyone, consistent with those guidelines and policies. Should you wish to respond to my concerns about your comments in the specific context of WP:SOAPBOX, or if you believe another policy pertains, you may reference it. Either would be useful. Otherwise, your comment does not appear constructive and appears to just be POV and soapboxing. That latter makes it subject to removal. Further, the fact that you are being invited to respond, rather than just having the comments removed, seems pretty clear proof that your particular claim of bias has no basis. X4n6 (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
        • lol, so you think accusations of POV violations are themselves POV violations worthy of deletion? The most problematic paragraph is the penultimate one: "He earned a reputation as a no-nonsense, straight-laced attorney and investigator, as well as the nickname "Bobby Three Sticks"—a nod to his name's suffix.[2][3][4] Lauded for his non-partisan and non-political approach, he has been credited with transforming the FBI from an agency primarily focused on law enforcement into one of the world's top organizations handling counterespionage and counterterrorism.[5]" Much of this is just puffery coppied from puff pieces that were written after the appointment to try to puff up public opinion of Mueller. Meanwhile the lead section completely omits any mention of any scandals, such as pushing the Saddam WMD iraq war propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ and then spying on the associated press, and presumably cooperating with other surveilance state abuses disclosed by Snowden et al. It's fascinating how democrats flipped overnight from deservedly distrusting big brother NSA/CIA/FBI to worshipping them and defending their honor. Jwray (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 1) The sections you're complaining about are sourced to: Reuters, BBC News, Time Magazine and NPR. To all but the most fringe elements, those are reliable sources. 2) Per WP:YOUTUBE, those videos are highly problematic and generally not used, for many reasons - not the least of which, is copyright. 3) You are still incapable of mustering a defense for why your comments were little more than WP:SOAPBOX violations. 4) But the fact that you would have the temerity to whine about "democrats" just reveals once more that your only real agenda here is as a POV pusher. Your supposed protestations about "neutrality" are a transparent fraud. The evidence proves your only interest is to use this platform to advance your own political views and to insert them where you can in articles throughout this project. Witness this screed, this comment and so many more. But this one says it all. You're nothing but an unapologetic pov warrior and, in my view, you exemplify everything that's wrong with this project. But the fact that you would base your original criticism on the "unbiasedness of Wikipedia," for me, makes you something far worse than a pov pusher. More depressing, it exposes your incredibly cynical and astoundingly hypocritical behavior. It also begs the legitimate question of whether your contributions to this project are, or ever could be, constructive. X4n6 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Having RS is no defense to accusations of pov pushing by selectively putting stuff in the lead section. RS exist for Mueller's flaws too, which are conspicuously absent from the article. Counter-accusation of hypocrisy is also not a defense. You're dealing in personal attacks and strawmen in lieu of refuting any point that I actually made. The best way to counter bias is to embrace ideological diversity and discussion rather than going on witch hunts. I never claimed to be neutral. There is no such thing as a neutral editor. Every person who ever lived had his own biases. Different editors with different biases provide checks and balances. Jwray (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not easily distracted by specious defenses or weaksauce sophistry. While you shouldn't misuse terms like strawman which you clearly don't understand (ironically, your claim was a textbook strawman) - just as you also don't understand that it's not a personal attack to speak the truth: if you're a problem, you're a problem. So you can neither deflect, defer or defend your behavior here. See WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Also see WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to disclose it. If you are incapable of responsibly editing per WP:NEUTRAL, you're ill-suited for this project. Users are routinely blocked or topic banned for refusing to adhere to WP policies and guidelines. You can also be monitored to insure that your edits are constructive. You've done nothing to disprove the concern that one of those options is likely necessary for you - as you've all but confirmed that you have no interest in editing neutrally and your only interest is in inserting your political views whenever and wherever possible. X4n6 (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dick Cavett appearance

Mueller appeared on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971 on a panel debating John O'Neill, who later founded Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth. O'Neill's next appearance was the famous one-on-one debate with John Kerry. A minute or so clip of Mueller appears Dick Cavett's Vietnam, currently airing on PBS. Dick Cavett Show, June 10, 1971. Nobs01 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Mueller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Republican statement

In the lead, we state that Mueller is a Republican. We cite this (in the infobox) to a Washington Post article, which indeed notes that Mueller is a registered Republican, although without a source. I feel like we should get a stronger source for this statement, and was wondering if anyone had any ideas. Voter registration records is one possibility; if we knew which state he is registered to vote in, that would be easier. Enterprisey (talk!) 11:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean without a source? The WaPo article is the source, and they will have done research into the matter. A voter registration record may not be allowed due to WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
That being said, is there a possibility Mueller no longer is a Republican? Could continuing to list him as a Republican be a discredit to him if no longer accurate. The source is quite old. --2601:642:C301:119A:605E:A205:E788:EB2C (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC (Special Counsel position)

Should his "Special Counsel" position be included in the infobox? 

|office       = [[Special Counsel]] for the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]]
|president    = [[Donald Trump]]
|deputy       = 
|term_start   = May 17, 2017
|term_end     = 
|predecessor  = 
|successor    =

—Fundude99talk to me 04:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes Obviously-important office. It shouldn't have been removed in the first place; thanks for bringing it up again. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Department of Justice order 3915-2017 says "Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice." and capitalizes "special counsel" indicating it's a proper title. [2] Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes In media coverage, Robert Mueller is always identified as “special counsel”, so the title should be in the info box. Billhpike (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes as per others. The fact that there can be multiple special counsels simultaneously serving the DOJ is unimportant as there are multiple U.S. senators from Idaho and that doesn't create a problem (see: Mike Crapo). Chetsford (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I changed the section header to distinguish it from the other RfC section on this talk page. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This RfC has been open for a month, and there is a consensus that the Special Counsel position should be included in the infobox. I think there has been sufficient time for people to weigh in. Davey2116 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Politics?

Mueller is clearly a highly political individual, yet there is no mention in this article of his political orientation. That omission needs to be rectified. Dagme (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says he is a Republican, and that may even have been true in the past, but that is almost certainly very inaccurate today given the fact that 9 of the 17 lawyers he hired donated to Obama and Hillary. Indeed, it appears that each and every one of those 17 lawyers seems to be pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. So almost surely he is not now a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Great logic considering it seems equitable, adding him makes it an equal amount. But I guess for you he's not R if it's not 17/17... 86.175.182.129 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Military Service Records via WaPo - ref name="milrecord"

The Washington Post appears to have gotten the service record of Robert Mueller, available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4386090-Read-Mueller-s-military-documents.html

I made a new citation to make it easier to incorporate, using ref name="milrecord" :

National Personnel Records Center (February 1, 2018). "Veteran's Name: MUELLER, Robert SSN/SN: Request Number: 2-21320131685" (PDF). DocumentCloud. Retrieved February 23, 2018.

Not entirely sure what the title of this is supposed to be, admittedly. Cheers! PvOberstein (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Grandchildren?

Hi all. I note from the Personal Life section of this article that Mr. Meuller has three grandchildren. This is cited to the following page: [1]. However, the text of this page makes no reference to grandchildren, only children. I can't see how this is 'contentious' (thereby falling under the BLP policy), but at the same time, it's a claim that isn't supported by the source that's used to justify it. Is there a better source? Banality (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to track down a better source in the morning, but he certainly seems to have a few grandchildren. From Senate testimony: https://www.congress.gov/107/chrg/shrg80335/CHRG-107shrg80335.htm
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my left is my daughter, Melissa; my wife, Ann; next to her is my daughter, Cynthia, holding Robert Charles; and next to Robert Charles, glaring at me, is my granddaughter, Campbell, with her father, Chris Donley; and two friends to my left, another Campbell, and Carolyn Howe, good enough to help us with the young ones today.

There's definitely a better way of citing this info, but it's not a high-priority item... PvOberstein (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-delivers-remarks-farewell-ceremony-fbi-director-robert-s

Anthrax case

Article needs coverage of his role in this, see Boston Globe article at http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/15/revisiting_mueller_and_the_anthrax_case/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B111:F3F2:7435:E52B:CACD:D0A1 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

More on time in Vietnam

This new Wired piece https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-vietnam/ has a lot on Mueller as a leader in Vietnam and the reaction of his men towards him. I see that the piece is cited already in a couple of places but much more could be done with it. Thanks. 2600:1002:B120:80BC:DD43:2039:D383:F845 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Whitey Bulger

Why doesn't this article have any information about how Robert Mueller's role in the Whitey Bulger scandal: the question needs to be asked: "What Mueller know about Whitey Bulger, and when did he know it?" See Kevin Cullen. One lingering question for FBI director Robert Mueller, Boston Globe.--2601:2C6:C000:312:B179:4417:5497:C3ED (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Because this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/opinion/robert-mueller-smearing-complicit.html --bender235 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe that this addition concerning the supposed issue is really warranted, but I very much object to putting it at the bottom of the article in the events discussing 2018. I tried reworking it and moving it up to the part of the article about his time in Boston as a compromise, but was reverted by the editor who added it the first time. None of my other edits to the phrasing, which I also thought to be important, were retained in the reversion. I'd like to seek outside input and remind User:Soibangla of the arbitration remedies shown at the top of the page; this isn't the sort of article where it seems appropriate to be doing wholesale reversions to reinstate the version of the material you've added. In particular, the assertion that "it belongs [at the bottom] because it relates to criticism of his current role" seems incorrect to me; the 1980s case's relevance to his 2018 role is no more something to be adjudicated in the article than the relevance of any other event to his 2018 role. Dekimasuよ! 02:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
My edit is not related to Mueller's general career, it's related to his current, specific role as the special counsel, as Hannity et al. are attempting to smear Mueller to discredit his investigation. You also said my edit did not contain cites from Hannity et al. but the piece contains direct quotes from all of them. You also said Dersh retracted, but I see no evidence he has; instead, I see recent evidence he doubled-down despite Gertner's article appearing five days earlier. The edit follows the general chronological order of the section, which is why it's at the bottom. I believe my edit is properly placed, succinct and sufficiently detailed and thus should remain intact. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe I have adequately explained this to you. Please restore my edit. I don't not seek an edit war with you, but I strongly believe you are acting capriciously. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
(EC) I am satisfied that the reference to "Hannity, Limbaugh, and others" is sufficient if it is being attributed to the article you cited, but from the wording it was not clear to me that the article was meant to be the source backing up that part of the statement. If that is the intent, then Dershowitz's inclusion remains suspect, as he is shown to be ambivalent on the subject in the article in light of the Boston Globe piece. Moving beyond those particulars, if it is your position that Hannity et al. are attempting to smear Mueller to discredit his investigation, that seems like a good reason not to frame the incident as actually relevant to current events by putting it at the end (or perhaps reason not to add mention of a fringe theory to the article at all, which was the status quo). The only portion of the article to which the allegations actually relate is his time as a prosecutor in Boston. In the absence of some standard for inclusion, each criticism of Mueller (there have been many, yes?) will end up littering the section on his current role regardless of its actual relevance to his work as special counsel. Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the solution was for you to read the article before altering my edit. Dersh did not write the Globe piece, nor is he cited in it. The topic is about his current role, and that section is generally chronological, so the edit belongs at the bottom. "I don't believe it's appropriate to counter the assertions with only a quote from the judge qualified by saying it came from "an opinion piece," rather than actually stating that there's no evidence for the allegation" The edit accomplishes both: it identifies it as an op-ed for those who might challenge it as such, and Gertner is stating her knowledge of the facts. My edit is 100% proper. This matter does not require discussion by other editors. Kindly restore it immediately. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I had read it before your edit. I am not saying that Dershowitz was involved in the Globe piece. I am referring to Dershowitz's statement quoted in the NYT piece that you cited: "Mr. Dershowitz now says in a statement that several days after making his remarks on the Catsimatidis show, The Boston Globe 'revealed for the first time to my knowledge that no such letter has been found. I never repeated the allegation after that.'" However, again, this is far less important than whether and where to include the allegation at all. Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I will not engage in an edit war either, and you appear to be a reasonable editor. However, I believe the addition as worded and located was not an improvement to the article; it gives the impression that the allegation is relevant to Mueller's current work, and frames the issue in terms of the arguments of many people being disputed by the opinion of a single op-ed writer. Since you do not concur that my objection is warranted, I believe it would be best to wait for outside editors to express their opinions in order to gauge consensus, as I suggested above. Dekimasuよ! 02:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Restore it and then it can be discussed in its full context, or I will conclude you are not acting in good faith. soibangla (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ultimatums are not a usual element of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, presumably because they are usually unproductive. Because it is clear that neither of our opinions has changed, I would still like to hear from other editors. I am somewhat surprised that no one has commented yet. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You made multiple errors in criticizing my edit, but rather than simply conceding your errors and restoring the edit, you chose to dig your heels in and escalate this for consensus. The likely reason no one has chimed in on this is that they see no problem with my edit and they see your criticisms as much ado about nothing. I have already wasted too much time defending this very straightforward and proper edit. The honorable thing for you to do is to restore the edit to its original form. But do whatever you want, I don't care, I'm done with it. soibangla (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

hive mind you betcha2602:306:8B8C:29A0:39BA:276B:33C3:D1C4 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Since being appointed to Special Counsel, Robert Mueller has been the subject of a conspiracy theory that alleges he "in which four men were wrongfully found guilty of murder"[1]. These rumors have been publicly refuted by the presiding judge of the case[2] Nautola (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Hannity rips Mueller's career: 'Anything but impeccable'". The Hill. 03/21/18. Retrieved 5 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Smearing Robert Mueller". The New York Times. 4/18/2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018

Add a conspiracy theory section regarding Sean Hannity's accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nautola (talk • contribs) 10:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 09:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

Add Seal of U.S. Department of Justice below the Portrait of Robert Mueller 2600:1702:19C0:C240:E8F4:6AAF:B6D3:F71B (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump asked Mueller to be FBI Director

This line is from a CNN article that uses an unnamed source. Seems very shaky to have this on Wiki. Any chance Wiki can remove this until further credibility is established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.124.55 (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't say that Trump asked Mueller to be FBI Director, and neitehr does the CNN source. CNN has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the story wasn't debunked. It builds on other reliable reporting from NPR. R2 (bleep) 00:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

whitewash

was this written by Mueller's publicist or something? There's nothing in here about anthrax, Whitey Bulger, his role in the FBI's entrapment of Muslims on bogus terror charges, the unprecedented erosion of civil liberties during the Bush years - instead you've got him as some sort of noble fighter against government overreach. He was the head of the FBI. if he hadn't wanted to shred the Bill of Rights, he wouldn't have. i don't know if this is to make it easier for liberals to retroactively embrace this criminal now that he's going after Trump but in the real world it's possible for both sides of a conflict to be utterly terrible people. Nonononocat (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. If you feel the article is lacking, then grab some WP:reliable sources and edit away. Vsmith (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
i had planned to, but the article was locked when i tried. will re-attempt!Nonononocat (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree this is hagiographic. The long narrative about his brief time as a marine makes him sounds like he was Chesty Puller. He got a bronze star, highest award, and the better part of a million were given out at that time.PotomacFever (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Conservative Republican

NuclearWarfare, why did you remove "conservative Republican" and supporting sources with the comment "cleanup and reorganize lead"? Was this an oversight? R2 (bleep) 20:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

An oversight, I figured it could go elsewhere in the lead. Although now that it was done, I don't hate it; it clearly had its prominence in the first paragraph simply because he is investigating a Republican campaign and administration. But I'll re-add it in a more logical place. NW (Talk) 20:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I restored conservative as well. FYI, this issue came up in /r/The_Donald a few days ago. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@R2: Can you provide additional sourcing here for the conservative modifier? He used to be described that way sometimes (back in the 2001 slate of articles surrounding his confirmation). But none of those articles went into any great detail as to why they felt he was conservative. They did not quote him saying so or analyze his record to come to that description. More recently, the press appears to be going with the appellation of registered Republican (NYT, Factcheck, WaPo), especially to distinguish him from more right-leaning Republicans in Congress. NW (Talk) 01:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The fact that Mueller is conservative appears to be verifiable, both by the current sourcing and by some additional sources I found: [3], [4]. The fact that his ideology hasn't been heavily scrutinized since 2001 doesn't undermine the reliability of those sources. So what if recent sources call him a registered Republican. He's both a conservative Republican and a registered Republican. R2 (bleep) 08:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
But all of those have the same issue. They state that he is a conservative Republican, as of 17 years ago, but make no effort to describe why he would be one. It isn't clear if that reflects his current beliefs, let alone his past ones. The article – and especially the lead – should present the most up-to-date and non-contradictory material possible. Considering Mueller's political stances are not detailed in excess in this article ("conservative" is used in the body only to describe Newt Gingrich), I would say that we should remove the adjective "conservative" until better sourcing is provided. And by better sourcing, I mean something like the biography of Mueller (ISBN 978-0-316-06861-1), not just a one-off line in an agency piece from 2001. NW (Talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
What would the policy basis for excluding this verifiable information? R2 (bleep) 00:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:RS AGE. NW (Talk) 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Would you be comfortable with putting "conservative" in the "Sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" section instead of the lead and setting it in its historical context, like the Newsday source does? Something like "At the time, he and two other candidates, Washington lawyer George J. Terwilliger III and veteran Chicago prosecutor and white-collar crime defense lawyer Dan Webb, were up for the job, but Mueller, described at the time as a conservative Republican, was always considered the front-runner." R2 (bleep) 19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. NW (Talk) 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Umm, not only is Mueller not a "conservative Republican", it is unproven, as far as I can tell, that he is a Republican at all or has been since 2001. The reflink associated with that assertion in the article, implying that a political party registration is confirmed, does NOT show political party registration that I could see but I did not amend anything as I know this is a sensitive issue. A claim by The Washington Post -- based on Mueller's work in the Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations, which does not prove anything as neither man, especially George H.W. Bush, was particularly partisan (Bush 41 and his wife were best friends with Bill Clinton for years before their deaths) -- that Mueller is a "registered Republican" (not a "conservative" one) is the sole source I could locate that indicates he is a Republican at all. No quotes by the man himself or anyone else stating he is a Republican. The following quote regarding this issue from the website Bustle.com, addresses it, and also cites WaPo as the sole source for the claim that Mueller is a Republican.

"If Mueller is registered today as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, it is not clear. The last time this was known was in 2001. As he was considered for FBI director by the Bush administration, the Washington Post reported that he was a registered Republican. In the same report, though, it was noted that he is considered by most to be 'apolitical', and that he had a history of pushing Democrats for temporary openings, even under a Republican president. 'It had never occurred to him that Democrats and the new Republican administration might not mesh', the report from July 2001 reads.

I am genuinely curious and if anyone can find a reliable source that Mueller is (or is still) a Republican, I hope they will add it as there is not one now, as far as I am concerned. Quis separabit? 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
According to this March 2018 article in Politfact:

However, Trump’s assertion that there are no Republicans on the team is undercut by the fact that its leader is Mueller, who is registered as a Republican in the District of Columbia.

Mueller was appointed to offices by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as by Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In addition, Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who was nominated for deputy attorney general by Trump himself, and who previously was appointed as a U.S. Attorney by George W. Bush (and later kept on by Obama). The Daily Caller has also reported that Mueller has occasionally donated to Republicans in both statewide and national races.

Fox News has referred to Mueller as the "only known Republican" on the team. It’s worth noting the importance of the word "known," since other FBI or Justice Department personnel are assisting the investigation in certain capacities. The names of investigative and office support personnel have not been made public, the Special Counsel’s office told PolitiFact.

So while I think it's safe to report that Mueller is a Republican by party affiliation, I see no reliable evidence to confirm that he is a "conservative" in ideology. The terms are not interchangeable, since moderate Republicans do still exist. X4n6 (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert Mueller Conceals Evidence in Hell's Angels RICO case/Presidential Races (Scott Barnes)

Robert Mueller was the top US Prosecutor in the infamous RICO case against the Hell's Angels in 1981 San Francisco, CA with Federal Judge William Orrick. Robert Mueller was so outraged he might lose the case ( He did Finally Lose the case) as several members of a Covert US Police unit called (BET) Biker Enforcement Team, as one member officer Scott Barnes was subpoenaed to testify of Police Dirty Tricks, Mueller did NOT want his evidence to be allowed in front of the Jury.

On Jan-12-13-1981 Robert Mueller interviewed Scott Barnes in a closed private NON recorded secret interview, in a published story in the S.F. Examiner dated Jan-13-1981 Robert Mueller admitted he had interviewed officer Barnes in secret to persuade him not to reveal the corruption inside the FBI, DEA, ATF, BET and BNE. Robert Mueller years later would again be involved in a Presidential Dirty Tricks Scandal the 1992 Presidential elections of Ross Perot, George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Then again in 2016 Mueller again would be involved in yet another Political Scandal with the Trump Admin.


Robert Mueller has been involved in several of the Nations most notorious and political scandals all which just happened to also involve Scott Barnes { San Francisco Examiner Jan- 13-1981, CBS 60 Minutes 1992, US Senate Hearings 1986 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7C00:168A:9163:F2AB:3A34:52EA (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mueller awards

The awards section is not accurate as US Marines do not wear the Ranger tab as described, as "Rangers" are US Army.

Sgt. J.M DeWire Sgt./USMC 1994-2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.92.114 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a military expert by any means but there are a couple things that suggest he might have actually earned those awards. In the section about his Marine service, "Of all these, he said later that he considered Ranger School the most valuable." The paragraph has two citations at the end of it. One of which does mention that he went to Ranger School at Fort Benning. †dismas†|(talk) 00:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"This article has a section that lists his military awards and

Military awards

Bronze Star w/Combat V Purple Heart Medal Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal w/ Combat V and gold star Combat Action Ribbon Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation National Defense Service Medal Vietnam Service Medal w/ 4 bronze campaign stars Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross w/ bronze star Republic of Vietnam Civil Action Medal Vietnam Campaign Medal Marksmanship badge for rifle Expert marksmanship badge for pistol Ranger tab U.S Military basic Parachutist badge

Two of these are suspect and should have more investigation done. Ranger Tab is only awarded to US Army graduates of Ranger School, not Marines. Parachutist Badge, while this award is possible for Marines it is highly unlikely it was awarded to a Marine who was a Rifle Platoon Leader and infantryman.

This man is a highly decorated Marine and deserving of our respect and appreciation. I believe someone got a little carried away adding Badges and Awards eh woudl not have earned in the Marine Corps. Simper Fi Captain Mueller! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3006:15BD:0:74D6:18B:DFD:D383 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out a potential error. Please discuss this on the article's talk page, or Be bold. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Not an error. The article text describes it with a source. Rmhermen (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Unless I've missed it, I could not find either award in the source (which is one at the top, covering the whole section) either in the list of awards or individual citations. The content could be removed as unsourced or tagged for a reference or for 'not in source'. Eagleash (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Being discussed at the article talk. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)"
They are not listed in "awards and decorations" because that is not what they are. They signify completion of certain training, Namely Army Ranger trainig and Army paracute training. Marine Lieutenent Mueller completed both of these Army courses. See the Source cited earlier in the article. -Arch dude (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
He's a paracutie? Well ... whatever rocks your boat, I guess. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It is listed in the source Eagleash mentions on page 4 under training, not page 5 decorations. Rmhermen (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo on the last paragraph in Special Counsel:

"On March 22, 2019, the Mueller concluded his investigation and submitted the Special Counsel's final report to Attorney "

Since this is a protected page, I didn't know how else to help. Please let me know if there are proper channels for things like this for the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5100:3600:C482:8FA4:6560:FDFF (talk)

 Done. For the future: You may make an edit request anytime you cannot edit a page yourself. You simply click "View source" on the top-right and then the blue button that says "Submit an edit request" on the right. Also, please sign any comments to talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! AntiCedros (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Interviews Scott Barnes in RICO case, then covers up the Interview

{ San Fransisco Chronicle Jan-13-1981] CBS 60 Minutes 1992 Robert Mueller, Esq. in Jan-1981 was in charge of the USA v. Hell's Angels et al, Robert Mueller did not like that he was loosing the case, so he did his best, even by lying to a Federal Judge to conceal Police Misconduct in this trial. Robert Mueller Interviewed Scott T Barnes, who was a Clandestine member of the B.E.T. aka Biker Enforcement Team, they used illegal wiretaps, altered and tampered with evidence, altered records, paid in cash and gave immunity to convicted Murders in exchange to lie under oath against the Hell's Angels.

Robert Mueller, in a 4-6 hours of interviews with Scott Barnes in a crude attempt to get him to not testify and to destroy 

documents , Mr. Barnes refused, Mueller lost the entire RICO case and said he would not re-try them again on these charges.

Several years later Robert Mueller was again with Scott Barnes on the GOP "Dirty Tricks" Scandal of the 1992 Presidential elections with Ross Perot, Bill Clinton and George Bush, the "Sting" would cause Perot to drop out, Mueller was the main DOJ official behind the scandal. The current Mueller scam on President Trump is the second scandal Mueller has been involved in the office of the Presidency. <SAN FRANCISCO, JAN-13-1981, CBS 60 MINUTES 1992 >

What exactly are you discussing here? Geolodus (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"mjʊlər" because it's German "Müller" (Mueller without Umlaut). if "mʌlər" his name would be "Muller". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.98.241 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

as in https://audio.dict.cc/speak.audio.v2.php?error_as_text=1&type=mp3&id=1376713&lang=en&lp=DEEN&voice=Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.98.241 (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's agree that he doesn't know how to pronounce his own name. :-) --Anvilaquarius (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe he does but prefers the Americanized version. He is, after all, a natural-born citizen. Nerd271 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Testifying before Congress

I heard on the news that Mueller was testifying before Congress but there is nothing on the article about this. I heard it on the radio so no reliable sources right now and I hoped that someone would beat me to it here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Done! I found one article from the Associated Press. Nerd271 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Mueller/Archive_1&oldid=922123009"