This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (July 2023)

Steele Dossier (p. 1)

The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier,[1] is a controversial political opposition research report compiled by Christopher Steele that was published without permission as an unfinished 35-page compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable"[a] raw intelligence reports—"not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".[3][4][5] It was written from June to December 2016 and contains allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign.[6] Several key allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected were later described as "prescient"[7] because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[8][9] and the Mueller Report, namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[8][10] that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[8] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents.[11][12]

It was based on information from initially anonymous sources known to the author, counterintelligence specialist[13] Christopher Steele.[14] Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), was writing the report for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS, that was paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).[15] The dossier's 17 reports allege that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives had conspired to cooperate in Russia's election interference to benefit Trump.[16] It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy.[17] It was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, without Steele's permission.[2] Their decision to publish the reports without verifying the allegations was criticized by journalists.[18][19] However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action as the public has a right to know so it can "exercise effective oversight of the government".[20]

The United States intelligence community and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations.[21] While compiling the dossier, Steele passed his findings to both British and American intelligence services.[10][22] The U.S. intelligence community took the allegations seriously,[23] and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated every line of the dossier and identified and spoke with at least two of Steele's sources.[3] The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.[3]

While Steele's documents played a significant role in initially highlighting the general friendliness between Trump and the Putin administration, the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed,[9][24][8][10] others are plausible but not specifically confirmed,[25][26] and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.[27][28][29] While the dossier played a central and essential role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page,[30] it did not play any role in the intelligence community's assessment about Russian actions in the 2016 election,[31] and it was not the trigger for the opening of the Russia investigation into whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election.[32] The dossier is a factor in several conspiracy theories promoted by Trump[33] and his supporters.[32][34]


Two research operations and confusion between them

The opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS on Donald Trump was in two distinct operations, each with a different client. First were the Republicans, funded by The Washington Free Beacon. Then came the Democrats, funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

From April to early May 2016, The Washington Free Beacon and the DNC/Clinton Campaign were independently both clients of Fusion GPS. This overlap contributed to the media's confusion.

Republican operation does not produce dossier

In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, the founders of Fusion GPS were seeking political work and wrote an email to "a big conservative donor they knew who disliked Trump, [and] they were hired". He arranged for them to use The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism website, for their general opposition research on several Republican presidential candidates, including Trump.[39][40] It is primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer.[40] The Free Beacon and Singer were "part of the conservative never-Trump movement".[41] Although Singer was a big supporter of Marco Rubio, Rubio denied any involvement in Fusion GPS's initial research and hiring.[35]

Early in their investigation, they received help from investigative reporter Wayne Barrett, who gave them his files on Trump. They contained findings about "Trump's past dealings, including tax and bankruptcy problems, potential ties to organized crime, and numerous legal entanglements. They also revealed that Trump had an unusually high number of connections to Russians with questionable backgrounds."[39]

For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016,[42] the conservative donor stopped funding the research on him.[14][43]

Due to media confusion over who produced the dossier, the Free Beacon issued a statement in October 2017 to debunk some false assumptions:[35]

All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Although the source of the Steele dossier's funding had already been reported correctly over a year before,[14][43][44] and the Free Beacon had issued a statement to this effect in October 2017,[35] a February 2, 2018, story by the Associated Press (AP) contributed to confusion about its funding by stating that the dossier "was initially funded" by The Washington Free Beacon, so the AP posted a correction the next day: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it."[45]

By the spring of 2016, researchers at Fusion GPS had become so alarmed by what they had already learned about Trump that they felt the need "to do what they could to keep Trump out of the White House".[46]

Democratic operation produces dossier

Hiring and initial reports

The second operation of opposition research was indirectly funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, working through their attorney of record, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie.[15] In an October 2017 letter, Perkins Coie general counsel Matthew Gehringer described how, in March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie and, knowing the Clinton campaign and the DNC were its clients, inquired whether its clients wished to pay Fusion GPS "to continue research regarding then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, research that Fusion GPS had conducted for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest."[47] In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump.[15][47]

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson had some reservations, as he did not like the idea of helping Hillary Clinton. In an email, Simpson said, "The only way I could see working for HRC is if it is against Trump."[48]

In June 2016,[14] as part of its work for Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS hired Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, to look into connections between Trump and Russia. Orbis co-founder Christopher Steele, a retired British MI6 officer with expertise in Russian matters,[14] was hired as a subcontractor to do the job.[49] Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid informant for the FBI[50] for information unrelated to the Russia investigation.[51]

The DNC and Clinton campaign finance reports disclosed they paid Perkins Coie a total of $12.4 million for legal and compliance services during the 2016 campaign.[52][53] This led Trump to claim the dossier had cost $12 million,[54] although the actual cost was far less.[55] According to Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie paid them $1.02 million in fees and expenses, and Fusion GPS paid $168,000 to Steele's firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to produce the dossier.[54][56] Despite that, Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. continued to claim for more than a year that Steele was paid "millions of dollars" for his work.[57] In March 2022, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 for misreporting those fees and expenses as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than "opposition research".[58][59]

Orbis was hired between June and November 2016, and Steele produced 16 reports during that time, with a 17th report added in December.[60] The reports were like "prepublication notes" based on information from Steele's sources and were not released as a fully vetted and "finished news article".[61] Steele believes 70–90 percent of the dossier is accurate,[62] a view shared by Simpson.[61]

Steele delivered his reports individually to Fusion GPS as one- to three-page numbered reports.[14] The first report, dated June 20, 2016, was sent to Washington by courier and hand-delivered to Fusion GPS. The names of the sources were redacted and replaced with descriptions to help Fusion judge their credibility.[63]

Luke Harding wrote:[64]

At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.

Passing reports to intelligence agencies

Steele has said he soon found "troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government". According to his sources, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit".[65] According to Harding, "Steele was shocked by the extent of collusion his sources were reporting", and told his friends: "For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience."[62] Steele felt what he had unearthed "was something of huge significance, way above party politics".[66] American reporter Howard Blum described Steele's rationale for becoming a whistleblower: "The greater good trumps all other concerns."[66]

On his own initiative, Steele decided to also pass the information to British and American intelligence services because he believed the findings were a matter of national security for both countries.[10][22] In 2018, Steele told a UK parliamentary investigation that Theresa May's British government covered up the evidence he provided them of Trump's Russian ties and took no actions, and that Boris Johnson suppressed a report about the intelligence in the dossier that was prepared by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.[67] After long delay, the report was published on July 21, 2020.[68]

According to Simpson's testimony, Steele, who enjoyed a good working reputation "for the knowledge he had developed over nearly 20 years working on Russia-related issues for British intelligence,[69] approached the FBI because he was concerned that Trump, then a candidate, was being blackmailed by Russia,[70] and he became "very concerned about whether this represented a national security threat".[10] Steele believed the intelligence community "needed urgently to know—if it didn't already—that the next possible U.S. president was potentially under the sway of Russia".[71]

In early July 2016, Steele called seasoned FBI agent Michael Gaeta, who was stationed in Rome, and asked him to come to London so he could show him his findings. Because he was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Rome, Gaeta sought and was granted approval for the trip from Victoria Nuland, who was then the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. When he arrived in London on July 5, 2016, he met with Steele at his office,[70] and he was given a copy of Steele's first report, dated June 20, 2016 (Report 80).[72]: 95  His reaction was "shock and horror".[73][70] Alarmed by what he read, Gaeta remarked, "I have to show this to headquarters".[74]

Shortly after, in July, the report was sent to an agent with expertise in criminal organizations and organized crime at the FBI's New York field office—essentially, the wrong person to handle a counterintelligence investigation.[75][74] According to Nancy LeTourneau, political writer for the Washington Monthly, the report "was languishing in the FBI's New York field office" for two months, and "was finally sent to the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C." in mid-September 2016.[76][77]

In August 2016, the FBI asked Steele for "all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources".[64][65] In October 2016, Steele "described the sources' access, but did not provide names" to the FBI.[77] By August 22, 2017, Steele had provided them with the names of the sources for the allegations in the dossier.[78]

Meanwhile, in the July to September time frame, according to The Washington Post, CIA Director John Brennan had started an investigation with a secret task force "composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI". At the same time, he was busy creating his own dossier of material documenting that "Russia was not only attempting to interfere in the 2016 election, they were doing so in order to elect Donald Trump. ... [T]he entire intelligence community was on alert about this situation at least two months before [the dossier] became part of the investigation." The "Steele dossier has so far proven to be fairly accurate", LeTourneau wrote.[76]

In early August, which was after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened,[79] Steele was summoned to Rome where he gave a full briefing to four American FBI officials about the report.[80][73] At that time, he handed over the June 20 and July 26 reports.[79]

During its intense questioning of Steele, the FBI mentioned their own discoveries of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia[80] and asked Steele about Papadopoulos, but he said he knew nothing about him.[63] The agents "raised the prospect of paying Steele to continue gathering intelligence after Election Day",[80] but Steele "ultimately never received payment from the FBI for any 'dossier'-related information".[51] In October 2022, during questioning from Special Counsel John Durham, Brian Auten, a supervisory counterintelligence analyst with the FBI, testified that, shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered Steele "up to $1 million" if he could corroborate allegations in the dossier, but that Steele could not do so.[81][82] Steele has disputed this description: "And to correct the Danchenko trial record, we were not offered $1 million by the FBI to ‘prove up’ our Trump-Russia reporting. Rather, we were told there were substantial funds to resettle sources in the US if they were prepared to testify in public. Understandably they were not."[83]

After public release

The subsequent public release of the dossier in January 2017 stopped discussions between Steele and the FBI.[69] The Inspector General's report later confirmed that the FBI had initially offered to pay Steele $15,000 for his trip to Rome, but when the FBI dropped Steele as a confidential human source because he had shared information with a third party "in late October 2016" (Mother Jones magazine), the payment was halted.[72]: 173 [44] Peter Strzok reported that:[72]: 173 

the FBI closed Steele "because he was a control problem. We did not close him because we thought he was [a] fabricator." According to Strzok, Steele's decisions to discuss his reporting with the media and to disclose his relationship with the FBI were "horrible and it hurt what we were doing, and no question, he shouldn't have done it."

In September, Steele met with Jonathan Winer, who was then the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement, whom he had known since 2009. In a 2018 editorial for The Washington Post,[84] Winer recounted that during their meeting in Washington, he was allowed to review Steele's reports, but not to keep a copy: "I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with [Victoria] Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material," he wrote. Later in September, Winer discussed the report with Sidney Blumenthal, who revealed he had received similar information from Cody Shearer, a controversial political activist and former journalist who was close to the Clinton White House in the 1990s. Winer met with Steele again in late September and gave him a copy of Shearer's report, later known as the "second dossier".[85]

On September 19, 2016, after the report had been "languishing in the FBI's New York field office" for two months,[76][77][75] Steele's handling agent sent six of Steele's reports (80, 94, 95, 100, 101, and 102) to the Crossfire Hurricane team, that had been operational since July 31, 2016. This was the first time they and their leader, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, Peter Strzok, received any of Steele's reporting.[72]: 100 [b][86][77] Strzok cautioned his colleagues: "[The dossier] 'should be viewed as intended to influence as well as to inform' and whoever commissioned it was 'presumed to be connected to the [Clinton] campaign in some way.'"[87] Some reports referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI.[65][64] The IG Report says this material "became an important part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the FBI seeking FISA authority targeting one of the Crossfire Hurricane subjects, Carter Page."[72]: 80 

On October 28, 2016, days before the election, Comey notified Congress that the FBI had started looking into newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails. Simpson and Fritsch described their reaction: "Comey's bombshell prompted the Fusion partners to decide they needed to do what they could to expose the FBI's probe of Trump and Russia. It was Hail Mary time."[71] The founders of Fusion GPS were very upset by a misleading November 1, 2016, New York Times article "published a week before the election with the headline: 'Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia'. In fact, Russia was meddling in the election to help Trump win, the U.S. intelligence community would later conclude."[46]

Simpson later said that "Steele severed his contacts with [the] FBI before the election following public statements by the FBI that it had found no connection between the Trump campaign and Russia and concerns that [the FBI] was being 'manipulated for political ends by the Trump people'."[88] Steele had become frustrated with the FBI, whom he believed failed to investigate his reports, choosing instead to focus on the investigation into Clinton's emails. According to The Independent, Steele came to believe there was a "cabal" inside the FBI, particularly its New York field office linked to Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani, because it blocked any attempts to investigate the links between Trump and Russia.[22] He "grew concerned that there was a cover-up in progress".[43]

What the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Steele knew

According to Fusion GPS's co-owners, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, they did not tell Steele who their ultimate clients were, only that Steele was "working for a law firm",[63] and they "gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic question: 'Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?'"[89] In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Simpson said that "it was Fusion GPS's idea to pursue overseas ties—that research was not directed by Perkins Coie, the DNC, or the Clinton Campaign".[77]

Jane Mayer reported that when the Clinton campaign "indirectly employed" Steele, Elias created a "legal barrier" by acting as a "firewall" between the campaign and Steele. Thus, any details were protected by attorney–client privilege[63] and work-product privileges.[15] "Fusion briefed only Elias on the reports, Simpson sent Elias nothing on paper—he was briefed orally", Mayer reported.[63] In its application for a FISA warrant to survey Carter Page, the Department of Justice told the FISC that Simpson had not informed Steele of the motivation behind the research into Trump's ties with Russia.[51] Steele testified to Congress that he did not know the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments "because he was retained by Fusion GPS".[90][91] By "late July 2016",[72]: 93–94  "several months" after signing the contract with Fusion GPS, Steele became aware that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were the ultimate clients.[63]

A spokesperson for the DNC said neither Tom Perez nor "the new leadership of the DNC were ... involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization."[47] A spokesperson for Perkins Coie said the campaign and the DNC were unaware Fusion GPS "had been hired to conduct the research".[92] The Washington Post reported that it is not clear how much of the research Elias received from Fusion GPS he shared with the campaign and the DNC. It is also not clear who in those organizations knew about the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele, but one person "close to the matter" said the organizations were "not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role".[15] The New York Times revealed that earlier in 2017, "Mr. Elias had denied that he had possessed the dossier before the election."[92][47] The Clinton campaign did not know about Steele or that he was sharing his findings with the FBI, and "one top Clinton campaign official" told Jane Mayer that "If I'd known the F.B.I. was investigating Trump, I would have been shouting it from the rooftops!"[39]

The firewall was reportedly so effective even campaign principals John Podesta and Robby Mook did not know Steele was on the Democratic payroll until Mother Jones reported on the issue on October 31, 2016, in an article that did not name Steele.[63] When the Mother Jones story broke, John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, said he was "stunned by the news that the FBI had launched a full-blown investigation into Trump, especially one that was informed by research underwritten by the Clinton campaign." Although they knew Perkins Coie had spent money for opposition research, neither Podesta nor campaign manager Robby Mook knew Steele was on the Democratic payroll. Mayer said they both maintain they "didn't read the dossier until BuzzFeed posted it online".[63] She has also said that "the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until it [the dossier] was in the press."[93] "Far from a secret campaign weapon, Steele turned out to be a secret kept from the campaign."[63] In their 2019 book, the founders of Fusion GPS wrote "that no one from Fusion ever met or talked with Clinton and that she herself 'had no idea who they were'."[46][39]

Philip Bump wrote that the dossier "has never been shown to have informed the Clinton campaign's approach and that was not made public until shortly before Trump was inaugurated."[94]

On February 15, 2022, The Washington Post reported: "So far, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign directly managed the Steele reporting or leaks about it to the media."[95]

Hints of existence

When Fusion GPS first hired Steele, "they thought that 'no one would ever find out' about the discreet work Steele would perform. That prediction proved naive",[46] and the founders of Fusion GPS have described how they soon did not hide the fact that they were researching Trump and Russia: "Fusion and Steele tried to alert U.S. law enforcement and the news media to the material they'd uncovered. The firm's office in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood became 'something of a public reading room' for journalists seeking information about Trumpworld."[46] In September they arranged private meetings at the Tabard Inn, in Washington, D.C., between Steele and reporters from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, ABC News, and other outlets. Jane Mayer attended one of the meetings. None of these news organizations ran any stories about the allegations at that time.[63]

Although BuzzFeed was not invited to these meetings, Ben Smith, editor of BuzzFeed, wrote that "We were hardly the first journalists to get the document—but we may have been the first to get it without promising to keep it secret...[the journalists at the Tabard Inn meetings] had promised Simpson that they wouldn't write about the dossier itself, its author, or its path through the American government, [and] they couldn't report on these things either."[96]

BBC correspondent Paul Wood was allowed to see "a dozen" pages of the dossier in October 2016.[97]

Before the election, only two news sources mentioned allegations that came from dossier reports. Steele had been in contact with both authors. These were a September 23, 2016, Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff that focused on Carter Page,[98] and an article by David Corn on October 31, 2016, a week before the election, in Mother Jones magazine.[65]

At the time, the FBI had assumed that the source for the Yahoo! article was someone, other than Steele, "who had received a copy of the dossier". The 2019 DOJ report by Michael Horowitz criticized the FBI for failing to ask Steele if he had a role in that Yahoo! article.[99]

Mother Jones story

By the third quarter of 2016, many news organizations knew about the existence of the dossier that had been described as an "open secret" among journalists but chose not to publish information they could not confirm.[14][100] Mother Jones was the first to report the existence of the dossier and that it was exclusively funded by Democrats.[101][102]

By October 2016, Steele had compiled 33 pages (16 reports), and he then passed on what he had discovered to David Corn, a reporter from Mother Jones magazine. On October 31, 2016, a week before the election, Mother Jones reported that a former intelligence officer, whom they did not name, had produced a report based on Russian sources and turned it over to the FBI.[65] The article disclosed some of the dossier's allegations:[65]

The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals". It claimed Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him". It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls".

Post-election events

After Trump's election on November 8, 2016, the Democratic client stopped paying for the investigation, but Steele continued working on the dossier for Fusion GPS.[14] According to The Independent, at that time, Simpson "reportedly spent his own money to continue the investigation".[103] According to The New York Times, after the election, Steele's dossier became one of Washington's "worst-kept secrets", and journalists worked to verify the allegations.[14]

On November 18, 2016, Republican Senator John McCain, who had been informed about the alleged links between the Kremlin and Trump, met with former British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada. Wood told McCain about the existence of the collected materials about Trump,[104] and also vouched for Steele's professionalism and integrity.[105]

According to Simpson's August 22, 2017, testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Steele and David J. Kramer, a longtime McCain aide and former U.S. State Department official working at Arizona State University, met each other at the Halifax forum and discussed the dossier. Kramer told Steele that McCain wanted to "ask questions about it at the FBI. ... All we sort of wanted was for the government to do its job and we were concerned about whether the information that we provided previously had ever, you know, risen to the leadership level of the FBI."[106]

Steele had agreed with Fusion GPS to deliver a hard copy of all 16 reports to McCain,[60] that McCain received in early December from Kramer.[14] On December 9, McCain met personally with FBI Director James Comey and gave him a copy of the dossier.[104][37][107] On March 25, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain's, contradicted Trump's attacks against McCain and revealed that when McCain showed him the dossier, he had encouraged McCain to give the dossier to the FBI and that McCain acted appropriately.[108] Graham described how he confronted Trump: "Senator McCain deserves better. There were some McCain people who took a piece of garbage and tried to go after Trump after the election. But I told the president it was not John McCain."[109] Comey later confirmed that counterintelligence investigations were underway into possible links between Trump associates and Moscow.[60]

After delivering his 16 reports to McCain, Steele received more information and composed the two-page "December memo", dated December 13. It mostly contained allegations against Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, that Cohen later denied.[110][111] In an April 2017 court filing, Steele revealed previously unreported information that he had given a copy of his last report to a "senior UK government national security official acting in his official capacity, on a confidential basis in hard copy form", because it "had implications for the national security of the US and the UK".[60]

Both Simpson and Steele have denied providing the dossier to BuzzFeed.[112] Unsealed documents from the discovery process in Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev's defamation lawsuit revealed that David Kramer, an associate of John McCain, gave the dossier to BuzzFeed "in December 2016, weeks after the election",[113][4] in what Fritsch has called an "ill-advised" Hail Mary pass.[4] Ben Smith, editor of BuzzFeed has described how they got the dossier:[96]

On December 29, the Republican foreign-policy expert David Kramer invited Ken [Bensinger] to his office at the McCain Institute. He then did something careful Washington insiders do: He left Ken alone in the room with the document for 20 minutes, without, in Ken's view, giving clear instructions about whether he could make a copy. Ken took a picture of every page. (Kramer later denied that he'd allowed Ken to copy it...)

It was never intended that the dossier be public because it was unfinished raw intelligence and could have "compromised sources and methods".[4] Steele was also worried about the safety of his source network, and he expressed concern that if Trump won the election, the new FBI director, and other agency heads appointed by Trump, might be more loyal to Trump "and could decide to take action against Steele and his source network".[72]: 275 

Briefings of Obama and Trump

On January 5, 2017, the chiefs of four U.S. intelligence agencies briefed President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden about the Russian interference in the election and the existence of the dossier and its allegations.[114][115][116]

On the afternoon[72]: 180  of January 6, 2017, President-elect Trump and his transition team received a similar briefing in Trump Tower.[117] All four of the top intelligence chiefs met with Trump and his transition team. They were Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. They informed Trump of the Russian election interference,[118][119] and Comey told them of "a piece of Steele's reporting that indicated Russia had files of derogatory information on both Clinton and the President-elect".[72]: 180  Trump later testified under oath "that he was first made aware of the existence of the Dossier by then FBI Director James Comey on 6 January 2018[sic], at a meeting that took place during the transition period following his election".[120]

Then, according to a pre-arranged plan, Brennan, Clapper, and Rogers left, and Comey then asked to speak with Trump alone. Comey then informed Trump of the dossier and its allegations about salacious tapes held by the Russians. Comey later reported he was very nervous. The previous day, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security told Comey to "be very careful", "choose your words carefully", and then "get outta there". Trump became very defensive, and Comey described the meeting as "really weird".[119][118] Trump later expressed that he felt James Comey was trying to blackmail him at the meeting in Trump Tower, held two weeks before the inauguration.[117] In April 2018, Comey said he did not inform Trump the dossier was partly funded by Democrats because that "wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information".[121][122]

The Mueller Report, published on April 18, 2019, contains a footnote that suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".[123]

On December 14, 2018, the FBI released a document called "Annex A", that was "part of [the] Russia dossier summary" used to brief Trump and Obama.[124] The FBI withheld parts of the synopsis on the grounds that it remained classified and "because it pertains to ongoing investigations or court proceedings, originated with a confidential source or describes confidential investigative techniques or procedures".[124]

Two days after the publication of the dossier on January 10, 2017, James Clapper issued a statement describing the leaks in the press about their Trump Tower meeting with Trump as damaging to U.S. national security.[125] The statement also included the non-committal wording that the U.S. intelligence community "has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions".[126] This contradicted Trump's previous claim that Clapper had said the information in the dossier was false; Clapper's statement actually said the intelligence community had made no judgment on the truth of the information.[126]

James Comey disagreed with Clapper's wording, but Clapper's wording remained unchanged. Comey later told the Office of the Inspector General of his concerns at that time, because he believed the dossier to be more reliable than indicated in Clapper's non-committal statement:[72]: 181 

I worry that it may not be best to say "The IC has not made any judgment that the information in the document is reliable." I say that because we HAVE concluded that the source [Steele] is reliable and has a track record with us of reporting reliable information; we have some visibility into his source network, some of which we have determined to be sub-sources in a position to report on such things; and much of what he reports in the current document is consistent with and corroborative of other reporting included in the body of the main IC report. That said, we are not able to sufficiently corroborate the reporting to include in the body of the [ICA] report.

Publication and reactions

On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN said it would not publish specific details on the reports because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".[118][127] Following the CNN report,[128] BuzzFeed published a 35-page draft dossier that it said was the basis for the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. BuzzFeed said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".[2][129][130][131]

The New York Times commented: "Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence—not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation."[3][5] Judge Craig Karsnitz described the purpose of the dossier: "An intelligence report is simply a report of information potentially relevant to an investigation. It can take many forms, be true or false, and can be used as opposition research and an intelligence report."[132] Christopher Burrows, co-founder of Orbis Business Intelligence, does not consider it a "dossier", but "information that is referred to as 'raw intelligence' in intelligence circles. ... a mixture of knowledge, rumor and hearsay. ... [A]n intelligence agency would enrich the findings with data, test probabilities and write analyses. It's an elaborate process. But Steele is not an intelligence agency."[79]

BuzzFeed's decision to publish the dossier was immediately criticized by many major media outlets for releasing the draft dossier without verifying its allegations.[133][127][18][19][134] Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called it "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump",[135] while The New York Times noted that the publication sparked a debate centering on the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources.[136] BuzzFeed's executive staff said the materials were newsworthy because they were "in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media" and argued that this justified public release.[137] A judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia agreed with this reasoning when he threw out a libel suit against Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence.[138][139][140]

Although the Columbia Journalism Review had originally (January 11, 2017) backed BuzzFeed's publication of the dossier,[133] and editor Kyle Pope had tweeted his support of that decision,[141] he later (November 17, 2021) described it as "a document that was never designed to meet the standards of good journalism", noting that its credibility had collapsed, and concluding that it was the source of "a lot of nonsense and misdirection" in subsequent media coverage and should not have been published at all.[142] Sara Fischer, media reporter for Axios, was critical of the initial press coverage of the dossier before it had been adequately scrutinized.[143]

The draft dossier's publication by BuzzFeed has always been defended by Jack Shafer,[144] Politico's senior media writer, as well as by Richard Tofel of ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism Review. Shafer defended the public's right to know about the allegations against Trump, and saw a parallel in Judge Ungaro's ruling in the defamation suit filed by Aleksej Gubarev.[145][146] Ungaro wrote that the "privilege exists to protect the media while they gather information needed for the public to exercise effective oversight of the government". She also noted that, before the FBI received any reports from Steele, they had "already opened a counterintelligence investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign".[20]

In relation to a defamation lawsuit filed by Gubarev against BuzzFeed regarding their publication of the draft dossier, Senior Master Barbara Fontaine said Steele was "in many respects in the same position as a whistle-blower" because of his actions "in sending part of the dossier to Senator John McCain and a senior government national security official, and in briefing sections of the US media". She said that "it was not known who provided the dossier to BuzzFeed but Mr Steele's evidence was that he was 'horrified and remains horrified' that it was published at all, let alone without substantial redactions."[147]

The founders of Fusion GPS felt so alarmed by what sources reported to Steele that they have defended the fact that they and Steele used intermediaries to pass dossier content to the authorities, but, regarding the publication by BuzzFeed, if it had been up to them, "Steele's reporting never would have seen the light of day."[148] It was published without Steele's permission,[77][148][149][79][150] and Christopher Burrows said: "We didn't expect the findings on Russia to reach the public."[79]

They were also alarmed that the publication of the draft dossier would endanger sources, and Glenn Simpson immediately phoned Ken Bensinger at BuzzFeed: "Take those fucking reports down right now! You are going to get people killed!"[149]

Steele wrote:[151]

I wonder if BuzzFeed have reflected on the lives and livelihoods they put at risk by publishing the dossier, or the shutter it has drawn down on any further collection efforts on this issue and others by anybody or any government agency. In my view BuzzFeed did the Kremlin's work for them because they were determined not to lose the scoop entirely after CNN broke the original story. One of the most irresponsible journalistic acts.

Six years after publishing the dossier, Ben Smith, editor of BuzzFeed, has described his regrets about how it was done:[96]

If I had to do it again, I would publish the dossier—we couldn't suppress it... But I would hold more tightly to the document... I wouldn't simply publish it as a PDF, destined to float free from our earnest caveats. At best, we could have published the document as screenshots attached to the context we had and the context we would learn. Perhaps in some small way, this would have limited its transformation from a set of claims into a banner of the 'resistance.' But I’m not under the illusion that journalists could have contained its wildfire spread, any more than I think we could have concealed it.

Steele does not like the term "dossier":[152][153]

because it wasn't a dossier. It's a series of reports on a live issue, the election campaign, running through time. These reports were not collated and presented in one offering, nor were they analyzed in detail by us. Effectively, it was a running commentary. It wasn't a dossier.


When BuzzFeed published the 35-page dossier in January 2017, the individual reports were one to three pages long, numbered, and page numbers 1–35 had been handwritten at the bottom. All but one had a typed date at the bottom. Each of the first 16 reports (pre-election memoranda[154]) was assigned a typed number in the heading between 80 and 135, but the numeric order didn't always match the chronological order. The 17th report, known as the "December memo",[154] was numbered 166.[155] Of the original reports numbered 1–166, only certain reports were used for the dossier, and it is unknown what happened with the content of the other reports: "For example, the first report is labeled as '080', with no indication given as to where the original 79 antecedents might have gone. The second report is then labeled '086', creating yet another mystery as to 81 through 85, and what content they might contain that would otherwise bolster or contextualize what came before or what follows."[156]

Each report started with a page heading in the same style as the first one shown here:




Each report was in two parts, starting with a Summary section, followed by a Detail section. The Summary contained summary paragraphs based on numbered and expanded content and findings in the following Detail section.

Legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting

Main article: Trump Tower meeting

The legal status of the dossier has been questioned,[157] but, because of the legal difference between an "expenditure" by a campaign and a "contribution" to a campaign, it does not run afoul of Federal Election Commission laws (52 U.S. Code § 30121) forbidding foreign nationals from contributing to or aiding political campaigns, and that applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations.[157] The dossier (prepared by a British citizen indirectly hired by the Clinton campaign and DNC) and the 2016 Trump Tower meeting (involving a direct offer of aid by the Russian government to the Trump campaign) are frequently contrasted and conflated in this regard.[157][158]

Philip Bump has explained "why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't":[157] "Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined."[94][159]

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution")[157] to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting, the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump issued a deceptive press release about it.[160][161]

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense[157] and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if the aid is performed by foreigners.[157]

Bump explains that:[157]

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.

Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."[162]

Jane Mayer referred to the same meeting and contrasted the difference in reactions to Russian attempts to support Trump: When Trump Jr. was offered "dirt" on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", instead of "going to the F.B.I., as Steele had" when he learned Russia was helping Trump, Trump's son accepted the support by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it."[63]


Glenn Simpson believes the dossier interrupted a planned renewal of relationships between the United States and Russia that was "not in the interest of the United States"; that it supported the existing FBI investigation into Russian interference; and that it furthered understanding of the hidden relationship between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.[163] Jane Mayer believes the dossier is "perhaps the most controversial opposition research ever to emerge from a Presidential campaign",[39] and Julian Borger described it as "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history".[164]

T.A. Frank has described the dossier as a "case study" in media manipulation.[165] In his 2021 book Spooked: The Trump Dossier, Black Cube, and the Rise of Private Spies, former New York Times journalist Barry Meier commented: "media organizations didn't conduct internal postmortems or public reconstructions about how they handle the dossier story [because] it would have required them to disclose the toxic relationship that had developed between journalists and private spies."[166]: 242 

Journalist David Corn of Mother Jones described the dossier as "a convenient foil, their false flag" for the "Trump gang":[167]

It was a clever ploy on the part of the Trump gang: Deny the unfounded—that Trump was caught on tape consorting with urinating prostitutes and that he conspired directly with Putin—to sidestep the damning reality that Trump and his aides betrayed the nation by both encouraging the Russian attack and trying to cover up Putin's sinister intervention.

Authorship and sources

The dossier is based on information from witting and unwitting anonymous sources known to counterintelligence specialist Christopher Steele.[13] Some were later revealed.

Christopher Steele

When CNN reported the existence of the dossier on January 10, 2017,[118][168] it did not name the author of the dossier, but revealed that he was British. Steele concluded that his anonymity had been "fatally compromised", and, realizing it was "only a matter of time until his name became public knowledge", fled into hiding with his family in fear of "a prompt and potentially dangerous backlash against him from Moscow".[169][170] His friends later reported that he feared assassination by Russians.[171] The Wall Street Journal revealed Steele's name the next day, on January 11.[172] Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for whom Steele worked at the time the dossier was authored, and its director Christopher Burrows, a counterterrorism specialist,[41] would not confirm or deny that Orbis had produced the dossier.[168][14] On March 7, 2017, as some members of the U.S. Congress were expressing interest in meeting with or hearing testimony from Steele, he reemerged after weeks in hiding, appearing publicly on camera and stating, "I'm really pleased to be back here working again at the Orbis's offices in London today."[173]

Called by the media a "highly regarded Kremlin expert" and "one of MI6's greatest Russia specialists", Steele formerly worked for the British intelligence agency MI6 for 22 years, including four years at the British embassy in Moscow,[13] and headed MI6's Russia Desk for three years at the end of his MI6 career. He entered MI6 in 1987, directly after his graduation from Cambridge University.[174] He currently works for Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, a private intelligence company he co-founded in London.[175][176]

Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Moscow, has vouched for Steele's reputation.[22] He views Steele as a "very competent professional operator. ... I take the report seriously. I don't think it's totally implausible." He also said "the report's key allegation—that Trump and Russia's leadership were communicating via secret back channels during the presidential campaign—was eminently plausible".[177] FBI investigators reportedly treat Steele "as a peer", whose experience as a trusted Russia expert has included assisting the Justice Department, British prime ministers, and at least one U.S. president.[80]

Steele's biases and motivations toward Trump appear to have changed over time. Starting in 2007, many years before he started his opposition research on Trump, he repeatedly met Ivanka Trump over several years, had a "friendly relationship" with her, and was "favorably disposed" to the Trump family. They even discussed the possibility of the Trump Organization using the services of Orbis Business Intelligence, but no arrangements were made.[178][179] Simpson has also confirmed that "there was no pre-existing animus toward Trump by Steele or Fusion".[163]

Later, as Steele was preparing the dossier before the 2016 election, Bruce Ohr said Steele, based on what he learned during his research,[72]: 280  told him he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president" (a quote disputed by Steele[72]),[180] attitudes that have been described by Julian Sanchez as "entirely natural, not suggestive of preexisting bias", considering Steele believed his own reporting.[30] Steele has disputed Ohr's statement, and he told interviewers for Inspector General Horowitz that Ohr's wording was a paraphrase of his sentiments and not an exact quote, and the IG Report continues: "Steele told us that based on what he learned during his research he was concerned that Trump was a national security risk and he had no particular animus against Trump otherwise."[72]: 280  Steele told the FBI that he "did not begin his investigation with any bias against Trump, but based on the information he learned during the investigation became very concerned about the consequences of a Trump presidency."[72]: 193 

Steele first became a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI in 2013 in connection with the investigation in the 2015 FIFA corruption case, but he considered the relationship as contractual. He said the relationship "was never really resolved and both sides turned a blind eye to it. It was not really ideal."[77] Later, the Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation discusses "divergent expectations about Steele's conduct in connection with his election reporting", as Steele considered his first duty to his paying clients, and not to the FBI. The Inspector General's report states that "Steele contends that he was never a CHS for the FBI but rather that his consulting firm had a contractual relationship with the FBI." Steele said "he never recalled being told that he was a CHS and that he never would have accepted such an arrangement, ..." This divergence in expectations was a factor that "ultimately resulted in the FBI formally closing Steele as a CHS in November 2016 (although ... the FBI continued its relationship with Steele through Ohr)."[72]: 88 

On May 3, 2021, The Daily Telegraph reported that Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence, using new sources not used for the original dossier, continued to supply the FBI with raw intelligence during the Trump presidency. During an interview with the FBI in September 2017, Steele informed the FBI that Orbis had "four discrete, 'hermetically-sealed' main agent networks". His primary sub-source for the dossier was no longer "active" at the time of the interview with FBI agents, but that another "main agent network is up and running and is now starting to get good information".[181] This resulted in "a second dossier for the FBI on Donald Trump". It included further claims of Russian election meddling; "alleged Russian interference linked to Mr Trump and his associates"; claims about the "existence of further sex tapes"; and "further details of Mr Manafort's alleged Russian contacts".[181]

Steele's sources

See also: § Discrepancies between sources and their allegations

The Inspector General's report stated that "Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting."[72]: 186  Instead, the report found that Steele relied on a "Primary Sub-source", later revealed as Igor Danchenko,[182] who "used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele".[183]

In an Alfa-Bank lawsuit, Steele revealed that he "did not rely on Danchenko alone, instead obtaining information from "one main source and a couple of subsidiary sources". According to Steele: "The dossier was comprised of intelligence obtained from 3 sources and approximately 20 sub-sources."[182][138]

Paul Wood, writing in The Spectator, wrote: "Steele had '20 to 30' sources for the dossier and in two decades as a professional intelligence officer he had never seen such complete agreement by such a wide range of sources."[97]

Simpson has said that, to his knowledge, Steele did not pay any of his sources.[184][89][185] According to investigative reporter Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, Orbis has a large number of paid "collectors" (also called subsources) whose information came from a network of often unwitting sub-subsources.[77] Since payment of these sub-subsources can be seen as bribery or might encourage exaggeration, they are unpaid.[63] Steele testified that these sub-subsources "were not paid and were not aware that their information was being passed to Orbis or Fusion GPS".[77]: 865 

According to British journalist Luke Harding, Steele's sources were not new, but trusted, proven, and familiar sources.[186] Howard Blum said Steele leaned on sources "whose loyalty and information he had bought and paid for over the years".[66] Steele later informed the Inspector General's investigators that "this source network did not involve sources from his time as a [redacted] and was developed entirely in the period after he retired from government service."[72]: 93 

Igor Danchenko

In January 2017, the Primary Sub-source, later identified as Ukrainian-born and Russian-trained attorney Igor Danchenko,[187] was contacted by the FBI for an interview. About a week and a half later, in exchange for legal immunity, he agreed to answer questions about his working relationship with Steele, as well as his opinion on the accuracy of the Steele dossier.[188] He was interviewed for three days by the FBI[189] and said that Steele misstated or exaggerated certain information.[189] Danchenko has said "he did not know who Mr. Steele's client was at the time and considered himself a nonpartisan analyst and researcher".[190]

The FBI found that he was "truthful and cooperative",[72]: 190 [187] but the FBI's Supervisory Intel Analyst said that "it was his impression that the Primary Sub-source may not have been 'completely truthful' and may have been minimizing certain aspects of what he/she told Steele".[72]: 245  He also "believed that there were instances where the Primary Sub-source was 'minimizing' certain facts but did not believe that he/she was 'completely fabricating' events". He added that he "did not know whether he could support a 'blanket statement' that the Primary Sub-source had been truthful".[72]: 192  Starting in March 2017, Danchenko became a paid confidential human source for the FBI. During this time he lied to the FBI several times during interviews and was terminated in October 2020.[191]

In July 2020, Danchenko was unmasked after the declassification of the interview report by Attorney General William P. Barr, who "has repeatedly been accused of abusing his powers to help Mr. Trump politically". Lindsey Graham had also "asked the F.B.I. to declassify the interview report".[187] Immediately after Barr's unmasking of Danchenko, Graham posted it to the Senate Judiciary Committee's web site.[192] The declassification order was criticized by former law enforcement officials as an unmasking that could endanger other sources and make the FBI's work harder.[187] About two weeks after he was unmasked, Danchenko received a subpoena from Alfa-Bank, and his lawyer revealed that his client "fears for his life", since Russian agents are known to kill such informers.[192]

Information about Danchenko's network of sources was provided to the FISA court:[183]

Ultimately, the initial drafts provided to [Justice Department] management, the read copy, and the final application submitted to the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] contained a description of the source network that included the fact that Steele relied upon a Primary Sub-source who used a network of sub-sources, and that neither Steele nor the Primary Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported. The drafts, read copy, and final application also contained a separate footnote on each sub-source with a brief description of his/her position or access to the information he/she was reporting.

The outing of Danchenko also brought to light an inaccuracy in the dossier that describes him as a "Russian-based" source. In fact, although he traveled to Russia in 2016 to gather information,[99] and his source network is mostly in Russia, he is a Ukrainian-born and Russian-trained lawyer, researcher, and expert in Russian politics who lives in the United States.[187]

Danchenko has defended his sources: "I have a longstanding relationship with most of my sources ... and have no reason to believe that any of them fabricated information that was given to me. More importantly, I have yet to see anything credible that indicates that the raw intelligence I collected was inaccurate."[193]

Arrest and indictment

On November 4, 2021, Danchenko was arrested and charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI on five separate occasions regarding the sources of material he provided for the Steele dossier.[190][194] These included Danchenko having allegedly obscured his relationship with Charles Dolan Jr. and having allegedly fabricated contacts with Sergei Millian.[195] In November 2021, CNN's Marshall Cohen stated that recent "revelations about Dolan, Millian and Galkina raise grave questions about where Danchenko got his information, or if he perhaps made some of it up".[196] On October 14, 2022, the judge dropped one charge,[197] and four days later, Danchenko was acquitted of the other four charges.[198][199]

Right-wing columnist and attorney Andrew C. McCarthy reacted to what he described as the "if not irrational, then exaggerated" reactions by Trump supporters to these reports of arrests. He urged them to be cautious as John Durham's "indictments narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself."[200]

Value as FBI source

During his trial, two FBI officials revealed that Danchenko was "an uncommonly valuable" confidential human source for several years whose role went far beyond the Steele dossier:[201]

Helson testified that Danchenko's reports as a confidential informant were used by the FBI in 25 investigations and 40 intelligence reports during a nearly four-year period from March 2017 to October 2020. ... Danchenko, the FBI agent said, was considered 'a model' informant and 'reshaped the way the U.S. even perceives threats.' Helson said that none of his previous informants had ever had as many sub-sources as Danchenko and that others at the FBI have continued to ask in recent months for Danchenko's assistance amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Olga Galkina

Olga Galkina, labeled by the FBI as "Source 3", was alleged to be an unwitting sub-source in Danchenko's network of sources and "stood as the dossier's most important contributor".[193] She is an old friend of Danchenko and a middle school classmate. On October 28, 2020, The Wall Street Journal described her as a Russian public-relations executive with many past jobs in government and the private sector that enabled her to build a "vast network" of sources.[193]

Galkina stated in an affidavit that "she had no idea Danchenko had used 'private discussions or private communications' as dossier material. 'I believe that Mr. Danchenko identified me as Sub-Source 3 to create more authoritativeness for his work'."[202][196]

According to the Wall Street Journal, she was Steele's source for the hacking accusations against Webzilla, and the source of the allegations about a secret meeting in Prague involving Michael Cohen and three colleagues.[193]

Sergei Millian

Sergei Millian was alleged to be an unwitting sub-source in Danchenko's network of sources. He was described in the IG Report as sources D and E, and "Person 1". As an unwitting source, he was alleged to have confided in a compatriot, who then passed that information on to Steele. That information was used in Reports 80, 95, and 102.[72]: ix, 365 [203][204] He denies being a dossier source.[205][206] Although Steele told the FBI that Person 1 was a "boaster" and "egoist" who "may engage in some embellishment",[72]: ix [207] the FBI omitted these "caveats about his source" from the FISA application.[207]

In November 2021, Millian's alleged involvement as a source was brought into question. Igor Danchenko is alleged to have lied to Steele about Millian's involvement: "Danchenko told the FBI that he knew Steele believed that he had direct contact with Millian and that he 'never corrected' Steele about that 'erroneous belief'."[195][191] On November 12, 2021, following the November 4 indictment of Igor Danchenko, The Washington Post corrected and removed the "parts of two stories regarding the Steele dossier" that identified Millian as a source.[26] CNN reported that "Millian has since said he was 'framed' by Danchenko and has publicly denied that they ever spoke, though there is no indication in the indictment that Millian ever denied it to the FBI or under oath."[196] In October 2022, judge Anthony Trenga cast doubt on Millian and two 2020 emails he wrote denying he talked to Danchenko: The "emails lack the necessary 'guarantees of trustworthiness' as the government does not offer direct evidence that Millian actually wrote the emails, and, even if he did, Millian possessed opportunity and motive to fabricate and/or misrepresent his thoughts."[208]

Charles Dolan Jr.

Dolan was another unwitting source for Danchenko. He was "well-known among Russia experts" and also "well-connected in Russian President Vladimir Putin's inner circle". He was a public relations executive and had "numerous, but not high-profile, roles in Democratic circles".[209] He had been active in Bill and Hillary Clinton's campaigns, including as a volunteer in her 2016 campaign. While working for Ketchum, a PR firm in New York, he "helped handle global public relations for the Russian Federation for eight years ending in 2014". He also became acquainted with Danchenko and allegedly "fed the dossier before he fought against it".[209] Danchenko had also introduced Olga Galkina, another one of Danchenko's sources, to him. The two had regular interactions "including in ways that indicated they supported Mrs. Clinton's campaign".[190]

Dolan's involvement as an unwitting source for Danchenko came to light in connection with Danchenko's indictment. Danchenko is accused of lying to the FBI by stating that "he did not discuss information in the dossier with the individual" [Dolan], "when in fact, the indictment claims, some of the material was 'gathered directly' from" him.[209] Danchenko's indictment "suggests that while Danchenko allegedly misled people about his conversations with Dolan, the executive also misled Danchenko".[195] Danchenko was later acquitted.

The information allegedly from Dolan that ended up in the dossier was alleged to be "rumors about Paul Manafort's dismissal as Trump's campaign chairman. ... Two days later, the indictment alleges, that information appeared in one of Steele's reports." Both men had also met in Moscow in June 2016, where Dolan had stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and toured the presidential suite where the dossier alleged Trump had been recorded by Russian intelligence in 2013.[209] According to the Danchenko indictment, "a hotel staff member told [Dolan] that Mr. Trump had stayed there — but Mr. Dolan and another person on the tour told the F.B.I. that the staff member did not mention any salacious activity."[190] After meeting in Moscow, Danchenko flew "to London to provide information that would later appear in the dossier, the indictment claims, setting forth the timeline of these encounters without stating that Dolan was the source for specific claims about the purported tape."[209]

As the view that Millian was "Source D" has been questioned, an alternate source has been proposed, and that is Charles Dolan, Jr.:[26]

Danchenko may have gotten his information about the hotel encounter not from Millian but from a Democratic Party operative with long-standing ties to Hillary Clinton. The indictment doesn't name the executive by name, but he has been identified as Charles Dolan Jr.

Dolan later stated "that he believed the analyst [Danchenko] 'worked for FSB'. ... Dolan later admitted to the FBI ... that he had 'fabricated' the basis of certain details he had provided to Danchenko. He also reportedly said he was unaware of the specifics of Danchenko's work, or that the information they were trading would be transmitted to the FBI. Dolan's 'historical and ongoing involvement in Democratic politics,' the indictment asserts, 'bore upon' his 'reliability, motivations, and potential bias as a source of information' for Steele's reports."[209]

Dolan told authorities that Clinton campaign officials "did not direct, and were not aware of" his contacts with Danchenko. Journalist Stanley-Becker stated "new allegations make Dolan one of the most mysterious figures in the saga of the Steele dossier".[209]

Discrepancies between sources and their allegations

One of the findings of the 2019 Inspector General's report related to conflicting accounts of sourced content in the dossier. When Steele's Primary Sub-source (Danchenko) was later interviewed by the FBI about the allegations sourced to them, he gave accounts that conflicted with Steele's renderings in the dossier and implied that Steele "misstated or exaggerated" their statements.[72]: 187 [189] FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote that "Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network."[189]

The IG found it difficult to discern the causes for the discrepancies between some allegations and explanations later provided to the FBI by the sources for those allegations. The IG attributed the discrepancies to three possible factors:[72]: 189 

These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source, exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained, or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary Sub-source.

Another factor was attempts by sources to distance themselves from the content attributed to them:[72]: 192–193 

FBI documents reflect that another of Steele's sub-sources who reviewed the election reporting told the FBI in August 2017 that whatever information in the Steele reports that was attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated" and that he/she did not recognize anything as originating specifically from him/her. The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she believed this sub-source was "one of the key sources for the 'Trump dossier'" and the source for allegations concerning Michael Cohen and events in Prague contained in Reports 135, 136, and 166, as well as Report 94's allegations concerning the alleged meeting between Carter Page and Igor Divyekin.

The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source (Galkina[193]), not the Primary Sub-source, "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public".[72]: 193  According to the Wall Street Journal, Galkina was the source of the allegations about a secret meeting in Prague involving Michael Cohen and three colleagues.[193]

The FBI's Supervisory Intel Analyst said that "it was his impression that the Primary Sub-source may not have been 'completely truthful' and may have been minimizing certain aspects of what he/she told Steele".[72]: 245  He also "believed that there were instances where the Primary Sub-source was 'minimizing' certain facts but did not believe that he/she was 'completely fabricating' events". He added that he "did not know whether he could support a 'blanket statement' that the Primary Sub-source had been truthful".[72]: 192 

On October 17, 2021, in Steele's first major interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos asked why Danchenko, the Primary Sub-source, told the FBI that he "felt that the tenor of Steele's reports was far more 'conclusive' than was justified", and that much of the information he had provided – including word of the purported 'pee tape' – came from 'word of mouth and hearsay ... conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers,' and was likely 'made in jest'. Steele said he "may have 'taken fright' at having his cover blown and tried to 'downplay and underestimate' his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI."[210]

Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered

The dossier has been attacked by Trump supporters, especially Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, with claims it contained Russian disinformation. The IG report describes how the FBI examined and rejected these claims. Under the heading "Crossfire Hurricane Team's Assessment of Potential Russian Influence on the Steele Election Reporting," the Inspector General's investigative team examined how seriously the FBI Crossfire Hurricane team had considered "whether Steele's election reports, or aspects of them, were the product of a Russian disinformation campaign".[72]: 193 

Senators Grassley and Johnson alleged that some previously redacted footnotes in the IG report were a "bombshell": "According to their April 10 press release, the footnotes 'confirmed' that the Steele dossier, parts of which the FBI relied on to target Page, was the product of a Russian disinformation campaign." Later press releases were toned down and did not repeat the exact claims.[183] Legal experts at Lawfare examined the unredacted footnotes and pushed back against these claims:[183]

The footnotes do not confirm that the Steele dossier was the product of Russian disinformation. But two footnotes do indicate that the FBI received reports alleging that portions of Steele's evidence were the product of a Russian disinformation plot—though the footnotes do not establish that these reports were credible. The other two footnotes offer further reason to question the veracity of Steele's reporting, but they do not necessarily implicate the existence of a Russian disinformation operation.

LawFare includes a direct quote from a footnote affirming that, as of June 2017, the FBI had no evidence that Steele's network had been "penetrated or compromised":[183]

Footnotes 342 and 350 most directly implicate whether the Steele dossier could have been part of a Russian disinformation operation. ... the footnote's final sentence reveals that "an early June 2017 [U.S. intelligence community] report indicated that two persons affiliated with RIS were aware of Steele's election investigation in early July 2016. The [FBI] Supervisory Intel Analyst told us he was aware of these reports, but that he had no information as of June 2017 that Steele's election reporting source network had been penetrated or compromised.

Lawfare rejected the two Senators' claims: "The new information in the two footnotes does not support the senators' initial claim that the footnotes confirm the existence of a Russian operation to disrupt the FBI's investigation. The footnotes only establish that the FBI received certain reports. The veracity of the information also remains unconfirmed."[183]

It is a fact that Steele and Oleg Deripaska ("Russian Oligarch 1") have had dealings with each other. While Steele was working for a law firm hired by Deripaska to track down money allegedly stolen from him by Paul Manafort,[39] Steele was also working between 2014 and 2016 with the FBI and Justice Department in an unsuccessful classified effort to flip Deripaska so he could be an FBI informant.[211][212] This Deripaska/Steele association has been touted as a means whereby the Russians could get disinformation inserted into the dossier. The FBI rejected this theory as Priestap found it implausible. The IG report stated:[72]: 194 

According to an FBI memorandum prepared in December 2017 for a Congressional briefing, by the time the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was transferred to the Special Counsel in May 2017, the FBI "did not assess it likely that the [Steele] [election reporting] was generated in connection to a Russian disinformation campaign." Priestap told us that the FBI "didn't have any indication whatsoever" by May 2017 that the Russians were running a disinformation campaign through the Steele election reporting. Priestap explained, however, that if the Russians, in fact, were attempting to funnel disinformation through Steele to the FBI using Russian Oligarch 1, he did not understand the goal.

Bill Priestap further explained that "the Russians  ... favored Trump, they're trying to denigrate Clinton  ... [and] I don't know why you'd run a disinformation campaign to denigrate Trump on the side."[72]: 194 

The IG Report said Steele explained how sophisticated the Russians were at planting and controlling misinformation, but Steele "had no evidence that his reporting was 'polluted' with Russian disinformation".[72]: 193–195  The inspector general's report ultimately concluded "that more should have been done to examine Steele's contacts with intermediaries of Russian oligarchs in order to assess those contacts as potential sources of disinformation that could have influenced Steele's reporting".[72]: 386 

In 2019, during Trump's first impeachment inquiry, national security expert Fiona Hill stated Steele may have been "played" by the Russians to spread disinformation.[39][213]


See also: § Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations

President Donald Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin at 2018 summit in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, 2018

The veracity of allegations can vary widely, with some allegations publicly confirmed,[9][24] others unconfirmed,[25] but, according to James Clapper and Fox News host Shepard Smith, none are disproven.[27][28]

Trump and Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, and Trump has labeled the dossier "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".[214][21][215]

Below, the allegations are simply presented as they are, but in the section after this one, the widely varying verification status for a number of allegations is examined, sometimes with conflicting reports for or against their veracity, including whether some sources have rejected them.

Each allegation should be read as "Sources allege that" (and then the allegation).

Cultivation of Trump

See also: § Cultivation of Trump through time

The dossier describes two different Russian operations. The first was an attempt, lasting many years, to find ways to influence Trump, probably not so much "to make Mr. Trump a knowing agent of Russia", but most likely to make him a source the Russians could use. This operation utilized kompromat (Russian: short for "compromising material") and proposals of business deals. The second operation was very recent and involved contacts with Trump's representatives during the campaign to discuss the hacking of the DNC and Podesta.[14]

Conspiracy, cooperation, and back channel communication

See also: § Russian assistance to the Trump campaign

Why Russia supports Trump

See also: § Relations with Europe and NATO

Changing relationships

Kompromat and blackmail: Trump

See also: § Kompromat and "golden showers" allegations, and § Trump viewed as under Putin's influence

Kompromat: Clinton

Dmitry Peskov (2010s)

Kremlin pro-Trump and anti-Clinton

Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page

See also: § Manafort's and others' cooperation with Russian efforts, and § Timing of release of hacked emails

Paul Manafort (2016)
Michael Cohen (2011)

DNC email hack, leaks, and misinformation

See also: § Kremlin's "Romanian" hackers and use of WikiLeaks, and Trump campaign reaction; and § Cohen and alleged Prague visit

Kickbacks and quid pro quo agreements to lift sanctions

See also: § Manafort and kickback payments from Yanukovych

Viktor Yanukovych (2013)

Cultivation of various U.S. political figures

Russian spy withdrawn

See also: § Spy withdrawn from Russian embassy

Use of botnets and porn traffic by hackers

See also: § Hackers use of botnets and porn traffic

Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations

See also: § Discrepancies between sources and their allegations

Simpson has described his own and Steele's confidence in Steele's work: "Nothing that I have seen disproves anything in the dossier. Which isn't to say I think it's all true. I don't think Chris thinks it's all true, either. But there's a difference between things being fake or a hoax or a fraud or a lie and things being incorrect."[77] Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate,[62][41] although he gives the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true.[41]

The Senate Intelligence Committee wrote that the FBI made "efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier memos, but the Committee found that attempt lacking in both thoroughness and rigor". The FBI stopped all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Special Counsel's Office took over the Russia investigation.[77]

The following content describes how some allegations have been corroborated, while others remain unverified, with sometimes conflicting reports for or against their veracity. In some cases, there are discrepancies between sources and their allegations.

Cultivation of Trump through time

Source(s) for Report 80 (June 2016) alleged that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump for "at least five years".

Luke Harding writes that documents show Czechoslovakia spied on Trump during the 1970s and 1980s, when he was married to Ivana Trump, his Czechoslovakia-born first wife. Harding writes that the Czechoslovakian government spied on Trump because of his political ambitions and notability as a businessman. It is known that there were close ties between Czechoslovakia's StB and the USSR's KGB.[250]

Harding also describes how, already since 1987, the Soviet Union was interested in Trump. In his book Collusion, Harding asserts that the "top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB." Then-KGB head Vladimir Kryuchkov "wanted KGB staff abroad to recruit more Americans". Harding proceeds to describe the KGB's cultivation process, and posits that they may have opened a file on Trump as early as 1977, when he married Czech model Ivana Zelníčková; the Soviet spies may have closely observed and analyzed the couple from that time on.[251][252]

Jonathan Chait has written that 1987 is a year when Russians courted and praised Trump by inviting him to consider building in Moscow. He then visited Moscow in July 1987, and was likely under surveillance, but he did not build anything.[253]

Russian assistance to the Trump campaign

On April 26, 2016, George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, held a breakfast meeting with Joseph Mifsud,[254][255] a man described by James B. Comey as a "Russian agent".[256] Mifsud, who claimed "substantial connections to Russian officials",[254] said he had just returned from Moscow, where he learned the Russians had "dirt" on Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails.[255] This occurred concurrently with the Hillary Clinton email controversy, but before the hacking of the DNC computers had become public knowledge.[254][257]

Papadopoulos later bragged "that the Trump campaign was aware the Russian government had dirt on Hillary Clinton". According to John Sipher, "court papers show he was, indeed, told by a Russian agent that the Kremlin had derogatory information in the form of 'thousands of e-mails'."[17][254][257][255]

On May 4, the Russian contact with ties to the foreign ministry wrote to Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Mifsud, saying ministry officials were 'open for cooperation." Mr. Papadopoulos forwarded the message to a senior campaign official, asking whether the contacts were "something we want to move forward with.'

Papadopoulos sent emails about Putin to at least seven Trump campaign officials. Trump national campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis[258] encouraged Papadopoulos to fly to Russia and meet with agents of the Russian Foreign Ministry, who reportedly wanted to share "Clinton dirt" with the Trump campaign.[259][260] When Donald Trump Jr. learned of the offer, he welcomed it by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it."[63] Later, on June 9, 2016, a meeting in Trump Tower was held, ostensibly for representatives from Russia to deliver that dirt on Clinton.[261][262] Instead, the meeting was used to discuss lifting of the Magnitsky Act economic sanctions that had been imposed on Russia in 2012,[245] a move favored by candidate Trump.[98][263]

In February 2018, a formerly classified memo was released by Democrats on the House intelligence committee. The memo connects the offer of help revealed to Papadopoulos with a similar offer of help revealed to Carter Page when he met with Igor Divyekin in Moscow. Steele had told the FBI that he knew nothing of Papadopoulos[63] when preparing the dossier, so this was independent confirmation of the Russian offer of help to the Trump campaign. The dossier alleged that when meeting with Carter Page, Igor Divyekin raised the possibility of releasing "a dossier of 'kompromat' the Kremlin possessed on Democratic presidential rival, Hillary CLINTON ... to the Republican's campaign team". The memo stated that "This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos. In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting."[236]

BBC correspondent Paul Wood wrote:

Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier's 'foundational initial assertion' and it was correct. Much later, the Mueller inquiry would state that 'the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.' Steele wrote about what was happening as early as June 2016...The US intelligence agencies...did not publish their findings until December 2016, too late to prevent the effort to influence the election.[97]

On January 6, 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the intelligence community assessment of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It stated that Russian leadership favored Trump over Clinton, and that Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process", as well as ordering cyber attacks on the Democratic and Republican parties.[8][264] John Brennan and James Clapper testified to Congress that Steele's dossier played no role in the intelligence community assessment,[31][265] testimony that was reaffirmed by an April 2020 Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report.[266] The committee found that the Steele dossier was not used by the assessment to "support any of its analytic judgments".[267] In a December 2020 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, Brennan said: "The Steele dossier was not used in any way to undergird the judgments that came out of the intelligence community assessment about the Russian actions in the 2016 election. ... There was so much other evidence and intelligence to support those judgments."[268]

The New York Times said "Parts of the dossier have proved prescient."

Its main assertion — that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected — was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States' own intelligence agencies — and Mr. Mueller's investigation. The dossier's talk of Russian efforts to cultivate some people in Mr. Trump's orbit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of Mr. Steele's reports, but it has proved broadly accurate as well.[7]

Newsweek said "the dossier's main finding, that Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton, was confirmed" by the ODNI assessment.[216] ABC News stated that "some of the dossier's broad implications—particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad—now ring true."[10]

The Mueller Report backed "Steele's central claim that the Russians ran a 'sweeping and systematic' operation ... to help Trump win".[13] James Comey said:

The bureau began an effort after we got the Steele dossier to try and see how much of it we could replicate. That work was ongoing when I was fired. Some of it was consistent with our other intelligence, the most important part. The Steele dossier said the Russians are coming for the American election. It's a huge effort. It has multiple goals. ... And that was true.[269][112]

Lawfare has noted that the "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."[29]

In The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said the allegation that Trump was favored by the Kremlin, and that they offered Trump's campaign dirt on Clinton, has proven true.[63] Mayer also wrote that the CIA had a Russian government official working as "a human source inside the Russian government during the campaign, who provided information that dovetailed with Steele's reporting about Russia's objective of electing Trump and Putin's direct involvement in the operation."[39] The spy had access to Putin and could actually take pictures of documents on Putin's desk. Because of the dangers imposed by Trump's recent careless disclosures of classified information to Russian officials, the CIA feared their spy was in danger, so the government official and his family were discretely exfiltrated during a family vacation to Montenegro.[270][271]

In February 2019, Michael Cohen implicated Trump before the U.S. Congress, writing that in late July 2016, Trump had knowledge that Roger Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks about releasing emails stolen from the DNC in 2016.[272][273] Stone denied this and accused Cohen of lying to Congress.[274] Stone was later convicted before being pardoned by Trump, and it was confirmed that Stone had been in contact with WikiLeaks.[275][276]

At the Helsinki summit meeting in July 2018, Putin was asked if he had wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. He responded "Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."[277]

Fake news and social media misinformation

Source(s) for Report 166 alleged that "hackers ... had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign".

The Internet Research Agency (IRA) conducted an extensive campaign, including fake news and misinformation in social media, to undermine Clinton's campaign. On 16 February 2018, the IRA, along with 13 Russian individuals and two other Russian organizations, was indicted following an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller with charges stemming from "impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of government".[278]

John Sipher reported on this dossier allegation and the documentation of the Russian efforts to harm Clinton.[226] A January 2017 Stanford University study found that "fabricated stories favoring Donald Trump were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro-Hillary Clinton shares leading up to the election."[279] Researchers at Oxford University found that "An automated army of pro-Donald J. Trump chatbots overwhelmed similar programs supporting Hillary Clinton five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election."[280] In March 2017, former FBI agent Clint Watts told Congress about websites involved in the Russian disinformation campaign "some of which mysteriously operate from Eastern Europe and are curiously led by pro-Russian editors of unknown financing".[281] Aaron Blake examined two studies that indicate these efforts "made a significant difference...[and] may well have cost Clinton the presidency".[282]

Manafort's and others' cooperation with Russian efforts

See also: Mueller report § Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion, and Mueller special counsel investigation § Conspiracy vs collusion

Dossier source(s) allege that Manafort, who had worked for Russian interests in Ukraine for many years,[263] "managed" a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership".[233][164][218] The "conspiracy" is not proven, but the "co-operation" is seen as proven.

While the Mueller investigation did not "produce enough evidence"[283] to prove the existence of a formal written or oral "conspiracy",[284][285][286] some consider the actions of Manafort,[287] Trump's welcoming of Russian help,[288] and the myriad secret contacts between other Trump campaign members and associates with Russians[205][11][12] to be the alleged "co-operation" with the Russian's "'sweeping and systematic' operation in 2016 to help Trump win",[13] that The Guardian's Luke Harding and Dan Sabbagh describe as "Steele's central claim".[13][269]

CNN described Manafort's role in its report of intercepted communications among "suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort ... to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton's election prospects. ... The suspected operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians."[289]

These reported intercepts are considered "remarkably consistent with the raw intelligence in the Steele Dossier ... [that] states that the 'well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership ... was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT'."[287]

Russian conversations confirmed

On February 10, 2017, CNN reported that "the dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals", and that some of those communications had been "intercepted during routine intelligence gathering" and corroborated by U.S. investigators.[9] They "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier". Due to the classified status of intelligence collection programs, it was not revealed which of the specific conversations mentioned in the dossier were intercepted.[9]

U.S. officials said the corroboration gave "US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents".[9]

Kompromat and "golden showers" allegations

Exhibit 38. Texts between Rtskhiladze and Cohen[290]

Dossier source(s) allege that Trump "hated" Obama so much that when he stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he hired the presidential suite (Report 80), but did not stay in it.[224] There he employed "a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him"[129][216][225] in order to defile the bed used by the Obamas on an earlier visit. The alleged incident from 2013 was reportedly filmed and recorded by the FSB[226] as kompromat.[227][228] The 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report assessed the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow as a "high counterintelligence risk environment" with Russian intelligence on staff, "government surveillance of guests' rooms", and the common presence of prostitutes, "likely with at least the tacit approval of Russian authorities". A Marriott executive told the committee that after Trump's 2013 stay at the hotel, he overheard two hotel employees discussing what to do with an elevator surveillance video they said showed Trump "with several women" whom one of the employees "implied to be 'hostesses.'" Committee investigators interviewed the two employees, but they said they could not recall the video.[291]

Thomas Roberts, the host of the Miss Universe contest, confirmed that "Trump was in Moscow for one full night and at least part of another. (November 8–10).[292] According to flight records, Keith Schiller's testimony, social media posts, and Trump's close friend, Aras Agalarov, Trump arrived by private jet on Friday, November 8, going to the Ritz-Carlton hotel and booking in.[293] The next day, Facebook posts showed he was at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.[294] That evening he attended the Miss Universe pageant, followed by an after-party that started at 1:00 a.m. He then returned to his hotel, packed, and flew back to the U.S.[295]

James Comey wrote in his book A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership that Trump asked him to have the FBI investigate the "pee tape" allegation "because he wanted to convince his wife that it wasn't true".[296] The sincerity of Trump's denials was doubted by Comey who, after Trump lied to him, came to believe the incident may have happened.[297]

Regarding the "golden showers" allegation, Michael Isikoff and David Corn have stated that Steele's "faith in the sensational sex claim would fade over time. ... As for the likelihood of the claim that prostitutes had urinated in Trump's presence, Steele would say to colleagues, 'It's 50–50'."[41] The book Russian Roulette says that Steele's confidence in the truth of "the Ritz-Carlton story was 'fifty-fifty'. He treated everything in the dossier as raw intelligence material—not proven fact."[298][299] In their 2019 book, the founders of Fusion GPS report that Steele received the "hotel anecdote" from seven Russian sources.[148]

Slate journalist Ashley Feinberg investigated the pee tape rumor and linked to a 25-second video of the purported occurrence. She concluded that the tape was "fake", but "very far from being an obvious fake". A key "discrepancy", according to Feinberg, was that the video apparently showed the presidential suite as it appeared after a 2015 renovation, despite the purported occurrence being in November 2013, before the renovation occurred. The video had been in circulation since at least January 26, 2019.[300]

A footnote in the Mueller Report suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen exchanged a series of text messages with Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a businessman who had worked with Cohen on Trump's real estate projects. Rtskhiladze reported that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know ..." Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump. Cohen told investigators he spoke to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen."[123] Rolling Stone reported that "Rtskhiladze's description of the tapes' content tracks with the unverified information included in the Steele dossier".[301]

The Senate Intelligence Committee report indicated that "Cohen has testified that he became aware of allegations about a tape of compromising information in late 2013 or early 2014 ... related to Trump and prostitutes."[c] Cohen then "asked a friend, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, to see if Rtskhiladze could find out if the tape was real". The Report added that "Cohen ... would have been willing to pay ... to suppress the information if it could be verified, but Cohen was never shown any evidence."[77][302][290]

On the subject of kompromat, Bruce Ohr testified to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees that on July 30, 2016, Steele told him that "Russian intelligence believed 'they had Trump over a barrel'... [a] broader sentiment [that] is echoed in Steele's dossier".[303][304] Paul Wood described the source as "another Danchenko contact, a 'former senior intelligence officer now a Kremlin official'. This was later said to be no less than a former head of Russia's foreign intelligence services. This source did not talk specifically about the "pee tape" but, Danchenko told Steele, he said they had sexual kompromat on Trump going back years. 'We've got him over a barrel.'"[97]

Role of Agalarovs

On June 15, 2013, five months before the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Moscow, Trump was accompanied on a visit to the Las Vegas nightclub "The Act"[298] by Crocus Group owner Aras Agalarov, his son Emin, Ike Kaveladze, Rob Goldstone, Michael Cohen, Keith Schiller, and others, where Trump was photographed[305] and the group stayed "for several hours". The club featured "risque performances"[299] and, according to Cohen, Trump watched a golden showers performance "with delight".[306]

The Agalarovs were also linked to several other events involving Trump, including the invitation to share "dirt" on Clinton at the Trump Tower meeting[307] and knowledge of Trump's alleged sexual activities in Russia, both in St. Petersburg and the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. The dossier's sources reported that Aras Agalarov "would know most of the details of what the Republican presidential candidate had got up to" in St. Petersburg.[228] In 2013, when Trump stayed at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, "multiple sources" reported that the offer to "send five women to Trump's hotel room that night"[305] came from a Russian who was accompanying Emin Agalarov".[308] A footnote in the Mueller Report describes how Giorgi Rtskhiladze reported that he had successfully stopped the "flow of ... compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group" [owned by Agalarov].[123]

Trump viewed as under Putin's influence

The press conference at the 2018 summit in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, 2018 (English version) 46 minutes

Dossier source(s) allege that the Russians possess kompromat on Trump that can be used to blackmail him, and that the Kremlin promised him the kompromat will not be used as long as he continues his cooperation with them.[217][231] Trump's actions at the Helsinki summit in 2018 "led many to conclude that Steele's report was more accurate than not. ... Trump sided with the Russians over the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Moscow had waged an all-out attack on the 2016 election. ... The joint news conference ... cemented fears among some that Trump was in Putin's pocket and prompted bipartisan backlash."[213]

At the joint press conference, when asked directly about the subject, Putin denied having any kompromat on Trump. Even though Trump was reportedly given a "gift from Putin" the weekend of the pageant, Putin argued "that he did not even know Trump was in Russia for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013 when, according to the Steele dossier, video of Trump was secretly recorded to blackmail him."[309]

In reaction to Trump's actions at the summit, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke in the Senate: "Millions of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous and inexplicable behavior is the possibility—the very real possibility—that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump."[310]

Several operatives and lawyers in the U.S. intelligence community reacted strongly to Trump's performance at the summit. They described it as "subservien[ce] to Putin" and a "fervent defense of Russia's military and cyber aggression around the world, and its violation of international law in Ukraine" which they saw as "harmful to US interests". They also suggested he was either a "Russian asset" or a "useful idiot" for Putin,[311] and that he looked like "Putin's puppet".[312] Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wondered "if Russians have something on Trump",[313] and former CIA director John Brennan, who has accused Trump of "treason", tweeted: "He is wholly in the pocket of Putin."[314]

Former acting CIA director Michael Morell has called Trump "an unwitting agent of the Russian federation", and former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said Trump was a "useful fool" who is "manipulated by Moscow".[315] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi questioned Trump's loyalty when she asked him: "[Why do] all roads lead to Putin?"[316]

According to former KGB major Yuri Shvets, Trump became the target of a joint Czech intelligence services and KGB spying operation after he married Czech model Ivana Zelnickova[317] and was cultivated as an "asset" by Russian intelligence since 1977: "Russian intelligence gained an interest in Trump as far back as 1977, viewing Trump as an exploitable target."[318]

Trump was not viewed as an actual agent (spy) but as an asset: "We're talking about Trump being a self-interested businessman who's happy to do a favour if it works to his own best interests."[319]

Ynet, an Israeli online news site, reported on January 12, 2017, that U.S. intelligence advised Israeli intelligence officers to be cautious about sharing information with the incoming Trump administration, until the possibility of Russian influence over Trump, suggested by Steele's report, has been fully investigated.[320]

Max Boot[321] described what he sees as more "evidence of Trump's subservience to Putin", and he tied it to new government confirmations of rumors about Trump's alleged "dalliances with Russian women during visits to Moscow" that leave "him open to blackmail", rumors mentioned in the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report:[77] While the Senate Intelligence Committee report extensively explored the possibility of Russian kompromat, much of the discussion was redacted in the public version of the report. Ultimately, the Senate Intelligence Committee "did not establish" that Russia had kompromat on Trump.[299]

Kremlin's "Romanian" hackers and use of WikiLeaks, and Trump campaign reaction

Dossier source(s) allege that "Romanian hackers" controlled by Putin hacked the DNC servers and that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russia.[110][60]

Russian hackers used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and claimed to be Romanian, like the Romanian hacker who originally used that identity.[322][323][324]

The Mueller Report confirmed that the dossier was correct that the Kremlin was behind the appearance of the DNC emails on WikiLeaks, noting that the Trump campaign "showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton".[123] It was later confirmed that Roger Stone was in contact with WikiLeaks.[275][276]

Timing of release of hacked emails

Dossier source(s) allege that Carter Page "conceived and promoted" the idea of [the Russians] leaking the stolen DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention[235][223] for the purpose of swinging supporters of Bernie Sanders "away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP".[235][234] (Reports 95, 102)

In July 2016, in an "error-ridden message", WikiLeaks urged Russian intelligence to act swiftly to reach this timeline goal: "If you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo days prefable because the DNC is approaching, and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after."[323] The New York Times reported that Assange told Democracy Now! "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention".[325]

The leaks started the day before the DNC national convention, a timing that was seen as suspicious by David Shedd, a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who said: "The release of emails just as the Democratic National Convention is getting underway this week has the hallmarks of a Russian active measures campaign."[326]

Manafort and kickback payments from Yanukovych

Dossier source(s) allege that Russia-friendly president Yanukovych, whom Manafort advised for over a decade, had told Putin he had been making supposedly untraceable[16] kickback payments to Manafort.[16] After Yanukovych fled to Russia in 2014 under accusations of corruption, a secret "black ledger" was found in the former Party of Regions headquarters. It showed that Yanukovych and his ruling political party had set aside $12.7 million in illegal and undisclosed payments to Manafort for his work from 2007 to 2012.[327] Manafort has denied receiving the payments.[328] Manafort was accused of receiving $750,000 in "illegal, off-the-books payments from Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych before he was toppled".[329]

From 2006 to at least 2009, Manafort had a $10 million annual contract with Putin ally and aluminum magnate, Oleg Deripaska, a contract under which Manafort had proposed he would "influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit President Vladimir Putin's government".[330]

Page met with Rosneft officials

Carter Page (2017)
Igor Sechin (2016)

On November 2, 2017, Carter Page testified, without a lawyer, for more than six hours before the House Intelligence Committee that was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. He testified about his five-day trip to Moscow in July 2016.[331] According to his testimony, before leaving he informed Jeff Sessions, J. D. Gordon, Hope Hicks, and Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, of the planned trip to Russia, and Lewandowski approved the trip, responding: "If you'd like to go on your own, not affiliated with the campaign, you know, that's fine."[245][332]

Dossier source(s) allege that Page secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin on that July trip.[219] Page denied meeting Sechin or any Russian officials during that trip,[333][334] but he later admitted under oath that he met with Sechin's senior aide, Andrey Baranov, who was Rosneft's chief of investor relations.[335][44] According to Harding, Baranov was "almost certainly" "relaying Sechin's wishes".[336] David Corn and Michael Isikoff wrote that the FBI was not able to find evidence that Page met with Sechin or was offered a 19 percent stake in the giant energy conglomerate in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions and that "Mueller's report noted that his 'activities in Russia ... were not fully explained'".[167] Newsweek has listed the claim about Page meeting with Rosneft officials as "verified".[337]

Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong.[63] Page's congressional testimony confirmed he met with Andrey Baranov, who was Rosneft's chief of investor relations,[335] and Page conceded under questioning by Adam Schiff that the "potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft" might have been "briefly mentioned".[63][338] However, Page insisted that "there was never any negotiations, or any quid pro quo, or any offer, or any request even, in any way related to sanctions".[339]

CNN noted that his admissions to the House Intelligence Committee did confirm the Steele dossier was right about Page attending high-level meetings with Russians and possibly discussing "a sale of a stake in Rosneft", even though he denied doing so at the time.[340][341] In April 2019, the Mueller Report concluded that their investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with Russia's interference efforts.[341]

On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles that described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. According to Jeff Montgomery in Law360: "Judge Craig A Karsnitz ruled that the articles ... were either true or protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, wrote that the judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true.[342]

Brokerage of Rosneft privatization

Dossier source(s) allege that Sechin "offered PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for Trump lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election.[243][222][217][244][245]

According to Harding, Sechin and Divyekin set this offer up as a carrot and stick scheme, in which the carrot was the brokerage fee ("in the region of tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars"), and the stick was blackmail over purported "damaging material on Trump" held by the Russian leadership.[336]

About a month after Trump won the election, according to The Guardian, Carter Page traveled to Moscow "shortly before the company announced it was selling a 19.5% stake" in Rosneft. He met with top Russian officials at Rosneft but denied meeting Sechin. He also complained about the effects of the sanctions against Russia.[343]

On December 7, 2016, Putin announced that a 19.5% stake in Rosneft was sold to Glencore and a Qatar fund. Public records showed the ultimate owner included "a Cayman Islands company whose beneficial owners cannot be traced", with "the main question" being "Who is the real buyer of a 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft? ... the Rosneft privatization uses a structure of shell companies owning shell companies."[344]

Michael Horowitz's 2019 inspector general report "said Steele's claims about Page 'remained uncorroborated' when the wiretaps ended in 2017".[196][345]

Trump's attempts to lift sanctions

The dossier says Page, claiming to speak with Trump's authority, had confirmed that Trump would lift the existing sanctions against Russia if he were elected president.[217] On December 29, 2016, during the transition period between the election and the inauguration, National Security Advisor designate Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, urging him not to retaliate for newly imposed sanctions; the Russians took his advice and did not retaliate.[346]

Within days after the inauguration, new Trump administration officials ordered State Department staffers to develop proposals for immediately revoking the economic and other sanctions.[347] One retired diplomat later said, "What was troubling about these stories is that suddenly I was hearing that we were preparing to rescind sanctions in exchange for, well, nothing."[348] The staffers alerted Congressional allies who took steps to codify the sanctions into law. The attempt to overturn the sanctions was abandoned after Flynn's conversation was revealed and Flynn resigned.[347][349][226] In August 2017, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to impose new sanctions on Russia. Trump reluctantly signed the bill but then refused to implement it.[350] After Trump hired Manafort, his approach toward Ukraine changed; he said he might recognize Crimea as Russian territory and might lift the sanctions against Russia.[263]

Among those sanctioned were Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska, "who is linked to Paul Manafort", parliament member Konstantin Kosachev, banker Aleksandr Torshin, and Putin's son-in-law. Preparation for the sanctions started already before Trump took office.[351] In January 2019, Trump's Treasury Department lifted the sanctions on companies formerly controlled by Deripaska. Sanctions on Deripaska himself remained in effect.[352]

Cohen and alleged Prague visit

Dossier source(s) allege that Cohen and three colleagues met Kremlin officials in the Prague offices of Rossotrudnichestvo in August 2016,[242][217][111] to arrange for payments to the hackers, cover up the hack,[110][60] and "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine".[16] McClatchy reported in 2018 that a phone of Cohen's was traced to the Prague area in late summer 2016.[353] The April 2019 Mueller Report states "Cohen had never traveled to Prague".[354] The December 2019 Horowitz Report stated that the FBI "concluded that these allegations against Cohen" in the dossier "were not true".[72]: 176 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Olga Galkina was Steele's source for the hacking accusations against Webzilla, and the source of the allegations about a secret meeting in Prague involving Michael Cohen and three colleagues.[193]

In April 2018, McClatchy DC Bureau, citing two sources, reported that investigators working for Mueller "have traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany, apparently during August or early September of 2016",[242] a claim that The Spectator reported in July 2018 was "backed up by one intelligence source in London".[355]

In August 2018, The Spectator reported that "one intelligence source" said "Mueller is examining 'electronic records' that would place Cohen in Prague."[356] In December 2018, McClatchy reported that a phone of Cohen's had "pinged" cellphone towers in the Prague area in late summer 2016, citing four sources, leading to foreign intelligence detecting the pings.[353] McClatchy also reported that during that time an Eastern European intelligence agency had intercepted communications between Russians, one of whom mentioned that Cohen was in Prague.[353]

The Washington Post sent a team of reporters to Prague in an attempt to verify that Cohen had been there for the purposes alleged in the Dossier. According to reporter Greg Miller in November 2018, they "came away empty".[357]

In April 2019, The New York Times reported that when the FBI attempted to verify the dossier's claims, the Prague allegation "appeared to be false", as "Cohen's financial records and C.I.A. queries to foreign intelligence services revealed nothing to support it."[3]

Also in April 2019, the Mueller Report mentioned that "Cohen had never traveled to Prague"[354] and presented no evidence of the alleged Prague meeting,[193][358] thus contradicting the dossier and the McClatchy report.[359] Glenn Kessler, fact-checker for The Washington Post, has said that "Mueller does not indicate he investigated whether Cohen traveled to Prague; he simply dismisses the incident in Cohen's own words".[123] McClatchy responded to the Mueller Report by stating that it did not refer to evidence that Cohen's phone had pinged in or near Prague.[360][361][3] McClatchy stood by its December 2018 reporting, stating that there was a "possibility that Cohen was not there but one of the many phones he used was".[360]

The Associated Press described a December 2019 Horowitz Report mention of an inaccuracy in the dossier regarding Michael Cohen that may have been the Prague allegation.[362] Matt Taibbi wrote that news reports of the Cohen-Prague allegation were "either incorrect or lacking factual foundation".[363] CNN interpreted the Horowitz Report as saying that the dossier's Cohen-Prague allegation was untrue.[364]

In August 2020, the testimony of David Kramer was publicized, where he said Steele was uncertain about the "alleged Cohen trip to Prague". Kramer said: "it could have been in Prague, it could have been outside of Prague. He also thought there was a possibility it could have been in Budapest ... [but Steele] never backed off the idea that Cohen was in Europe."[77] In October 2021, "When asked why Cohen would not admit to the alleged meeting despite already being convicted of other crimes, Steele replied: 'I think it's so incriminating and demeaning. … And the other reason is he might be scared of the consequences'."[365]

Republican position on Russian conflict with Ukraine and related sanctions

In 2015, Trump had taken a hard line in favor of Ukraine's independence from Russia. He initially denounced Russia's annexation of Crimea as a "land grab" that "should never have happened", and called for a firmer U.S. response, saying "We should definitely be strong. We should definitely do sanctions."[263]

With the hirings of Paul Manafort and Carter Page, Trump's approach toward Ukraine reversed. Manafort had worked for Russian interests in Ukraine for many years, and after hiring Manafort as his campaign manager, Trump said he might recognize Crimea as Russian territory and might lift the sanctions against Russia.[263] At the time Trump appointed Carter Page as a foreign policy advisor, Page was known as an outspoken and strongly pro-Russian, anti-sanctions person whose views aligned with Trump's, and who had complained that his own, as well as his Russian friends', business interests were negatively affected by the sanctions imposed on Russia because of its aggression in Ukraine and its interference in the 2016 elections.[98][366]

Dossier source(s) allege that "the Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine".[367][233] Harding considers this allegation to have been confirmed by the actions of the Trump campaign: "This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US's commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened."[110] The Washington Post reported that "the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events" in July 2016 "to soften the language of an amendment to the Republican Party's draft policy on Ukraine."[368] In July 2016, the Republican National Convention did make changes to the Republican Party's platform on Ukraine: initially the platform proposed providing "lethal weapons" to Ukraine, but the line was changed to "appropriate assistance".

NPR reported that "Diana Denman, a Republican delegate who supported arming U.S. allies in Ukraine, has told people that Trump aide J.D. Gordon said at the Republican Convention in 2016 that Trump directed him to support weakening that position in the official platform."[369] J. D. Gordon, who was one of Trump's national security advisers during the campaign, said he had advocated for changing language because that reflected what Trump had said.[205][370] Although the Trump team denied any role in softening the language, Denman confirmed that the change "definitely came from Trump staffers".[371]

Kyle Cheney of Politico sees evidence that the change was "on the campaign's radar" because Carter Page congratulated campaign members in an email the day after the platform amendment: "As for the Ukraine amendment, excellent work."[372] Paul Manafort falsely said that the change "absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign".[373] Trump told George Stephanopoulos that people in his campaign were responsible for changing the Republican party's platform stance on Ukraine, but he denied personal involvement.[374]

Relations with Europe and NATO

Vladimir Putin (2023)

Dossier source(s) allege that, as part of a quid pro quo agreement, "the TRUMP team had agreed ... to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine, a priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterise the subject."[233] Aiko Stevenson, writing in HuffPost, noted that some of Trump's actions seem to align with "Putin's wish list", that "includes lifting sanctions on Russia, turning a blind eye towards its aggressive efforts in the Ukraine, and creating a divisive rift amongst western allies."[375] During the campaign Trump "called NATO, the centrepiece of Transatlantic security, 'obsolete', championed the disintegration of the EU, and said that he is open to lifting sanctions on Moscow."[375] Harding adds that Trump repeatedly "questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers".[110] Jeff Stein, writing in Newsweek, described how "Trump's repeated attacks on NATO have ... frustrated ... allies ... [and] raised questions as to whether the president has been duped into facilitating Putin's long-range objective of undermining the European Union."[376]

Nancy LeTourneau tied dossier allegations with Trump's attacks on NATO and reminded readers of "what Vladimir Putin wanted when, back in about 2011, he started courting Donald Trump as basically a Russian asset". She then quoted the dossier:

[The Trump operation's] aim was to sow discord and disunity within the U.S. itself, but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia's interests. Source C, a senior Russian financial official, said the Trump operation should be seen in terms of Putin's desire to return to Nineteenth Century 'Great Power' politics anchored upon countries' interests rather than the ideals-based international order established after World War Two.[377]

Trump's appearances at meetings with allies, including NATO and G7, have frequently been antagonistic; according to the Los Angeles Times, "The president's posture toward close allies has been increasingly and remarkably confrontational this year, especially in comparison to his more conciliatory approach to adversaries, including Russia and North Korea."[378]

Spy withdrawn from Russian embassy

Dossier source(s) allege that "a leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN" [sic] participated in U.S. election meddling, and was recalled to Moscow because the Kremlin was concerned his role in the meddling would be exposed. The BBC later reported that U.S. officials in 2016 had identified Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin as a spy and that he was under surveillance, thus "verifying" a key claim in the dossier.[221] Kalugin was the head of the economics section at the Russian embassy. He returned to Russia in August 2016.[164] McClatchy reported that the FBI was investigating whether Kalugin played a role in the election interference. Kalugin has denied the allegations.[164][379]

Botnets and porn traffic by hackers

The validity of the accusation that Aleksej Gubarev's "XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership"[248] has been confirmed by an unsealed report by FTI Consulting in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others.[7][380][381]

The report by FTI Consulting said:

Mr. Gubarev's companies have provided gateways to the internet for cybercriminals and Russian state-sponsored actors to launch and control large scale malware campaigns over the past decade. Gubarev and other XBT executives do not appear to actively prevent cybercriminals from using their infrastructure.[7]

Cybersecurity and intelligence expert Andrew Weisburd has said both Gubarev and the dossier "can be right": "Their explanation is entirely plausible, as is the Steele Dossier's description of Mr. Gubarev as essentially a victim of predatory officers of one or more Russian intelligence services. ... Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing."[249] XBT has denied the allegations, and "findings do not prove or disprove claims made about XBT in the dossier, but show how the company could have been used by cyber criminals, wittingly or unwittingly".[249]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Steele's source for the hacking accusations against Webzilla was Olga Galkina, who was involved in a "messy dispute" with the firm "after being fired in November 2016".[193]

Dossier's veracity and Steele's reputation

See also: § Discrepancies between sources and their allegations

Steele and the dossier became "the central point of contention in the political brawl raging around"[80] the Special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Russian intelligence agencies may have sought to create doubt about the veracity of the dossier.[382] Those who believed Steele considered him a hero who tried to warn about the Kremlin's meddling in the election, and people who distrusted him considered him a "hired gun" used to attack Trump.[80] Glenn Kessler described the dossier as "a political Rorschach test. Depending on your perspective, it's either a hoax used to defame a future president or a credible guide to allegations about Trump's involvement with Russia."[123] According to former New York Times reporter Barry Meier, some MI6 officials said that Steele "had a tendency to become obsessed and go down rabbit holes chasing targets of questionable value".[166]: 237 

Following the dossier's release, Steele completely avoided on-camera interviews until he participated in an ABC News documentary that was aired on Hulu on October 18, 2021. In that documentary, Steele maintained that his sources were credible and that it was typical in intelligence investigations to "never get to the point where you're 99% certain of the evidence to secure a conviction". Steele also acknowledged that one of his sources had faced repercussions; he confirmed that the source was still alive, but he would not provide further details.[383]

The dossier's "broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community."[384] With the passage of time and further revelations from various investigations and sources, it is becoming clearer that the overall thrust of the dossier was accurate:[112]

Some of the dossier's broad threads have now been independently corroborated. U.S. intelligence agencies and the special counsel's investigation into Russian election interference did eventually find that Kremlin-linked operatives ran an elaborate operation to promote Trump and hurt Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, as the dossier says in its main narrative.

— Jeff Donn, "Some Questions in Trump–Russia Dossier Now Finding Answers", Associated Press (June 29, 2018)[112]

Shepard Smith said: "Some of the assertions in the dossier have been confirmed. Other parts are unconfirmed. None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven."[28] In some cases, public verification is hindered because the information is classified.[385][386]

According to Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, a major portion of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true".[387]

After the Mueller Report was released, Joshua Levy, counsel for Fusion GPS, issued this statement:

The Mueller Report substantiates the core reporting and many of the specifics in Christopher Steele's 2016 memoranda, including that Trump campaign figures were secretly meeting Kremlin figures, that Russia was conducting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump, and that the aim of the Russian operation was to sow discord and disunity in the US and within the Transatlantic Alliance. To our knowledge, nothing in the Steele memoranda has been disproven.[123]

The Inspector General investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, published December 9, 2019, expressed doubts about the dossier's reliability and sources:

The FBI concluded, among other things, that although consistent with known efforts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, much of the material in the Steele election reports, including allegations about Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign relied upon in the Carter Page FISA applications, could not be corroborated; that certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available.[388][72] (p. 172)

Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage described the dossier as "deeply flawed".[187] They have also described it as a "compendium of rumors and unproven assertions".[190] Ryan Lucas described it as an "explosive dossier of unsubstantiated and salacious material about President Trump's alleged ties with Russia".[6]

Reputation in the U.S. intelligence community

The process of evaluating Steele's information has been explained by Bill Priestap, at the time the Assistant Director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division:

We did not ever take the information he provided at face value. ... We went to great lengths to try to independently verify the source's credibility and to prove or disprove every single assertion in the dossier. ... We absolutely understood that the information in the so-called dossier could be inaccurate. We also understood that some parts could be true and other parts false. We understood that information could be embellished or exaggerated. We also understood that the information could have been provided by the Russians as part of a disinformation campaign.[72] (p. 102)

"Independent evidence about Trump as a potential victim of sexual blackmail emerged soon after the publication of the dossier."[389] On January 11, 2017, Paul Wood, of BBC News, wrote that Steele was "not the only source" for claims about Russian kompromat on Trump and that multiple intelligence sources were privately reporting about it before the publication of the dossier:

Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by 'the head of an East European intelligence agency'. Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature". The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed.[390]

While also mentioning that "nobody should believe something just because an intelligence agent says it",[391][172] Wood added that "the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat—or compromising material—on the next US commander in chief" and "a joint taskforce, that includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign".[390][392][391]

On January 12, 2017, Susan Hennessey, a former National Security Agency lawyer now with the Brookings Institution, said: "My general take is that the intelligence community and law enforcement seem to be taking these claims seriously. That itself is highly significant. But it is not the same as these allegations being verified. Even if this was an intelligence community document—which it isn't—this kind of raw intelligence is still treated with skepticism."[393][394] Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes wrote that "the current state of the evidence makes a powerful argument for a serious public inquiry into this matter".[394]

On February 10, 2017, CNN reported that some communications between "senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals" described in the dossier had been corroborated by multiple U.S. officials. They "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier". Some persons were known to be "heavily involved" in collecting information that could hurt Clinton and aid Trump. CNN was unable to confirm whether the conversations were related to Trump. Sources told CNN some conversations had been "intercepted during routine intelligence gathering", but refused to reveal the content of conversations or specify which communications were intercepted because the information was classified. U.S. officials said the corroboration gave "US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents". They also reported that American intelligence agencies had examined Steele and his "vast network throughout Europe and found him and his sources to be credible".[9]

On March 30, 2017, Paul Wood reported that the FBI was using the dossier as a roadmap for its investigation.[395] On January 13, 2019, Sonam Sheth reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee was also using it as a roadmap for their investigation into Russia's election interference.[396]

On April 18, 2017, CNN reported that, according to U.S. officials, information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the FISA warrant to monitor Page in October 2016.[397][398] The Justice Department's inspector general revealed in 2019 that in the six weeks prior to its receipt of Steele's memos, the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team "had discussions about the possibility of obtaining FISAs targeting Page and Papadopoulos, but it was determined that there was insufficient information at the time to proceed with an application to the court."[72]: 101  The IG report described a changed situation after the FBI received Steele's memos and said the dossier then played a central and essential role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page[72] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar[30] for probable cause: "FBI and Department officials told us the Steele reporting 'pushed [the FISA proposal] over the line' in terms of establishing probable cause."[72]: 412 [399]

Mimi Rocah, Dan Goldman, and Barbara McQuade debunked three false arguments made by National Review's Andrew C. McCarthy against the FBI's use of the dossier when seeking a FISA warrant on Carter Page. They explained why the FBI was justified in doing so and would have been "derelict" if it had not: "[McCarthy] misses the point. Even if the specific details in the Steele dossier are not directly confirmed, the fact that other evidence unrelated to the dossier corroborates the dossier's main allegations is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause."[90]

Officials told CNN this information would have had to be independently corroborated by the FBI before being used to obtain the warrant,[397][398] but CNN later reported "it's now clear that this level of verification never materialized".[196] Steele told the FBI that Person 1 was a "boaster" and "egoist" who "may engage in some embellishment",[72]: 163 [207] "caveats about his source" that the FBI omitted from its FISA application.[207] In his testimony before Congress, Glenn Simpson "confirmed that the FBI had sources of its own and that whatever the FBI learned from Steele was simply folded into its ongoing work".[400]

British journalist Julian Borger wrote on October 7, 2017, that "Steele's reports are being taken seriously after lengthy scrutiny by federal and congressional investigators", at least Steele's assessment that Russia had conducted a campaign to interfere in the 2016 election to Clinton's detriment; that part of the Steele dossier "has generally gained in credibility, rather than lost it".[164]

On October 11, 2017, it was reported that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), had said: "As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven."[401]

On October 25, 2017, James Clapper said that "some of the substantive content of the dossier we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community assessment which from other sources in which we had very high confidence."[402][403]

On October 27, 2017, Robert S. Litt, a former lawyer for the Director of National Intelligence, was quoted as stating the dossier "played absolutely no role" in the intelligence community's determination that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[404]

On November 15, 2017, Adam Schiff said much of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true", something later affirmed by the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment released by the ODNI.[387]

On December 7, 2017, commentator Jonathan Chait wrote that as "time goes by, more and more of the claims first reported by Steele have been borne out", with the mainstream media "treat[ing] [the dossier] as gossip" whereas the intelligence community "take it seriously".[23]

On January 29, 2018, a House Intelligence Committee minority report stated that "multiple independent sources ... corroborated Steele's reporting".[402]

On January 29, 2018, Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said "little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven".[405][406]

John Sipher, who served 28 years as a clandestine CIA agent, including heading the agency's Russia program, said investigating the allegations requires access to non-public records. He said "[p]eople who say it's all garbage, or all true, are being politically biased", adding he believes that while the dossier may not be correct in every detail, it is "generally credible" and "In the intelligence business, you don't pretend you're a hundred per cent accurate. If you're seventy or eighty per cent accurate, that makes you one of the best." He said the Mueller investigation would ultimately judge its merits.[63] Sipher has written that "Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the [dossier] reports seriously since they were first published."[238]

During his April 15, 2018, ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos, former FBI Director James Comey described Steele as a "credible source, someone with a track record, someone who was a credible and respected member of an allied intelligence service during his career, and so it was important that we try to understand it, and see what could we verify, what could we rule in or rule out."[407]

In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper believed that "more and more" of the dossier had been validated over time.[408][409]

James Comey told the Office of the Inspector General that:

in his view, the "heart of the [Steele] reporting was that there's a massive Russian effort to influence the American election and weaponize stolen information." Comey said he believed those themes from the Steele reporting were "entirely consistent with information developed by the [USIC] wholly separate and apart from the [Steele] reporting", as well as consistent with what "our eyes and ears could also see".[72] (p. 101)

When DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz issued a report in December 2019 on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the report noted that the "FBI Intel Section Chief told us that the CIA viewed the Steele reporting as 'internet rumor'".[72]: 178 [410]

Varied observations of dossier's veracity

Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate,[62][41] although he gives the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true.[41] In testimony to Congress, Simpson quoted "Steele as saying that any intelligence, especially from Russia, is bound to carry intentional disinformation, but that Steele believes his dossier is 'largely not disinformation'."[112] Steele has countered the suggestion that the Russians deliberately fed his sources misinformation that would undermine Trump: "The ultimate Russian goal was to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president, and therefore, the idea that they would intentionally spread embarrassing information about Trump—true or not—is not logical."[148]

Other observers and experts have had varying reactions to the dossier. Generally, "former intelligence officers and other national-security experts" urged "skepticism and caution" but still took "the fact that the nation's top intelligence officials chose to present a summary version of the dossier to both President Obama and President-elect Trump" as an indication "that they may have had a relatively high degree of confidence that at least some of the claims therein were credible, or at least worth investigating further".[393]

Vice President Joe Biden told reporters that, while he and Obama were receiving a briefing on the extent of election hacking attempts, there was a two-page addendum that addressed the contents of the Steele dossier.[114] Top intelligence officials told them they "felt obligated to inform them about uncorroborated allegations about President-elect Donald Trump out of concern the information would become public and catch them off-guard".[411]

On January 11, 2017, Newsweek published a list of "13 things that don't add up" in the dossier, writing that it was a "strange mix of the amateur and the insightful" and stating that it "contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip that could indeed be, as the author claims, from deep insiders—or equally gleaned" from Russian newspapers and blogs.[412] Former UK ambassador to Russia Sir Tony Brenton said certain aspects of the dossier were inconsistent with British intelligence's understanding of how the Kremlin works, commenting: "I've seen quite a lot of intelligence on Russia, and there are some things in [the dossier] which look pretty shaky."[413]

In his June 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, former FBI director James Comey said "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier were unverified when he briefed Trump on them on January 6, 2017.[414] Comey also said he could not say publicly whether any of the allegations in the dossier had been confirmed.[385]

Trump and his supporters have challenged the veracity of the dossier because it was funded in part by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, while Democrats assert the funding source is irrelevant.[415]

In June 2019, investigators for Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz found Steele's testimony surprising[416] and his "information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation".[417]

In November 2019, the founders of Fusion GPS published a book about the dossier and had this to say about its veracity:

After three years of investigations, a fair assessment of the memos would conclude that many of the allegations in the dossier have been borne out. Some proved remarkably prescient. Other details remain stubbornly unconfirmed, while a handful now appear to be doubtful, though not yet disproven.[46]

David A. Graham of The Atlantic has noted that in spite of Trump's "mantra that 'there was no collusion' ... it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret."[418]

Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage of The New York Times have described the impact of some of the flaws in the dossier:

But its flaws have taken on outsized political significance, as Mr. Trump's allies have sought to conflate it with the larger effort to understand Russia's covert efforts to tilt the 2016 election in his favor and whether any Trump campaign associates conspired in that effort. Mr. Mueller laid out extensive details about Russia's covert operation and contacts with Trump campaign associates but found insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges.[187]

On October 17, 2021, in Steele's first major interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos asked him if he thought the "pee tape" was real. Steele answered that it "probably does exist", but he "wouldn't put 100 percent certainty on it". When he was asked why the Russians hadn't released it, he replied "It hasn't needed to be released. ... I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the U.S."[210]

Subject of investigations and conspiracy theories


On July 31, 2016, the existing FBI investigation into suspicious Russian activities and election interference suddenly morphed into the creation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into possible Trump campaign involvement in the Russian interference. Neither investigation was triggered by the dossier,[33][284][32][75] but the dossier is still the subject of the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump, the GOP, and Fox News.

In January 2018, ABC News described how the FBI would not open an investigation into the Trump campaign based on one document like Steele's unverified report but the FBI still needed to investigate its allegations "rather than accept them as evidence".[10] The Russian interference investigation was opened because of previously existing concerns: John Brennan testified he was already "aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns" and it was that knowledge that "served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred".[10] ABC wrote that "For the FBI, the dossier was essentially just another tip" that must be investigated.[10]

The Mueller Report, a summary of the findings of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims. It was a major subject of the Nunes memo, the Democratic rebuttal memo,[419] and the Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The investigations led to Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson being interviewed in August 2017 by Congress.[6]

John Durham has been investigating whether FBI agents "mishandled classified information" about operation Crossfire Hurricane when they questioned Steele. The IG report documents that a case agent mentioned Papadopoulos to Steele. The FBI has no "established guidelines for how to address the disclosure of sensitive or classified information to sources", and the Inspector General "concluded that the case agent should not be faulted".[420]

Durham sought to get more information by seeking access to evidence gathered in a British lawsuit filed by the founders of Alfa-Bank. Durham's efforts were only partially successful. A July 21, 2020, court filing shows that Durham has sought the lifting of "a protective order on evidence that had been gathered". Politico wrote that legal experts said this move was "highly unusual ... and suggests the British government was not involved in, or cooperating with, Durham's criminal investigation".[420]

Conspiracy theories and claims about dossier

Conspiracy theory it was trigger for start of investigation

The Russia investigation origins counter-narrative[421] is a disproven right-wing alternative narrative,[422][423] sometimes identified as a set of conspiracy theories,[424][425][426][427] concerning the origins of the original Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the following Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The theory asserts that Trump "was targeted by politically biased Obama officials to prevent his election",[428] and that the Steele dossier triggered the Russia probe.[33] These conspiracy theories[429][430] have been pushed by Trump,[33] Fox News,[34] Republican politicians like Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio),[429] Trump's Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe,[431] and Trump's Attorney General William Barr.[428]

In spite of these allegations, on November 2, 2020, the day before the presidential election, New York magazine reported that:

there has been no evidence found, after 18 months of investigation, to support Barr's claims that Trump was targeted by politically biased Obama officials to prevent his election. (The probe remains ongoing.) In fact, the sources said, the Durham investigation has so far uncovered no evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden or Barack Obama, or that they were even involved with the Russia investigation. There 'was no evidence ... not even remotely ... indicating Obama or Biden did anything wrong,' as one person put it.[428]

Benjamin Wittes has noted how the Durham special counsel investigation was launched because of such conspiracy theory allegations:

It dealt, bizarrely, with the question of whether the FBI was lying about the origins of the Russia investigation. The FBI had claimed—and Special Counsel Robert Mueller had affirmed—that the whole thing started when an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer provided the U.S. with information that a Trump campaign advisor named George Papadopoulos had volunteered in a London meeting over drinks that the Russians had 'dirt' on Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.' But a bunch of Trump supporters ginned up a set of conspiracy theories that this was not how the investigation started, that it all started with Steele, or some secret informant, or that the CIA was involved somehow.[424]

The conspiracy theory falsely claims the dossier triggered the Russia investigation and was used as an excuse by the FBI to start it. It also aims to discredit Steele and thus discredit the whole investigation.[432] The real trigger for the July 31 opening of the investigation was two connected events: the July 22 release by WikiLeaks of Democratic National Committee emails stolen by Russian hackers and the July 26 revelation by the Australian government of the bragging by Papadopoulos of Russian offers to aid the Trump campaign by releasing those emails.[433][434]

The dossier could not have had any role in the opening of the Russia investigation on July 31, 2016, as top FBI officials received the dossier much later on September 19.[435][436] Instead, it was the activities of George Papadopoulos that started the investigation.[437] The investigation by Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz into Russian interference and alleged FISA abuses found that "none of the evidence used to open the [original Crossfire Hurricane FBI] investigation" came from the C.I.A. or Trump–Russia dossier.[32] On February 4, 2018, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) affirmed that the Russia probe would have happened without the dossier: "So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."[44][431] Also in February 2018, the Nunes memo stated: "The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok."[438] FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe mentioned both the investigation and the FISA warrants:

'We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information,' McCabe told CNN. 'Was the dossier material important to the [FISA] package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.'[431]

The Durham Report affirmed that "the information [about Papadopoulos] . . . was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign".[424] Durham also confirmed "it was not until mid-September that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received several of the Steele Reports".[439]

Heather Digby Parton described why we should "forget the Steele dossier" as a "reason for the Russia investigation": "No doubt there was some histrionic coverage of the Steele Dossier. But the truth is that virtually every news outlet that reported it made clear that it was unsubstantiated and no one reported that it was the only reason for the Russia investigation. Trump and his campaign's suspicious behavior was more than enough to set off alarms all over the world."[440]

Claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application

On April 18, 2017, CNN reported that, according to U.S. officials, information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the October 2016 FISA warrant to monitor Page.[397][398] The Justice Department's inspector general revealed in 2019 that in the six weeks prior to its receipt of Steele's memos, the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team "had discussions about the possibility of obtaining FISAs targeting Page and Papadopoulos, but it was determined that there was insufficient information at the time to proceed with an application to the court."[72]: 101 

The role of evidence from the dossier in seeking FISA warrants soon became the subject of much debate. How much of the evidence was based on the dossier? Was it a "significant portion"[441] or only a "smart part" of the FISA application?[442]

In February 2018, the Nunes memo alleged FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony backed Republican claims that the "dossier formed 'a significant portion' of the Carter Page FISA application".[441] McCabe pushed back and said his testimony had been "selectively quoted" and "mischaracterized".[441] He also "denied having ever told Congress that the [FISA] warrant would not have been sought without information from the dossier".[443]

Before the Crossfire Hurrican team received dossier material on September 19, 2016, they had already gathered enough evidence from their own sources to make them seriously consider seeking FISA warrants on Carter Page, but they needed a bit more, and, because their own sources "'corroborated Steele's reporting' with respect to Page",[444] the mutually independent corroborations gave them more confidence to make that decision.

The IG report described a changed situation after the FBI received Steele's memos and said the dossier then played a "central and essential role" in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page[72] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar[30] for probable cause: "FBI and Department officials told us the Steele reporting 'pushed [the FISA proposal] over the line' in terms of establishing probable cause."[72]: 412 [399]

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe mentioned the dossier's role in the start of the investigation and the FISA warrant:

'We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information,' McCabe told CNN. 'Was the dossier material important to the [FISA] package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.'[431]

According to Ken Dilanian, "The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing 'probable cause' that Page was an agent of Russia."[442]

The IG Report defended the FBI's use of Steele's reporting:

The fact that the FBI believed Steele had been retained to conduct political opposition research did not require the FBI, under either DOJ or FBI policy, to ignore his reporting. The FBI regularly receives information from individuals with potentially significant biases and motivations, including drug traffickers, convicted felons, and even terrorists. The FBI is not required to set aside such information; rather, FBI policy requires that it critically assess the information. We found that after receiving Steele's reporting, the Crossfire Hurricane team began those efforts in earnest.[72]: vi 

Other conspiracy theories and false claims

The founders of Fusion GPS did not expect their connections to Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Steele, Hillary Clinton, and the FBI to "become public and subsequently provide the framework for a deep-state conspiracy theory".[48]

The dossier also figures as part of the Spygate conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. According to The Wall Street Journal, President Trump's actions in the Trump–Ukraine scandal stemmed from his belief that Ukraine was responsible for the Steele Dossier.[445][446] Trump has insinuated that the dossier had its origins in Ukraine, that the Clintons were involved, that Hillary Clinton's email server is currently secreted in Ukraine,[447] and that Clinton's deleted emails are in Ukraine.[426]

The dossier is central to Republican assertions that Trump is the victim of an intelligence community conspiracy to take him down. Democrats see this focus on the dossier as conspiratorial.[448] Congressman Devin Nunes, a staunch Trump defender, asserted as fact that the dossier originated in Ukraine during his questioning of EU ambassador Gordon Sondland during the Trump impeachment inquiry hearings in September 2019.[449] Nunes also accused Hillary Clinton of colluding with Russia to get dirt on Trump. A fact-check by The Washington Post analyzed the claim and the role of the dossier. It found the claim to be false and gave it four Pinocchios.[450]

According to Eric Lutz, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan have pushed a conspiracy theory that the dossier was "based on Russian disinformation".[425] The inspector general's report concluded "that more should have been done to examine Steele's contacts with intermediaries of Russian oligarchs in order to assess those contacts as potential sources of disinformation that could have influenced Steele's reporting".[72]: 386 

David Frum also described a "suddenly red-hot media campaign to endorse Trump's fantasy that he was the victim of a 'Russia hoax.'" Frum argued that "anti-anti-Trump journalists want to use the Steele controversy to score points off politicians and media institutions that they dislike," and thus they "help him execute one of his Big Lies".[451]

Denials of specific accusations

Michael Cohen

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, says (at 8:50) Cohen was "never, ever" in Prague.

Dossier source(s) allege that Cohen and three colleagues met Kremlin officials in the Prague offices of Rossotrudnichestvo in August 2016,[242][217][111] to arrange for payments to the hackers, cover up the hack,[110][60] and "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine".[16]

In 2016, Cohen told Mother Jones that he had visited Prague briefly 14 years before.[452] The Wall Street Journal reported Cohen telling them (at an unspecified date) that he had been in Prague in 2001.[453] Following the dossier's publication, as well as after subsequent reports, Cohen repeatedly denied having ever been to Prague.[111][453][454][455] Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis said Cohen was "never, ever" in Prague, and that all allegations mentioning Cohen in the Steele dossier were false.[456]

Cohen's passport showed that he entered Italy in early July 2016, and that he left Italy in mid-July 2016, from Rome, Italy.[111] Buzzfeed News in May 2017 reported Cohen telling them that he was in Capri, Italy, for the time period in question with his family, friends, and musician and actor Steven van Zandt, and that receipts would prove he had been on Capri, but he declined to provide them.[111] Roger Friedman reported sources quoting van Zandt's wife, Maureen, as saying that she and Steven were in Rome, and never traveled to Capri.[457] From this, Nancy LeTourneau of Washington Monthly commented that Cohen may have "lost his alibi", and thus doubted if he had really not traveled to Prague.[457] A December 2018 statement from Steven van Zandt's Twitter said that he had met Cohen in Rome and not traveled together.[458] In March 2019, The Washington Post reported that Cohen had been in Capri and Rome during his Italy trip, and that Cohen said he met Steven van Zandt in Rome.[459]

Cohen has also stated that he was in Los Angeles between August 23 and 29, and in New York for the entire month of September.[460]

Aleksej Gubarev

Gubarev has denied all accusations made in the dossier.[248][249] The accusations are twofold, as they mention Gubarev and his companies. While it has been proven that his companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes,[7][380][381] Andrew Weisburd has said that "Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing."[249]

Paul Manafort

Manafort has "denied taking part in any collusion with the Russian state, but registered himself as a foreign agent retroactively after it was revealed his firm received more than $17m working as a lobbyist for a pro-Russian Ukrainian party."[164]

Carter Page

Page originally denied meeting any Russian officials, but his later testimony, acknowledging that he had met with senior Russian officials at Rosneft, has been interpreted as corroboration of portions of the dossier.[332][333][334] On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles describing his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true.[342]

Donald Trump

See also: § Kompromat and "golden showers" allegations

Trump addressed the "golden showers" allegation in January 2017, publicly stating: "Does anyone really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way."[461]

According to FBI Director James Comey, in private conversations between him and Trump in early 2017, Trump denied the "golden showers" allegation, with one reason given being that he did not stay overnight in Moscow at the time of the Miss Universe contest in 2013, and another being that he assumed he was always being recorded when in Russia.[462][295][463] Per flight records, Trump stayed overnight in Moscow the night before the pageant, then during the night of the pageant, he left Moscow at 3:58 a.m.[292][464]

According to Comey, Trump's false denials about whether he had stayed overnight in Moscow, despite Comey not asking about it, exhibited behavior that "tends to reflect consciousness of guilt", but this conclusion is "not definitive", said Comey.[465][466]

Trump publicly disputed that he had issued such a denial to Comey: "He said I didn't stay there a night. Of course I stayed there. ... I stayed there a very short period of time but of course I stayed."[466]

Reactions to dossier

November 14, 2017 – House Intelligence Committee transcript of Glenn Simpson
August 22, 2017, Fusion GPS testimony transcript of Glenn Simpson


Donald Trump's first Twitter reaction to the dossier was a January 10, 2017, tweet: "FAKE NEWS—A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!",[467] a view echoed the next day by the Kremlin: "absolute fabrication".[467] Trump has repeatedly condemned the dossier and denied collusion with Russia, including in a December 26, 2017, tweet, in which he quoted from Fox & Friends.[25]

Trump has called the dossier "fake news" and criticized the intelligence and media sources that published it.[468] During a press conference on January 11, 2017, Trump denounced the dossier's claims as false, saying it was "disgraceful" for U.S. intelligence agencies to report them.[469] In response to Trump's criticism, CNN said it had published "carefully sourced reporting" on the matter that had been "matched by the other major news organizations", as opposed to BuzzFeed's posting of "unsubstantiated claims".[128]

A footnote in the Mueller Report revealed that Trump requested James Comey and James Clapper to publicly refute the dossier. The two men then exchanged emails about the request, with Clapper saying that "Trump wanted him to say the dossier was 'bogus, which, of course, I can't do'."[470][46]

On July 11, 2020, Trump tweeted that Steele should be extradited.[471]

Mueller Report

In July 2019, Special Agent in Charge David Archey briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee about certain aspects of the Special Counsel Office's (SCO) "investigative process and information management":

We [the SCO] were aware of the Steele dossier, obviously. We were aware of some of the efforts that went into its verification. ... we did not include Steele dossier reporting in the report. ... [T]hose allegations go to the heart of things that were in our mandate—but we believed our own investigation. The information that we collected would have superseded it, and been something we would have relied on more, and that's why you see what we did in the report and not the Steele dossier in the report.[77] [He] declined to provide further information on whether FBI or SCO attempted to verify information in the dossier, although he noted that the SCO did not draw on the dossier to support its conclusions.[77]


Russia has backed Trump by attacking the dossier and denying its allegations, calling it an "absolute fabrication" and "a hoax intended to further damage U.S.–Russian relations".[467]

As Putin's press secretary, Peskov insisted in an interview that the dossier is a fraud, saying "I can assure you that the allegations in this funny paper, in this so-called report, they are untrue. They are all fake."[472] Putin called the people who leaked the dossier "worse than prostitutes"[473] and referred to the dossier itself as "rubbish".[474] Putin went on to state he believed the dossier was "clearly fake",[475] fabricated as a plot against the legitimacy of President-elect Trump.[476]

Some of Steele's former colleagues expressed support for his character, saying "The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false—completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He's not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip."[477]

Among journalists, Bob Woodward called the dossier a "garbage document".[478] Chuck Todd of CBS News labeled the report "fake news".[145] Carl Bernstein said "It's not fake news, otherwise senior-most intelligence chiefs would not have done this."[479] Ben Smith, editor of BuzzFeed, wrote: "The dossier is a document ... of obvious central public importance. It's the subject of multiple investigations by intelligence agencies, by Congress. That was clear a year ago. It's a lot clearer now."[480]

Ynet, an Israeli online news site, reported on January 12, 2017, that U.S. intelligence advised Israeli intelligence officers to be cautious about sharing information with the incoming Trump administration, until the possibility of Russian influence over Trump, suggested by Steele's report, has been fully investigated.[320]

On January 2, 2018, Simpson and Fritsch authored an op-ed in The New York Times, requesting that Republicans "release full transcripts of our firm's testimony" and further wrote that, "the Steele dossier was not the trigger for the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp."[89] Ken Dilanian of NBC News said a "source close to Fusion GPS" told him the FBI had not planted anyone in the Trump camp, but rather that Simpson was referring to Papadopoulos.[481][88]

On January 4, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on Trump's repeated tweets describing the dossier as "fake" or "discredited":

None of the tweets inescapably lead to the inference that the President's statements about the Dossier are rooted in information he received from the law enforcement and intelligence communities. ... The President's statements may very well be based on media reports or his own personal knowledge, or could simply be viewed as political statements intended to counter media accounts about the Russia investigation, rather than assertions of pure fact.[482]

On January 5, 2018, in the first known Congressional criminal referral resulting from investigations related to the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, Grassley made a referral to the Justice Department suggesting that they investigate possible criminal charges against Steele[483][484] for allegedly making false statements to the FBI about the distribution of the dossier's claims,[485] specifically possible "inconsistencies" in what Steele told authorities and "possibly lying to FBI officials".[486] Senator Lindsey Graham also signed the letter.[487][488] Both Grassley and Graham declared that they were not alleging that Steele "had committed any crime. Rather, they had passed on the information for 'further investigation only'."[489] The referral was met with skepticism from legal experts, as well as some of the other Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary committee, who reportedly had not been consulted.[487]

On January 8, 2018, a spokesman for Grassley said he did not plan to release the transcript of Simpson's August 22, 2017, testimony before the SJC.[490] The next day, ranking committee member Senator Dianne Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript.[106][491]

On January 10, 2018, Fox News host Sean Hannity appeared to have advance information on the forthcoming release of the Nunes memo and its assertions about the dossier, saying "more shocking information will be coming out in just days that will show systemic FISA abuse". Hannity asserted that this new information would reveal "a totally phony document full of Russian lies and propaganda that was then used by the Obama administration to surveil members of an opposition party and incoming president," adding that this was "the real Russia collusion story" that represented a "precipice of one of the largest abuses of power in U.S. American history. And I'm talking about the literal shredding of the U.S. Constitution."[492]

In April 2018, the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) gave The Merriman Smith Memorial Award to CNN reporters Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein. In January 2017, they reported that the intelligence community had briefed Obama and Trump of allegations that Russians claimed to have "compromising personal and financial information" on then-President elect Donald Trump.[118][493] WHCA noted that "[t]hanks to this CNN investigation, 'the dossier' is now part of the lexicon".[494]

As late as July 29, 2018, Trump continued to falsely insist the FBI investigation of Russian interference was initiated because of the dossier, and three days later White House press secretary Sarah Sanders repeated the false assertion. Fox News host Shepard Smith said of Trump's assertion: "In the main and in its parts, that statement is patently false."[495]

Alan Huffman, an expert on opposition research, has compared the two forms of opposition research represented by the dossier and WikiLeaks. He didn't believe the dossier's intelligence gathering to be illegitimate, although "a little strange", while he was troubled by the large dump of documents from WikiLeaks that "may have been obtained in an illegal way".[496]

In March 2020, Steele commented publicly on the dossier, stating: "I stand by the integrity of our work, our sources and what we did."[1]


Against BuzzFeed News and Fusion GPS

Filed by Gubarev

On February 3, 2017, Aleksej Gubarev, chief of technology company XBT and a figure mentioned in the dossier, sued BuzzFeed News for defamation. The suit, filed in a Broward County, Florida court, centers on allegations from the dossier that XBT had been "using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership".[248][497] In the High Court of Justice, Steele's lawyers said their client did not intend for the reports to be released, and that one of the reports "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified".[498] In response to the lawsuit, BuzzFeed News hired the business advisory firm FTI Consulting to investigate the dossier's allegations.[499] BuzzFeed News has sued the DNC in an attempt to force the disclosure of information it believes will bolster its defense against libel allegations.[500] Fusion GPS "has claimed that it did not provide the dossier to BuzzFeed".[501]

In connection with the libel suit against them by Gubarev, on June 30, 2017, BuzzFeed News subpoenaed the CIA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They also sought "testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey, as well as former DNI James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan". They were interested in using the discovery process to get information about the distribution of the dossier, how it had circulated among government officials, and the "existence and scope of the federal government's investigation into the dossier". They hoped "the information could bolster BuzzFeed's claim that publication of the document was protected by the fair report privilege, which can immunize reports based on official government records."[502] On June 4, 2018, Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled that BuzzFeed News could claim "fair report privilege" for the publication of the dossier and its accompanying article, bolstering BuzzFeed's defense.[503]

Cyber security and intelligence expert Andrew Weisburd has said both Gubarev and the dossier "can be right": "Their explanation is entirely plausible, as is the Steele Dossier's description of Mr. Gubarev as essentially a victim of predatory officers of one or more Russian intelligence services. ... Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing."[249]

On December 19, 2018, Judge Ursula Ungaro sided with BuzzFeed News in the defamation suit filed by Gubarev, defending BuzzFeed's privilege to publish and the public's right to know about the allegations against Trump.[146][504][145]

BuzzFeed News apologized for publishing Gubarev's name and redacted it.[112]

Filed by Fridman, Aven, and Khan

In May 2017, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan—the owners of Alfa-Bank—filed a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed News for publishing the unverified dossier,[505][506] that describes financial ties and collusion between Putin and the three bank owners.[507][508]

The case against Orbis was dismissed based on the Anti-SLAPP Act because Steele's speech was protected by the First Amendment, which generally protects speech in the U.S. by non-U.S.-citizens/residents.[509][510]

In October 2017, Fridman, Aven, and Khan also filed a libel suit against Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson for circulating the dossier among journalists and allowing it to be published.[511]

The three oligarchs dropped their lawsuit against Fusion GPS in March 2022.[512]

Filed by Michael Cohen

On January 9, 2018, Michael Cohen sued BuzzFeed News and Fusion GPS for defamation over allegations about him in the dossier.[513] On April 19, 2018, ten days after his home, office, and hotel room were raided by the FBI as part of a criminal investigation, Cohen filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the suit.[514]

Filed by Devin Nunes

On September 4, 2019, Devin Nunes filed a racketeering lawsuit in federal court against Fusion GPS seeking $10 million in damages. He accused them of harassment and impeding his investigation into Fusion GPS's role in raising suspicions about Trump's ties to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. The suit was dismissed on February 21, 2020.[515][516] Nunes then filed an amended complaint which allowed the suit to continue. This was the third amended complaint filed since September 2019. On March 31, 2021, the court dismissed the claim "with prejudice" and a warning that "litigation 'asserted in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment' may be met with sanctions".[517][518]

Against Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence. Filed by Fridman, Aven, and Khan

On April 16, 2018, Alfa-Bank owners Fridman, Aven, and Khan filed a libel suit against Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence,[519] since the dossier describes financial ties and collusion between Putin, Trump, and the three bank owners.[507][508] The lawsuit was filed in Washington D.C.[519] Steele's lawyers filed two motions to dismiss the case, accusing the three men of intimidation.[520]

On August 20, 2018, a judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia threw out the libel suit. The case was dismissed with prejudice in response to a motion by lawyers for Orbis Business Intelligence.[138][139] Without assessing whether the dossier was "accurate or not accurate", the judge determined that Steele was protected by the First Amendment, that protects freedom of speech. He also cited the District of Columbia's anti-SLAPP law, which prevents the filing of frivolous suits to silence critics. He also pointed out its importance to the public interest: "The Steele dossier generated so much interest and attention in the US precisely because its contents relate to active public debates here."[140]

On June 18, 2020, an appellate court upheld the dismissal of their defamation lawsuit against Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence.[521]

Alfa-Bank partners Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, and German Khan brought a lawsuit for defamation in Britain against Orbis Business Intelligence, Steele's private intelligence firm. In July 2020, Justice Warby from the Queen's Bench Division of the British High Court of Justice ordered Orbis to pay damages to Aven and Fridman who Steele claimed had delivered "large amounts of illicit cash" to Vladimir Putin when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. Judge Warby ruled that the claim was "inaccurate and misleading"[522] and awarded the damages to compensate "for the loss of autonomy, distress and reputational damage caused by the breaches of duty". The judge stated that Steele's dossier also inaccurately claimed that Aven and Fridman provided foreign policy advice to Putin.[523]

Aleksej Gubarev has filed a defamation lawsuit against Steele alleging the dossier made "seriously defamatory allegations".[524] At issue was whether Orbis/Steele was responsible for the publication of the "December memorandum" by BuzzFeed, a charge denied by Steele. The defendants said that BuzzFeed's publication of the memorandum was "unauthorized" and they "did not intend the December memorandum or its content to be made public (and) did not provide the December memorandum to BuzzFeed or any other media organization."[150] The Senate Intelligence Committee wrote that "Fusion GPS's work for Perkins Coie ended on Election Day. Steele's final memorandum was completed on December 13, 2016. No one paid for it."[77]

On October 30, 2020, Gubarev lost his libel case when the High Court ruled in Steele's favor. Judge Warby explained that the allegations about Gubarev were indeed defamatory and that their publication "caused serious harm to his reputation", but that Gubarev had failed to prove that Steele was responsible for the publication of the dossier, and that he, therefore, should not pay damages.[525]

Against DNC and Perkins Coie. Filed by Carter Page

In October 2018, Carter Page sued the DNC, Perkins Coie, and two Perkins Coie partners, for defamation.[526][527] The lawsuit was dismissed on January 31, 2019. Page said he intended to appeal the decision.[527][528]

On January 30, 2020, Page filed another defamation lawsuit (Case: 1:20-cv-00671, Filed: 01/30/20) against the DNC and Perkins Coie, naming Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann as defendants.[529] The suit was dismissed.[530] Page then appealed the lower court's dismissal to the Supreme Court. In January 2022, it declined to review the defamation lawsuit.[531]

Against Mueller and the DOJ. Filed by Giorgi Rtskhiladze

On June 17, 2020, Giorgi Rtskhiladze sued Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice for defamation related to the mention of Rtskhiladze in a footnote in the Mueller Report. Rtskhiladze claims that he was falsely identified as a "Russian businessman" in the footnote. He is a U.S. citizen who was born in Georgia, a former Soviet republic, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1991. He is "seeking $100 million in damages and an injunction that would force DOJ to hastily remove all future references to him in the Mueller Report".[532] The suit was dismissed on September 1, 2021.[533]

Against Oath Inc. (Yahoo! News and HuffPost). Filed by Carter Page

On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles that described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true.[342]

Page's suit targeted Oath for 11 articles, especially one written by Michael Isikoff and published by Yahoo! News in September 2016. The judge dismissed the suit on February 11, 2021,[534] noting that "Page's arguments regarding Isikoff's description of the dossier and Steele were 'either sophistry or political spin'." He also said that Page "failed to allege actual malice by any of the authors, and that the three articles written by HuffPost employees were true".[132] Page was represented by attorneys John Pierce[535] and L. Lin Wood, who was denied permission to represent Page because of his actions in the attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in favor of President Donald Trump.[536]

In January 2022, Page lost an effort to revive the defamation case over Isikoff's article. Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said: "the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, 'at a minimum,' conveyed a true 'gist,' even if it included some 'minor' or 'irrelevant' incorrect statements." Bloomberg Law reported that "The court dismissed as far-fetched Page's theories about a conspiracy among interconnected media and political figures to tarnish Trump by concocting the Russia investigation from thin air."[537]

On May 16, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a defamation suit filed by Page.[538]

Against the USA, DOJ, FBI, and several officials. Filed by Carter Page

On November 27, 2020, Page filed a $75 million suit against the United States, DOJ, FBI, and several former leading officials for the "defendants' multiple violations of his Constitutional and other legal rights in connection with unlawful surveillance and investigation of him by the United States Government." The defendants included James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Joe Pientka III, Stephen Soma, and Brian J. Auten.[539][540]

The suit was dismissed on September 1, 2022, by United States district court judge Dabney L. Friedrich, who wrote:

To the extent these allegations are true, there is little question that many individual defendants, as well as the agency as a whole, engaged in wrongdoing. Even so, Page has brought no actionable claim against any individual defendant or against the United States.[541]

Against Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, and others. Filed by Donald Trump

On March 24, 2022, Trump filed a RICO lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Clinton, Steele, and many others.[542] The case was dismissed on September 8, 2022. The judge wrote that "despite the numerous references to [Steele] in Trump's lawsuit, 'none specifically attribute any false statement about Plaintiff to him'".[543][544][545]

Against Orbis Business Intelligence. Filed by Donald Trump

In October 2023,[546] Trump filed an unsuccessful lawsuit in London against Orbis Business Intelligence and Steele (who was later removed from the suit) alleging that Orbis violated British data protection laws when compiling the dossier. Trump accused Steele of making "'shocking and scandalous claims' that were false and harmed his reputation".[547] Trump's witness statement said: "I can confirm that I did not, at any time engage in perverted sexual behaviour including the hiring of prostitutes to engage in 'golden showers' in the presidential suite of a hotel in Moscow."[546] Trump asserted "The inaccurate personal data in the Dossier has, and continues, to cause me significant damage and distress."[548]

On February 1, 2024, the High Court sided with Orbis and dismissed Trump's claim stating that the filing was outside the six-year period of limitations and[549][550][120] the case was "bound to fail".[551] In March 2024, Trump was ordered to pay legal fees of 300,000 pounds ($382,000) to Orbis.[551]

See also


  1. ^ BuzzFeed said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".[2]
  2. ^ "On September 19, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received the Steele reporting for the first time when Handling Agent 1 emailed SSA 1 six reports for SSA 1 to upload himself to the sub-file: Reports 80 and 94, and four additional reports (Reports 95, 100, 101, and 102) that Handling Agent 1 had since received from Steele.226 FBI officials we interviewed told us that the length of time it took for Steele's election reporting to reach FBI Headquarters was excessive and that the reports should have been sent promptly after their receipt by the Legat. Members of the Crossfire Hurricane team told us that their assessment of the Steele election reporting could have started much earlier if the reporting had been made available to them."[72] (p. 100)
  3. ^ This testimony was given before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 6, 2019.[290]


  1. ^ a b Allen, Nick (March 7, 2020). "Christopher Steele breaks silence over Trump-Russia dossier and says Mueller report was 'too narrow'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
  2. ^ a b c Bensinger, Ken; Elder, Miriam; Schoofs, Mark (January 10, 2017). "These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Shane, Scott; Goldman, Adam; Rosenberg, Matthew (April 19, 2019). "Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  4. ^ a b c d Gross, Terry; Simpson, Glenn; Fritsch, Peter (November 26, 2019). "Fusion GPS Founders On Russian Efforts To Sow Discord: 'They Have Succeeded'". NPR. Fresh Air
  5. ^ a b c Kessler, Glenn (October 29, 2017). "Analysis – The 'dossier' and the uranium deal: A guide to the latest allegations". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 27, 2021. Raw intelligence is essentially high-grade gossip, without the expectation it would be made public unless it is further verified.
  6. ^ a b c Lucas, Ryan (August 23, 2017). "Researcher Behind Unverified Trump Dossier Meets Senate Investigators". NPR. Retrieved August 12, 2021.
  7. ^ a b c d e Rosenberg, Matthew (March 14, 2019). "Tech Firm in Steele Dossier May Have Been Used by Russian Spies". The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  8. ^ a b c d e ODNI (January 6, 2017). Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution (PDF) (Report). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Sciutto, Jim; Perez, Evan (February 10, 2017). "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier". CNN. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Levine, Mike (January 12, 2018). "FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe". ABC News. Retrieved February 26, 2018. some of the dossier's broad implications — particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad — now ring true and were embedded in the memo Steele shared with the FBI before the agency decided to open an investigation.
  11. ^ a b Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry (January 26, 2019). "Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians". The New York Times. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
  12. ^ a b Leonnig, Carol D.; Helderman, Rosalind S. (May 17, 2019). "Judge orders public release of what Michael Flynn said in call to Russian ambassador". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  13. ^ a b c d e f Harding, Luke; Sabbagh, Dan (November 1, 2019). "Trump–Russia dossier author gave evidence to UK intrusion inquiry". The Guardian. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Shane, Scott; Confessore, Nicholas; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 12, 2017). "How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  15. ^ a b c d e Entous, Adam; Barrett, Devlin; Helderman, Rosalind (October 24, 2017). "Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Sumter, Kyler (November 16, 2017). "The five most interesting claims in the Donald Trump dossier". The Week. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  17. ^ a b Sipher, John (January 11, 2018). "What Should We Make of The Dirty Dossier at the Heart of the Mueller Investigation?". Newsweek. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
  18. ^ a b Bump, Philip (January 11, 2017). "BuzzFeed, the Russia dossier and the problem of too much information". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 29, 2017.
  19. ^ a b Zurawik, David (January 11, 2017). "BuzzFeed undermines all journalists with Trump 'dossier'". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on January 7, 2018. Retrieved January 10, 2018.
  20. ^ a b Johnson, Ted (December 19, 2018). "Judge Sides With BuzzFeed Over Publication of Steele Dossier". Variety. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  21. ^ a b Breuninger, Kevin (January 13, 2018). "Fusion GPS testimony on infamous dossier shines new light on Trump's perilous financial ties". CNBC. Retrieved January 18, 2018.
  22. ^ a b c d Sengupta, Kim (January 13, 2017). "Ex-MI6 agent so worried by his Donald Trump discoveries he started working without pay". The Independent. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  23. ^ a b Chait, Jonathan (December 7, 2017). "The Steele Dossier on Trump and Russia Is Looking More and More Real". New York. Retrieved December 28, 2017.
  24. ^ a b Cullison, Alan; Volz, Dustin (April 19, 2019). "Mueller Report Dismisses Many Steele Dossier Claims". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  25. ^ a b c Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (December 26, 2017). "Trump slams FBI, Obamacare in post-Christmas tweets". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
  26. ^ a b c Farhi, Paul (November 12, 2021). "The Washington Post corrects, removes parts of two stories regarding the Steele dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 13, 2021. The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles. ... 'Steele dossier,' a collection of largely unverified reports ... [that] had identified businessman Sergei Millian as "Source D," the unnamed figure who passed on the most salacious allegation in the dossier to its principal author ... Steele.
  27. ^ a b "Manafort accuses Mueller deputy of leaking to press. Transcript: 05/22/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show". MSNBC. May 22, 2018. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  28. ^ a b c Hutzler, Alexandra (August 16, 2018). "Fox News Host Contradicts Sean Hannity, Trump Over Dossier Claims". Newsweek. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  29. ^ a b Grant, Sarah; Rosenberg, Chuck (December 14, 2018). "The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective". Lawfare. Retrieved December 29, 2019. Ranking Member Schiff describes the FBI's wholly independent basis for investigating Page's long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier, and emphasizes that the Justice Department possessed information 'obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting' with respect to Page.
  30. ^ a b c d Sanchez, Julian (December 11, 2019). "The Crossfire Hurricane Report's Inconvenient Findings". Just Security. Retrieved December 23, 2019.
  31. ^ a b Benner, Katie; Barnes, Julian E. (December 19, 2019). "Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director's Role in Russian Interference Findings". The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2019.
  32. ^ a b c d Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (November 22, 2019). "Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts". The New York Times. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  33. ^ a b c d Kruzel, John (July 23, 2018). "Trump falsely says Steele dossier triggered Russia probe". PolitiFact. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  34. ^ a b Rupar, Aaron (March 22, 2019). "Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation". Vox. Retrieved March 23, 2019.
  35. ^ a b c d Leary, Alex (October 28, 2017). "Marco Rubio backer's money initially funded anti-Trump research". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
  36. ^ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives (December 12, 2017). "Interview of Michael Goldfarb, December 12, 2017" (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. pp. 39, 44. Retrieved March 27, 2023. I've read the dossier. I feel very confident that no material that was produced and delivered to us appears in that dossier. It was all new information to me when I read it. And beyond that, I think the dossier itself makes pretty clear that the information was gathered after the time that we ceased working with Fusion on matters related to Donald Trump, to my recollection. There's markers in the dossier about when meetings happened, and when information was gathered and this kind of thing that post-dates our Trump research. And I personally see zero overlap in the work product. ... In my view, I feel confident in saying that there is no overlap between the work provided to us and the work that appears in that document. Searchable version
  37. ^ a b c Borger, Julian (January 11, 2017). "John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump–Russia contacts to FBI". The Guardian. Retrieved February 26, 2018.
  38. ^ Lima, Cristiano (October 27, 2017). "Conservative Free Beacon originally funded firm that created Trump–Russia dossier". Politico. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  39. ^ a b c d e f g h Mayer, Jane (November 25, 2019). "The Inside Story of Christopher Steele's Trump Dossier". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  40. ^ a b Vogel, Kenneth P.; Haberman, Maggie (October 27, 2017). "Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  41. ^ a b c d e f g Isikoff, Michael; Corn, David (March 17, 2018). "Russian Roulette: the real story behind the Steele dossier on Donald Trump". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
  42. ^ Johnson, Jenna (May 4, 2016). "The night Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
  43. ^ a b c Borger, Julian (January 12, 2017). "How the Trump dossier came to light: secret sources, a retired spy and John McCain". The Guardian. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  44. ^ a b c d Robertson, Lori (February 7, 2018). "Q&A on the Nunes Memo". Retrieved February 12, 2018. There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said. "So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.
  45. ^ Tucker, Eric; Jalonick, Clare; Day, Chad (February 3, 2018). "Correction: Trump–Russia Probe story". Associated Press. Retrieved April 15, 2018.
  46. ^ a b c d e f g Nicholas, Peter (November 21, 2019). "The Real Story Behind the Steele Dossier". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  47. ^ a b c d Watkins, Eli; Merica, Dan; Polantz, Katelyn (October 25, 2017). "Clinton campaign, DNC helped fund dossier research". CNN. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  48. ^ a b Walsh, James D. (November 22, 2019). "Fusion GPS Lights a Candle for the 'Pee Tape'". New York. Retrieved November 24, 2019.
  49. ^ Johnson, Kevin; Kelly, Erin (January 9, 2018). "Dossier author was told FBI had a source inside Trump Organization". USA Today. Retrieved January 10, 2018.
  50. ^ Winter, Tom (August 3, 2018). "FBI releases documents showing payments to Trump dossier author Steele". NBC News. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  51. ^ a b c Philips, Amber (February 24, 2018). "Read the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo, annotated". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  52. ^ Johnson, Ted (September 10, 2018). "Omarosa Reveals New Recording of Trump Blaming Hillary Clinton for Collusion". Variety. Retrieved September 11, 2018.
  53. ^ Ballhaus, Rebecca (October 25, 2017). "Clinton Campaign, DNC Helped Fund Trump–Russia Dossier". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 9, 2018.
  54. ^ a b Hosenball, Mark (November 1, 2017). "Ex-British spy paid $168,000 for Trump dossier, U.S. firm discloses". Reuters. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  55. ^ Price, Greg (November 2, 2017). "Trump's Golden Shower Dossier Cost Nowhere Near as Much as He Claimed on Twitter". Newsweek. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  56. ^ Khan, Shehab (November 2, 2017). "Former British spy paid more than £125,000 to detail Donald Trump Russia links". MSN. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  57. ^ Edelman, Adam (October 12, 2018). "Clinton strikes back at Trump for saying she colluded with Russia". NBC News. Retrieved October 13, 2018.
  58. ^ Scott, Eugene (March 30, 2022). "FEC fines DNC, Clinton for violating rules in funding Steele dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
  59. ^ Cohen, Marshall (March 30, 2022). "FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC over Trump-Russia dossier research". CNN. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
  60. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Borger, Julian (April 28, 2017). "UK was given details of alleged contacts between Trump campaign and Moscow". The Guardian. Retrieved December 26, 2017.
  61. ^ a b Flegenheimer, Matt (January 8, 2018). "Fusion GPS Founder Hauled From the Shadows for the Russia Election Investigation". The New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
  62. ^ a b c d Borger, Julian (November 15, 2017). "Christopher Steele believes his dossier on Trump–Russia is 70–90% accurate". The Guardian. Retrieved January 22, 2018.
  63. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Mayer, Jane (March 12, 2018). "Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 6, 2018.
  64. ^ a b c d e Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  65. ^ a b c d e f g h Corn, David (October 31, 2016). "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  66. ^ a b c d Blum, Howard (March 30, 2017). "How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump–Russia Dossier". Vanity Fair. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  67. ^ Sabbagh, Dan (June 22, 2020). "Johnson and May ignored claims Russia had 'likely hold' over Trump, ex-spy alleges". The Guardian. Retrieved September 30, 2021.
  68. ^ Sabbagh, Dan (July 21, 2020). "Russia report reveals UK government failed to investigate Kremlin interference". The Guardian. Retrieved September 30, 2021.
  69. ^ a b Hamburger, Tom; Helderman, Rosalind S. (February 28, 2017). "FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
  70. ^ a b c Herb, Jeremy; Raju, Manu; Cohen, Marshall (January 10, 2018). "Fusion co-founder: Dossier author feared Trump was being blackmailed". CNN. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  71. ^ a b Simpson, Glenn; Fritsch, Peter (2019). Crime in Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump. Random House. ISBN 978-0-593-13416-0.
  72. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice (December 9, 2019). "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" (PDF). Justice Department. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  73. ^ a b Kessler, Glenn (January 9, 2018). "What you need to know about Christopher Steele, the FBI and the Trump 'dossier'". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2018.
  74. ^ a b Isikoff, Michael; Corn, David (2018). Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5387-2874-1.
  75. ^ a b c Levine, Mike (September 18, 2018). "Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources say". ABC News. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  76. ^ a b c LeTourneau, Nancy (September 19, 2018). "Trump should be more worried about the Brennan dossier". Washington Monthly. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
  77. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities" (PDF). Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC). August 18, 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
  78. ^ Ross, Brian; Mosk, Matthew; Schwartz, Rhonda (August 22, 2017). "Glenn Simpson key figure behind million-dollar dossier to face questions". ABC News. Retrieved August 23, 2017.
  79. ^ a b c d e Scheuermann, Christoph; Schmitt, Jörg (February 7, 2019). "Much Has Been Confirmed in Dossier at Heart of Donald Trump Scandal". Der Spiegel. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  80. ^ a b c d e f Hamburger, Tom; Helderman, Rosalind S. (February 6, 2018). "Hero or hired gun? How a British former spy became a flash point in the Russia investigation". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 10, 2018.
  81. ^ Cohen, Marshall (October 11, 2022). "FBI offered Christopher Steele $1 million to prove dossier claims, senior FBI analyst testifies". Retrieved October 13, 2022.
  82. ^ Rizzo, Salvador (October 12, 2022). "FBI supervisor describes learning he was in crosshairs of Durham probe". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 13, 2022.
  83. ^ Steele, Christopher [@Chris_D_Steele] (October 19, 2022). "Steele tweet" (Tweet). Retrieved October 29, 2022 – via Twitter.
  84. ^ Winer, Jonathan M. (February 9, 2018). "Devin Nunes is investigating me. Here's the truth". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  85. ^ Multiple sources:
  86. ^ Levine, Mike (August 29, 2018). "The Russia probe: A timeline from Moscow to Mueller". ABC News. Retrieved August 30, 2018.
  87. ^ Savage, Charlie (May 17, 2023). "Analysis: Durham Report Failed to Deliver After Years of Political Hype". The New York Times. Retrieved May 19, 2023.
  88. ^ a b Jalonick, Mary (January 9, 2018). "Democratic report warns of Russian meddling in Europe, US". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 23, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2018.
  89. ^ a b c Simpson, Glenn R.; Fritsch, Peter (January 2, 2018). "The Republicans' Fake investigations". The New York Times. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
  90. ^ a b Rocah, Mimi; Goldman, Daniel S.; McQuade, Barbara (July 25, 2018). "FBI Would've Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
  91. ^ Raju, Manu; Herb, Jeremy (October 26, 2017). "In Hill interviews, top Dems denied knowledge of payments to firm behind Trump dossier". CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
  92. ^ a b Vogel, Kenneth P. (October 24, 2017). "Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  93. ^ "Journalist Charts The 'Bizarre Twists And Turns' Of The Trump–Russia Dossier". NPR. March 6, 2018. Retrieved October 5, 2018.
  94. ^ a b Bump, Philip (August 3, 2020). "Of course Trump's campaign can't reject the idea that Trump might seek foreign assistance". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  95. ^ Kessler, Glenn (February 15, 2022). "Fact Checker: Analysis - Here's why Trump once again is claiming 'spying' by Democrats". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 18, 2022.
  96. ^ a b c Smith, Ben (April 20, 2023). "After All That, I Would Still Publish the Dossier". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 23, 2023.
  97. ^ a b c d Wood, Paul (August 12, 2020). "Was the 'pee tape' a lie all along?". The Spectator. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
  98. ^ a b c Isikoff, Michael (September 23, 2016). "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin". Yahoo! News. Retrieved November 24, 2019.
  99. ^ a b Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam (April 12, 2021). "Subpoenaing the Brookings Institution, Durham Focuses on Trump-Russia Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved April 13, 2021.
  100. ^ Ember, Sydney; Grynbaum, Michael M. (January 10, 2017). "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Igniting a Debate". The New York Times. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  101. ^ Blake, Aaron (October 25, 2017). "The Clinton camp and DNC funded what became the Trump-Russia dossier: Here's what it means". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
  102. ^ O'Brien, Timothy L. (October 26, 2017). "Don't Be Distracted by the Trump Dossier Fuss". Bloomberg News. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
  103. ^ Sampathkumar, Mythili (August 23, 2017). "Trump–Russia dossier sources revealed to the FBI by Christopher Steele". The Independent. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  104. ^ a b Edwards, Jim (January 11, 2017). "Timeline: That Russian Trump blackmail dossier has been making the rounds for months—here is how it finally came to light". Business Insider. Retrieved April 7, 2018.
  105. ^ Sengupta, Kim (January 12, 2017). "Former British ambassador played key role in leaked Trump documents". The Independent. Retrieved April 7, 2018.
  106. ^ a b Cheney, Kyle (January 9, 2018). "Feinstein releases transcript of interview with Fusion GPS co-founder". Politico. Retrieved January 9, 2018.
  107. ^ Resnick, Gideon (May 9, 2018). "McCain Defends Giving Trump Dossier to Comey: Duty Demanded I Do It". The Daily Beast. Retrieved May 12, 2018.
  108. ^ Sonmez, Felicia (March 25, 2019). "Sen. Lindsey Graham says he told John McCain to give Trump–Russia dossier to FBI". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
  109. ^ Dennis, Steven T. (March 25, 2019). "Graham Contradicts Trump Attacks on McCain Over Disputed Dossier". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  110. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Harding, Luke (May 10, 2017). "What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?". The Guardian. Retrieved December 26, 2017.
  111. ^ a b c d e f g Cormier, Anthony (May 5, 2017). "This Is The Inside Of Trump's Lawyer's Passport". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  112. ^ a b c d e f Donn, Jeff (June 29, 2018). "Some questions in Trump–Russia dossier now finding answers". Associated Press. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
  113. ^ Cohen, Marshall; Collier, Kevin (March 16, 2019). "Unsealed documents shed new light on efforts to verify Trump–Russia dossier". CNN. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  114. ^ a b Hensch, Mark (January 12, 2017). "Biden: Intel officials warned us of Trump dossier". The Hill. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  115. ^ Nowicki, Dan (January 13, 2017). "John McCain intrigue grows in Donald Trump dossier affair". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  116. ^ "Biden: Obama and I were told about Trump dossier ahead of leaks". AOL. January 12, 2017. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  117. ^ a b Kosoff, Maya (July 20, 2017). "Trump Thinks Comey Was Trying to Blackmail Him". Vanity Fair. Retrieved April 7, 2018.
  118. ^ a b c d e Perez, Evan; Sciutto, Jim; Tapper, Jake; Bernstein, Carl (January 10, 2017). "Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him". CNN. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
  119. ^ a b Chan, Tara Francis (April 16, 2018). "'Be very careful:' Comey was the first person to tell Trump about the Steele dossier before the inauguration—he couldn't have been more nervous". Business Insider. Retrieved April 19, 2018.
  120. ^ a b "Between President Donald J. Trump and Orbis Business Intelligence Limited, Case No: KB-2022-004403" (PDF). High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division. February 1, 2024. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
  121. ^ Stracqualursi, Veronica (April 13, 2018). "Comey: 'I don't know' if Trump was with prostitutes in Moscow". CNN. Retrieved April 15, 2018.
  122. ^ McCarthy, Tom (April 13, 2018). "'Slime ball': Trump attacks Comey after new book likens president to mafia boss". The Guardian. Retrieved April 15, 2018.
  123. ^ a b c d e f g Kessler, Glenn (April 24, 2019). "What the Steele dossier said vs. what the Mueller report said". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  124. ^ a b Gerstein, Josh; Cheney, Kyle (December 14, 2018). "FBI releases part of Russia dossier summary used to brief Trump, Obama". Politico. Retrieved November 12, 2019.
  125. ^ Hartmann, Margaret (January 12, 2017). "Clapper Denounces 'Corrosive and Damaging' Trump Dossier Leak". New York. Retrieved January 12, 2017.
  126. ^ a b Weisman, Jonathan; Steinhauer, Jennifer (January 12, 2017). "Intelligence Chief's Olive Branch to Trump Gets Twisted in Translation". The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  127. ^ a b Wemple, Erik (January 10, 2017). "BuzzFeed's ridiculous rationale for publishing the Trump–Russia dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  128. ^ a b Sutton, Kelsey (January 11, 2017). "Trump calls CNN 'fake news', as channel defends its reporting on intelligence briefing". Politico. Retrieved January 11, 2017.
  129. ^ a b c d e Stein, Jeff (January 10, 2017). "Trump, Russian spies and the infamous 'golden shower memos'". Newsweek. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  130. ^ Mak, Tim; Suebsaeng, Asawin; Weiss, Michael (January 10, 2017). "U.S. Spies Warn Trump and GOP: Russia Could Get You Next". The Daily Beast. Retrieved January 11, 2017.
  131. ^ Shane, Scott; Goldman, Adam; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 10, 2017). "Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him". The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2017.
  132. ^ a b Chase, Randall (February 14, 2021). "Judge tosses Page defamation suit against Verizon company". Associated Press.
  133. ^ a b Gezari, Vanessa M (January 11, 2017). "BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia files". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
  134. ^ Harkiolakis, Tatiana (2020). "BuzzFeed publishing the unverified Steele dossier: a brief case study". International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies. 11 (1). Inderscience Publishers: 65. doi:10.1504/ijtcs.2020.108168. ISSN 1749-9151.
  135. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (January 11, 2017). "How BuzzFeed crossed the line in publishing salacious 'dossier' on Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 31, 2017.
  136. ^ Smith, Ben (January 23, 2017). "Why BuzzFeed News Published the Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
  137. ^ Graham, David A. (January 11, 2017). "The Trouble With Publishing the Trump Dossier". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 10, 2018.
  138. ^ a b c Maddow, Rachel (August 20, 2018). "Russia's Alfa Bank fails in lawsuit over Steele's Trump dossier" (video). The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
  139. ^ a b Wood, Paul (August 21, 2018). "Trump dossier author lawsuit dismissed". BBC News. Retrieved November 24, 2019.
  140. ^ a b Harding, Luke (August 21, 2018). "Author of Trump–Russia dossier wins libel case in US court". The Guardian. Retrieved August 23, 2018.
  141. ^ Pope, Kyle (January 11, 2017). "Pope tweets support of CJR decision". Twitter. Retrieved January 31, 2023. We defend BuzzFeed's decision to publish
  142. ^ Pope, Kyle (November 17, 2021). "The media's belated rush to judgment on the Trump dossier". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved November 19, 2021.
  143. ^ Fischer, Sara (November 14, 2021). "The media's epic fail on the Steele dossier". Axios. Retrieved August 23, 2022.
  144. ^ Shafer, Jack (January 11, 2017). "The Coup Before the Inauguration". Politico. Retrieved May 9, 2020.
  145. ^ a b c Shafer, Jack (December 22, 2018). "Week 83: BuzzFeed Takes a Victory Lap". Politico. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  146. ^ a b Peiser, Jaclyn (December 19, 2018). "BuzzFeed Wins Defamation Lawsuit Filed by Executive Named in Trump Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2018.
  147. ^ "Former British spy to provide evidence for BuzzFeed libel trial in US". Bailiwick Express. March 21, 2018. Archived from the original on June 30, 2018. Retrieved June 2, 2018.
  148. ^ a b c d Ewing, Philip (November 22, 2019). "In 'Crime In Progress,' Fusion GPS Chiefs Tell The Inside Story Of The Steele Dossier". NPR. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  149. ^ a b Snyder, Dook (February 2, 2020). "Book Review: 'Crime in Progress', an attempt to set the record straight, offers other side of story". The Berkshire Edge. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  150. ^ a b "Russian Tech Exec Sues Steele Dossier Author in UK Court". Courthouse News Service. Agence France-Presse. July 20, 2020. Retrieved July 21, 2020. Steele and his company said they had nothing to do with Buzzfeed's 'unauthorized online publication.'
    The defendants 'did not intend the December memorandum or its content to be made public (and) did not provide the December memorandum to BuzzFeed or any other media organization.'
  151. ^ Johnson, Jamie (July 22, 2020). "Former spy Christopher Steele shared explosive dossier on Donald Trump and Russia with British authorities because of 'serious risks to national security'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  152. ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan (October 18, 2021). "Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved October 9, 2023.
  153. ^ Stephanopoulos, George; Steele, Christopher (October 18, 2021). "Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier". ABC News. Retrieved October 8, 2023.
  154. ^ a b (October 30, 2020). "Gubarev v Orbis Case No: QB-2017-002808" (PDF). Retrieved December 18, 2020.
  155. ^ Bump, Philip (October 25, 2017). "What the Trump dossier says—and what it doesn't". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 9, 2018.
  156. ^ Weiss, Michael; Fitzpatrick, Catherine A. (July 25, 2018). "Dissecting the Trump–Russia Dossier". Coda Story. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
  157. ^ a b c d e f g h Bump, Philip (August 6, 2018). "Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  158. ^ "Fact Check: Sarah Sanders Inaccurately States Law Regarding Campaigns' Ability to Finance Opposition Research". Campaign Legal Center. October 30, 2017. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  159. ^ The Editorial Board (August 19, 2020). "The Trump Campaign Accepted Russian Help to Win in 2016. Case Closed. "Cooperation" or "collusion" or whatever. It was a plot against American democracy". The New York Times. Retrieved August 19, 2022. The simplicity of the scheme has always been staring us in the face: Donald Trump's 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign.
  160. ^ Pilkington, Ed (August 1, 2017). "Trump personally crafted son's misleading account of Russia meeting". The Guardian. Retrieved August 19, 2022.
  161. ^ Dolak, Kevin; Faulders, Katherine (July 31, 2017). "Trump dictated son's misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer". ABC News. Retrieved August 19, 2022.
  162. ^ Carter, Brandon (October 27, 2017). "CIA's ex-Russia chief: Unlike Steele, Trump Jr. took info Russia wanted to give". The Hill. Retrieved December 27, 2017.
  163. ^ a b Burleigh, Nina (December 18, 2019). "Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson on the Steele Dossier, the FBI's Trump Investigation and Life as a Fox News Pinata". Newsweek. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
  164. ^ a b c d e f g h Borger, Julian (October 7, 2017). "The Trump–Russia dossier: why its findings grow more significant by the day". The Guardian. Retrieved December 28, 2017.
  165. ^ Frank, T.A. (July 14, 2021). "The Steele Dossier Was a Case Study in How Reporters Get Manipulated'". New York. Retrieved October 3, 2021. [A] real driving force for me in writing the book was taking on the Steele dossier as a case study in how reporters can get manipulated or allow themselves to be manipulated and the havoc that results from that.
  166. ^ a b Meier, Barry (2021). Spooked: The Trump Dossier, Black Cube, and the Rise of Private Spies. Harper. ISBN 978-0062950680.
  167. ^ a b Corn, David (November 19, 2021). "The Steele Dossier and Donald Trump's Betrayal of America". Mother Jones. Retrieved November 20, 2021.
  168. ^ a b Nichols, Hans; Dilanian, Ken (January 11, 2017). "Former British Spy Christopher Steele Prepared Explosive Trump Memo". NBC News. Retrieved January 12, 2017.
  169. ^ Staff (January 12, 2017). "Christopher Steele, ex-MI6 officer, named as author of Trump dossier". The Guardian. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  170. ^ Wood, Paul (January 12, 2017). "Trump memos ex-MI6 man 'in hiding'". BBC News. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  171. ^ Riley-Smith, Ben (February 20, 2020). "Exclusive: Christopher Steele feared Russian assassination after discovering explosive Trump-Kremlin claims". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  172. ^ a b Hope, Bradley; Rothfeld, Michael; Cullison, Alan (January 11, 2017). "Christopher Steele, Ex-British Intelligence Officer, Said to Have Prepared Dossier on Trump". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  173. ^ Withnall, Adam (March 7, 2017). "Ex-British spy Christopher Steele breaks silence over Trump Russia dossier". The Independent. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
  174. ^ Hughes, Chris; Robson, Steve (January 12, 2017). "First picture of British spy behind Donald Trump 'dirty dossier' revealed". Daily Mirror. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  175. ^ Neubert, Michele; Dilanian, Ken; Vinograd, Cassandra; Connor, Tracy (January 13, 2017). "The ex-spy who wrote the Trump dossier is nicknamed James Bond". NBC News. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  176. ^ Behar, Richard (January 11, 2017). "Could This Be The British Ex-MI6 Agent Behind The Trump FBI Memos?". Forbes. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  177. ^ Harding, Luke; Hopkins, Nick (January 13, 2017). "UK's former Moscow ambassador in spotlight over Trump dossier". The Guardian. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  178. ^ Macfarlane, Julia (December 9, 2019). "'Dossier' author Chris Steele met Ivanka Trump years before Russia scandal, source says". ABC News. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  179. ^ Szalai, Jennifer (December 10, 2019). "'Crime in Progress' Tells the Story Behind the Steele Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  180. ^ Riley-Smith, Ben; Sabur, Rozina (February 2, 2018). "Secret memo on FBI states British spy was desperate to stop Donald Trump getting elected". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  181. ^ a b Mendick, Robert; Fisher, Lucy (May 3, 2021). "MI6 spy Christopher Steele 'produced second dossier on Donald Trump for FBI'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  182. ^ a b Kranish, Michael (November 23, 2021). "Steele dossier sources, methods face new scrutiny after indictment of key figure". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  183. ^ a b c d e f Sobel, Nathaniel (April 24, 2020). "What Is and Isn't New in the Unredacted Footnotes From the Inspector General's Russia Report". Lawfare. Retrieved June 13, 2020.
  184. ^ Raju, Manu; Herb, Jeremy; Polantz, Katelyn (November 16, 2017). "Fusion GPS co-founder: Steele didn't pay sources for dossier on Trump". CNN. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
  185. ^ Williams, Katie Bo; Beavers, Olivia (January 18, 2018). "'Steele dossier' firm suspected Trump–Russia money laundering". The Hill. Retrieved April 12, 2018.
  186. ^ a b NPR (November 21, 2017). "Journalist Investigating Trump And Russia Says 'Full Picture Is One Of Collusion'". NPR. Retrieved February 17, 2018.
  187. ^ a b c d e f g Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (July 25, 2020). "The F.B.I. Pledged to Keep a Source Anonymous. Trump Allies Aided His Unmasking". The New York Times. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
  188. ^ Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (July 24, 2020). "The F.B.I. Pledged to Keep a Source Anonymous. Trump Allies Aided His Unmasking". The New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2020. The report blacked out Mr. Danchenko's name and other identifying information. But within two days, a post on a newly created blog entitled 'I Found the Primary Subsource' identified him, citing clues left visible in the F.B.I. document.
  189. ^ a b c d Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam (July 17, 2020). "F.B.I. Agent in Russia Inquiry Saw Basis in Early 2017 to Doubt Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  190. ^ a b c d e Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (November 4, 2021). "Authorities Arrest Analyst Who Contributed to Steele Dossier". The New York Times. Retrieved November 5, 2021.
  191. ^ a b "United States v. Danchenko. Sealed Motion — Document #78". September 2, 2022. Retrieved September 14, 2022. On November 2, 2017, the defendant further stated to the FBI that Steele incorrectly believed the defendant had met in-person with Millian, and that he (the defendant) did not correct Steele in that misimpression. (p. 24)
  192. ^ a b Filkins, Dexter (October 7, 2020). "The Contested Afterlife of the Trump-Alfa Bank Story". The New Yorker. Retrieved October 10, 2021.
  193. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cullison, Alan; Gauthier-Villars, David (October 28, 2020). "Russian in Cyprus Was Behind Key Parts of Discredited Dossier on Trump". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
  194. ^ "Danchenko Indictment.pdf". Justice Department. November 3, 2021. Retrieved August 21, 2022.
  195. ^ a b c Barrett, Devlin; Jackman, Tom (November 4, 2021). "Igor Danchenko arrested, charged with lying to FBI about information in Steele dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 6, 2021.
  196. ^ a b c d e Cohen, Marshall (November 19, 2021). "The Steele dossier: A reckoning". CNN. Retrieved November 26, 2021. But five years later, the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished. A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele's sources.
  197. ^ Cohen, Marshall (October 14, 2022). "Judge drops 1 of 5 charges against Trump-Russia dossier source, in blow to special counsel Durham". CNN. CNN. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
  198. ^ Cohen, Marshall (October 18, 2022). "Primary source for Trump-Russia dossier acquitted, handing special counsel Durham another trial loss". CNN. Retrieved October 18, 2022.
  199. ^ Rizzo, Salvador (October 18, 2022). "Steele dossier source acquitted, in loss for special counsel Durham". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 18, 2022.
  200. ^ McCarthy, Andrew C. (December 11, 2021). "John Durham Probe: Michael Sussmann Case Collapsing?". National Review. Retrieved December 13, 2021. the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated. ... Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus, ... [but] His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false. (italics original)
  201. ^ Rizzo, Salvador (October 14, 2022). "Durham says Steele dossier source lied. But the FBI long valued him". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2022.
  202. ^ Kessler, Glenn (November 17, 2021). "Analysis - The Steele dossier: A guide to the latest allegations". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  203. ^ a b Bertrand, Natasha (November 17, 2017). "Kushner received emails from Sergei Millian—an alleged dossier source who was in touch with George Papadopoulos". Business Insider. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  204. ^ Multiple sources:
  205. ^ a b c d Bertrand, Natasha (February 11, 2017). "The timeline of Trump's ties with Russia lines up with allegations of conspiracy and misconduct". Business Insider. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  206. ^ Helderman, Rosalind; Hamburger, Tom (February 7, 2019). "Sergei Millian, identified as an unwitting source for the Steele dossier, sought proximity to Trump's world in 2016". The Washington Post. On Facebook and in literature for his Russian chamber of commerce, he posted a photo of himself with Trump, snapped at a horse track in Miami in 2007 after he said 'mutual associates' introduced them.
  207. ^ a b c d Klein, Adam (October 19, 2021). "What the Inspector General's Latest FISA Report Can (and Can't) Tell Us". Lawfare. Retrieved October 19, 2021.
  208. ^ Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam (October 9, 2022). "Judge Narrows Trial of Analyst Who Reported Salacious Claims About Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved October 10, 2022.
  209. ^ a b c d e f g Stanley-Becker, Isaac (November 6, 2021). "A spin doctor with ties to Russia allegedly fed the Steele dossier before fighting to discredit it". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 10, 2021. Dolan racked up numerous, but not high-profile, roles in Democratic circles. He served as a state chairman for President Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns and remained active within the Democratic Party alongside his public relations work. He advised Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and served as a volunteer for her 2016 campaign, according to the indictment.
  210. ^ a b Bruggeman, Lucien; Mosk, Matthew (October 17, 2021). "Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview". ABC News. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
  211. ^ Stracqualursi, Veronica (September 4, 2018). "NYT: DOJ's Bruce Ohr, dossier author Christopher Steele involved in efforts to flip Russian oligarch". CNN. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
  212. ^ Vogel, Kenneth P; Rosenberg, Matthew (September 1, 2018). "Agents Tried to Flip Russian Oligarchs. The Fallout Spread to Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2023.
  213. ^ a b Bertrand, Natasha (September 30, 2019). "The Russia Hawk in the White House". Politico. Retrieved November 11, 2019.
  214. ^ Sengupta, Kim (April 20, 2018). "Steele dossier: Donald Trump denounced the document as fake, but much of its contents have turned out to be true". The Independent. Retrieved August 19, 2018.
  215. ^ Stefansky, Emma (November 11, 2017). "Trump: I Believe Putin "Means It" When He Denies Election Meddling". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  216. ^ a b c d Price, Greg (December 21, 2017). "What's True in the Trump 'Golden Shower' Dossier? Salacious Report Dogged President Throughout 2017". Newsweek. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  217. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Withnall, Adam; Sengupta, Kim (January 12, 2017). "The 10 key Donald Trump allegations from the classified Russia memos". The Independent. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  218. ^ a b c Beauchamp, Zack (March 22, 2017). "What we know about evidence of coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign". Vox. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
  219. ^ a b c d e f g Harding, Luke (January 11, 2017). "What we know—and what's true—about the Trump–Russia dossier". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  220. ^ Drum, Kevin (January 11, 2017). "US Intelligence: Evidence of Trump–Russia Ties Might Be Credible". Mother Jones. Retrieved February 25, 2017.
  221. ^ a b c Wood, Paul (March 30, 2017). "Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'". BBC News. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
  222. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Weindling, Jacob (January 11, 2017). "The 31 Most Explosive Allegations against Trump from the Leaked Intelligence Document". Paste. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  223. ^ a b c d LeTourneau, Nancy (January 13, 2017). "How Trump and the Russians sowed discord on the left". Washington Monthly. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
  224. ^ a b Durham, John (May 12, 2023). "Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (PDF). Justice Department. Retrieved May 15, 2023.
  225. ^ a b Prokop, Andrew (April 15, 2018). "Everything you wanted to know about the unverified Trump 'pee tape' claim but were too embarrassed to ask". Vox. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
  226. ^ a b c d e f g h Sipher, John (September 6, 2017). "What exactly does the Steele dirty Russian dossier on Trump contain?". Newsweek. Retrieved January 20, 2018.
  227. ^ a b c d e Parfitt, Tom (January 12, 2017). "Putin spies 'taped Trump sex game with prostitutes'". The Sunday Times. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  228. ^ a b c d e f g Bertrand, Natasha (November 10, 2017). "Trump's bodyguard's testimony raises new questions about the most salacious allegations in the dossier". Business Insider. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
  229. ^ a b Zappone, Chris (January 11, 2017). "Russia planned to cultivate and compromise Donald Trump, according to leaked memos". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
  230. ^ "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal information about Donald Trump". The New Zealand Herald. January 11, 2017. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
  231. ^ a b Bertrand, Natasha (January 10, 2017). "Trump briefed on unverified claims that Russian operatives have compromising information on him". Business Insider. Retrieved February 26, 2018.
  232. ^ LeTourneau, Nancy (February 17, 2017). "Trump is configuring a dangerous web of foreign interests". Washington Monthly. Retrieved February 17, 2018.
  233. ^ a b c d e f Bertrand, Natasha (January 15, 2017). "Explosive memos suggest that a Trump–Russia quid pro quo was at the heart of the GOP's dramatic shift on Ukraine". Business Insider. Retrieved January 20, 2018.
  234. ^ a b c d e f Garossino, Sandy (January 14, 2017). "Trump's Ill-Gotten Victory: Intel dossier says Putin helped Sanders, Stein". National Observer. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
  235. ^ a b c d e f g h Yglesias, Matthew; Prokop, Andrew (February 2, 2018). "The Steele dossier on Trump and Russia, explained". Vox. Retrieved January 15, 2018.
  236. ^ a b "Correcting the Record - The Russia Investigations". Associated Press. February 24, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2023. In particular, Steele's sources reported that Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin ... and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. ... Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton ("kompromat") and noted "the possibility of its being released to Candidate #l's campaign." (Note: "Candidate #1" refers to candidate Trump.) This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos.
    In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting.
  237. ^ Multiple sources:
  238. ^ a b Sipher, John (September 11, 2017). "A lot of the Steele dossier has since been corroborated". Slate. Retrieved February 17, 2018.
  239. ^ Harding, Luke (2017). Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. Vintage. ISBN 978-0-525-56251-1.
  240. ^ a b c d Bertrand, Natasha (October 6, 2017). "Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump–Russia dossier—here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality". Business Insider. Retrieved January 18, 2018.
  241. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (July 24, 2018). "What the Latest Mueller Indictment Reveals About WikiLeaks' Ties to Russia—and What It Doesn't". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  242. ^ a b c d Stone, Peter; Gordon, Greg (April 13, 2018). "Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier". McClatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved April 16, 2018.
  243. ^ a b c Bertrand, Natasha (November 6, 2017). "Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells—and supports key portions of the Steele dossier". Business Insider. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  244. ^ a b c Bertrand, Natasha (January 27, 2017). "Memos: CEO of Russia's state oil company offered Trump adviser, allies a cut of huge deal if sanctions were lifted". Business Insider. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  245. ^ a b c d e Tracy, Abigail (November 7, 2017). "Is Carter Page Digging the Trump Administration's Grave? Three things the former campaign adviser revealed to Congress that should scare the White House". Vanity Fair. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  246. ^ Hall, Kevin G.; Stone, Peter; Gordon, Greg (February 15, 2017). "Russian diplomat under U.S. scrutiny in election meddling speaks". McClatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved April 9, 2018.
  247. ^ Drum, Kevin (March 30, 2017). "The Trump "Dossier" Is Looking More Credible All the Time". Mother Jones. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
  248. ^ a b c d Goldstein, David; Hall, Kevin G.; Gordon, Greg (February 3, 2017). "BuzzFeed sued over its publication of uncorroborated Trump dossier". McClatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  249. ^ a b c d e f Hall, Kevin G. (September 21, 2018). "Cloak-and-dagger saga over cybercrime, Trump dossier plays out in Miami courtroom". McClatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
  250. ^ Harding, Luke (October 29, 2018). "Inside the Czech spying operation on Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
  251. ^ Harding, Luke (November 19, 2017). "The Hidden History of Trump's First Trip to Moscow". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  252. ^ "Journalist Investigating Trump And Russia Says 'Full Picture Is One Of Collusion'". NPR. November 21, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2018.
  253. ^ Chait, Jonathan (July 8, 2018). "What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?". New York. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
  254. ^ a b c d Kelly, Meg (November 13, 2017). "All the known times the Trump campaign met with Russians". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2018.
  255. ^ a b c Shane, Scott (October 30, 2017). "Trump Campaign Got Early Word Russia Had Democrats' Emails". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2022.
  256. ^ Multiple sources:
  257. ^ a b LaFraniere, Sharon; Mazzetti, Mark; Apuzzo, Matt (December 30, 2017). "How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt". The New York Times. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  258. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S. (November 2, 2017). "Who's who in the George Papadopoulos court documents". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  259. ^ Winter, Tom; Connor, Tracy; Dilanian, Ken; Ainsley, Julia (October 30, 2017). "Secret Guilty Plea of Ex-Trump Campaign Adviser George Papadopoulos Reveals Russian Ties". NBC News. Retrieved October 30, 2017.
  260. ^ Apuzzo, Matt; Schmidt, Michael S. (October 30, 2017). "Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss 'Dirt' on Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  261. ^ "Trump Tower Russia meeting: At least eight people in the room". CNN. July 15, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
  262. ^ Bertrand, Natasha (August 31, 2017). "Manafort's notes from the Trump Tower Russia meeting reportedly mention political contributions and the RNC". Yahoo! Finance. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
  263. ^ a b c d e Crowley, Michael (August 3, 2016). "Trump changed views on Ukraine after hiring Manafort". Politico. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  264. ^ Gaouette, Nicole (January 10, 2017). "FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia". CNN. Retrieved March 21, 2023.
  265. ^ Samuels, Brett (February 4, 2018). "Ex-CIA chief: Steele dossier played no role in intelligence assessment on Russia's election interference". The Hill. Archived from the original on June 5, 2019. Retrieved June 5, 2019. I was unaware of the provenance of it as well as what was in it. And it did not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community's assessment that was done, that was presented to then-President Obama and then-President-elect Trump.
  266. ^ Lambe, Jerry (April 21, 2020). "Republican-Led Senate Committee: Steele Dossier 'Did Not in Any Way Inform' Assessment of Russian Interference". Law & Crime. Retrieved December 16, 2022.
  267. ^ Jalonick, Mary Clare; Tucker, Eric (April 21, 2020). "Senate panel backs assessment that Russia interfered in 2016". Associated Press. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
  268. ^ Blitzer, Ronn (December 6, 2020). "Brennan: 'No problems' with Durham probe going into 2021, claims he did not rely on Steele dossier". Fox News. Retrieved December 7, 2020. Quote is from video, not text.
  269. ^ a b Bump, Philip (May 10, 2019). "The Deep State strikes back: Former FBI leaders rebut questions about the Russia investigation". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 13, 2019.
  270. ^ Hohmann, James (September 10, 2019). "The Daily 202: CIA exfiltration of Russian asset underscores the importance of human sources". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  271. ^ Sciutto, Jim (September 9, 2019). "Exclusive: US extracted top spy from inside Russia in 2017". CNN. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  272. ^ Elfrink, Tim; Flynn, Meagan (February 27, 2019). "Michael Cohen to testify that Trump knew of WikiLeaks plot". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
  273. ^ Daub, Travis (February 27, 2019). "Read Michael Cohen's full prepared testimony on Trump's Russia plans, WikiLeaks email dump". PBS. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
  274. ^ Swan, Betsy (February 27, 2019). "Roger Stone Says Cohen Lied to Congress About WikiLeaks". The Daily Beast. Retrieved May 24, 2020.
  275. ^ a b Tucker, Eric; Long, Colleen; Balsamo, Michael (April 29, 2020). "FBI documents reveal that Roger Stone was in direct communication with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange". Business Insider. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  276. ^ a b Samuelsohn, Darren; Gerstein, Josh (November 12, 2019). "What Roger Stone's trial revealed about Donald Trump and WikiLeaks". Politico. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  277. ^ Friedman, Uri (July 17, 2018). "The White House Transcript Is Missing the Most Explosive Part of the Trump–Putin Press Conference". The Atlantic. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
  278. ^ Swaine, Jon; Bennetts, Marc (February 17, 2018). "Thirteen Russians criminally charged for interfering in US election, Mueller announces". The Guardian. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
  279. ^ Crawford, Krysten (January 18, 2017). "Stanford study examines fake news and the 2016 presidential election". Stanford News. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
  280. ^ Markoff, John (November 17, 2016). "Automated Pro-Trump Bots Overwhelmed Pro-Clinton Messages, Researchers Say". The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
  281. ^ O'Connor, Gabe; Schneider, Avie (April 3, 2017). "How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election". NPR. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
  282. ^ Blake, Aaron (April 3, 2018). "A new study suggests fake news might have won Donald Trump the 2016 election". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2023.
  283. ^ O'Brien, Timothy L. (April 1, 2019). "No, Russiagate Isn't This Generation's WMD". Bloomberg News. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  284. ^ a b Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III (March 2019). "Mueller Report: Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. Volumes I and II". Justice Department. Retrieved April 2, 2023.
  285. ^ Morais, Betsy (April 18, 2019). "Collusion by any other name". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  286. ^ Savage, Charlie (April 20, 2019). "How Barr's Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report's Findings". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  287. ^ a b Goodman, Ryan (June 15, 2018). "Paul Manafort = Evidence of Collusion". Just Security. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
  288. ^ Megerian, Chris (April 18, 2019). "Mueller finds no conspiracy, but report shows Trump welcomed Russian help". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
  289. ^ Perez, Evan; Brown, Pamela; Prokupecz, Shimon (August 3, 2017). "One year into the FBI's Russia investigation, Mueller is on the Trump money trail". CNN. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
  290. ^ a b c Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives (March 6, 2019). "Part 2, Deposition of Michael Cohen, March 6, 2019" (PDF). United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. pp. 225–229, 235–236, 254. Retrieved October 31, 2023.